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

[pbmax]

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.

That's the funny thing. In an era when player costs were relatively low, the Packers weren't know for their revenue and resources. In the era when player costs skyrocketed, the Packers fortunes literally took off as well.

Is there a sense, after in the 70s and 80s that the Packers were a low revenue club?

[RashanGary]

Well, my mind changed a little. I always was sort of grateful that we didn't have an owner, but I think my gratitude was misplaced, as the 70s and 80s packers were equally inept as the worst owners, from the top down.

My new position is that I'm grateful for wise, strong leadership. Harlan more than anyone else, but Murphy too.

And the more I think about it, I think it would be wise for the fanbase to really pay attention to what has worked here (hiring a qualified GM and getting out of the way.) When it swings back the other way, fans need to have some history perspective so as to throw the proper fit at the proper people when it goes wrong.

P.S. I like the Packers unique history and hope the exec committee and whomever else makes decisions stay out of the football side for a long time so we can keep our cool standing as the tiniest market in pro sports and fan owned and also win!!

[Pugger]

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

Nonsense. If you pay 'em they will come. Our GM isn't a big player in FA - he prefers to resign his own.

[Pugger]

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.

Yes, Starr's problem was he was not ready to run a team let alone be the HC. He had, what, one season as a QB coach before we gave him full reign? Unfortunately for us the Executive Committee felt all they had to do was hire a player from the Lombardi era and that magic would return. This thinking led us to give Starr an eternity to be a mediocre HC/GM and then hire Gregg. Thank God the EC now keeps their noses out of football operations and concentrates on the business end of things.

[woodbuck27]

I'd be afraid that with an owner decisions could be more hit and miss as the owners ego needs are met or not.

What we have in Green Bay is a plan of direction more so by committee and more heads are better than one applies here.

I.Y.K.W.I.M.

[QBME]

Nonsense. If you pay 'em they will come.

Yep.