PDA

View Full Version : allow more publicly owned teams



Reverend Conehead
02-17-2011, 06:09 AM
Currently the Green Bay Packers are the only publicly owned team. The league's dirty little secret is they're the only one allowed to be that way. The Packers were set up as a publicly owned team before the league passed a rule against doing that and they were therefore grandfathered in.

I visited Minnesota for the first time last month and talked with some Vikings fans. Before that, I hadn't realized there was danger of the Vikings moving away. While I rarely root for the Vikings, I recognize that it would be bad for the NFL if the Vikings moved out of Minnesota. The thought of something ridiculous like the Los Angeles Vikings makes me gag.

To me it seems like a great solution would be for the league to lift the ban on more publicly owned teams and then for the Vikings to become publicly owned. It would give fans a greater say in how the team is run and it would make it so there would be almost zero chance for the team to move away. If they announced the selling of Minnesota Vikings stock, would you, as fans, buy it?

And, btw, how do I create a signature on this board?

i_bleed_purple
02-17-2011, 06:43 AM
Couple questions for you.


How do you convince the Wilfs to give up the VIkings?

Plus there's alot more to that than just "making it public"

BadlandsVikings
02-17-2011, 08:27 AM
It is cheaper to have an owner or a board of directors?

dfosterf
02-17-2011, 03:33 PM
Ha.

An opportunity to refute the concept that the Packtard fans are holding a "worthless piece of paper" because it cannot be sold, pays no dividends, etc.


First, to the rule itself. It has been coined the "Green Bay" rule. It is within what is called the NFL "constitution". It does not specifically exempt the Packers by name, but that was the obvious result, as the ownership structure pre-dates the rule, hence the effective "exemption".

No team may be corporately owned, and must be either wholly owned, either by a single owner or a small group of owners, and further requires that at least one owner own 1/3 a stake in the team.

Now, to Green Bay and our "worthless stock certificates". In addition to attending the shareholders meeting and recieving financial data from the team, not only do shareholders have an ability to vote, they can wind up helping to RUN THE TEAM, in the REAL SENSE of the word.

I'm going to give an example for you to see-

Let's assume that Pack93z and I are shareholders and that we own 1 share of that "worthless" stock each.

The Pack has a 45 member board of directors, and 15 directors are elected annually for a three year period by the shareholders.

Pack93z and I.

Now, that's wonderful and all, but I said a shareholder CAN RUN THIS TEAM.

Here's how.

"A shareholder that is in compliance with our by-laws may present up to 3 nominees for consideration at the annual meeting. No other nominees will be considered. A shareholder must give written notice not more than 180 days nor less than 120 prior to the 1st anniversaryof the annual meeting of the shareholders in the immediately preceding year. The notice must contain information about the proposed nominee and the shareholder making the nomination."

So, Pack93z nominates dfosterf, tells the (executive committee- 7 member, I'll get to that) what a great guy Foster is, they write up the little paragraph explaining who the hell Foster is, and my name is on the ballot for the shareholders to vote on.

...In the meantime, 'ol Foster is a reasonably well-known character in the Packer cyber-space community and starts POLITICKIN' FOR THE JOB :P

So the (drunken) shareholders vote, and now I'm on the 45 member board of directors. UNPAID.

But here's the thing. The 7 member executive committee is the RECOGNIZED "owner" of the Green Bay Packers by the NFL, and they make all of the major decisions. Mark Murphy is the Chief executive of that executive committee, and the one that you recognize.

The "thing" is that the 45 member committee votes for the 7 member executive committee, and 6 of the 7 come from the 45...and let's say Foster gets his fellow 45 to vote him onto the executive committee...

THAT MEANS FOSTER IS NOW IN CHARGE, lol (drunk with power at the thought of it)

(Don't freak out Shawn, for illustration purposes only, plus I promise to keep your GD linebackers in the pipeline, lol)

I could help fire Murphy, as an example. I could vote against the CBA, for another, or empower Murphy to vote on my behalf. I could tell Murphy to get rid of, or not get rid of, say, Brett Favre, or leave it in his hands to decide...

Only Mark Murphy is paid. Everyone else works for free.

Dfosterf. 1 share of GBP stock to a "recognized owner" of a National Football League Franchise.

Worthless piece of paper? It's VOTING stock, boys and girls...

Child, please. :P

So if the Vikes were allowed this kind of structure, Marr and Caine could help run the show in Minnesota...

Maybe that's your answer as to why they no longer allow it...

j/k :P

Purple Floyd
02-17-2011, 04:38 PM
Ha.

An opportunity to refute the concept that the Packtard fans are holding a "worthless piece of paper" because it cannot be sold, pays no dividends, etc.


First, to the rule itself. It has been coined the "Green Bay" rule. It is within what is called the NFL "constitution". It does not specifically exempt the Packers by name, but that was the obvious result, as the ownership structure pre-dates the rule, hence the effective "exemption".

No team may be corporately owned, and must be either wholly owned, either by a single owner or a small group of owners, and further requires that at least one owner own 1/3 a stake in the team.

Now, to Green Bay and our "worthless stock certificates". In addition to attending the shareholders meeting and recieving financial data from the team, not only do shareholders have an ability to vote, they can wind up helping to RUN THE TEAM, in the REAL SENSE of the word.

I'm going to give an example for you to see-

Let's assume that Pack93z and I are shareholders and that we own 1 share of that "worthless" stock each.

The Pack has a 45 member board of directors, and 15 directors are elected annually for a three year period by the shareholders.

Pack93z and I.

Now, that's wonderful and all, but I said a shareholder CAN RUN THIS TEAM.

Here's how.

"A shareholder that is in compliance with our by-laws may present up to 3 nominees for consideration at the annual meeting. No other nominees will be considered. A shareholder must give written notice not more than 180 days nor less than 120 prior to the 1st anniversaryof the annual meeting of the shareholders in the immediately preceding year. The notice must contain information about the proposed nominee and the shareholder making the nomination."

So, Pack93z nominates dfosterf, tells the (executive committee- 7 member, I'll get to that) what a great guy Foster is, they write up the little paragraph explaining who the hell Foster is, and my name is on the ballot for the shareholders to vote on.

...In the meantime, 'ol Foster is a reasonably well-known character in the Packer cyber-space community and starts POLITICKIN' FOR THE JOB :P

So the (drunken) shareholders vote, and now I'm on the 45 member board of directors. UNPAID.

But here's the thing. The 7 member executive committee is the RECOGNIZED "owner" of the Green Bay Packers by the NFL, and they make all of the major decisions. Mark Murphy is the Chief executive of that executive committee, and the one that you recognize.

The "thing" is that the 45 member committee votes for the 7 member executive committee, and 6 of the 7 come from the 45...and let's say Foster gets his fellow 45 to vote him onto the executive committee...

THAT MEANS FOSTER IS NOW IN CHARGE, lol (drunk with power at the thought of it)

(Don't freak out Shawn, for illustration purposes only, plus I promise to keep your GD linebackers in the pipeline, lol)

I could help fire Murphy, as an example. I could vote against the CBA, for another, or empower Murphy to vote on my behalf. I could tell Murphy to get rid of, or not get rid of, say, Brett Favre, or leave it in his hands to decide...

Only Mark Murphy is paid. Everyone else works for free.

Dfosterf. 1 share of GBP stock to a "recognized owner" of a National Football League Franchise.

Worthless piece of paper? It's VOTING stock, boys and girls...

Child, please. :P

So if the Vikes were allowed this kind of structure, Marr and Caine could help run the show in Minnesota...

Maybe that's your answer as to why they no longer allow it...

j/k :P

Can the packers fans use that stock as collateral at the bank when they need to put a new redwood deck on their trailer house?

dfosterf
02-17-2011, 07:51 PM
I guess not, but they could use it to help Zygi vote the Vikes to LA. :P

...for example. (3/4 owners approval needed)

EXCUSE ME! PT SYP!, we got class, "redwood" - pul-eeze, that would be tacky and totally mess with our manufactured housing ambiance, how so very "Minnesota" of you ! lol

(pressure treated, southern yellow pine)

The good thing about your new stadium proposal is that you don't have to bulldoze those existing homes, you can move them...oh ya, I noticed, oh, snap, lol - don't blame Foster, blame Purple Uffda, he started it. :woohoo:

Purple Floyd
02-17-2011, 08:36 PM
I guess not, but they could use it to help Zygi vote the Vikes to LA. :P

...for example. (3/4 owners approval needed)

EXCUSE ME! PT SYP!, we got class, "redwood" - pul-eeze, that would be tacky and totally mess with our manufactured housing ambiance, how so very "Minnesota" of you ! lol

(pressure treated, southern yellow pine)

The good thing about your new stadium proposal is that you don't have to bulldoze those existing homes, you can move them...oh ya, I noticed, oh, snap, lol - don't blame Foster, blame Purple Uffda, he started it. :woohoo:

You are quite the comedian as of late. You sort of remind me of Bob Hope's Brother- No Hope......

dfosterf
02-17-2011, 08:48 PM
Well, I went into this past off-season with what I thought were 12 World Championships, believed (foolishly?) I'd won another, and yet Caine has whittled me down to me two, and you guys one.

This kind of (apparently) inescapable logic will make a fella like me resort to shooting for the humor angle here at PPO, as I got nothin' for the other...except a hell of a lot of grudging admiration for some seriously dynamic interpretation of events and reality on his part.

