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 Mattyk

The cost is right in the FAQ, I didn't think it was hard to find.

Honestly after realizing the price of the "stock" was left off the main page did you look to find the price by first clicking on the Purchase button or looking through the FAQ? The whole thing is deceptive.

If it was a fluxuating stock price i would get not have the price listed right on the main page. But for the main page to offer something for sale as complex as a supposed financial instrument and not show the price is deceiving to me. If youre selling fake "common stock" you should at least be upfront with the price.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Honestly after realizing the price of the "stock" was left off the main page did you look to find the price by first clicking on the Purchase button or looking through the FAQ? The whole thing is deceptive.

If it was a fluxuating stock price i would get not have the price listed right on the main page. But for the main page to offer something for sale as complex as a supposed financial instrument and not show the price is deceiving to me. If youre selling fake "common stock" you should at least be upfront with the price.

I clicked the FAQ and found the price in all of 2 seconds.

Plus they state this right up front:

COMMON STOCK DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN INVESTMENT IN “STOCK” IN THE COMMON SENSE OF THE TERM.

PURCHASERS SHOULD NOT PURCHASE COMMON STOCK WITH THE PURPOSE OF MAKING A PROFIT.

Not sure I'm seeing the deception.

[saden1]

What a worthless racket of a stock. