Own a Piece of Paper Implying Stock That Has No True Value Yet Ceremoniously Says You Own a Piece of the Packers. Or Don't. What Do I Care.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Jeez. I never suspected this would cause such a response. I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the Packers every several years or so sell "souvenir stock" for lack of a better word.

That is the better word and the term the Packers should use to sell this.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Why? They tell you that is non voting common stock....many companies have this .The price fluxuates and if it goes up ....you make a profit...as with other stocks,you just have no voting rights,what's the problem?

This statement is a PERFECT example of why this is deceptive.

Its NOT a real stock:

It has ZERO value
It can never be sold or redemmed, only transferred to close realities if you die
It holds no value
There are no dividens or income payments attached to it of any kind
BUT you do get a "vote" (although who knows to what extent and for what matters)

The SEC should not allow this thing to be called a common stock.

[Giantone]

Ok, just saw you post #27 .....never heard of souvenir stock before

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Ok, just saw you post #27 .....never heard of souvenir stock before

Which is exactly why this "common stock" sale is not cool at all. Nobody's ever heard of that, so when you call it "common stock" it brings an entirely different preconceived notion.

The very fact that SS titled this thread "Own the Packers" shows how badly misconstrued this "common stock" is.

It is NOT ownership in the team and I humbly suggest that the Warpath change the thread title so as not to contribute to the confusion around this. The SEC has strict regulations around investments for a reason - it protects people from getting swindled. At best, you could call this very confusing, at worst it's a bait and switch.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Which is exactly why this "common stock" sale is not cool at all. Nobody's ever heard of that, so when you call it "common stock" it brings an entirely different preconceived notion.

The very fact that SS titled this thread "Own the Packers" shows how badly misconstrued this "common stock" is.

It is NOT ownership in the team and I humbly suggest that the Warpath change the thread title so as not to contribute to the confusion around this. The SEC has strict regulations around investments for a reason - it protects people from getting swindled. At best, you could call this very confusing, at worst it's a bait and switch.

If you're implying that I was misled or trying to mislead in my thread title...no.

But whatever, I'll change the thread title

[MTK]

ugh

big two thumbs down to the WP today

[skinsfaninok]

ROFL @ the new title

[Chico23231]

simply hilarious title...saw where Ditka picked up a share too, what the bears fan think bout that?

[v8-7]

It is merely a non tax deductible donation .

And yes it is misleading to call it "Stock"

Further, in addition to the 250/share, there is a $25 extra fee ..

From the prospectus:

"Common Stock does not provide shareholders with any opportunity to participate in the economic performance of the
Corporation because, among other things, no dividends or distributions upon liquidation can ever be paid to shareholders.
Also, as described in “Description of Capital Stock—Transfer Restrictions; Redemption,” the Corporation’s Bylaws drastically
limit the transferability of Common Stock, and the Corporation has a right of first refusal to repurchase Common
Stock at a price of $0.025 per share if any shareholder proposes to transfer his or her Common Stock to a third party.
As a result, it is virtually impossible for anyone to realize a profit on a purchase of Common Stock or even to recoup
the amount initially paid to acquire such Common Stock."

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

ugh

big two thumbs down to the WP today

For real.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

If you're implying that I was misled or trying to mislead in my thread title...no.

But whatever, I'll change the thread title

Not necessarily that you were misled, just that you misunderstood, by no fault of your own. Many people would misunderstand this, and it's not their fault, the Packers have made this extremely confusing.

I'd think accuracy of thread titles would be important to the mods. But what do I care.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Not necessarily that you were misled, just that you misunderstood, by no fault of your own. Many people would misunderstand this, and it's not their fault, the Packers have made this extremely confusing.

I'd think accuracy of thread titles would be important to the mods. But what do I care.

I knew exactly what it was. I didn't misunderstand what I might be buying at any time

I get that when it comes to anything related to financial matters, you're particularly sensitive so I apologize for my original headline. I only hope Mary Schapiro and Tim Geithner forgive me as well

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I knew exactly what it was. I didn't misunderstand what I might be buying at any time

I get that when it comes to anything related to financial matters, you're particularly sensitive so I apologize for my original headline. I only hope Mary Schapiro and Tim Geithner forgive me as well

I don't think you did understand, you titled the thread Own the Packers. The offering document states through numerous disclaimers in bold type, that it does not give you ownership per se.

It's not a big deal, I'm not upset at anyone here for it. I just don't see the need for the snark and sensitivity - I wouldn't want to perpetuate any misconceptions on this, which could be potentially harmful to someone who thought they were investing $250 when in reality they're just donating it.

More information on the matter.

Green Bay Packers offer team stock, sort of, to Cheesehead nation – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

[SmootSmack]

Sigh...

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

If you're implying that I was misled or trying to mislead in my thread title...no.

But whatever, I'll change the thread title

Damn shame it had to come to that.