Is it easier for the Packers or more difficult without a true owner?

[Patler]

I doubt there is a correct answer to the question, but I often wonder if being successful on the field is harder for GB or more difficult because of their ownership structure? I think there are some definite advantages, but if you compare them to a team with a good, competent owner who really wants to win, are the Packers at an advantage, disadvantage or neither?

I will confess, I think I can argue any of the possible sides to the issue.

[red]

i don't see any disadvantages to the way the packers are set up really. the way american sports are set up with salary caps and whatnot, its not like your billionaire owner can pump any of his money into the team. and its not like the packers would need an owner to pump any money in

no team pays for their own stadium or facilities anymore, so its not like the owner pumps in money there

really, having an owner can only get in the way. either through meddling, like al davis and jerry jones, or giving your team a black eye like irsay and haslem. or just funnel money from the team into their own pockets

[run pMc]

Depends on the owner. I wouldn't want _____ (Jerrah, Irsay, Dan Snyder, etc.) as owner.

I'd also worry about an owner getting lured by a bigger market.

I think the answer to your post is "neither". I don't think it's more difficult, but I don't think it's easier either. I think it's just different.

Sometimes I'm not sure an owner brings anything to the table except a lot of money and ego. Do you care if Zygi Wilf celebrates a win against the Lions in the locker room with the team?

I think the fact there is no single owner makes it feel like we all own the team (or are more invested emotionally, at least).

[red]

I think the fact there is no single owner makes it feel like we all own the team (or are more invested emotionally, at least).

i think thats a great point. in the case of the packers, it really is the fans team. in dallas, its jerry's team,in washington its snyders team

they just let the fans cheer on their teams. if at any point,the fans turn on the team or stop showing top class support, or stop giving the team handouts, well they can pack up their team and move somewhere else.

the packers cannot be moved out from under the fans

[Guiness]

i don't see any disadvantages to the way the packers are set up really. the way american sports are set up with salary caps and whatnot, its not like your billionaire owner can pump any of his money into the team. and its not like the packers would need an owner to pump any money in

no team pays for their own stadium or facilities anymore, so its not like the owner pumps in money there

really, having an owner can only get in the way. either through meddling, like al davis and jerry jones, or giving your team a black eye like irsay and haslem. or just funnel money from the team into their own pockets

At one time it could be helpful when large signing bonuses were being paid out for long term contracts. You used to hear about teams signing FAs with large signing bonuses so the original team could not match, I think because of cash flow problems. The last time I remember hearing that was with Haynesworth, that type of contract seems to have largely disappeared.

Owners do generally have to kick some money in for a new stadium, but that's not a concern in Green Bay.

[Fritz]

I am not exactly sure of the benefits, but when I watch Cowgirl fans agonizing over yet another ego-based, stupid move by Jerrah, or when I watch Daniel Snyder try to buy his way in (again), or when I watch the previous Lions' owner, William Clay Ford, patiently wait...and wait....and wait.....for Russ Schmidt/Forgot his name/Matt Millen to bring home a winner, then I am very glad the Packers do not have what you call a "true" owner.

[Patler]

I am not exactly sure of the benefits, but when I watch Cowgirl fans agonizing over yet another ego-based, stupid move by Jerrah, or when I watch Daniel Snyder try to buy his way in (again), or when I watch the previous Lions' owner, William Clay Ford, patiently wait...and wait....and wait.....for Russ Schmidt/Forgot his name/Matt Millen to bring home a winner, then I am very glad the Packers do not have what you call a "true" owner.

If the stories from the time are to be believed, the Packers suffered the same problems from the egos/demands/foolishness of people in control during the '70s and '80s (Board, Executive Committee, etc.) Would a decent owner with his personal money on the line have given Starr as long as the Packers brain trust did? Would a legit owner have given Forrest Gregg the total control that the Packers did? Would Devine's trade for Hadl been allowed by any owner?

When things go bad an owner can act quickly and decisively. The Packer structure at the time seemed to get in the way of that.

[Just Jeff]

Without an owner its almost impossible to get any 1st tier free agents to come here.

[Fritz]

If the stories from the time are to be believed, the Packers suffered the same problems from the egos/demands/foolishness of people in control during the '70s and '80s (Board, Executive Committee, etc.) Would a decent owner with his personal money on the line have given Starr as long as the Packers brain trust did? Would a legit owner have given Forrest Gregg the total control that the Packers did? Would Devine's trade for Hadl been allowed by any owner?

When things go bad an owner can act quickly and decisively. The Packer structure at the time seemed to get in the way of that.

