I got my first ballot as a shareholder yesterday. I'm tempted to just not vote, since I don't know anything about the Board of Directors or who they are. But just in case, I'll ask: Is there someone we should be trying to boot out of there?
My guess is you are in the same boat as 90% or more of those who became owners in the last three stock sales. Uninformed voting is worse than not voting at all.I got my first ballot as a shareholder yesterday. I'm tempted to just not vote, since I don't know anything about the Board of Directors or who they are. But just in case, I'll ask: Is there someone we should be trying to boot out of there?
That's the way I feel about elections. But they seem to push this idea that everyone has the civic obligation to vote, even if they haven't a clue what is going on. I've never agreed with that.My guess is you are in the same boat as 90% or more of those who became owners in the last three stock sales. Uninformed voting is worse than not voting at all.
Can't the board replace Murphy though? If that was what someone wanted to do.In the end I'm saying that it really doesn't matter either way if you vote or not, but for the Packers specifically I don't think that uniformed voting makes things any better or worse. The vote outcome and Board composition has no bearing on what you see each Sunday.
^^^ This. Murph's job is the Green Bay Packers. In addition to the football operation there is the business side. Without a rich owner it becomes more difficult to keep up with the rising salary guarantees, of which there must be monies placed in escrow, enough to cover, IIRC. The way the Pack are developing the area around the stadium will give us the cash flow to keep up with the Jones's.Do they have the power? Yes.
However, the Packers continue to stay very financially healthy under leadership the past few decades. Winning will do that, but they also developed a culture and brand that can endure some losing seasons.
Well let's be realistic about the Packers' board. It does not function like it used to back in the day. The Packers president really runs the show - Mark Murphy these days. Changing who is on the board of directors won't really affect any change with how the team is run. On-field performance is the real driver, although fan sentiment if strong enough could force a change in management. Being on the board these days is a status symbol and just a necessary by-product of having a publicly held team.
It certainly can, if the wrong people get elected to the board.In the end I'm saying that it really doesn't matter either way if you vote or not, but for the Packers specifically I don't think that uniformed voting makes things any better or worse. The vote outcome and Board composition has no bearing on what you see each Sunday.
Of course it could but I think you would have to have several wrong people for it to make much of a difference. I don't know who is on the board but I'm guessing its more of a status symbol for the vast majority of them and I doubt they want to F it up. Its not like they can make decisions that will make them a lot of money so I don't really see the incentive for the wrong people to even run for a position. I doubt you'd have a bunch of closet viking fans conspiring to bring the organization down from the inside.It certainly can, if the wrong people get elected to the board.
Spot on. Early on it was friends of Curly's and local businessmen that wanted to support the team, akin to the local bar sponsoring jerseys for a local beer league softball team. More and more it became local business leaders and former players that had a vested interest in keeping the team strong. Now they are mostly current and former CEOs from Wisconsin companies.Yes, most of those nominated are successful business leaders from throughout the state or former players.
Not sure how high your expectations are, we are 39-10 since he had everyone report to him. Perhaps he is able to help facilitate communication between coach and GM to make sure everyone is on the same page, and he seeing the total picture, not just that of which he is in control of, as a coach or GM could possibly do.First of all I believe the general manager should be in charge of all football decisions. In addition I don't believe Murphy is any good at it.
Yes. RSVP. That helps them plan ahead. As for voting, why not go over the candidate list and do a little research. You might find it interesting as to who has been tapped to be part of the larger group. It's an amazing cross section of people.Okay, so I feel no need to vote. Should I RSVP regarding attendance, or will they just assume I'm not coming?
I posted somewhere around here a few months back the Packers aren't the only team with this structure. Some currently successful teams have the traditional coach reports to GM and other currently successful teams have the coach and GM each report to some other exec or the owner. The exec usually has some title like head of football operations. Some GMs have that title also if the coach reports to them.I shared CaptainWIMM's sentiment about the power structure when it was first announced. However, like Packer Fan in SD perfectly stated you can't argue the results. Taking it further, I am not aware of any internal power struggles that have impacted the team or organizational dynamics. Buck the traditional methods and you will get one of two outcomes: 1) failure and everyone calling you a moron; or 2) success and everyone begrudgingly calling you smart. I can respect someone that forges their own path and makes it work. It's organizational innovation.