Cubs Fan Ownership

[FergieJ31]

[Mods: pls merge with existing Cubs Sale thread if you deem appropriate]

 

Didn't see this posted anywhere:

 

http://www.suntimes.com/business/493996,CST-FIN-cubs02.article

 

Eric Majeski wants Cubs fans to step up to the plate and "put their money where their love is."

 

Majeski is a business owner and onetime trader in stocks and options here who is organizing a fan-based effort to buy the Chicago Cubs. His goal is to have the team owned by the masses, just like the Green Bay Packers.

 

Their website just came online: http://www.4fanssake.com/

[Bixby]

I thought this was a really stupid idea until I clicked the link and actually read about the plans. It sounds like a great idea but probably a pipe dream.

[Alfonso Soriano]

Cuban FTW

These guys FTL

[The Voice of Reason]

Cub fans owning the Cubs will become a reality sometime between when the team acquires Cabrera and Santana and signs ARod.

[Twiggy]

Not a good idea

[RedIvyCub]

[Mods: pls merge with existing Cubs Sale thread if you deem appropriate]

 

Didn't see this posted anywhere:

 

http://www.suntimes.com/business/493996,CST-FIN-cubs02.article

 

Eric Majeski wants Cubs fans to step up to the plate and "put their money where their love is."

 

Majeski is a business owner and onetime trader in stocks and options here who is organizing a fan-based effort to buy the Chicago Cubs. His goal is to have the team owned by the masses, just like the Green Bay Packers.

 

Their website just came online: http://www.4fanssake.com/

 

Eric Majewski is forgetting the MOST important thing in all of this...MLB owners would never approve fan ownership of a club and especially not one of the original clubs in baseball. They would approve Mark Cuban first and that isn't happening either.

[Magnetic Curses]

i'd be for public ownership of all sporting franchises.

[Derwood]

i'd be for public ownership of all sporting franchises.

 

shocker

[TruffleShuffle]

cub fans owning the team = cool

 

cub fans running the team = uncool

[USSoccer]

Public ownership would be too unstable for MLB to ever approve it.

[BeerHere]

[Mods: pls merge with existing Cubs Sale thread if you deem appropriate]

 

Didn't see this posted anywhere:

 

http://www.suntimes.com/business/493996,CST-FIN-cubs02.article

 

Eric Majeski wants Cubs fans to step up to the plate and "put their money where their love is."

 

Majeski is a business owner and onetime trader in stocks and options here who is organizing a fan-based effort to buy the Chicago Cubs. His goal is to have the team owned by the masses, just like the Green Bay Packers.

 

Their website just came online: http://www.4fanssake.com/

 

 

I got eleven bucks

[ConstableRabbit]

i'd be for public ownership of all sporting franchises.

 

Would the cost of a ticket, beer, and hotdog be government-subsidized? :lol:

 

Reminds me of a homeless man on the El trying to get me to buy him a Cubs ticket because "man, no one thinks of the homeless Cubs fan...". I mean, I saw him doing it to a guy wearing a Sox hat a few weeks later, but still, one of the funniest homeless guilt-trips I've heard!

[Magnetic Curses]

i'd be for public ownership of all sporting franchises.

 

Would the cost of a ticket, beer, and hotdog be government-subsidized? :lol:

 

tickets would be, but as for the rest, the open market system would be employed. no exclusivity contracts, pure and open competition inside the ballpark. the beer would flow cheaply.

[ConstableRabbit]

i'd be for public ownership of all sporting franchises.

 

Would the cost of a ticket, beer, and hotdog be government-subsidized? :lol:

 

tickets would be, but as for the rest, the open market system would be employed. no exclusivity contracts, pure and open competition inside the ballpark. the beer would flow cheaply.

 

I do like the idea of having some more open-market style food and vending choices inside.

 

I mean, I disagree with the subsidized tickets for a few reasons, but I would like the idea of public ownership if it would result in guaranteed landmark status for Wrigley. I don't like the idea of some outsider (capitalist or not) coming in and tearing it down.

 

In a few ways, it is like a public park -- and could be run like a beach, where one has to pay to get in.

 

I wouldn't really want the government running payroll though... I think they waste far too much as it is! (Unless that would result in positive ineffieciency -- overpaying to get the best player available such as A-Rod)

[Magnetic Curses]

i'd be for public ownership of all sporting franchises.

 

Would the cost of a ticket, beer, and hotdog be government-subsidized? :lol:

 

tickets would be, but as for the rest, the open market system would be employed. no exclusivity contracts, pure and open competition inside the ballpark. the beer would flow cheaply.

