Community Ownership or the lack of same and how to go forward

[saskbluefan]

If we are serious Bomber fans talking about serious subjects that actually mean something then this piece is far more relevant then what the Riders play by play guy is blogging about.  But there is no thread for this and maybe there should be.  What do you think of BArtley's A,B,C plan for fixing the way the club is run?

 

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/community-owned-puntthat-idea-220083901.html

 

 

 

 

There are people who believe in all sorts of fanciful things in Manitoba that unfortunately do not exist. You know, like Sasquatch, Manipogo, balanced provincial budgets and a community-owned Canadian Football League franchise.

 

Contrary to popular belief, the Winnipeg Blue Bombers are not a community-owned football club. What's officially known as the Winnipeg Football Club is a non-profit organization without any form of public ownership whatsoever.

 

Yet the myth persists that the Blue & Gold are somehow community-owned. The main culprit is the club itself, which gleefully perpetuates the fiction.

 

"As a community-owned team, we are responsible to our longtime and supportive fans," reads a misleading passage in the otherwise excellent history section of the official franchise website, www.bluebombers.com.

This simply isn't true. No public entity owns the club. The City of Winnipeg doesn't own the team. Neither does the province, Ottawa, a Crown corporation or any of the multitudes of quasi-non-governmental agencies -- "quangos," as the British gleefully call them -- that conduct the affairs of government without being subject to pesky governmental rules.

 

While the city and province did plunk down $190 million of the $200 million required to build Investors Group Field -- and only expect to recoup $160 million, plus interest, over several decades -- Main Street and Broadway don't own so much as the chinstrap on Max Hall's helmet.

 

Similarly, Bombers fans have nothing remotely resembling ownership of the Winnipeg Football Club. Yes, ticket buyers pay for the bulk of the club's expenses, but that doesn't translate into ownership. Being a customer does not make you an owner: No matter how many times you buy a Big Mac, you still don't own a piece of McDonald's.

 

So what is the Winnipeg Football Club? As governance expert Andrew Moreau pointed out in these pages a week ago, the club is a corporation without share capital. What that means is no individual owns any piece of the team, which is run by a board of directors.

 

In this way, the Winnipeg Football Club is no different than hundreds if not thousands of other non-profit organizations in Manitoba. Bombers fans have no more of an ownership stake in the football club than, say, Winnipeg Folk Festival patrons have in the annual summer shindig or Folklorama attendees have in the Winnipeg Folk Arts Council: Which is to say, no stake whatsoever.

 

There is such a thing as a community-owned football team. The NFL's Green Bay Packers, which operates in the smallest market in North American major professional sport, has sold stock to the public five times over the past 80 years.

 

No individual can own more than 200 Green Bay shares, which don't actually allow their holders to have any direct say in the way the Packers operates. But those shareholders do elect a board of directors, which in turn appoints an executive committee that actually runs the NFL club.

 

You would think Winnipeg would be eager to model itself after Green Bay, considering how this city wound up with its name. Winnipeg is named after Lake Winnipeg, which was accidentally handed the same name the French gave to an algae-covered section of Lake Michigan: Green Bay, which the Jesuits called "Baye des Puans." That translates into "Bay of Stinkards" in English and simply "Ouinipeg" in Algonquin. But I digress.

Instead, Regina would copy the Packers' model. The Saskatchewan Roughriders, which play in the CFL's smallest market, retooled their ownership model a decade ago to resemble that of the Green Bay NFL franchise. The Riders have sold shares three times since 2004, set a limit of 20 shares per person and are governed by an 11-member board of directors.

 

The Winnipeg Football Club has no shareholders. But the club has made a token effort to appoint one member of the public to the board. After accepting nominations from the public, the Bombers board will select a single person to sit within its midst. As Moreau pointed out, this isn't quite the same as actually allowing fans to elect someone.

 

Given the horrific recent performance of the Winnipeg Football Club, both on and off the field, fans can be justified in wondering whether it makes sense to run a professional sports franchise with an unaccountable board. It's also fair to consider whether the club would be better off with no board whatsoever.

 

Five years ago, this sort of talk was controversial. In 2008, many fans freaked out when lawyer-philanthropist-entrepreneur David Asper -- now vice-chairman of the Bombers board -- sought to purchase the club.

At the time, some fans were concerned about the spectre of privatization, not realizing the club is already a private entity, even if it does not exist to maximize a profit for any owner.

 

Today, many of those same fans might welcome a private owner. But there are few businesspeople insane enough to acquire a football club that's currently in the midst of paying off $95 million worth of stadium-construction debt. A deal to hand the Bombers over to a private owner would resemble the NHL's sale of the Phoenix Coyotes, which effectively involved paying an owner to buy the hockey team. But unlike in Glendale, Ariz., there is no sucker of a municipality in Manitoba to bankroll such a crazy plan.