...And you can't blame me when you go all "packer fan - trailer deck " on my ass when your team can't even find a couple of acres in your state to redo a metrodump without running into a huge trailer park adjacent to some other joint that seems to have as it's claim to fame massive toxic waste which may only be eliminated by possibly detonating the unexploded ordnance contained within in order to vaporize the whole damn mess so that the trailer park neighbors can smoke the resultant deadly cloud along with their meth while guzzling their PBR's.

Forgive me if I haven't quite warmed (on paper) to the obviously bucolic nature of the place.


(now, c'mon, that's a little funny, isn't it? )

:P

Purple Floyd
02-17-2011, 09:50 PM
Well, I went into this past off-season with what I thought were 12 World Championships, believed (foolishly?) I'd won another, and yet Caine has whittled me down to me two, and you guys one.

I think that is either classified as fuzzy math or home field advantage depending on how you look at things.


This kind of (apparently) inescapable logic will make a fella like me resort to shooting for the humor angle here at PPO, as I got nothin' for the other...except a hell of a lot of grudging admiration for some seriously dynamic interpretation of events and reality on his part.

Yeah well when you only have a little to cling on I guess a little cling on isn't such a bad thing after all. But I digress....



...And you can't blame me when you go all "packer fan - trailer deck " on my ass when your team can't even find a couple of acres in your state to redo a metrodump

They can find the site. They just don't have the cash to build it and haven't found the right words to ask for it yet. Give them time, even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.





without running into a huge trailer park adjacent to some other joint that seems to have as it's claim to fame massive toxic waste which may only be eliminated by possibly detonating the unexploded ordnance contained within in order to vaporize the whole damn mess so that the trailer park neighbors can smoke the resultant deadly cloud along with their meth while guzzling their PBR's.

But then where will all of those 'Sconnie packtards live when those trailers are removed? Will we need to send them back to Western Wisconsin where there are no good paying jobs? I am not sure all of those trailer houses will make the trek over the Stillwater bridge. Maybe Sioux Falls wants them.

Forgive me if I haven't quite warmed (on paper) to the obviously bucolic nature of the place.


(now, c'mon, that's a little funny, isn't it? )

:P

You mean to Wisconsin?

dfosterf
02-17-2011, 09:56 PM
In the article I read about the prospective site they interviewed one of the residents of the mobile home park.

He expressed concern that if he were forced to move he'd have to go back home...

To Wisconsin.

It was purely an oversight on my part to have not mentioned that small detail previously, I assure you. :P

Now YOU have to explain to ME where your "mascot" - or whatever the hell you call him- is from...I'm pretty sure it isn't some place like Harlem, at least in the rhythm department...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTff_bzpDv4

Caine
02-17-2011, 11:38 PM
In the article I read about the prospective site they interviewed one of the residents of the mobile home park.

He expressed concern that if he were forced to move he'd have to go back home...

To Wisconsin.

It was purely an oversight on my part to have not mentioned that small detail previously, I assure you. :P

Now YOU have to explain to ME where your "mascot" - or whatever the hell you call him- is from...I'm pretty sure it isn't some place like Harlem, at least in the rhythm department...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTff_bzpDv4

I don't know where Ragnar is "from"...but he's a great dancer, and can turn any move into a silky-smooth display of panther-like reflexes and agility....


...as you saw.

Caine

Purple Floyd
02-18-2011, 12:00 AM
In the article I read about the prospective site they interviewed one of the residents of the mobile home park.

He expressed concern that if he were forced to move he'd have to go back home...

To Wisconsin.

It was purely an oversight on my part to have not mentioned that small detail previously, I assure you. :P

Now YOU have to explain to ME where your "mascot" - or whatever the hell you call him- is from...I'm pretty sure it isn't some place like Harlem, at least in the rhythm department...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTff_bzpDv4

We cut you quite a bit of slack on this site but just a little word of warning- You don't mess with Ragnar......:evil:

dfosterf
02-18-2011, 12:48 AM
I guess you don't wanna know that until Caine reminded me of his real nickname I'd got to callin' him quagmire. :P

I'll leave him completely alone per your request, but even that bet is off if he winds up on dancin' with the stars or somethin'.

(That was Caine's best post in a long time, btw-- "silky-smooth display of panther-like... lol lol lol )

Purple Floyd
02-18-2011, 02:33 PM
I guess you don't wanna know that until Caine reminded me of his real nickname I'd got to callin' him quagmire. :P

I'll leave him completely alone per your request, but even that bet is off if he winds up on dancin' with the stars or somethin'.

(That was Caine's best post in a long time, btw-- "silky-smooth display of panther-like... lol lol lol )

I am not too worried about him ending up on dancing with the stars but I do seem to remember some interest in putting him in one of those capital one commercials.


What's in you wallet?......

Caine
02-18-2011, 04:50 PM
It's worth pointing out that the only reason Green Bay was publicly traded is because they couldn't maintain financial viability back in the early years. In fact, it's not widely known but George Halas saved the Green Bay franchise on more than one occasion.


...probably so he'd have 2 guaranteed wins per year...


It's worth noting also that despite the alleged "success" of the Packers being publicly traded, no other franchise is ALLOWED to do so. Why is that? If it works so well there, why not allow other franchises to mirror that "success story"?

Just another pro-Green Bay NFL contradiction to throw into the "Why I hate the Packers" bucket...


...like I needed more reasons...

Caine

dfosterf
02-18-2011, 05:16 PM
It's worth pointing out that the only reason Green Bay was publicly traded is because they couldn't maintain financial viability back in the early years. In fact, it's not widely known but George Halas saved the Green Bay franchise on more than one occasion.


...probably so he'd have 2 guaranteed wins per year...


It's worth noting also that despite the alleged "success" of the Packers being publicly traded, no other franchise is ALLOWED to do so. Why is that? If it works so well there, why not allow other franchises to mirror that "success story"?

Just another pro-Green Bay NFL contradiction to throw into the "Why I hate the Packers" bucket...


...like I needed more reasons...

Caine


The Green Bay Packers loaned Halas $1500 in 1932 in order to save the Chicago Bears franchise. He borrowed money from his mother, his mother-in-law, and the Pack.

The Bears have never loaned the Packers a dime.

Halas was instrumental in public relations in 1956 to convince Packer fans that it was wise to support their form of ownership. That is the FORM of his assistance... not anything financial. That is the "saved".

Maybe it's the soft spot he held because without that loan way back in '32, the Bears would have folded right then and there.

He did the same thing (public relations) in 1922 with the rest of the league as regards the Packers, having to do with their use of college football players. The league was going to ban the Pack, but he was guilty of the exact same rule infraction, including getting one of the players from the Pack, so in order to enforce prohibitions against the GB franchise, they would have had to do the same to the Bears.

Those are your "saved" the Packers, and I guess to Norse mythologists, they are totally legit.

Or maybe that one Bears fan buddy you have (Caine) that told you the Bears didn't try in week 17, thereby making that a fact (to you), lol

Now, for some real facts. The team that Halas helped the most?

YOURS.

He was THE driving force for the NFL bringing a franchise to Minneapolis.

tastywaves
02-18-2011, 05:48 PM
It's worth pointing out that the only reason Green Bay was publicly traded is because they couldn't maintain financial viability back in the early years. In fact, it's not widely known but George Halas saved the Green Bay franchise on more than one occasion.


...probably so he'd have 2 guaranteed wins per year...


It's worth noting also that despite the alleged "success" of the Packers being publicly traded, no other franchise is ALLOWED to do so. Why is that? If it works so well there, why not allow other franchises to mirror that "success story"?

Just another pro-Green Bay NFL contradiction to throw into the "Why I hate the Packers" bucket...


...like I needed more reasons...

Caine


The Green Bay Packers loaned Halas $1500 in 1932 in order to save the Chicago Bears franchise. He borrowed money from his mother, his mother-in-law, and the Pack.

The Bears have never loaned the Packers a dime.

Halas was instrumental in public relations in 1956 to convince Packer fans that it was wise to support their form of ownership. That is the FORM of his assistance... not anything financial. That is the "saved".

Maybe it's the soft spot he held because without that loan way back in '32, the Bears would have folded right then and there.

He did the same thing (public relations) in 1922 with the rest of the league as regards the Packers, having to do with their use of college football players. The league was going to ban the Pack, but he was guilty of the exact same rule infraction, including getting one of the players from the Pack, so in order to enforce prohibitions against the GB franchise, they would have had to do the same to the Bears.

Those are your "saved" the Packers, and I guess to Norse mythologists, they are totally legit.

Or maybe that one Bears fan buddy you have (Caine) that told you the Bears didn't try in week 17, thereby making that a fact (to you), lol

Now, for some real facts. The team that Halas helped the most?

YOURS.

He was THE driving force for the NFL bringing a franchise to Minneapolis.

Two confident renditions of the past that are completely contradictory. Gotta love these internet chats. :laugh:

dfosterf
02-18-2011, 06:03 PM
It's too bad that Halas worked so very hard to get the Vikes included in the league, from my perspective.

I can't help but think that if there were no Vikings, Caine would be a Packer fan and "defender", and his level of absolutely extraordinary b.s. could be put to use in a more positive endeavor. :P

Now, at the same time, had the Pack in fact folded somewhere along the way and I became a Vikes fan, at least I know that not only would I be assisting in debunking so many silly misconceptions, someone here might actually believe me. :laugh:

jargomcfargo
02-18-2011, 06:34 PM
It's worth pointing out that the only reason Green Bay was publicly traded is because they couldn't maintain financial viability back in the early years. In fact, it's not widely known but George Halas saved the Green Bay franchise on more than one occasion.


...probably so he'd have 2 guaranteed wins per year...


