Some NFL Owners Resist New Deal

[plk]

Public is being used to clarify your misunderstanding of what you copied in.
You said the Packers aren't really non profit because they have owners.
The article said they do not have private owners.
Again this is what the entire debacle has been about, and if you reread you will see this.
Wikipedia's opinion, or the correctness of it is not at issue. Your statement that they aren't really for profit or non profit because they have owners (evidently your reason they are not non profit) but they do not benefit financially (evidently your reason they are not for profit) was a misunderstanding of what you read and copied in.
That is all it was. Reread please.

Since you keep quoting the expression "private owners" perhaps you could explain what you think it means. I have suggested rewording the sentence a couple of times in line with what I think it means, and you keep going back to "it says private owners."

Ownership is the quantitative difference between for- and not-for-profit organizations. For-profit organizations can be privately owned and may re-distribute taxable wealth to employees and shareholders. By contrast, not-for-profit organizations do not have private owners. They have controlling members or boards, but these people cannot sell their shares to others or personally benefit in any taxable way.

The terms "privately owned" and "private owners" are in parallel and they should mean the same thing.

In this context, the authors of the article are not making a distinction between a privately held company and a publicly traded company. They are making a distinction between owners (whether one or thousands of them) who own something as individuals (in their own right) and the "owners" of a nonprofit organization who as a group control the organization but do not "own" it as individuals.

Perhaps a specific example would help. Harvard College, which curiously includes the rest of the university, is "owned" by the Harvard Corporation which is the President and Fellows of Harvard College. Until recently, this was a group of seven people. It is now thirteen people. They do not "own" Harvard College as individuals, i.e. as private owners; they "own" it as a group. As the article said, "By contrast, not-for-profit organizations do not have private owners. They have controlling members or boards..."

Technically, Harvard College has owners, but the term "owners" means something so different in that context from its common usage that it is not usually used.

A person who owns one share of Microsoft stock owns it as an individual, i.e. as a private owner.

I said that the Packers do not seem to fit the category of a nonprofit organization (and that is all that I said) because they do in fact have "private owners." The Packers sold stock, and people became owners by buying that stock. They own that stock as individuals (in their own right). The people who bought that stock own the Packers in the same way that the people who buy Microsoft stock own Microsoft.

Microsoft has "private owners," and the Packers have "private owners." Harvard College does not have "private owners."

There is, by the way, no sense in which Harvard College, for example, is "publicly" owned, and your using the term just adds confusion because the usual distinction is between a public company and a private company, i.e. whether or not the company is publicly traded.

 

[BSR]

I said that the Packers do not seem to fit the category of a nonprofit organization (and that is all that I said) because they do in fact have "private owners." The Packers sold stock, and people became owners by buying that stock. They own that stock as individuals (in their own right). The people who bought that stock own the Packers in the same way that the people who buy Microsoft stock own Microsoft.

Plk, the Green Bay Packers are in fact publicly owned as it states on their website here: Packers.com | Executive Committee And Board Of Directors The fact that their voting shares are owned by individuals does not in any way preclude it from being "publicly" owned as they only own the right to vote and do not have an economic interest in the organization.

 

[Ring 6]

I said that the Packers do not seem to fit the category of a nonprofit organization (and that is all that I said) because they do in fact have "private owners." The Packers sold stock, and people became owners by buying that stock. They own that stock as individuals (in their own right). The people who bought that stock own the Packers in the same way that the people who buy Microsoft stock own Microsoft.

Microsoft has "private owners," and the Packers have "private owners." Harvard College does not have "private owners."

This is where you get confused. Microsoft does not have private owners. Nor does Harvard.

There is, by the way, no sense in which Harvard College, for example, is "publicly" owned, and your using the term just adds confusion because the usual distinction is between a public company and a private company, i.e. whether or not the company is publicly traded.

Lets substitute "non-private" for "public". My mistake in using public in place of everything that is non-private.
The Packers are not privately owned. The public ownership is made up of individuals owning stock, just like Microsoft. Microsoft is publicly owned.
Harvard should be, for this argument, considered 'non-private' as they are clearly not provately owned, and the word public confuses the matter.

 

[plk]

This is where you get confused. Microsoft does not have private owners.

Words frequently mean different things depending on their context. In the context of the Wikipedia article, Microsoft does have private owners.

The Packers are not privately owned. The public ownership is made up of individuals owning stock, just like Microsoft. Microsoft is publicly owned.

In terms of the distinction between a privately owned and a publicly owned company this is correct. But the Wikipedia article is not concerned with that distinction. It is making a distinction between entities that are owned by individuals whether through a publicly owned company or a privately owned company and entities that are owned by "controlling members or boards" as the article puts it.