 

In other words, don't expect True North Sports & Entertainment to suddenly skate into the Bombers picture, as much as many Winnipeg sports fans wish that would happen.

 

The best fans can and should demand: A) the elimination of the Bombers board's power to appoint its own members;  a transition to a transparent appointment process; and C) the transfer of power over all operations to an executive management group that will succeed the crisis-management efforts of interim CEO Wade Miller.

 

As my colleague Gary Lawless wrote on Saturday, anything less than wholesale change will result in fans giving up on the Bombers. Fans can accept losing -- heck, they've got used to it over the past 23 years -- but they must be given hope.

 

Start with the little stuff. Stop pretending a pro sports franchise is a "community-owned football club" and start running it like a business, not a club.

 

bartley.kives@freepress.mb.ca

[Floyd]

Yeah, I had noticed this a while ago... and laughed when I read Brodbeck's rant about 'community-owned' versus private...  Sask's model is the way to go.

 

Someone should start a petition...  I would say the Miller is the guy to transform this organization but then everyone would think I was in love with Wade Miller.  Which I am.

[Fraser]

lol at fake shares being sold. It's a gimmick sold to the most ravenous of fans and has zero imact on team governance.

[The Unknown Poster]

I might be interested if that wasn't written by Kives.

[DR. CFL]

I think the better point of that article and the article in the Sun on the weekend was the fact that the current governing process of the WFC is significantly flawed and needs to be dismantled.

[JuranBoldenRules]

Laugh all you want at the shares.  Since the Riders adopted the Packer model in the early 2000s they have been among the most successful CFL franchises after being a laughingstock for decades prior.  The Packers are clearly one of the most successful pro franchises in North America in the smallest market. 

 

The big problem here is that there is no accountability for the board.  Private owner, Jets for example, their accountability comes from the fact that if they don't run a good business and team, they'll lose money.  Riders and Packers, if those board members don't stay in the lines, they won't be board members for long.  Here they just do whatever with only the board members keeping each other accountable, and they spend "community" money.

[Fraser]

Laugh all you want at the shares. Since the Riders adopted the Packer model in the early 2000s they have been among the most successful CFL franchises after being a laughingstock for decades prior. The Packers are clearly one of the most successful pro franchises in North America in the smallest market.

The big problem here is that there is no accountability for the board. Private owner, Jets for example, their accountability comes from the fact that if they don't run a good business and team, they'll lose money. Riders and Packers, if those board members don't stay in the lines, they won't be board members for long. Here they just do whatever with only the board members keeping each other accountable, and they spend "community" money.

1 correlation does not imply causation.

2 these shares do nothing to influence the organization or create accountability. It's essentially a fan club.

[SPuDS]

so options are.. a) keep going hope field product improves.as the business model is sound...

force change.. private owner or other community model and could go either way, success or funeral pyre..

my choice is a. on field product simply should NOT be this difficult to resolve. its assine we cannot right the teams sails..

[JuranBoldenRules]

 

Laugh all you want at the shares. Since the Riders adopted the Packer model in the early 2000s they have been among the most successful CFL franchises after being a laughingstock for decades prior. The Packers are clearly one of the most successful pro franchises in North America in the smallest market.

The big problem here is that there is no accountability for the board. Private owner, Jets for example, their accountability comes from the fact that if they don't run a good business and team, they'll lose money. Riders and Packers, if those board members don't stay in the lines, they won't be board members for long. Here they just do whatever with only the board members keeping each other accountable, and they spend "community" money.

1 correlation does not imply causation.

2 these shares do nothing to influence the organization or create accountability. It's essentially a fan club.

 

 

The shareholders elect the board in Regina and Green Bay.  The Riders have had an unprecedented era of stability and success both on and off the field since adopting their current board structure.  I guess you could stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la la la" and say the two things are unrelated, but that would be pretty ridiculous.

[Jacquie]

The shareholders elect the board in Regina and Green Bay.  The Riders have had an unprecedented era of stability and success both on and off the field since adopting their current board structure.  I guess you could stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la la la" and say the two things are unrelated, but that would be pretty ridiculous.

 

Saskatchewan's BoD nominates a candidate and the shareholders rubber stamp the selection. I'm not even sure if their BoD is bound by a shareholders vote and I don't think shareholders have the power to force a BoD member to be removed. When the Riders did it it was a fundraising tool, not an initiative to change how the team is run. 

[Rich]

I can't find the exact rules, but it does look like shareholders get a say in the board.

