Oakland Raiders: Winning Model May Include Raider Nation Owning Stock in Raiders
A Sensible Proposal for the 21st Century
It was only a few days ago that the franchise that formerly employed Reggie McKenzie—that of the Green Bay Packers—completed the sale of more than 268,000 shares. If you do the math, you will see that this strategy raised roughly $67 million dollars for the Green Bay Packers.
Since the Oakland Raiders are definitely transitioning to a winning model, doesn't it make sense to replicate all or most of the positive attributes of the ownership structure of the Green Bay Packers.
Other examples of "studying a winner" are exercised during the training stages of the Oakland Raiders. For example, teams who want to improve performance often study film, tapes and videos of a successful player or team.
Now there is a proposal to study the "winning structure" of a 21st century franchise during these economic times.
Recently, the fifth stock sale in the history of the Packers closed with more than 268,000 shares sold to fans. Since each share sold at $250, this means that roughly $67 million in revenue is available for improvement of the Lambeau stadium.
The results of the 2011-2012 stock sales are an excellent example of the integrity of the Packer fans.
It sounds like the strategy of offering stock to Oakland Raiders fans would be a sensible alternative for fundraising. It would also do so much to rebuild the spirit and morale of the Raider Nation since so many issues have emerged since 2002.
Now, the Packers can brag that they have more than 360,000 fans committed to the team. There is proof of this commitment too.
The Packers' fans put their money where their mouth is, so to speak. In the spirit of Mr. Al Davis, and considering the economic situation in 2012, a true commitment to excellence can be demonstrated by the opportunity to support the franchise in a new, creative way.
Think about it!
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?