 

I do like the idea of having some more open-market style food and vending choices inside.

 

I mean, I disagree with the subsidized tickets for a few reasons, but I would like the idea of public ownership if it would result in guaranteed landmark status for Wrigley. I don't like the idea of some outsider (capitalist or not) coming in and tearing it down.

 

In a few ways, it is like a public park -- and could be run like a beach, where one has to pay to get in.

 

I wouldn't really want the government running payroll though... I think they waste far too much as it is! (Unless that would result in positive ineffieciency -- overpaying to get the best player available such as A-Rod)

 

in order for the system to work, there would have to be a hard salary cap for each team, so the whole system would have to reworked, which is totally a pipe dream. the government wouldn't necessarily be charged with running a team, just overseeing the rules and regulations.

 

i think a system like this would be good for fan interest being increased in cities where it previously wasn't good. for wrigley, that's really not a problem, though. plus it would provide cheap, family friendly entertainment and a more personal attachment to local area sports teams.

 

unfortunately, none of this is possible in baseball at this point.

[ConstableRabbit]

i'd be for public ownership of all sporting franchises.

 

Would the cost of a ticket, beer, and hotdog be government-subsidized? :lol:

 

tickets would be, but as for the rest, the open market system would be employed. no exclusivity contracts, pure and open competition inside the ballpark. the beer would flow cheaply.

 

I do like the idea of having some more open-market style food and vending choices inside.

 

I mean, I disagree with the subsidized tickets for a few reasons, but I would like the idea of public ownership if it would result in guaranteed landmark status for Wrigley. I don't like the idea of some outsider (capitalist or not) coming in and tearing it down.

 

In a few ways, it is like a public park -- and could be run like a beach, where one has to pay to get in.

 

I wouldn't really want the government running payroll though... I think they waste far too much as it is! (Unless that would result in positive ineffieciency -- overpaying to get the best player available such as A-Rod)

 

in order for the system to work, there would have to be a hard salary cap for each team, so the whole system would have to reworked, which is totally a pipe dream. the government wouldn't necessarily be charged with running a team, just overseeing the rules and regulations.

 

i think a system like this would be good for fan interest being increased in cities where it previously wasn't good. for wrigley, that's really not a problem, though. plus it would provide cheap, family friendly entertainment and a more personal attachment to local area sports teams.

 

unfortunately, none of this is possible in baseball at this point.

 

So would all revenues be shared then?

[Magnetic Curses]

i'd be for public ownership of all sporting franchises.

 

Would the cost of a ticket, beer, and hotdog be government-subsidized? :lol:

 

tickets would be, but as for the rest, the open market system would be employed. no exclusivity contracts, pure and open competition inside the ballpark. the beer would flow cheaply.

 

I do like the idea of having some more open-market style food and vending choices inside.

 

I mean, I disagree with the subsidized tickets for a few reasons, but I would like the idea of public ownership if it would result in guaranteed landmark status for Wrigley. I don't like the idea of some outsider (capitalist or not) coming in and tearing it down.

 

In a few ways, it is like a public park -- and could be run like a beach, where one has to pay to get in.

 

I wouldn't really want the government running payroll though... I think they waste far too much as it is! (Unless that would result in positive ineffieciency -- overpaying to get the best player available such as A-Rod)

 

in order for the system to work, there would have to be a hard salary cap for each team, so the whole system would have to reworked, which is totally a pipe dream. the government wouldn't necessarily be charged with running a team, just overseeing the rules and regulations.

 

i think a system like this would be good for fan interest being increased in cities where it previously wasn't good. for wrigley, that's really not a problem, though. plus it would provide cheap, family friendly entertainment and a more personal attachment to local area sports teams.

 

unfortunately, none of this is possible in baseball at this point.

 

So would all revenues be shared then?

 

i would say no. local revenue would be retained by each particular city and would go back into the team itself. if a surplus, a tax return for all.

[ConstableRabbit]

i'd be for public ownership of all sporting franchises.

 

Would the cost of a ticket, beer, and hotdog be government-subsidized? :lol:

 

tickets would be, but as for the rest, the open market system would be employed. no exclusivity contracts, pure and open competition inside the ballpark. the beer would flow cheaply.

 

I do like the idea of having some more open-market style food and vending choices inside.

 

I mean, I disagree with the subsidized tickets for a few reasons, but I would like the idea of public ownership if it would result in guaranteed landmark status for Wrigley. I don't like the idea of some outsider (capitalist or not) coming in and tearing it down.