It's worth noting also that despite the alleged "success" of the Packers being publicly traded, no other franchise is ALLOWED to do so. Why is that? If it works so well there, why not allow other franchises to mirror that "success story"?

Just another pro-Green Bay NFL contradiction to throw into the "Why I hate the Packers" bucket...


...like I needed more reasons...

Caine


The Green Bay Packers loaned Halas $1500 in 1932 in order to save the Chicago Bears franchise. He borrowed money from his mother, his mother-in-law, and the Pack.

The Bears have never loaned the Packers a dime.

Halas was instrumental in public relations in 1956 to convince Packer fans that it was wise to support their form of ownership. That is the FORM of his assistance... not anything financial. That is the "saved".

Maybe it's the soft spot he held because without that loan way back in '32, the Bears would have folded right then and there.

He did the same thing (public relations) in 1922 with the rest of the league as regards the Packers, having to do with their use of college football players. The league was going to ban the Pack, but he was guilty of the exact same rule infraction, including getting one of the players from the Pack, so in order to enforce prohibitions against the GB franchise, they would have had to do the same to the Bears.

Those are your "saved" the Packers, and I guess to Norse mythologists, they are totally legit.

Or maybe that one Bears fan buddy you have (Caine) that told you the Bears didn't try in week 17, thereby making that a fact (to you), lol

Now, for some real facts. The team that Halas helped the most?

YOURS.

He was THE driving force for the NFL bringing a franchise to Minneapolis.

I would favor mythology over revision I suppose.
Fact is, The Chicago Cardinals and N.Y. Giants played a regular season NFL game at the Metrodome in 1959. Over 26000 fans showed up.

Max Winter had been attemting to get an NFL team in the twin cities for a few years without success.

The decision was made to start a new football league. And there was a meeting in Mpls. by those interested.

In addition, the Chicago Cardinals were considering moving to the twin cities.

The NFL was concerened about a competing league and decided to grant teams to Minnesota and Dallas.

As Paul Harvey used to say, that's the rest of the story.

Given your expertese in early NFL history, we probably should allow you brag about those 6 championships your team won before World War II!

dfosterf
02-18-2011, 06:44 PM
The Vikings would have been an AFL team, not an NFL team.

George Halas was the chair-head of the NFL expansion committee...you know, the guys that would DECIDE if the young upstarts get a team (the "other" side of the Vikes/NFL coin, with a 40 year league in existence)

They squabbled over awarding a franchise to Minneapolis, and Halas was the lead champion for that cause.

HE came up with the KEY compromise in that committee.

The Vikings would be awarded an NFL franchise contingent upon selling 25,000 season tickets in 1961. They did so.

If any other facts regarding the true progenitors of the Vikings as an NFL team are needed, I'll be happy to accomodate. Revisionist, hmph. B)

jargomcfargo
02-18-2011, 07:09 PM
The Vikings would have been an AFL team, not an NFL team.

George Halas was the chair-head of the NFL expansion committee.

They squabbled over awarding a franchise to Minneapolis, and Halas was the lead champion for that cause.

HE came up with the KEY compromise in that committee.

The Vikings would be awarded an NFL franchise contingent upon selling 25,000 season tickets in 1961. They did so.

If any other facts regarding the true progenitors of the Vikings as an NFL team are needed, I'll be happy to accomodate. Revisionist, hmph. B)
Revision by omission! That's better. But the Chicago Cardinals were considering moving to Mpls.. They were an NFL team at the time and played twice in Minnesota.
They were a terrible team and considered Chicagos 'other team'.

The Bidwell family moved them to St. Louis in 1960, I think.

Max Winter was going to go the way of the AFL but Halas didn't want the competition from another league in his area. That was the primary motivation for approving the Vikings.

Being an old fart with a faulty memory, I enjoy the history myself.

Keep it coming. If I don't agree with your version I'll just revise it!

dfosterf
02-18-2011, 07:15 PM
:P In order to go into any more depth I may be forced to punch holes in the paneling of my hand built single-wide trailer and drag out the sports pages from the era that I used as insulation. :P

All I was pointing out was the fact that Halas was very instrumental in the Vikings becoming an NFL franchise. The motivations are relevant, but don't in any way refute my assertion, and frankly, I can't think of a logical interpretation of history that would refute it.

In the "keep it coming" category, I'll go with this one...

The Minnesota Vikings WERE an AFL team.

In 1959, Winter and Boyer formed your Minnesota Vikings as one of the AFL teams. In January of 1960 they withdrew from the AFL and were awarded an NFL franchise (by Halas and associates, lol) two days later, to begin play in 1961, per my previous contingency of selling 25k in season tickets.

How am I doing on the esoteric trivia? :P

tastywaves
02-18-2011, 08:32 PM
Maximus Winter. What a great name for a guy starting a Minnesota franchise.

Caine
02-18-2011, 08:53 PM
It's worth pointing out that the only reason Green Bay was publicly traded is because they couldn't maintain financial viability back in the early years. In fact, it's not widely known but George Halas saved the Green Bay franchise on more than one occasion.


...probably so he'd have 2 guaranteed wins per year...


It's worth noting also that despite the alleged "success" of the Packers being publicly traded, no other franchise is ALLOWED to do so. Why is that? If it works so well there, why not allow other franchises to mirror that "success story"?

Just another pro-Green Bay NFL contradiction to throw into the "Why I hate the Packers" bucket...


...like I needed more reasons...

Caine


The Green Bay Packers loaned Halas $1500 in 1932 in order to save the Chicago Bears franchise. He borrowed money from his mother, his mother-in-law, and the Pack.

The Bears have never loaned the Packers a dime.

I never said Halas gave them money...I said he saved your franchise. And he did. In 1922 (After you were booted for cheating), and in 1956 after he motivated the city of Green Bay to pony up cash for a stadium for your "financially insecure" franchise.


Halas was instrumental in public relations in 1956 to convince Packer fans that it was wise to support their form of ownership. That is the FORM of his assistance... not anything financial. That is the "saved".

Mentioned above and below...


Maybe it's the soft spot he held because without that loan way back in '32, the Bears would have folded right then and there.

And had he not lobbied so strongly ion 1922, there would have been no Packers to loan him money.


He did the same thing (public relations) in 1922 with the rest of the league as regards the Packers, having to do with their use of college football players. The league was going to ban the Pack, but he was guilty of the exact same rule infraction, including getting one of the players from the Pack, so in order to enforce prohibitions against the GB franchise, they would have had to do the same to the Bears.

Not quite accurate from what I've read.

The Packers WERE banned for the use of College players. Halas talked the League into letting them back in (Ironically, it was Halas that blew the whistle on them). Halas signed one of those players after the hubbub wore down.


Those are your "saved" the Packers, and I guess to Norse mythologists, they are totally legit.

Or maybe that one Bears fan buddy you have (Caine) that told you the Bears didn't try in week 17, thereby making that a fact (to you), lol

Now, for some real facts. The team that Halas helped the most?

YOURS.

He was THE driving force for the NFL bringing a franchise to Minneapolis.

"Halas loaned the Packers money once to allow them to stay in business."
Source: http://www.thestarpress.com/article/20110123/SPORTS/101230342/1006/SPORTS

"Halas helped save Packers" (Story about the PR event you mentioned above)
Source: http://www.fox6now.com/news/ct-spt-0119-haugh-george-mccaskey-bea20110118,0,7303227.story?track=rss

"...It was Halas who was instrumental in persuading league partners in 1922 to allow Green Bay and Lambeau back in the fold after the Packers were banned for using college players illegally."
Source: http://host.madison.com/sports/football/professional/article_f6124068-25d8-11e0-b0c3-001cc4c002e0.html


What's funny here is that you get SO defensive about this. Did I make a claim that was untrue here? Did George Halas NOT save the Packer franchise on more than one occasion as I stated? (By my count it's at least 2...that equals "more than one")

Is it also not true that Green Bay was publicly traded to remain solvent? Did I somehow distort that?

Is it also not true that the NFL has prohibited anyone BUT Green Bay from being publicly held and traded?

And, as a weak topper, you reference a quote from an acquaintance of mine that I shared while pointing out how STUPID Bears were to not pull out all the stops to end Green Bays season in week 17, and you try and use someone else's quote to discredit ME? When did "I" state that the Bears didn't try their hardest? I simply said that the Bears screwed the pooch - and, as it turned out - I was fucking prophetic!!!

But shame on you for using a cheap discrediting stunt like that. I hope you don't plan to make a habit of it.

Caine

jargomcfargo
02-18-2011, 08:57 PM
Gotta love history! :woohoo:

Caine
02-18-2011, 09:10 PM
:P In order to go into any more depth I may be forced to punch holes in the paneling of my hand built single-wide trailer and drag out the sports pages from the era that I used as insulation. :P

All I was pointing out was the fact that Halas was very instrumental in the Vikings becoming an NFL franchise. The motivations are relevant, but don't in any way refute my assertion, and frankly, I can't think of a logical interpretation of history that would refute it.

In the "keep it coming" category, I'll go with this one...

The Minnesota Vikings WERE an AFL team.

In 1959, Winter and Boyer formed your Minnesota Vikings as one of the AFL teams. In January of 1960 they withdrew from the AFL and were awarded an NFL franchise (by Halas and associates, lol) two days later, to begin play in 1961, per my previous contingency of selling 25k in season tickets.

How am I doing on the esoteric trivia? :P

So, the mere fact that George Halas was the Chairman of the Expansion committee - the same Chairman that wanted to up the League to 16 teams - and that same committee lobbied the ALREADY AFL FRANCHISE HOLDING owners group in Minnesota to switch to the NFL...somehow we're now MORE indebted to Halas than Green Bay is?