On one hand you have: PUBLICLY OWNED AND PRIVATELY OWNED COMPANIES. The article describes them as privately owned. They are owned by individuals.

On the other hand you have: [ORGANIZATIONS THAT] HAVE CONTROLLING MEMBERS OR BOARDS. The article describes them as not having private owners. They are not owned by individuals.

Let me ask you again: In the sentence "By contrast, not-for-profit organizations do not have private owners.", what do you think the term "private owners" means?

P.S. For clarity, let me add this: When the article says, "For-profit organizations can be privately owned...," it is including both publicly owned and privately owned companies. It is not making a distinction between them.

 

[Ring 6]

Words frequently mean different things depending on their context. In the context of the Wikipedia article, Microsoft does have private owners.

OK> I GIVE UP.
You are now saying that words dont mean what they mean if your argument needs them to mean something different to make sense.
Microsoft has private owners? That is simply wrong, no matter how you slice it.

In terms of the distinction between a privately owned and a publicly owned company this is correct. But the Wikipedia article is not concerned with that distinction. It is making a distinction between entities that are owned by individuals whether through a publicly owned company or a privately owned company and entities that are owned by "controlling members or boards" as the article puts it.

On one hand you have: PUBLICLY OWNED AND PRIVATELY OWNED COMPANIES. The article describes them as privately owned. They are owned by individuals.

On the other hand you have: [ORGANIZATIONS THAT] HAVE CONTROLLING MEMBERS OR BOARDS. The article describes them as not having private owners. They are not owned by individuals.

Let me ask you again: In the sentence "By contrast, not-for-profit organizations do not have private owners.", what do you think the term "private owners" means?

It is not what I THINK it is the definition. Private owners own the company, either individual or as a partnership. They do not issue stock shares that can be traded.
Public companies owned by shareholders (see Microsoft is owned by shareholders not private individuals) have controlling members or a board of directors to operate the company on a daily basis.

P.S. For clarity, let me add this: When the article says, "For-profit organizations can be privately owned...," it is including both publicly owned and privately owned companies. It is not making a distinction between them.

Again this is where you do not understand. Publicly owned companies cannot be privately owned, by definition.
For profit companies may be either.
The basic distinction is that you just cant open a company, be a private owner and get non profit treatment. Part of a non profit is that you cannot distribute profits,. but there is no restriction on what you pay executives. If what you are saying is true, every sole-proprietor, partnership, and s corp in America would simply become non profit, and pay themselves all of the profit they would have earned. Think about that, it makes no sense that a private owner can declare his business non profit. Its silly to even suggest.
Please reread what you got from wikipedia with the fresh view that the words actually mean what they mean.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Microsoft is a publicly owned company by every relevant definition of the word. There is really no debate to be had there. The Packers are also publicly owned.

 

[plk]

Microsoft is a publicly owned company by every relevant definition of the word. There is really no debate to be had there. The Packers are also publicly owned.

I am never going to clear up Andy Johnson's confusion. He is determined to not understand.

But let me try with you. You have not read the relevant parts of this thread which demonstrates good sense, but let me tell you what we are talking about.

I posted this question.

Can you resolve something that I am uncertain about. Do the Packers fit the legal definition of a "non-profit" company, or are they simply a company that is being run for the benefit of the team and not for profit. Thank you.

After a couple of replies, I posted this.

Nonprofit organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Green Bay Packers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Packers seem to be quite a curious case that does not fit either for-profit or not-for-profit organizations. The Packers clearly have owners, but the owners cannot benefit financially.

Andy Johnson replied to this with various cryptic comments, and I've been trying unsuccessfully to explain a simple point ever since then. The point is not of great importance, but it is also not that hard to understand.

The discussion resolves around the Wikipedia article entitled "Nonprofit organization." The URL is above.

Ownership is the quantitative difference between for- and not-for-profit organizations. For-profit organizations can be privately owned and may re-distribute taxable wealth to employees and shareholders. By contrast, not-for-profit organizations do not have private owners. They have controlling members or boards, but these people cannot sell their shares to others or personally benefit in any taxable way.

The article is concerned with distinguishing between for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, and it says, "Ownership is the quantitative difference." It says, "For-profit organizations can be privately owned," and in for-profit organizations it is including both what we would call privately owned and publicly traded companies in a different discussion.

