Green Bay Packers' News - 2024

[APB]

I think April 1st came early this year...

C'mon guys, that is the same parody account that hooked you guys like a week ago.

Hence my comment that preceded the tweet...

[Scott4Pack]

Cool.

I love the G. But I do think our uniforms are one of the most traditional around. Something with a little more edge would be great.

[Acrobat]

I'm actually disappointed. I would love a uniform refresh. I've never really been all about the whole "Tradition" thing. You can celebrate tradition but still modernize your look.

[Half Empty]

Such as?

[go pak go]

Absolutely love our uniforms. They are gorgeous.

But I would LOVE an altnernate. The obvious alternate is yellow jerseys. Would need to change the pants so it's not color rush "all yellow" but would very much support an alternate jersey to be worn once per year.

[go pak go]

image.png (900.85 KiB) Viewed 759 times

[Acrobat]

Such as?

I'd be good with something similar to what they have now, but maybe updating the helmet to what the G covers the entire side of the helmet, kind of like what the Rams to. And then make their primary uniform their current alternate one with the gold letters numbers and green pants.

Then you could have some fun with alternates. Gold Jersey, Green Pants

Away would be White with Green Pants.

As you can tell, I'm sick of the gold pants. Maybe update the numbers to a font that's a little more modern too.

[Yoop]

image.png

Boy oh boy, Aaron Rodgers sure makes those uni's look good

we should use those once a season in remembrance of the great one Kidding, but they are sharp

[CWIMM]

I didn't even know the Packers didn't own Lambeau field until 2 days ago. I always thought they did. That's why it was a big deal back in the 90's when they asked for that half cent county sales tax to help fund a much needed remodel. or is it just a lease for the land it sits on? anybody have specifics on the arrangement? I'm clueless it seems

You can find a document including a summary of the team's lease for Lambeau Field at chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://law.marquette.edu/assets/sports ... en-bay.pdf

According to the Packers they paid the city a total of $1.16 million for the use of the stadium ($986K rent and another $171K administrative fee).

[musclestang]

Thanks for digging that up, I learned something

[go pak go]

I didn't even know the Packers didn't own Lambeau field until 2 days ago. I always thought they did. That's why it was a big deal back in the 90's when they asked for that half cent county sales tax to help fund a much needed remodel. or is it just a lease for the land it sits on? anybody have specifics on the arrangement? I'm clueless it seems

You can find a document including a summary of the team's lease for Lambeau Field at chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://law.marquette.edu/assets/sports ... en-bay.pdf

According to the Packers they paid the city a total of $1.16 million for the use of the stadium ($986K rent and another $171K administrative fee).

that is so, so cheap.

Oh my gawd I am so envious. I know they have a lot of leasehold improvements the Packers fund but holy crap that is SO, SO cheap. There is no way that is right.

[Yoop]

according to that article all we pay annual is this

RENT:
Commencing on January 1, 2001, and continuing thereafter during the Term, the Team shall pay
rent to the City in the amount of $500,000 per year, payable on or before December 15th of each
year during the Initial Term.

the intitial term is 30 years, 2031.

these other figures where not even mentioned

[go pak go]

Why there has to be more to this "rent thing" is because we know the Packers want to make a new lease with the 2025 draft coming up.

How much more can you negotiate than effectively "free" for a freaking stadium rental?

$20 million manufacturing facililities earn more rent than $1MM per year. And yet the Packers are paying $500k to $1MM on a $Billion+ stadium. Something ain't adding up.

[Madcity_matt]

I agree that it seems like a really cheap lease. I assume the Packers want to secure a continuation on terms that look more like the current, and the city wants a bunch more.

Not really worrying about it, both sides set their initial offers and now they will work to find something in between. Pretty routine in business transactions.

[Pckfn23]

I agree that it seems like a really cheap lease. I assume the Packers want to secure a continuation on terms that look more like the current, and the city wants a bunch more.

From what we know the team approached the city to renegotiate so that assumption doesn't align.

[wallyuwl]

I agree that it seems like a really cheap lease. I assume the Packers want to secure a continuation on terms that look more like the current, and the city wants a bunch more.

From what we know the team approached the city to renegotiate so that assumption doesn't align.

Yeah. Seems like the team wants to invest $1.5 BILLION into the city-owned property that they lease, and as a result want to reduce their "rent" a little. The mayor is balking.

[musclestang]

Why there has to be more to this "rent thing" is because we know the Packers want to make a new lease with the 2025 draft coming up.

How much more can you negotiate than effectively "free" for a freaking stadium rental?