Too funny...

Caine

Caine
02-18-2011, 09:11 PM
It's too bad that Halas worked so very hard to get the Vikes included in the league, from my perspective.

I can't help but think that if there were no Vikings, Caine would be a Packer fan and "defender", and his level of absolutely extraordinary b.s. could be put to use in a more positive endeavor. :P

Now, at the same time, had the Pack in fact folded somewhere along the way and I became a Vikes fan, at least I know that not only would I be assisting in debunking so many silly misconceptions, someone here might actually believe me. :laugh:

Once you can disprove my alleged "BS", you can label it as such. Until such time, I suggest a little less spin.

Caine

dfosterf
02-18-2011, 09:43 PM
For starters, you can go back and read the language in your link to the prove "loan from Halas" to the Pack.

Halas loaned the Packers money once to allow them to stay in business. During the Great Depression, the Packers took an IOU for $2,500 from Halas instead of forcing him to pay them for their share of gate receipts from a game. Halas paid the Packers nearly a year later.



So, according to YOUR OWN SOURCE that you cited as "proof", Halas not only loaned the Packers money, he paid them back, lol

Nice source!

I'm not angry, I'm bored, that's different, plus kind enough not to bring up any recent history, if we want to start talking about what "I'm leaving out", lol

dfosterf
02-18-2011, 10:18 PM
:P In order to go into any more depth I may be forced to punch holes in the paneling of my hand built single-wide trailer and drag out the sports pages from the era that I used as insulation. :P

All I was pointing out was the fact that Halas was very instrumental in the Vikings becoming an NFL franchise. The motivations are relevant, but don't in any way refute my assertion, and frankly, I can't think of a logical interpretation of history that would refute it.

In the "keep it coming" category, I'll go with this one...

The Minnesota Vikings WERE an AFL team.

In 1959, Winter and Boyer formed your Minnesota Vikings as one of the AFL teams. In January of 1960 they withdrew from the AFL and were awarded an NFL franchise (by Halas and associates, lol) two days later, to begin play in 1961, per my previous contingency of selling 25k in season tickets.

How am I doing on the esoteric trivia? :P

So, the mere fact that George Halas was the Chairman of the Expansion committee - the same Chairman that wanted to up the League to 16 teams - and that same committee lobbied the ALREADY AFL FRANCHISE HOLDING owners group in Minnesota to switch to the NFL...somehow we're now MORE indebted to Halas than Green Bay is?

Too funny...

Caine

I heard that your (back-water) AFL franchise holding owners were rumored to be offering deviant sexual services to that NFL committee in order to possibly be considered for inclusion in the NFL, so our sources must be different. :laugh: perhaps that is where our departure in perspective arises.

i_bleed_purple
02-18-2011, 10:19 PM
:P In order to go into any more depth I may be forced to punch holes in the paneling of my hand built single-wide trailer and drag out the sports pages from the era that I used as insulation. :P

All I was pointing out was the fact that Halas was very instrumental in the Vikings becoming an NFL franchise. The motivations are relevant, but don't in any way refute my assertion, and frankly, I can't think of a logical interpretation of history that would refute it.

In the "keep it coming" category, I'll go with this one...

The Minnesota Vikings WERE an AFL team.

In 1959, Winter and Boyer formed your Minnesota Vikings as one of the AFL teams. In January of 1960 they withdrew from the AFL and were awarded an NFL franchise (by Halas and associates, lol) two days later, to begin play in 1961, per my previous contingency of selling 25k in season tickets.

How am I doing on the esoteric trivia? :P

So, the mere fact that George Halas was the Chairman of the Expansion committee - the same Chairman that wanted to up the League to 16 teams - and that same committee lobbied the ALREADY AFL FRANCHISE HOLDING owners group in Minnesota to switch to the NFL...somehow we're now MORE indebted to Halas than Green Bay is?

Too funny...

Caine

I heard that your (back-water) AFL franchise holding owners were rumored to be offering deviant sexual services to that NFL committee in order to possibly be considered for inclusion in the NFL, so our sources must be different. :laugh:

way to stick on topic. How about the NFL wanted to squash the AFL so offered AFL cities NFL franchises.

dfosterf
02-18-2011, 10:35 PM
The concept that the NFL "lobbied" to get the Vikes in the league is so bizzarely ridiculous on it's face that I cannot even imagine how to respond to those that hold that perspective. Your ownership group was known as one of the "foolish club" for even thinking that something so audacious as an alternative league like the AFL could compete against the NFL...

The only thing that was in competition between those two leagues at that time were draft picks, which the AFL was poaching, and that was about it.




http://www.profootballhof.com/history/decades/1960s/afl.aspx


Charter memberships were issued to Dallas, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, Minneapolis and New York. Buffalo and Boston were admitted later that year. Early in 1960, Minneapolis defected to the National Football League and Oakland was picked as a replacement city. The whole idea seemed so far-fetched, even after AFL teams started playing, that the eight team owners became known as the "Foolish Club."

jargomcfargo
02-18-2011, 11:02 PM
The concept that the NFL "lobbied" to get the Vikes in the league is so bizzarely ridiculous on it's face that I cannot even imagine how to respond to those that hold that perspective. Your ownership group was known as one of the "foolish club" for even thinking that something so audacious as an alternative league like the AFL could compete against the NFL...

The only thing that was in competition between those two leagues at that time were draft picks, which the AFL was poaching, and that was about it.




http://www.profootballhof.com/history/decades/1960s/afl.aspx


Charter memberships were issued to Dallas, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, Minneapolis and New York. Buffalo and Boston were admitted later that year. Early in 1960, Minneapolis defected to the National Football League and Oakland was picked as a replacement city. The whole idea seemed so far-fetched, even after AFL teams started playing, that the eight team owners became known as the "Foolish Club."



Seems the "Foolish Club" did alright. Must have provided some competition after all.
Poaching or free enterprise?

Just another great american story of rising from the ashes against all odds.
Nice to know the Vikings played a primary role.

How's that for history? :)

i_bleed_purple
02-18-2011, 11:08 PM
Here's history for you. A team in a small shit city wanted a team, but couldn't afford one, they had a meat packing company sponsor the team, buy equipment in return for using their name. They didn't even play all their home games in GB, opting to play in Milwaukee for a bunch of them, probably other places as well. They also got bailed out by rival teams multiple times because they were were not financially stable, or got caught cheating.

That's some good history right there.

dfosterf
02-18-2011, 11:20 PM
Two meat packing companies.

More "saving" history by Halas-


On Thanksgiving Day in 1921 a huge turnout was expected in the second game ever played between the Packers and the Bears. Despite having previously inked a contract and agreeing to play the game in Green Bay, however, George Halas wired Curly Lambeau demanding that Green Bay pay an 'extortion' fee of $4,000 before he brought his team north to play the Packers. Unable to meet Halas' demands, Lambeau could do little and was forced to replace the Bears with the non-league game vs. the Duluth Kelleys. The ensuing game was a disaster. Disinterested fans failed to show-up to watch a non-league contest in a driving rain. Only 100 people attended the game and Halas' action brought the Packers to the brink of bankruptcy.

and here,


Though college players football surreptitiously played on every NFL team in the early days of professional football (including the Bears), George Halas exposed the fact that Notre Dame guard Heartley 'Hunk' Anderson was playing for the Packers by contributing to a newspaper article printed in the Chicago Tribune. Halas desperately wanted and fully expected Anderson to play for the Bears, however, when he learned that Anderson was playing for the Packers in the first ever meeting between the two teams, he was irate. Halas was angry that a small market team like the Packers could lure Anderson away from the big bad Bears and wasted no time demanding the league revoke the Packers franchise. Halas subsequently was responsible for delaying the Packers reinstatement the following summer so he could sign Anderson right out from under the nose of the Packers. After all, Anderson couldn't play for the Packers if their team didn't exist.


...and here-


Three years after George Halas and the Bears accused the Packers of employing the services of college players and nearly killing the team as a result, Halas himself tampered with an undergraduate player of his own…Harold 'Red' Grange. Halas faced a far different fate than what he subjected the Packers to when he lead the failed charge to revoke Green Bay's charter, however. Halas not only got away with the stunt, the Bears were never even punished by the league.

Caine
02-18-2011, 11:29 PM
For starters, you can go back and read the language in your link to the prove "loan from Halas" to the Pack.

Halas loaned the Packers money once to allow them to stay in business. During the Great Depression, the Packers took an IOU for $2,500 from Halas instead of forcing him to pay them for their share of gate receipts from a game. Halas paid the Packers nearly a year later.



So, according to YOUR OWN SOURCE that you cited as "proof", Halas not only loaned the Packers money, he paid them back, lol

Nice source!

I'm not angry, I'm bored, that's different, plus kind enough not to bring up any recent history, if we want to start talking about what "I'm leaving out", lol

Perhaps YOU are the one who needs the reread...the alleged loan to Green Bay was a single incident. The loan to Halas FROM Green Bay was another. The repayment was in reference to the SECOND act.

R.I.F.

But, again, I didn't originally claim he lent them MONEY...YOU brought that in.

Caine

Caine
02-18-2011, 11:41 PM
Two meat packing companies.

