http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/po...-10-nfl-owners
Thanks to John Clayton, the Packers Ownership model ranks 3rd among ESPN's "expert panel". Had Clayton included the Packers as even last on his ballot they would have been 2nd.
The article is too long to paste here. Because they only looked at top ownership it contains a lot of praise and little criticism.
The McCaskys were tied for 13th.
If you wish to participate in fan voting go to
OWNERSHIP POWER RANKINGS
John Clayton once again proves his idiocacy beyond a reasonable doubt. He won't rank the team ownership? Are they owned, or not?
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
That right there should be enough to disqualify this poll.Originally Posted by CaliforniaCheez
Welcome back Cheese.
Has anyone else noticed that people on ESPN were always more likable before they went to ESPN than after? They are asked to do some inane things.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
I like the Roony's. They're good people from what i can glean from the press. This Clayton guy must have some serious issues. I'd like to hear his side of the story.
Clayton's argument against voting for Green Bay is that the Packers don't have a single individual or family owning the team. 120k+ shareholders does not equal an owner in his opinion. To him the Packers don't have an owner. So by his logic, the Packers finish dead last in this poll.
Chuck Norris doesn't cut his grass, he just stares at it and dares it to grow
Sort of silly reasoning by Clayton. The Packers do have an ownership structure. It shouldn't just be ignored.
Is the Packers' ownership structure effective in running an NFL franchise?
Is the Packers ownership structure influential in the operation of the league?
Those are the same questions that should be asked about the other ownerships. Sure, the Packers have a unique type of ownership, but that is all the more reason to evaluate it against the other ownerships, whether they are individuals, families or small groups of investors.
I've seen Mark Murphy featured quite prominently in national media coverage of the NFL labor negotiations. What will the other owners say when they find out a guy that's not an owner is sitting in one of the big chairs eating the bagels set out by the hotel's convention staff? I know I'd be pissed. The whole grain cinnamon bagels are for the OWNERS Mark!
[QUOTE=George Cumby] ...every draft (Ted) would pick a solid, dependable, smart, athletically limited linebacker...the guy who isn't doing drugs, going to strip bars, knocking around his girlfriend or making any plays of game changing significance.
Murphy is in a really unique situation.
He was a player, team's union rep., VP of the union and Assistant Executive director of the NFLPA.
He worked in the NFL office, and is now the chief executive of a team.
He knows college athletics from being an AD.
He is a lawyer and former trial attorney.
He is probably respected by players for his background as a player, union rep and union official; but not fully trusted because he is an "owner" and worked for the league office.
He is probably respected by the owners for his years with the league office, for his management experience in college athletics and for his difficult but successful start with the Packers; but not fully trusted because he has allegiances as a former player and union official.
I think he is perfect for the Packers.
I'd still rather have the OTHER Mark Murphy.....
I have no issue with the Roonies beating out the packers. Of all franchises there's has been stable and competitive throughout, where as the packers went on a what, 20 year or so drought of being relevant? Either way, there is no other ownership "truly" better than the packers after them. No, not because I'm a homer, but because of how the packers have been throughout history.
- won the most championships
- one of the most well respected franchises in the league
- The "awe" factor of lambeau field
- Games sold out for many many years
- Season tickets have a what, 10 year waiting list?
- Consistently competitive
- Produced some of the best players
- Only turns over management when the fans deem necessary
- Books have to be public, and as such, the packers are the ONLY organization that litteraly can't hide anything. Everyone in the world knows what is going on.
That last point alone is why the packers should be #2. There is a strong case for #1, but I can understand the Roonies being ahead of us. Too much respect for that family and that organization to argue against it.
Packerbacker 1234,
You list some of the great things about the Packers, but you forget about the real ownership of the team. The team is ultimately controlled by the board. If the board acts smartly, and hires real football men to run the organization, and doesn't interfere, the Packers will always have a chance for greatness. When the board interferes, as throughout the 70s and 80s, the organization is in grave danger. A board that controls the Packers can work only so long as the people on it place the good of the Packers above their egos. Not surprisingly, this is true of individual owners as well.
Thanks for being kind, gunnie. I read the entire article and it was stated.
i always think of him when i hear the name...not the redskins' mark murphy.
So he can express an opinion when there are multiple owners, but just not when it is the Packers? Where's the line? Less than 10 shareholders? 20? 100? Why the arbitrary distinction? Sounds lazy to me: grading the Packers would require me to think harder than I want to think I will just disqualify them instead.
The line shouldn't end anywhere. The packers is basically a co-op operation. Just because it's owned by many people doesn't mean it's not owned. John Clayton is a Dusche bag. ESPN has always had something against the packers.
Clayton's argument is freaking weak. He had an agenda. But I don't give a chit about his insignificant opinion. Most knowledgeable folks know the Packers have a great ownership situation.
Clayton is a Pittsburgh boy (though he worked professionally in Seattle), I think. He might be doing the hometown a favor.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
This just like the change in the "Click for Cans"rules. People get sick of Green Bay dominating so they change rules and criteria to get different results.
This was the "When Green Bay's Unique Organizational Structure Is Excluded From Consideration Who Has the Best Ownership in Football" power ranking because, by all observable measures, Green Bay is being run quite wisely and with an eye always on the future of the team and its finances.
As long as Green Bay continues to get six points for touchdowns like everybody else, the clowns running the sideshows can juggle whatever they want to get whatever results they want.
Last edited by swede; 05-13-2011 at 03:17 PM.
[QUOTE=George Cumby] ...every draft (Ted) would pick a solid, dependable, smart, athletically limited linebacker...the guy who isn't doing drugs, going to strip bars, knocking around his girlfriend or making any plays of game changing significance.
What did they change about click for cans?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote