Two House Democrats on Thursday afternoon will introduce legislation that would ban professional sports leagues from putting up obstacles to fan ownership of teams.
One of the bill's co-sponsors, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), indicated on the House floor Thursday morning that the bill is a reaction to this week's news that the Los Angeles Dodgers will be put up for sale by owner Frank McCourt.
One of the bill's co-sponsors, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), indicated on the House floor Thursday morning that the bill is a reaction to this week's news that the Los Angeles Dodgers will be put up for sale by owner Frank McCourt.
Apparently, the Green Bay Packers' model for "fan ownership" works. I don't know all of the intricate details of how it all works, but I know that the team, in spite of being in a very small market, is profitable, not to mention successful.
I do know that, when the Packers need funds, they offer up public stock. I'm pretty sure I read that they'll actually be doing this again in the not-too-distant future. Last I recall, the stock was sold at $200 a share.
So, I ask this: With the Bills currently seeking around $100 million for upgrades to RWS, how many fans would get in on buying stock at $200 a pop, in exchange for being able to call themselves "part owner" of the Bills? My guess? You would get an OVERWHELMING amount of people willing to fork the cash over.
Doing the quick math: $100,000,000 (upgrades cost)/$200 (cost of share) = 500,000. So, in short, under this plan, if 500,000 people bought one share each, the Bills would then have their stadium funding, without using state, city, or county tax money to do it.
No worries of moving, on top of not using taxes on stadiums (meaning they can be used elsewhere)... It basically allows those who choose to financially support the team to do so, while not spending monies of those who don't want their tax money going towards sports teams. Explain to me why this is a bad idea again?
-Bill
Comment