The Packers are certainly publicly owned, as is Microsoft, in terms of "every relevant definition of the word" for most discussions. And the Patriots are privately owned. But in terms of making a distinction between for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, that ownership detail does not matter. From the point of view of the Wikipedia article, the Packers, Microsoft, and the Patriots are all "privately owned," that is to say, they are ultimately owned by individuals, whether a few or a lot.

The article goes on to say, "By contrast, not-for-profit organizations do not have private owners. They have controlling members or boards." See the Harvard College example above.

I felt that the Packers do not really fit either the for-profit or the not-for-profit categories described in this article. They do not fit the not-for-profit category because they are publicly owned, and in the terms of the distinction that the Wikipedia article is making, they have private owners, i.e. they are ultimately owned by individuals. This is unlike not-for-profit organizations that do not have private owners, i.e. individuals, but have controlling members or boards that "own" them.

The Packers obviously don't fit the for-profit category because the owners cannot benefit financially.

As I said, it is not an important point. It's just annoying when someone refuses to understand.

The Packers appear to be some sort of hybrid. I wonder if there are other examples.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Getting back to football for public or private profit or non profit...

A moment in time | National Football Post

Just a little snapshot in time about how we actually landed here.

 

[plk]

If what you are saying is true, every sole-proprietor, partnership, and s corp in America would simply become non profit, and pay themselves all of the profit they would have earned. Think about that, it makes no sense that a private owner can declare his business non profit.

I never said anything remotely similar to that.

Please reread what you got from wikipedia with the fresh view that the words actually mean what they mean.

Actually, words mean what they mean in a particular context. You frequently have to look at the context to determine the meaning of a word. It seems you do not understand that, but most people do.

What the article means by "private owners" is clear in the context of the article. It is not the same as what "private owners" would mean in a different context.

 

[Ring 6]

I am never going to clear up Andy Johnson's confusion. He is determined to not understand.

But let me try with you. You have not read the relevant parts of this thread which demonstrates good sense, but let me tell you what we are talking about.

I posted this question.



After a couple of replies, I posted this.



Andy Johnson replied to this with various cryptic comments, and I've been trying unsuccessfully to explain a simple point ever since then. The point is not of great importance, but it is also not that hard to understand.

The discussion resolves around the Wikipedia article entitled "Nonprofit organization." The URL is above.



The article is concerned with distinguishing between for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, and it says, "Ownership is the quantitative difference." It says, "For-profit organizations can be privately owned," and in for-profit organizations it is including both what we would call privately owned and publicly traded companies in a different discussion.

The Packers are certainly publicly owned, as is Microsoft, in terms of "every relevant definition of the word" for most discussions. And the Patriots are privately owned. But in terms of making a distinction between for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, that ownership detail does not matter. From the point of view of the Wikipedia article, the Packers, Microsoft, and the Patriots are all "privately owned," that is to say, they are ultimately owned by individuals, whether a few or a lot.

The article goes on to say, "By contrast, not-for-profit organizations do not have private owners. They have controlling members or boards." See the Harvard College example above.

I felt that the Packers do not really fit either the for-profit or the not-for-profit categories described in this article. They do not fit the not-for-profit category because they are publicly owned, and in the terms of the distinction that the Wikipedia article is making, they have private owners, i.e. they are ultimately owned by individuals. This is unlike not-for-profit organizations that do not have private owners, i.e. individuals, but have controlling members or boards that "own" them.

The Packers obviously don't fit the for-profit category because the owners cannot benefit financially.

As I said, it is not an important point. It's just annoying when someone refuses to understand.

The Packers appear to be some sort of hybrid. I wonder if there are other examples.

Stockholders are not private owners. That is simply a fact.
The Packers are not a hybrid they are organized legally as a non-profit. That is a fact.
Your misunderstanding of what the Wikipedia reference means is the only confusion.

 

[Ring 6]

I never said anything remotely similar to that

Where did I say you said that? I clearly said that IF YOUR OPINION WERE CORRECT THIS WOULD BE THE RESULT.

Actually, words mean what they mean in a particular context. You frequently have to look at the context to determine the meaning of a word. It seems you do not understand that, but most people do.

They don't mean the opposite because their true meaning conflicts with your argument though. Private does not mean public in any context just as green doesnt mean yellow in any context.

What the article means by "private owners" is clear in the context of the article. It is not the same as what "private owners" would mean in a different context.

It only means something else in your inagination.
I explained above a specific reasoning why it means that. There is no definition in the Englsih language where stockholders are considered private owners. That phenomena was created in this thread when the only way for you to not admit your error was to make the extreme gaffe that Wikipedia mislabelled stockholders as private owners.

 

[Ring 6]

I am never going to clear up Andy Johnson's confusion. He is determined to not understand.