More "saving" history by Halas-


On Thanksgiving Day in 1921 a huge turnout was expected in the second game ever played between the Packers and the Bears. Despite having previously inked a contract and agreeing to play the game in Green Bay, however, George Halas wired Curly Lambeau demanding that Green Bay pay an 'extortion' fee of $4,000 before he brought his team north to play the Packers. Unable to meet Halas' demands, Lambeau could do little and was forced to replace the Bears with the non-league game vs. the Duluth Kelleys. The ensuing game was a disaster. Disinterested fans failed to show-up to watch a non-league contest in a driving rain. Only 100 people attended the game and Halas' action brought the Packers to the brink of bankruptcy.

and here,


Though college players football surreptitiously played on every NFL team in the early days of professional football (including the Bears), George Halas exposed the fact that Notre Dame guard Heartley 'Hunk' Anderson was playing for the Packers by contributing to a newspaper article printed in the Chicago Tribune. Halas desperately wanted and fully expected Anderson to play for the Bears, however, when he learned that Anderson was playing for the Packers in the first ever meeting between the two teams, he was irate. Halas was angry that a small market team like the Packers could lure Anderson away from the big bad Bears and wasted no time demanding the league revoke the Packers franchise. Halas subsequently was responsible for delaying the Packers reinstatement the following summer so he could sign Anderson right out from under the nose of the Packers. After all, Anderson couldn't play for the Packers if their team didn't exist.


...and here-


Three years after George Halas and the Bears accused the Packers of employing the services of college players and nearly killing the team as a result, Halas himself tampered with an undergraduate player of his own…Harold 'Red' Grange. Halas faced a far different fate than what he subjected the Packers to when he lead the failed charge to revoke Green Bay's charter, however. Halas not only got away with the stunt, the Bears were never even punished by the league.

The irony being that the Packers own media guide was quoted as the source for the version of the College Scam debacle.

Not sure which source you're using, since you haven't cited one...

But, again, what exactly is it you're trying to prove?

All I said was that Halas bailed out your franchise multiple times. THIS IS A FACT!!!

Whether or not he forced, coerced, or duped the NFL into later (MUCH later) offering Minnesota a franchise is irrelevant to that FACT.

What is also FACT is that Green Bay sold shares in their team because they were BROKE. That is well documented as FACT.

It is also a FACT that only Green Bay is allowed to be publicly owned.

Those three points were what I posted, and what YOU took great offense to it would appear.

Finally, why WOULDN'T the NFL offer potential AFL teams an NFL charter instead? Why is that ludicrous? A mere 11 years after, the two leagues MERGED because those "fools" who thought they could compete with the NFL actually DID!!!

Caine

dfosterf
02-18-2011, 11:53 PM
It's a fact if you believe one story in the Chicago Tribune that said Halas bailed out the Packers numerous times, that has been reprinted and thrown around the web many more.

It's a fact that Halas "saved" the Packers in 1922 if you believe that he isn't the one that not only "turned them in" for violating the no college player rule, that you believe he didn't try and have the Packers charter taken away, that he didn't delay their reinstatement the following year, that he didn't have college players of his own on his team at the same time, that he didn't get caught "red handed" with Red Grange on his team a few years later... like you could hide a Red Grange for cripes sake,lol...

If that's what you call "saving", I volunteer to help save the Vikings.

B)

(this is kind of fun)

I gave you the '56 PR thing, and that's all you got, that isn't multiple times, and a little PR doesn't compare to allowing the Vikes into the league, imo

...Speaking of the Chicago Tribune, George Halas (in)famously WROTE THE BEARS PRESS back in those days, which is probably where that concept came from in the movie "leatherheads", and how he came to "save" the Pack, lol

Caine
02-19-2011, 12:05 AM
It's a fact if you believe one story in the Chicago Tribune that said Halas bailed out the Packers numerous times, that has been reprinted and thrown around the web many more.

It's a fact that Halas "saved" the Packers in 1922 if you believe that he isn't the one that not only "turned them in" for violating the no college player rule, that you believe he didn't try and have the Packers charter taken away, that he didn't delay their reinstatement the following year, that he didn't have college players of his own on his team at the same time, that he didn't get caught "red handed" with Red Grange on his team a few years later... like you could hide a Red Grange for cripes sake,lol...

If that's what you call "saving", I volunteer to help save the Vikings.

B)

(this is kind of fun)

I actually found numerous sources which cited the 1956 speech which is credited with saving the Green Bay franchise. Not just one in the Trib.

I also found several sources which reiterated the Green Bay booted from the NFL in 1921 story. And, yes, Halas himself turned them in. But the FACT remains that it was also Halas who argued for Green Bay's reinstatement - delayed or not. What Halas was doing at the time is - again - irrelevant since we aren't talking about Halas or the Bears in this case, we are discussing the FACT that Green Bay was BOOTED from the NFL.

So, again, despite the smoke screen you keep trying to throw up there, both of the FACTS I posted remain.....well.....facts.

And despite your attempts to muddy this issue by dragging the Vikings into it, the FACT remains that your franchise is still the ONLY publicly owned franchise.

And it ALSO remains true that they did it because they were BROKE!!!

So, again, the QUESTION I originally posed ALSO remains....if it worked for Green Bay, why did the NFL prohibit other franchises from doing the same?

Again, just another example of NFL favoritism towards Green Bay.

Caine

dfosterf
02-19-2011, 12:16 AM
The Green Bay rule (http://frmilovan.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/the-green-bay-rule/)

It doesn't answer your question, but the article asks it better...or perhaps, a little more politely.



Green Bay stands as a living, breathing, and, for the owners, frightening example, that pro sports can aid our cities in tough economic times, not drain them of scarce public resources.



Take it up with the commish.

What you characterize as "favortism" (I'm not gonna quibble about that recurring theme of yours) only puts the Packers on a footing roughly equal to the Vikings. The rest of whatever financial success they have achieved as a franchise can also be assigned to the fans and tax payers support of that franchise. For example, Forbes has the "cost per fan" in GB at 277. ea, taking into account the relative market size of ea. franchise. Go to the Forbes 2010 NFL article and compare that to your own team, on a cost per fan basis, or for that matter, ANY other team. That is an undeniable factor also.

Caine
02-19-2011, 12:28 AM
The Green Bay rule (http://frmilovan.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/the-green-bay-rule/)

It doesn't answer your question, but the article asks it better...or perhaps, a little more politely.



Green Bay stands as a living, breathing, and, for the owners, frightening example, that pro sports can aid our cities in tough economic times, not drain them of scarce public resources.



Take it up with the commish.

That didn't answer the question...it merely rephrased it and restated the rationale FOR the question. In fact, the author himself appears to be asking the same question I did...with no answer given.

Fact is, if it can work in Green Bay, why can't it work elsewhere? Green bay has roughly 300k (plus or minus), the Twin Cities has a population of roughly 3.8 MILLION.

Obviously, the resources are there to replicate the Green Bay model in Minnesota, or in San Diego, or Los Angeles, or in any other potential host city. So why the prohibition?

Caine

dfosterf
02-19-2011, 12:30 AM
I added after you quoted.

I have "theorized" somewhat in "my" CBA thread about "opening the books", especially as it relates in modern times to such things as tax ramifications and loopholes for PSL revenues, etc. While that is in no way responsible for the original "Green Bay rule", it is POSSIBLE that it would be a potential obstacle for even exploring the possibility of a corporate owned team now or in the future.

I have to go play Poker now, got my SB champion hat, and since my opponents are all Steeler fans (I'm in PA) I might put them all "on tilt" before a single hand is played. B)

Caine
02-19-2011, 02:18 AM
The Green Bay rule (http://frmilovan.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/the-green-bay-rule/)

It doesn't answer your question, but the article asks it better...or perhaps, a little more politely.



Green Bay stands as a living, breathing, and, for the owners, frightening example, that pro sports can aid our cities in tough economic times, not drain them of scarce public resources.



Take it up with the commish.

What you characterize as "favortism" (I'm not gonna quibble about that recurring theme of yours) only puts the Packers on a footing roughly equal to the Vikings. The rest of whatever financial success they have achieved as a franchise can also be assigned to the fans and tax payers support of that franchise. For example, Forbes has the "cost per fan" in GB at 277. ea, taking into account the relative market size of ea. franchise. Go to the Forbes 2010 NFL article and compare that to your own team, on a cost per fan basis, or for that matter, ANY other team. That is an undeniable factor also.

Let's see...my "recurring theme"? What would YOU call it?

Only Green Bay can have a publicly held franchise.

Only Green Bay can engage in post-TD celebrations taht involve entering the stands (The Lameblow leap).

In the NFL, all of the franchises are SUPPOSED to follow the same rules. They're SUPPOSED to have rules enforced equally amongst them.

But that doesn't happen. There are at LEAST two occassions in which Green Bay is EXEMPTED from a rule which affects EVERYONE else.

If that's not favoritism, what is it?

And PLEASE explain to me how exempting Green Bay from those two rules places them on - in your words - "a footing roughly equal to the Vikings".

Would they suddenly become an inferior franchise if the Lameblow leap was outlawed like all of the other celebrations (Such as Jared Allen's "calf-rope")?

Caine

dfosterf
02-19-2011, 05:59 AM
The Green Bay rule (http://frmilovan.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/the-green-bay-rule/)

It doesn't answer your question, but the article asks it better...or perhaps, a little more politely.



Green Bay stands as a living, breathing, and, for the owners, frightening example, that pro sports can aid our cities in tough economic times, not drain them of scarce public resources.



Take it up with the commish.

What you characterize as "favortism" (I'm not gonna quibble about that recurring theme of yours) only puts the Packers on a footing roughly equal to the Vikings. The rest of whatever financial success they have achieved as a franchise can also be assigned to the fans and tax payers support of that franchise. For example, Forbes has the "cost per fan" in GB at 277. ea, taking into account the relative market size of ea. franchise. Go to the Forbes 2010 NFL article and compare that to your own team, on a cost per fan basis, or for that matter, ANY other team. That is an undeniable factor also.