 

http://www.riderville.com/article/roughriders-hold-annual-general-meeting-20130622015438

 

 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

 

Under the governance guidelines, the Rider shareholders selected a new Board of Governors at the meeting. Returning to the board this year will be Chair Roger Brandvold and Director’s Doug Emsley, Robert Leurer, Dennis Mulvihill, Laurie Powers and Joel Teal. Shareholders voted in three returning board members Twyla Meredith, Wayne Morsky and Jeff Stusek. Shareholders also voted in two new members, Arnie Arnott and Randy Beattie. 

[Fraser]

 

 

Laugh all you want at the shares. Since the Riders adopted the Packer model in the early 2000s they have been among the most successful CFL franchises after being a laughingstock for decades prior. The Packers are clearly one of the most successful pro franchises in North America in the smallest market.

The big problem here is that there is no accountability for the board. Private owner, Jets for example, their accountability comes from the fact that if they don't run a good business and team, they'll lose money. Riders and Packers, if those board members don't stay in the lines, they won't be board members for long. Here they just do whatever with only the board members keeping each other accountable, and they spend "community" money.

1 correlation does not imply causation.

2 these shares do nothing to influence the organization or create accountability. It's essentially a fan club.

 

 

The shareholders elect the board in Regina and Green Bay.  The Riders have had an unprecedented era of stability and success both on and off the field since adopting their current board structure.  I guess you could stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la la la" and say the two things are unrelated, but that would be pretty ridiculous.

 

 

Hey I'll be happy to admit I'm putting my fingers in my ear in and saying lalala if you can tell me how the one token board member nominated by the board and "elected' by 'shareholders' in Regina has any kind of clout or even remotely resembles  a mechanism for enforcing corporate  governance.

 

Maybe in Green Bay where the entire board is elected by 'owners' there is something to be said. However, if you take 10 seconds to look on google you would know that isn't true because all of the football and operational decisions are made by an executive committee "appointed" by the board but who's make up is actually decided on before a shareholder ever casts a vote.

 

Its all ceremonial. Nothing is actually happening. its a Gimmick, you and Bartley Knives fell for it.

[iso_55]

The model we have now is broken. Clearly not working. So, short of a private owner buying the team, we have to look at different models of public ownership. If the Sask model works, we should look seriously at it. What is the Eskimo community model?

[blitzmore]

It's quite likely, that if had a competitive team, no one would care one iota, who the board is made up of...

[NotoriousBIG]

I might be interested if that wasn't written by Kives.

 

I disagree. Kives is the best writer that paper has by a country mile. 

 

What, would you prefer Paul "I write in Morse code" Wiecek or Gary "I write in soundbites" Lawless?

 

Even better, Gordon "I love to write about my rich friends and the plight of Aboriginals who aren't my friends" Sinclair?

[Fraser]

The model we have now is broken. Clearly not working. So, short of a private owner buying the team, we have to look at different models of public ownership. If the Sask model works, we should look seriously at it. What is the Eskimo community model?

there is no sask model. what separates us from sask is that they can buy a fake share that allows them to pretend to vote in a board member.

[The Unknown Poster]

 

I might be interested if that wasn't written by Kives.

 

I disagree. Kives is the best writer that paper has by a country mile. 

 

What, would you prefer Paul "I write in Morse code" Wiecek or Gary "I write in soundbites" Lawless?

 

Even better, Gordon "I love to write about my rich friends and the plight of Aboriginals who aren't my friends" Sinclair?

 

 

Lawless is the best thing the Freep has going for it and I'd much rather read his opinion on sports than Kives.Nothing personal, he was just a crazy little hothead to a friend of mine during the PorkGate scandal that the Freep tried to sweep under the rug and I find him very negative.  For example, during the first couple of games at IGF, he would re-tweet every negative remark about traffic but ignore every postive one.  To me, that's spinning the story in a way he wants it to be, not neccisarily the way it truly is.

[NotoriousBIG]

 

 

I might be interested if that wasn't written by Kives.

 

I disagree. Kives is the best writer that paper has by a country mile. 

 

What, would you prefer Paul "I write in Morse code" Wiecek or Gary "I write in soundbites" Lawless?

 

Even better, Gordon "I love to write about my rich friends and the plight of Aboriginals who aren't my friends" Sinclair?

 

 

Lawless is the best thing the Freep has going for it 

 

Sorry, you lost me there...

[The Unknown Poster]

Oh sorry.  i forgot we all hate Lawless cause he's fat.

[NotoriousBIG]

Oh sorry.  i forgot we all hate Lawless cause he's fat.

 

No, that's not why most of us dislike him. 

 

Don't be lazy. 

[Jacquie]

Oh sorry.  i forgot we all hate Lawless cause he's fat.

 

You spell that wrong. It's fathead.