Everyone who has contributed to this thread, except you has said that the Packers are a non-profit. You are now saying words don't mean their own meaning in order to not understand.

But let me try with you. You have not read the relevant parts of this thread which demonstrates good sense, but let me tell you what we are talking about.

I posted this question.



After a couple of replies, I posted this.



Andy Johnson replied to this with various cryptic comments, and I've been trying unsuccessfully to explain a simple point ever since then. The point is not of great importance, but it is also not that hard to understand.

There was nothing cryptic. You misunderstood the quote you copied in and I explained the apparent reason you think the Packers---a corporation legally organized, taxed and recognized as nonprofit---are neither non profit or for profit was because you missed the word private before owners when you cited the reason they are not a non profit is that they have owners.
All of this has gone back and forth from there.

Please answer this question.
Do you now recognize that the Packers are LEGALLY a nonprofit, and that they are legally organized and taxed with non profit status?
Then:
Do you now recognize that this means the statement that they are neither profit or non profit is wrong?

The discussion resolves around the Wikipedia article entitled "Nonprofit organization." The URL is above.

Actually it revolves around your misunderstanding of it, shown in the comment that they are neither non profit or for profit because they have owners......

The article is concerned with distinguishing between for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, and it says, "Ownership is the quantitative difference." It says, "For-profit organizations can be privately owned," and in for-profit organizations it is including both what we would call privately owned and publicly traded companies in a different discussion.

The Packers are certainly publicly owned, as is Microsoft, in terms of "every relevant definition of the word" for most discussions.

You called Microsoft privately owned earlier.

And the Patriots are privately owned. But in terms of making a distinction between for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, that ownership detail does not matter.

You quoted the article that says OWNERSHIP IS THE QUANTITATIVE DIFFERENCE. Now you are saying ownership is irrelevant? How can that be?

From the point of view of the Wikipedia article, the Packers, Microsoft, and the Patriots are all "privately owned," that is to say, they are ultimately owned by individuals, whether a few or a lot.

That is simply, totally not true. There is no definition on Earth where Microsoft is considered privately owned. The only way to conclude this is to share your misunderstanding of the article, which then requires changing the definition of the terms.

The article goes on to say, "By contrast, not-for-profit organizations do not have private owners. They have controlling members or boards." See the Harvard College example above.

Public companies have controlling members or boards instead of private owners.

I felt that the Packers do not really fit either the for-profit or the not-for-profit categories described in this article. They do not fit the not-for-profit category because they are publicly owned, and in the terms of the distinction that the Wikipedia article is making, they have private owners, i.e. they are ultimately owned by individuals. This is unlike not-for-profit organizations that do not have private owners, i.e. individuals, but have controlling members or boards that "own" them.

The Packers are a LEGAL NONPROFIT. Organized as such, and taxed as such.
You have to be wrong, or the law is mishandling the Packers. Are you saying that the laws of the State of Wisconsin and the IRS are wrong?
You have created out of thin air, the idea that shareholders are private owners. That is simply 100% incorrect.

The Packers obviously don't fit the for-profit category because the owners cannot benefit financially.

As I said, it is not an important point. It's just annoying when someone refuses to understand.

It certainly is. The Packers are LEGALLY NON PROFIT and you are calling it annoying that I don't understand your argument that they aren't non profit.

The Packers appear to be some sort of hybrid. I wonder if there are other examples.

Non profit is not an opinion, it is a legal status. You either are or are not, there is no hybrid. It cannot be. You either are given the treatment of a non profit or you are not.

 

[Ring 6]

I am never going to clear up Andy Johnson's confusion. He is determined to not understand.



As I said, it is not an important point. It's just annoying when someone refuses to understand.

The Packers appear to be some sort of hybrid. I wonder if there are other examples.

Packers.com | Shareholders
The Packers own website states they are non profit and publicly owned.

Are you going to tell me the Packers intend that to mean they are privately owned and some type of hybrid that doesnt exist in our legal system or tax code?

 

[MoVaughn4Prez]

damn I was hoping to get some actual info or insight on the topic here but its just people arguing while quoting Wikipedia?? as a legitimate source...

 

[tuckeverlasting]

man !!! was that a tough thread to get thru. i'm feeling dumber for having read it ala billy madison.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

man !!! was that a tough thread to get thru. i'm feeling dumber for having read it ala billy madison.

I confess that I'm a Patsfans addict.
There. I've said it. I feel better.
But that said I don't have the wasted time to read these urinating contest postings never mind the time to post them, even typing fast. WTF?

 

[plk]

Packers.com | Shareholders
The Packers own website states they are non profit and publicly owned.