I don't know if it was the structure or not. Maybe it was. But I think a good owner hires a GM and gets out of the way, so if an owner back in the day really thought Devine was a good GM, he probably would've let the trade happen, then later realize that he was wrong to think Devine was a good GM.


If you care to count William Clay Ford as a "legit" owner, then you get Matt Millen for eight years, screwing the franchise more deeply into the ground.

Maybe it can be good or bad either way, I suppose.

By the way, funny you mention Starr getting so much time...a recent JSO article tried to revise history by suggesting that if he'd only had a little more time....

Ah, trying to scrub even brighter the Starr legend. I loved him as a player, but as a coach he never did get it done, period. I was so glad when he finally stepped down - but then they got Forrest Gregg, who was worse (how the hell did he ever get Cinci to the SB?), and then Linday Infante, who was not so great, either.

[Patler]

By the way, funny you mention Starr getting so much time...a recent JSO article tried to revise history by suggesting that if he'd only had a little more time....

Actually, they just revived a story that has been around almost since the day Starr packed his office. Heck, they talked about firing him for three years, but he was always given the benefit of the doubt for one more year. Starr cultivated it himself years ago when he admitted in an interview that he was completely unqualified to be a head coach when he took over, but felt he was starting to figure it out the last couple years. (Apparently he was a slow learner.)

Have to give the guy credit though, he certainly has some good offenses. Unfortunately, his defenses were just offensive.

[Patler]

Ah, trying to scrub even brighter the Starr legend. I loved him as a player, but as a coach he never did get it done, period. I was so glad when he finally stepped down - but then they got Forrest Gregg, who was worse (how the hell did he ever get Cinci to the SB?), and then Linday Infante, who was not so great, either.

I remember being excited about the hiring of Gregg. A no nonsense coach (I thought) who had had success in the past. The years under Gregg ended up being some of the strangest in franchise history.

[MadScientist]

It all comes down to getting the right people in the right positions and letting them do their jobs. The structure in GB generally lets the people do their jobs more easily than a single owner might, although I remember hearing about some board interference in the 80's (probably due to not wanting another Hadyl trade). It does not make it easier to get the right people in the right positions.

It's easy to point to Jones, Snyder, and the late Al Davis to see problems with in your face owners, but even with owners who step back and let GM's do their thing you get a wide variety of results (NE, Baltimore, Pittsburgh vs Detroit, Buffalo and Tampa).

[3irty1]

I think the GB ownership structure works in GB's favor more often than not just because it puts the power of football decisions into the hands of football people. Its certainly not all good though, no way with a traditional stakeholder the GB marketing would be as awful as it is. Yeah they have a huge following but considering the historical greatness of the team it seems like it should be equally dominant.

[pbmax]

If the stories from the time are to be believed, the Packers suffered the same problems from the egos/demands/foolishness of people in control during the '70s and '80s (Board, Executive Committee, etc.) Would a decent owner with his personal money on the line have given Starr as long as the Packers brain trust did? Would a legit owner have given Forrest Gregg the total control that the Packers did? Would Devine's trade for Hadl been allowed by any owner?

When things go bad an owner can act quickly and decisively. The Packer structure at the time seemed to get in the way of that.

I have heard Harlan tell the story (certainly it is a shortened and friendlier version of actual events) that Judge Parins insistence on the old ways of coach and GM being the same person (it had worked for Lombardi after all) held back the franchise more than any other factor. His first actions as President seem to be the proof of this as he hired Wolf as GM. And that was after trying to lessen the burden by having Braatz and Infante share the responsibility of constructing the roster.

However, since the Packers had trouble attracting top flight coaching talent as HC (and that even today there are HCs who want both jobs), it wasn't just structure that prevented success. I tend to think that by hiring from within the family (Bengston, Starr, Gregg) didn't help either.

[vince]

Used to be a disadvantage in that the Packers lacked the deep pockets of a billionaire owner to "prime the pump" or even pay the bills during tough times. Stock offerings have been successful, but the ability of the Packers to raise money through public donors pales in comparison to the ability of a private owner to sell stock in a team that actually carries significant financial value should they need to do so.

With the popularity and TV contracts of the NFL, combined with the vision of Harlan to take the organization to a whole new level of revenue generation, that disadvantage is mostly theoretical at this point.

Now it's a big advantage because if the person at the top of the pyramid isn't directing the ship, putting the right people in place and properly delegating responsibility in right way for team success, the Packers board can get rid of him. The Redskins and Cowboys are stuck with their meddling owners. They're two of the most profitable franchises in the business, but it ain't helping their long-term success on the field.