Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Clay&#039;s Jock Strap" data-source="post: 271980" data-attributes="member: 1977"><p>Well - the Packers are a special case and the NFL knows it.  The fact that the Pack doesn't have an owner cuts both ways.  The Jerry Jones'/Dan Snyders of the world are primarily in it to make money.  But, because they have other business interests they also have the ability to fund their team at whatever level needed to win.  It takes money to make money.  The Packers lack of an owner means that all profit goes back into football operations but it also means that their survival depends solely on how well the team and league (so long as there is any revenue sharing) is doing.  Because GB doesn't have an owner to fall back on and because it is in the league's best interest that GB both survives and thrives, if ever there is a need for an influx of cash the league would likely allow the publicly owned team to seek more donated capital from the public.   Just the way it is.   But as was said before, it would take a major need, not just the desire to up their bankroll.</p></blockquote><p></p>

Total: 911 (members: 2, guests: 909)