Packers 2024-25 Season Thread
- Thread starter Mark87
- Start date
- Messages
- 6,259
- Reaction score
- 10,323
The city is the landlord here. GB is a tenant who has made improvements to a property on their own dime and the city seems to be trying to squeeze them for more cash on a lease. I’m naturally inclined to take their side in this situation.
- Messages
- 4,798
- Reaction score
- 3,499
My original reaction would be what does the mayor want? But we don't know exactly yet. However, one thing I don't trust after pondering on it, is a 700 million dollar business who is going on the "whoa is us we're disappointed" offensive 7 years before its lease is up. This doesn't pass the smell test.
There was an article in the MilwJS that says the mayor is looking for the Packers to commit to investing in the city. It's a bit unclear what exactly he's looking for. He'd also like to see more frequent use of Lambeau Field for events other than Packer games. The Packers control the use of the stadium and are reluctant to have it used for non-football events after mid-June for fear the field won't be in perfect shape for the start of the pre-season.
The article also talks a great deal about a number of other points of contention around the finances including the Packers desire to freeze rent payments in exchange for taking over all maintenance and improvements starting in about 2030 after the sales tax fund runs dry. The team is looking for a lease extension though 2062. It's all a little messy and complicated but boils down to each side trying to maximize its financial upside.
The Packers seem to be the ones pushing harder and claiming that if something isn't done soon, they'll have to wait on any new construction/renovation until after the 2025 draft. The team claims that this delay will put Lambeau behind other venues and make it difficult or impossible to catch up and thus may force the team to ask for more public money, something they aren't asking for right now. Lots of posturing on both sides to gain leverage - the Ugh!(ly) side of pro sports.
- Messages
- 17,805
- Reaction score
- 5,871
If GB is going to take over maintenance and improvement cost without asking for public money I have zero interest with rent payment freeze. Also I agree with GB not wanting events there after a certain time in which the field can get tore up. Seems more city of GB is trying to get greedy looking at how much they can get out of the stadium besides the rent and tax dollars they already get.
If memory serves me right the team can't leave... it has to fold according to the charter. They could move to outside the city and build a new stadium like many many other teams though.
- Messages
- 4,798
- Reaction score
- 3,499
I remember during the tax fight this came up, I believe the team could move but the Packers name, logo, colors, etc.. have to stay in GB. Kind of like how Baltimore moved to Indy but essentially became a new team?
Either way, the Packers are not moving...
- Messages
- 17,805
- Reaction score
- 5,871
To be honest I am surprised a new modern stadium is not a talking point. Build a 80-100K stadium with actual seats in them.
- Messages
- 7,424
- Reaction score
- 6,244
The stadium lease expires in 2033. There is also an agreement in place that would extend that for 10 years. What Murphy is pushing for is to make this a 30 year extension, at a guaranteed price, which doesn't take into consideration anything that could increase the value of the lease. In other words, he wants to guarantee that the Packers could play there until 2063 without any implications of potential lease increase being a remedy for the city. That seems a little greedy to me. It's like they are looking at windfall profits and not wanting to share even a few pennies of it with the city and people who made the stadium happen in the first place.
I think this is as much on Murphy as the city and their negotiators. I think he's playing hardball and figures he has them by the short hairs, and if they don't agree with him, he'll hurt them politically. I think it's beneath his position with the Packers to be honest. Negotiations should be in good faith. There wouldn't even be an organization for him to make a fortunate off of, had it not been for the people of Green Bay creating it.
And, let's face it, the Packers have the best of two worlds. They don't even pay taxes on the land and facilities they own. They have a state exemption from taxes. Meanwhile, the people of Green Bay don't get the same treatment, and are assessed the cost of all the improvements needed in transportation hubs, etc, to feed the stadium.
Now, the the crux of what's causing the problem. Not only do the Packers want to extend their lease agreement, they want the payment figure to be decreased significantly at the same time. The present agreement calls for a 2.75% increase in rental yearly, which is far below the national inflation rate. They say that their "future investments" in upgrading the stadium is what offsets their request.
Meanwhile, the city is faced with this dilemma. If they did cut the fee to the Packers, they would have to increase property taxes significantly to offset the loss. Now, who in their right mind is going to even try to float that one to the citizens, when the Packers can afford to put as much money as they are into their own properties that surround the stadium on property free tax land, and undermining the independent business people of the city?
Before anyone jumps on the Packer band wagon, they need to think about this whole thing, and know the whole story. It isn't the gospel according to Murphy.
But, once again, just my opinion, and I've forked over literally thousands of dollars to buy stock, help build the Packer HOF, and make things work for the team. That, plus having a brother who's done the same, and my Father, who has been there donating to the Packers since the day they came into existence.
I dare anyone to tell me that the $1.1 mill they pay the city should be reduced, while the wages of the Packers executives keep advancing at an enormous rate to keep up with their own inflation needs. Mark Murphy's guaranteed salary for 2024 is $6.5 mill. I rest my case.
I think this is as much on Murphy as the city and their negotiators. I think he's playing hardball and figures he has them by the short hairs, and if they don't agree with him, he'll hurt them politically. I think it's beneath his position with the Packers to be honest. Negotiations should be in good faith. There wouldn't even be an organization for him to make a fortunate off of, had it not been for the people of Green Bay creating it.
And, let's face it, the Packers have the best of two worlds. They don't even pay taxes on the land and facilities they own. They have a state exemption from taxes. Meanwhile, the people of Green Bay don't get the same treatment, and are assessed the cost of all the improvements needed in transportation hubs, etc, to feed the stadium.
Now, the the crux of what's causing the problem. Not only do the Packers want to extend their lease agreement, they want the payment figure to be decreased significantly at the same time. The present agreement calls for a 2.75% increase in rental yearly, which is far below the national inflation rate. They say that their "future investments" in upgrading the stadium is what offsets their request.
Meanwhile, the city is faced with this dilemma. If they did cut the fee to the Packers, they would have to increase property taxes significantly to offset the loss. Now, who in their right mind is going to even try to float that one to the citizens, when the Packers can afford to put as much money as they are into their own properties that surround the stadium on property free tax land, and undermining the independent business people of the city?
Before anyone jumps on the Packer band wagon, they need to think about this whole thing, and know the whole story. It isn't the gospel according to Murphy.
But, once again, just my opinion, and I've forked over literally thousands of dollars to buy stock, help build the Packer HOF, and make things work for the team. That, plus having a brother who's done the same, and my Father, who has been there donating to the Packers since the day they came into existence.
I dare anyone to tell me that the $1.1 mill they pay the city should be reduced, while the wages of the Packers executives keep advancing at an enormous rate to keep up with their own inflation needs. Mark Murphy's guaranteed salary for 2024 is $6.5 mill. I rest my case.