That is a good reference. It's always been clear that the Packers act like a nonprofit, but that left open the question of whether or not they are legally a nonprofit. I'm glad to have that resolved.

Are you going to tell me the Packers intend that to mean they are privately owned and some type of hybrid that doesnt exist in our legal system or tax code?

Please note, I have never said the Packers are not a nonprofit. I said that they don't fit either the for-profit or nonprofit categories in the Wikipedia article. It seemed an innocent statement at the time and it is certainly true.

It appears there are exceptions to the paradigm in the Wikipedia article. Do you know of any other examples of publicly owned nonprofits?

That is simply, totally not true. There is no definition on Earth where Microsoft is considered privately owned. The only way to conclude this is to share your misunderstanding of the article, which then requires changing the definition of the terms.

I have never said that Microsoft is "privately owned." What I said was that it has what the Wikipedia article calls "private owners," i.e. individuals as owners. This is surely true. By contrast, Harvard, a nonprofit, does not have individuals as owners.

You have created out of thin air, the idea that shareholders are private owners. That is simply 100% incorrect.

When the article says, "For-profit organizations can be privately owned," it is not just talking about "privately owned" companies; it is talking about the whole universe of for-profit organizations including, for example, Microsoft.

The Packers are LEGALLY NON PROFIT and you are calling it annoying that I don't understand your argument that they aren't non profit.

Again, I have never argued that the Packers "aren't non profit." I argued that they did not fit the nonprofit category in the Wikipedia article because they lack the characteristic ownership of nonprofits.

Non profit is not an opinion, it is a legal status. You either are or are not, there is no hybrid. It cannot be. You either are given the treatment of a non profit or you are not.

I've never had an opinion until now about the legal status of the Packers as a nonprofit. I have always recognized that they act like a nonprofit. My original post was

Can you resolve something that I am uncertain about. Do the Packers fit the legal definition of a "non-profit" company, or are they simply a company that is being run for the benefit of the team and not for profit. Thank you.

So my question finally has a good answer. Thank you. I will continue to hope someday you will understand the Wikipedia article.

 

[plk]

man !!! was that a tough thread to get thru. i'm feeling dumber for having read it ala billy madison.

I think you are what is called "collateral damage." Sorry about that.

 

[Ring 6]

That is a good reference. It's always been clear that the Packers act like a nonprofit, but that left open the question of whether or not they are legally a nonprofit. I'm glad to have that resolved.



Please note, I have never said the Packers are not a nonprofit. I said that they don't fit either the for-profit or nonprofit categories in the Wikipedia article. It seemed an innocent statement at the time and it is certainly true.

It appears there are exceptions to the paradigm in the Wikipedia article. Do you know of any other examples of publicly owned nonprofits?



I have never said that Microsoft is "privately owned." What I said was that it has what the Wikipedia article calls "private owners," i.e. individuals as owners. This is surely true. By contrast, Harvard, a nonprofit, does not have individuals as owners.



When the article says, "For-profit organizations can be privately owned," it is not just talking about "privately owned" companies; it is talking about the whole universe of for-profit organizations including, for example, Microsoft.



Again, I have never argued that the Packers "aren't non profit." I argued that they did not fit the nonprofit category in the Wikipedia article because they lack the characteristic ownership of nonprofits.



I've never had an opinion until now about the legal status of the Packers as a nonprofit. I have always recognized that they act like a nonprofit. My original post was

Then why did you post 20 times that you believe they are a 'hybird'?



So my question finally has a good answer. Thank you. I will continue to hope someday you will understand the Wikipedia article.[/QUOTE]
All that is left is you recognizing that you misunderstand the Wikipedia article. Your continued insistence that Wkikpedia misused a term is now your only argument.
I think it is safe to say that when you tell us that what Wikipedia meant was to misuse the term and when I say they intended to, and did use it properly, we have conclusion and can move on.
W could have solved this a long time ago if you accpeted my first post where I pointed out that your comment that they were neither non profit or for profit because they had owners...... was a misread on your part. At this point you seem to have accepted your incorrectness, but choose to still blame it on Wikipedia not knowing how to write rather than you misunderstanding what you read.
I do not think I wish to 'understand' the article by assinging an incorrect meaning to a term in order to make it fit a preconceived misunderstanding of it.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Inflicting collateral damage is a good description of what half of the posting here amounts to lately. There are more hijackings here than off the Somali Coast...

Someone please make it stop...

Maybe Ian could re-purpose the unused VIP forum as a designated location where very important people inclined to could go debate semantics ad nauseum...