Let's see...my "recurring theme"? What would YOU call it?

Only Green Bay can have a publicly held franchise.

Only Green Bay can engage in post-TD celebrations taht involve entering the stands (The Lameblow leap).

In the NFL, all of the franchises are SUPPOSED to follow the same rules. They're SUPPOSED to have rules enforced equally amongst them.

But that doesn't happen. There are at LEAST two occassions in which Green Bay is EXEMPTED from a rule which affects EVERYONE else.

If that's not favoritism, what is it?

And PLEASE explain to me how exempting Green Bay from those two rules places them on - in your words - "a footing roughly equal to the Vikings".

Would they suddenly become an inferior franchise if the Lameblow leap was outlawed like all of the other celebrations (Such as Jared Allen's "calf-rope")?

Caine

You W I N !

You are correct. This is how it is seen. We apologize. You are so smart.

We can only one day aspire to your awesomeness and intellect.

(therapy available upon request)

Cannot believe you get support from your fellow Vikes fans, but if so, it represents the tragedy of your arrogance, both your team and you personally.... But again, you have this pegged over me, as always.

as a small aside, you are just as done as always, we won 13, you have nothing and no prospects going forward, contrasted with us being loaded, but, as you have repeated, you got us.... Dayum, you bahsthads, lol lol lol

Did I mention that from now on (without Brett) when you all collectively whine it will now be amongst yourselves?

No?


Well then, consider that EAT JOB too,lol...

13th World Championship vs. Vikes one. See how nice I am? lol Since I did so, plan for foster to be a complete dick like you. The rest of the purple world would be wise to tremble at that concept, lol

Caine
02-19-2011, 03:10 PM
The Green Bay rule (http://frmilovan.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/the-green-bay-rule/)

It doesn't answer your question, but the article asks it better...or perhaps, a little more politely.



Green Bay stands as a living, breathing, and, for the owners, frightening example, that pro sports can aid our cities in tough economic times, not drain them of scarce public resources.



Take it up with the commish.

What you characterize as "favortism" (I'm not gonna quibble about that recurring theme of yours) only puts the Packers on a footing roughly equal to the Vikings. The rest of whatever financial success they have achieved as a franchise can also be assigned to the fans and tax payers support of that franchise. For example, Forbes has the "cost per fan" in GB at 277. ea, taking into account the relative market size of ea. franchise. Go to the Forbes 2010 NFL article and compare that to your own team, on a cost per fan basis, or for that matter, ANY other team. That is an undeniable factor also.

Let's see...my "recurring theme"? What would YOU call it?

Only Green Bay can have a publicly held franchise.

Only Green Bay can engage in post-TD celebrations taht involve entering the stands (The Lameblow leap).

In the NFL, all of the franchises are SUPPOSED to follow the same rules. They're SUPPOSED to have rules enforced equally amongst them.

But that doesn't happen. There are at LEAST two occassions in which Green Bay is EXEMPTED from a rule which affects EVERYONE else.

If that's not favoritism, what is it?

And PLEASE explain to me how exempting Green Bay from those two rules places them on - in your words - "a footing roughly equal to the Vikings".

Would they suddenly become an inferior franchise if the Lameblow leap was outlawed like all of the other celebrations (Such as Jared Allen's "calf-rope")?

Caine

You W I N !

You are correct. This is how it is seen. We apologize. You are so smart.

We can only one day aspire to your awesomeness and intellect.

(therapy available upon request)

Cannot believe you get support from your fellow Vikes fans, but if so, it represents the tragedy of your arrogance, both your team and you personally.... But again, you have this pegged over me, as always.

as a small aside, you are just as done as always, we won 13, you have nothing and no prospects going forward, contrasted with us being loaded, but, as you have repeated, you got us.... Dayum, you bahsthads, lol lol lol

Did I mention that from now on (without Brett) when you all collectively whine it will now be amongst yourselves?

No?


Well then, consider that EAT JOB too,lol...

13th World Championship vs. Vikes one. See how nice I am? lol Since I did so, plan for foster to be a complete dick like you. The rest of the purple world would be wise to tremble at that concept, lol

Let's see...you make a statement I don't agree with, I provide a factual basis for my disagreement, you get your knickers in a knot, and "I'M" the asshole?

And now, once again, you wish to trumpet your "13 Championships"? I think "Whoop-deee-doo" is the most appropriate response. I've already illustrated - again, in a completely FACTUAL fashion - why most of those "Championships" mean absolutely nothing to me as a Viking fan...my franchise wasn't even in existence.

Further, I site fact after fact to support every position I take, and you call it ARROGANCE? I disagree. I simply believe it's absolutely pointless to agree with something that is "wrong".

Then you seek to take a parting shot at the state of the Vikings? ROFL. Read a few more of OUR posts and you'll see that we're already well aware of how precarious our teams position is. But, speaking of arrogance, I love how you flaunt your teams alleged "loaded" status. Be careful, the Karma gods are a fickle lot...

Plus, every ARGUEMENTATIVE point in this running train wreck was introduced by YOU.

I merely stated - factually - that George Halas has saved the Packers franchise several times. You, it seems, couldn't handle that information, and went off the deep end.

I never said Halas gave them money (And I have found no evidence to support that idea, although I have HEARD it...but that doesn't make it FACT, so it didn't get brought in) - YOU brought that in.

I didn't care if Halas helped the Vikings get THEIR franchise. That wasn't the POINT. YOU brought that up to try and mitigate the other.

I mentioned Packer favoritism, then asked you what else it should be called - since it ONLY affects the Packers, and no one else is ALLOWED to do it - and you chose to instead respond with insults.

And, finally, I never let loose with personal attacks. You did. Go back through this entire train wreck and find one personal attack I made towards you? The closest you'll get is my R.I.F. comment (Reading is fundamental) when you misinterpreted a quote. But YOUR posts contain a variety of personal insults directed at me...alleging that my information is "BS", that I need therapy, and that my information is "creative" (implying "untrue").

And yet, every single element I posted here was FACT.

Every single one.

And you dodged them all or tried to mitigate them all by throwing mud at ME, at the other members of PPO, and at the Vikings.

And THAT is why I think that most Packer fans aren't worth the TP I used to wipe my ass today. You all LOVE to gloat about how great your franchise has been, but any time something less than perfect is mentioned - or any time a fact you don't like comes up - all you can do is fall back to personal attacks and blather on about how many Superbowls/Championships your team has.

By way of comparison, ask any Viking fan about how dire our current team position is...we'll talk candidly about it. Ask us about the Love Boat? Ask us about losing to New Orleans? Ask us about the '98 NFCC game? Ask us about Mike Tice scalping tickets? Ask us about ANYTHING, and we'll candidly answer you.

Yeah...right...WE'RE the arrogant bunch. WE'RE the assholes. WE traveled to YOUR website to insult YOUR team.

Oh...wait....no. That was you.

In closing, if this is how you chose to play, game on. But YOU chose this...not me.

Caine

Purple Floyd
02-19-2011, 03:14 PM
It's worth pointing out that the only reason Green Bay was publicly traded is because they couldn't maintain financial viability back in the early years. In fact, it's not widely known but George Halas saved the Green Bay franchise on more than one occasion.


...probably so he'd have 2 guaranteed wins per year...


It's worth noting also that despite the alleged "success" of the Packers being publicly traded, no other franchise is ALLOWED to do so. Why is that? If it works so well there, why not allow other franchises to mirror that "success story"?

Just another pro-Green Bay NFL contradiction to throw into the "Why I hate the Packers" bucket...


...like I needed more reasons...

Caine


The Green Bay Packers loaned Halas $1500 in 1932 in order to save the Chicago Bears franchise. He borrowed money from his mother, his mother-in-law, and the Pack.

The Bears have never loaned the Packers a dime.

Halas was instrumental in public relations in 1956 to convince Packer fans that it was wise to support their form of ownership. That is the FORM of his assistance... not anything financial. That is the "saved".

Maybe it's the soft spot he held because without that loan way back in '32, the Bears would have folded right then and there.

He did the same thing (public relations) in 1922 with the rest of the league as regards the Packers, having to do with their use of college football players. The league was going to ban the Pack, but he was guilty of the exact same rule infraction, including getting one of the players from the Pack, so in order to enforce prohibitions against the GB franchise, they would have had to do the same to the Bears.

Those are your "saved" the Packers, and I guess to Norse mythologists, they are totally legit.

Or maybe that one Bears fan buddy you have (Caine) that told you the Bears didn't try in week 17, thereby making that a fact (to you), lol

Now, for some real facts. The team that Halas helped the most?

YOURS.

He was THE driving force for the NFL bringing a franchise to Minneapolis.

I would favor mythology over revision I suppose.
Fact is, The Chicago Cardinals and N.Y. Giants played a regular season NFL game at the Metrodome in 1959. Over 26000 fans showed up.

Max Winter had been attemting to get an NFL team in the twin cities for a few years without success.

The decision was made to start a new football league. And there was a meeting in Mpls. by those interested.

In addition, the Chicago Cardinals were considering moving to the twin cities.

The NFL was concerened about a competing league and decided to grant teams to Minnesota and Dallas.

As Paul Harvey used to say, that's the rest of the story.

Given your expertese in early NFL history, we probably should allow you brag about those 6 championships your team won before World War II!