$20 million manufacturing facililities earn more rent than $1MM per year. And yet the Packers are paying $500k to $1MM on a $Billion+ stadium. Something ain't adding up.

those are often times a result of someone else owning the building and a company comes in and does business. I built it, paid for it, etc, and you pay to run your business out of it in return.

This is far different as far as I can tell. The Packers and the City had some sort of agreement. The Stadium District is the "landlord" but that wasn't created until 1999 from what I read. Lots of details I don't know, but they seem to be the one that fosters the "development" but the Packers pay for a lot or most of it, not sure what the city invests or has in the past. City Stadium was a long time ago.

I know when things get big enough they form other entities to do certain parts of the business for tax purposes and moving money. But as far as I can tell the City doesn't own the stadium and outside of the county tax that has ended, the Packers have paid their own way concerning the stadium +

I wonder if the Packers pay city taxes on their equipment like the rest of us. Pay state sales tax to buy it, then pay the local municipality for the right to use it in a business in their jurisdiction. I doubt they do, but if they do, I'd like to see that bill

[musclestang]

https://www.wpr.org/history/fascinating ... -was-built

some interesting history, but not many details on current arrangement

[go pak go]

Why there has to be more to this "rent thing" is because we know the Packers want to make a new lease with the 2025 draft coming up.

How much more can you negotiate than effectively "free" for a freaking stadium rental?

$20 million manufacturing facililities earn more rent than $1MM per year. And yet the Packers are paying $500k to $1MM on a $Billion+ stadium. Something ain't adding up.

those are often times a result of someone else owning the building and a company comes in and does business. I built it, paid for it, etc, and you pay to run your business out of it in return.

This is far different as far as I can tell. The Packers and the City had some sort of agreement. The Stadium District is the "landlord" but that wasn't created until 1999 from what I read. Lots of details I don't know, but they seem to be the one that fosters the "development" but the Packers pay for a lot or most of it, not sure what the city invests or has in the past. City Stadium was a long time ago.

I know when things get big enough they form other entities to do certain parts of the business for tax purposes and moving money. But as far as I can tell the City doesn't own the stadium and outside of the county tax that has ended, the Packers have paid their own way concerning the stadium +

I wonder if the Packers pay city taxes on their equipment like the rest of us. Pay state sales tax to buy it, then pay the local municipality for the right to use it in a business in their jurisdiction. I doubt they do, but if they do, I'd like to see that bill

No the situation I stated the company occupying the building usually pays for the leashold improvements otherwise the rent would be way, way, way higher. $1 million rent on a $1 billion asset is insanely cheap no matter how you slice it.

The Packers is a non profit entity which usually lends to exemption of sales and income taxes.

[musclestang]

Why there has to be more to this "rent thing" is because we know the Packers want to make a new lease with the 2025 draft coming up.

How much more can you negotiate than effectively "free" for a freaking stadium rental?

$20 million manufacturing facililities earn more rent than $1MM per year. And yet the Packers are paying $500k to $1MM on a $Billion+ stadium. Something ain't adding up.

those are often times a result of someone else owning the building and a company comes in and does business. I built it, paid for it, etc, and you pay to run your business out of it in return.

This is far different as far as I can tell. The Packers and the City had some sort of agreement. The Stadium District is the "landlord" but that wasn't created until 1999 from what I read. Lots of details I don't know, but they seem to be the one that fosters the "development" but the Packers pay for a lot or most of it, not sure what the city invests or has in the past. City Stadium was a long time ago.

I know when things get big enough they form other entities to do certain parts of the business for tax purposes and moving money. But as far as I can tell the City doesn't own the stadium and outside of the county tax that has ended, the Packers have paid their own way concerning the stadium +

I wonder if the Packers pay city taxes on their equipment like the rest of us. Pay state sales tax to buy it, then pay the local municipality for the right to use it in a business in their jurisdiction. I doubt they do, but if they do, I'd like to see that bill

No the situation I stated the company occupying the building usually pays for the leashold improvements otherwise the rent would be way, way, way higher. $1 million rent on a $1 billion asset is insanely cheap no matter how you slice it.

The Packers is a non profit entity which usually lends to exemption of sales and income taxes.

Of the city does in fact own the stadium, which I’m not sure they do. I found another article about getting rid of the stadium district and it mentioned they lease the land from the city, but not sure if that’s fact or a journalists interpretation.

Regardless, it is a very unique situation. And while some. Buildouts, improvements, maintenance etc are written into leases I think the Packers bring more to their “landlord” than your typical business.

Even the tax put in the county brought more money to the city than the Packers cost. Every day the Packers exist there, they’re bringing money to their landlords just by existing from people from everywhere. The landlord isn’t just getting “rent”. It’s unique to say the least