 

In a few ways, it is like a public park -- and could be run like a beach, where one has to pay to get in.

 

I wouldn't really want the government running payroll though... I think they waste far too much as it is! (Unless that would result in positive ineffieciency -- overpaying to get the best player available such as A-Rod)

 

in order for the system to work, there would have to be a hard salary cap for each team, so the whole system would have to reworked, which is totally a pipe dream. the government wouldn't necessarily be charged with running a team, just overseeing the rules and regulations.

 

i think a system like this would be good for fan interest being increased in cities where it previously wasn't good. for wrigley, that's really not a problem, though. plus it would provide cheap, family friendly entertainment and a more personal attachment to local area sports teams.

 

unfortunately, none of this is possible in baseball at this point.

 

So would all revenues be shared then?

 

i would say no. local revenue would be retained by each particular city and would go back into the team itself. if a surplus, a tax return for all.

 

Wouldn't that prose problems though for different cities across the country with different populations, tax rates, and mean and median incomes? The salary cap would probably have to adjust to the lowest tax revenue city or it would be a burden on the citizens, no?

 

Would there be problems when figuring Toronto into the mix?

[Magnetic Curses]

i'd be for public ownership of all sporting franchises.

 

Would the cost of a ticket, beer, and hotdog be government-subsidized? :lol:

 

tickets would be, but as for the rest, the open market system would be employed. no exclusivity contracts, pure and open competition inside the ballpark. the beer would flow cheaply.

 

I do like the idea of having some more open-market style food and vending choices inside.

 

I mean, I disagree with the subsidized tickets for a few reasons, but I would like the idea of public ownership if it would result in guaranteed landmark status for Wrigley. I don't like the idea of some outsider (capitalist or not) coming in and tearing it down.

 

In a few ways, it is like a public park -- and could be run like a beach, where one has to pay to get in.

 

I wouldn't really want the government running payroll though... I think they waste far too much as it is! (Unless that would result in positive ineffieciency -- overpaying to get the best player available such as A-Rod)

 

in order for the system to work, there would have to be a hard salary cap for each team, so the whole system would have to reworked, which is totally a pipe dream. the government wouldn't necessarily be charged with running a team, just overseeing the rules and regulations.

 

i think a system like this would be good for fan interest being increased in cities where it previously wasn't good. for wrigley, that's really not a problem, though. plus it would provide cheap, family friendly entertainment and a more personal attachment to local area sports teams.

 

unfortunately, none of this is possible in baseball at this point.

 

So would all revenues be shared then?

 

i would say no. local revenue would be retained by each particular city and would go back into the team itself. if a surplus, a tax return for all.

 

Wouldn't that prose problems though for different cities across the country with different populations, tax rates, and mean and median incomes? The salary cap would probably have to adjust to the lowest tax revenue city or it would be a burden on the citizens, no?

 

Would there be problems when figuring Toronto into the mix?

 

oh yeah, there'd be fluctuations and differences, but things are complicated as they are now.

[Bruce Miles]

And let's all remember one thing that trumps all: Major League Baseball has a unique exemption from antitrust laws in all areas except in their relationship with the players union. That means they can pretty much do whatever they want in approving or disapproving prospective owners. Edited August 2, 2007 by Bruce Miles

[RegulusBlue]

And let's all remember one thing that trumps all: Major League Baseball has a unique exemption from antitrust laws in all areas except in their relationship with the players union. That means they can pretty much whatever they want in approving or disapproving prospective owners.

 

I dislike Bud Selig and his Gestapo.

[seanimal]

And let's all remember one thing that trumps all: Major League Baseball has a unique exemption from antitrust laws in all areas except in their relationship with the players union. That means they can pretty much do whatever they want in approving or disapproving prospective owners.

 

That was exactly the point that I was going to make, but you beat me to it. The single greatest obstacle to fair competition when it concerns the MLB is the fact that they are a sanctioned monopoly. In theory it is in place to protect the integrity of the game and insure it's viability. In reality it probably hurts a lot of small market teams much in the way that revenue sharing does, in that bad owners aren't held accountable for their poor stewardship while at the same time able to still pull in a profit.

 

I say we introduce major league baseball to the invisible hand and let it pimp-slap some of these terrible ownership groups into either running the team in a responsible manner or forcing them to sell to someone who will.

[Shilzzz]

i'm pretty sure that, at least in part, this is how soccer teams are owned abroad. seems pretty successful for them.