Holy cow, I didn't even think the Metrodome was around in 1959. I guess it is due to be replaced.

Purple Floyd
02-19-2011, 03:29 PM
I added after you quoted.

I have "theorized" somewhat in "my" CBA thread about "opening the books", especially as it relates in modern times to such things as tax ramifications and loopholes for PSL revenues, etc. While that is in no way responsible for the original "Green Bay rule", it is POSSIBLE that it would be a potential obstacle for even exploring the possibility of a corporate owned team now or in the future.

I have to go play Poker now, got my SB champion hat, and since my opponents are all Steeler fans (I'm in PA) I might put them all "on tilt" before a single hand is played. B)

the reason they won't open their books is because the host cities would see how badly they are getting fleeced by subsidizing the teams and because they use the teams as a way to hide assets and disburse losses.

dfosterf
02-19-2011, 04:24 PM
The Green Bay rule (http://frmilovan.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/the-green-bay-rule/)

It doesn't answer your question, but the article asks it better...or perhaps, a little more politely.



Green Bay stands as a living, breathing, and, for the owners, frightening example, that pro sports can aid our cities in tough economic times, not drain them of scarce public resources.



Take it up with the commish.

What you characterize as "favortism" (I'm not gonna quibble about that recurring theme of yours) only puts the Packers on a footing roughly equal to the Vikings. The rest of whatever financial success they have achieved as a franchise can also be assigned to the fans and tax payers support of that franchise. For example, Forbes has the "cost per fan" in GB at 277. ea, taking into account the relative market size of ea. franchise. Go to the Forbes 2010 NFL article and compare that to your own team, on a cost per fan basis, or for that matter, ANY other team. That is an undeniable factor also.

Let's see...my "recurring theme"? What would YOU call it?

Only Green Bay can have a publicly held franchise.

Only Green Bay can engage in post-TD celebrations taht involve entering the stands (The Lameblow leap).

In the NFL, all of the franchises are SUPPOSED to follow the same rules. They're SUPPOSED to have rules enforced equally amongst them.

But that doesn't happen. There are at LEAST two occassions in which Green Bay is EXEMPTED from a rule which affects EVERYONE else.

If that's not favoritism, what is it?

And PLEASE explain to me how exempting Green Bay from those two rules places them on - in your words - "a footing roughly equal to the Vikings".

Would they suddenly become an inferior franchise if the Lameblow leap was outlawed like all of the other celebrations (Such as Jared Allen's "calf-rope")?

Caine

You W I N !

You are correct. This is how it is seen. We apologize. You are so smart.

We can only one day aspire to your awesomeness and intellect.

(therapy available upon request)

Cannot believe you get support from your fellow Vikes fans, but if so, it represents the tragedy of your arrogance, both your team and you personally.... But again, you have this pegged over me, as always.

as a small aside, you are just as done as always, we won 13, you have nothing and no prospects going forward, contrasted with us being loaded, but, as you have repeated, you got us.... Dayum, you bahsthads, lol lol lol

Did I mention that from now on (without Brett) when you all collectively whine it will now be amongst yourselves?

No?


Well then, consider that EAT JOB too,lol...

13th World Championship vs. Vikes one. See how nice I am? lol Since I did so, plan for foster to be a complete dick like you. The rest of the purple world would be wise to tremble at that concept, lol

Let's see...you make a statement I don't agree with, I provide a factual basis for my disagreement, you get your knickers in a knot, and "I'M" the asshole?

And now, once again, you wish to trumpet your "13 Championships"? I think "Whoop-deee-doo" is the most appropriate response. I've already illustrated - again, in a completely FACTUAL fashion - why most of those "Championships" mean absolutely nothing to me as a Viking fan...my franchise wasn't even in existence.

Further, I site fact after fact to support every position I take, and you call it ARROGANCE? I disagree. I simply believe it's absolutely pointless to agree with something that is "wrong".

Then you seek to take a parting shot at the state of the Vikings? ROFL. Read a few more of OUR posts and you'll see that we're already well aware of how precarious our teams position is. But, speaking of arrogance, I love how you flaunt your teams alleged "loaded" status. Be careful, the Karma gods are a fickle lot...

Plus, every ARGUEMENTATIVE point in this running train wreck was introduced by YOU.

I merely stated - factually - that George Halas has saved the Packers franchise several times. You, it seems, couldn't handle that information, and went off the deep end.

I never said Halas gave them money (And I have found no evidence to support that idea, although I have HEARD it...but that doesn't make it FACT, so it didn't get brought in) - YOU brought that in.

I didn't care if Halas helped the Vikings get THEIR franchise. That wasn't the POINT. YOU brought that up to try and mitigate the other.

I mentioned Packer favoritism, then asked you what else it should be called - since it ONLY affects the Packers, and no one else is ALLOWED to do it - and you chose to instead respond with insults.

And, finally, I never let loose with personal attacks. You did. Go back through this entire train wreck and find one personal attack I made towards you? The closest you'll get is my R.I.F. comment (Reading is fundamental) when you misinterpreted a quote. But YOUR posts contain a variety of personal insults directed at me...alleging that my information is "BS", that I need therapy, and that my information is "creative" (implying "untrue").

And yet, every single element I posted here was FACT.

Every single one.

And you dodged them all or tried to mitigate them all by throwing mud at ME, at the other members of PPO, and at the Vikings.

And THAT is why I think that most Packer fans aren't worth the TP I used to wipe my ass today. You all LOVE to gloat about how great your franchise has been, but any time something less than perfect is mentioned - or any time a fact you don't like comes up - all you can do is fall back to personal attacks and blather on about how many Superbowls/Championships your team has.

By way of comparison, ask any Viking fan about how dire our current team position is...we'll talk candidly about it. Ask us about the Love Boat? Ask us about losing to New Orleans? Ask us about the '98 NFCC game? Ask us about Mike Tice scalping tickets? Ask us about ANYTHING, and we'll candidly answer you.

Yeah...right...WE'RE the arrogant bunch. WE'RE the assholes. WE traveled to YOUR website to insult YOUR team.

Oh...wait....no. That was you.

In closing, if this is how you chose to play, game on. But YOU chose this...not me.

Caine

You should hold a protest rally. Here's Roger Goodell's address:

National Football League
280 Park Ave
New York, NY 10017

Round trip bus fare from Milwaukee to New York is 238.48 I looked it up for you.

As to the personal attacks on you, I apologize. It was gin. Cheap gin, at that. You can blame me, but my wife bought it, so she is also responsible :P

Caine
02-19-2011, 04:45 PM
The Green Bay rule (http://frmilovan.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/the-green-bay-rule/)

It doesn't answer your question, but the article asks it better...or perhaps, a little more politely.



Green Bay stands as a living, breathing, and, for the owners, frightening example, that pro sports can aid our cities in tough economic times, not drain them of scarce public resources.



Take it up with the commish.

What you characterize as "favortism" (I'm not gonna quibble about that recurring theme of yours) only puts the Packers on a footing roughly equal to the Vikings. The rest of whatever financial success they have achieved as a franchise can also be assigned to the fans and tax payers support of that franchise. For example, Forbes has the "cost per fan" in GB at 277. ea, taking into account the relative market size of ea. franchise. Go to the Forbes 2010 NFL article and compare that to your own team, on a cost per fan basis, or for that matter, ANY other team. That is an undeniable factor also.

Let's see...my "recurring theme"? What would YOU call it?

Only Green Bay can have a publicly held franchise.

Only Green Bay can engage in post-TD celebrations taht involve entering the stands (The Lameblow leap).

In the NFL, all of the franchises are SUPPOSED to follow the same rules. They're SUPPOSED to have rules enforced equally amongst them.

But that doesn't happen. There are at LEAST two occassions in which Green Bay is EXEMPTED from a rule which affects EVERYONE else.

If that's not favoritism, what is it?

And PLEASE explain to me how exempting Green Bay from those two rules places them on - in your words - "a footing roughly equal to the Vikings".

Would they suddenly become an inferior franchise if the Lameblow leap was outlawed like all of the other celebrations (Such as Jared Allen's "calf-rope")?

Caine

You W I N !

You are correct. This is how it is seen. We apologize. You are so smart.

We can only one day aspire to your awesomeness and intellect.

(therapy available upon request)

Cannot believe you get support from your fellow Vikes fans, but if so, it represents the tragedy of your arrogance, both your team and you personally.... But again, you have this pegged over me, as always.

as a small aside, you are just as done as always, we won 13, you have nothing and no prospects going forward, contrasted with us being loaded, but, as you have repeated, you got us.... Dayum, you bahsthads, lol lol lol

Did I mention that from now on (without Brett) when you all collectively whine it will now be amongst yourselves?

No?


Well then, consider that EAT JOB too,lol...

13th World Championship vs. Vikes one. See how nice I am? lol Since I did so, plan for foster to be a complete dick like you. The rest of the purple world would be wise to tremble at that concept, lol

Let's see...you make a statement I don't agree with, I provide a factual basis for my disagreement, you get your knickers in a knot, and "I'M" the asshole?

And now, once again, you wish to trumpet your "13 Championships"? I think "Whoop-deee-doo" is the most appropriate response. I've already illustrated - again, in a completely FACTUAL fashion - why most of those "Championships" mean absolutely nothing to me as a Viking fan...my franchise wasn't even in existence.

Further, I site fact after fact to support every position I take, and you call it ARROGANCE? I disagree. I simply believe it's absolutely pointless to agree with something that is "wrong".

Then you seek to take a parting shot at the state of the Vikings? ROFL. Read a few more of OUR posts and you'll see that we're already well aware of how precarious our teams position is. But, speaking of arrogance, I love how you flaunt your teams alleged "loaded" status. Be careful, the Karma gods are a fickle lot...

Plus, every ARGUEMENTATIVE point in this running train wreck was introduced by YOU.

I merely stated - factually - that George Halas has saved the Packers franchise several times. You, it seems, couldn't handle that information, and went off the deep end.

I never said Halas gave them money (And I have found no evidence to support that idea, although I have HEARD it...but that doesn't make it FACT, so it didn't get brought in) - YOU brought that in.

I didn't care if Halas helped the Vikings get THEIR franchise. That wasn't the POINT. YOU brought that up to try and mitigate the other.

I mentioned Packer favoritism, then asked you what else it should be called - since it ONLY affects the Packers, and no one else is ALLOWED to do it - and you chose to instead respond with insults.

And, finally, I never let loose with personal attacks. You did. Go back through this entire train wreck and find one personal attack I made towards you? The closest you'll get is my R.I.F. comment (Reading is fundamental) when you misinterpreted a quote. But YOUR posts contain a variety of personal insults directed at me...alleging that my information is "BS", that I need therapy, and that my information is "creative" (implying "untrue").

And yet, every single element I posted here was FACT.

Every single one.

And you dodged them all or tried to mitigate them all by throwing mud at ME, at the other members of PPO, and at the Vikings.

And THAT is why I think that most Packer fans aren't worth the TP I used to wipe my ass today. You all LOVE to gloat about how great your franchise has been, but any time something less than perfect is mentioned - or any time a fact you don't like comes up - all you can do is fall back to personal attacks and blather on about how many Superbowls/Championships your team has.

By way of comparison, ask any Viking fan about how dire our current team position is...we'll talk candidly about it. Ask us about the Love Boat? Ask us about losing to New Orleans? Ask us about the '98 NFCC game? Ask us about Mike Tice scalping tickets? Ask us about ANYTHING, and we'll candidly answer you.

Yeah...right...WE'RE the arrogant bunch. WE'RE the assholes. WE traveled to YOUR website to insult YOUR team.

Oh...wait....no. That was you.

In closing, if this is how you chose to play, game on. But YOU chose this...not me.

Caine

You should hold a protest rally. Here's Roger Goodell's address:

National Football League
280 Park Ave
New York, NY 10017

As to the personal attacks on you, I apologize. It was gin. Cheap gin, at that. You can blame me, but my wife bought it, so she is also responsible :P

This was never about seeking to right a perceived wrong...this was about calling a spade a spade. I don't mind engaging in the debate, but let's be honest about it. Fact is, what is Goodell going to do? Revoke the Packer's exclusive deal? I hardly think so.

And while I WOULD like to see a reversal of the Lambeau Leap exemption - or a revised definition of excessive celebration - Rodger has already shown himself to be somewhat hypocritical in other dealings...I don't see him suddenly bitten by the "fair for one, fair for all" bug.

All hard liquor is a killer. There's a Marine Corps marching cadence song that essentially ends with the line, "Instead of bourbon, stick to beer". I took that to heart as a 17 year old recruit.

Finally...of COURSE your wife is to blame. That's a given. Adam didn't say, "Hey,. Eve....grab me an apple, will ya?" He got suckered into it. And women have spent every moment since trying to figure out how to blame US for everything else...

Caine

Reverend Conehead
02-21-2011, 07:38 AM
Wow, I didn't expect my post to stir up so much controversy. It's true that just making it legal for more teams to be publicly owned would not compel Wilf to sell the team. However, I still think they should legalize that. In the event that he did choose to sell, the citizens of Minnesota would at least have the chance to buy. Legalizing public ownership would also allow the same possibility for other teams and for expansion ones. What if public ownership had been legal back in 2005 when the team was sold?

In any event, I hope your team doesn't end up moving away. The Los Angeles Vikings would be ultra-lame! What the @#$% does sunny LA have to do with Nordic Vikings? If there's to be a team in LA, it should be done via expansion.

Reverend Conehead
02-21-2011, 07:39 AM
And, btw, just how do you create a signature on this board?

Purple Floyd
02-21-2011, 02:44 PM
What the @#$% does sunny LA have to do with Nordic Vikings?

Probably about as much as LA has to do with Lakes and the Lakers or Dallas has to do with North Stars.Sh!t happens and some times teams move to seek better revenue streams. I am pretty sure the Lakers have never regretted moving to LA from Minneapolis and if they had stayed here I have no reason to believe they could have had the same impact on the league that they have out there.

jargomcfargo
02-21-2011, 04:09 PM
It's worth pointing out that the only reason Green Bay was publicly traded is because they couldn't maintain financial viability back in the early years. In fact, it's not widely known but George Halas saved the Green Bay franchise on more than one occasion.


...probably so he'd have 2 guaranteed wins per year...


It's worth noting also that despite the alleged "success" of the Packers being publicly traded, no other franchise is ALLOWED to do so. Why is that? If it works so well there, why not allow other franchises to mirror that "success story"?

Just another pro-Green Bay NFL contradiction to throw into the "Why I hate the Packers" bucket...


...like I needed more reasons...

Caine


The Green Bay Packers loaned Halas $1500 in 1932 in order to save the Chicago Bears franchise. He borrowed money from his mother, his mother-in-law, and the Pack.

The Bears have never loaned the Packers a dime.

Halas was instrumental in public relations in 1956 to convince Packer fans that it was wise to support their form of ownership. That is the FORM of his assistance... not anything financial. That is the "saved".

Maybe it's the soft spot he held because without that loan way back in '32, the Bears would have folded right then and there.

He did the same thing (public relations) in 1922 with the rest of the league as regards the Packers, having to do with their use of college football players. The league was going to ban the Pack, but he was guilty of the exact same rule infraction, including getting one of the players from the Pack, so in order to enforce prohibitions against the GB franchise, they would have had to do the same to the Bears.

Those are your "saved" the Packers, and I guess to Norse mythologists, they are totally legit.

Or maybe that one Bears fan buddy you have (Caine) that told you the Bears didn't try in week 17, thereby making that a fact (to you), lol

Now, for some real facts. The team that Halas helped the most?

YOURS.

He was THE driving force for the NFL bringing a franchise to Minneapolis.

I would favor mythology over revision I suppose.
Fact is, The Chicago Cardinals and N.Y. Giants played a regular season NFL game at the Metrodome in 1959. Over 26000 fans showed up.

Max Winter had been attemting to get an NFL team in the twin cities for a few years without success.

The decision was made to start a new football league. And there was a meeting in Mpls. by those interested.

In addition, the Chicago Cardinals were considering moving to the twin cities.

The NFL was concerened about a competing league and decided to grant teams to Minnesota and Dallas.

As Paul Harvey used to say, that's the rest of the story.

Given your expertese in early NFL history, we probably should allow you brag about those 6 championships your team won before World War II!

Holy cow, I didn't even think the Metrodome was around in 1959. I guess it is due to be replaced.

OK. Metropolitan stadium. Guess you showed me!

Purple Floyd
02-21-2011, 04:31 PM
It's worth pointing out that the only reason Green Bay was publicly traded is because they couldn't maintain financial viability back in the early years. In fact, it's not widely known but George Halas saved the Green Bay franchise on more than one occasion.


...probably so he'd have 2 guaranteed wins per year...


It's worth noting also that despite the alleged "success" of the Packers being publicly traded, no other franchise is ALLOWED to do so. Why is that? If it works so well there, why not allow other franchises to mirror that "success story"?

Just another pro-Green Bay NFL contradiction to throw into the "Why I hate the Packers" bucket...


...like I needed more reasons...

Caine


The Green Bay Packers loaned Halas $1500 in 1932 in order to save the Chicago Bears franchise. He borrowed money from his mother, his mother-in-law, and the Pack.

The Bears have never loaned the Packers a dime.

Halas was instrumental in public relations in 1956 to convince Packer fans that it was wise to support their form of ownership. That is the FORM of his assistance... not anything financial. That is the "saved".

Maybe it's the soft spot he held because without that loan way back in '32, the Bears would have folded right then and there.

He did the same thing (public relations) in 1922 with the rest of the league as regards the Packers, having to do with their use of college football players. The league was going to ban the Pack, but he was guilty of the exact same rule infraction, including getting one of the players from the Pack, so in order to enforce prohibitions against the GB franchise, they would have had to do the same to the Bears.

Those are your "saved" the Packers, and I guess to Norse mythologists, they are totally legit.

Or maybe that one Bears fan buddy you have (Caine) that told you the Bears didn't try in week 17, thereby making that a fact (to you), lol

Now, for some real facts. The team that Halas helped the most?

YOURS.

He was THE driving force for the NFL bringing a franchise to Minneapolis.

I would favor mythology over revision I suppose.
Fact is, The Chicago Cardinals and N.Y. Giants played a regular season NFL game at the Metrodome in 1959. Over 26000 fans showed up.

Max Winter had been attemting to get an NFL team in the twin cities for a few years without success.

The decision was made to start a new football league. And there was a meeting in Mpls. by those interested.

In addition, the Chicago Cardinals were considering moving to the twin cities.

The NFL was concerened about a competing league and decided to grant teams to Minnesota and Dallas.

As Paul Harvey used to say, that's the rest of the story.

Given your expertese in early NFL history, we probably should allow you brag about those 6 championships your team won before World War II!

Holy cow, I didn't even think the Metrodome was around in 1959. I guess it is due to be replaced.

OK. Metropolitan stadium. Guess you showed me!
:woohoo: :evil: :whistle: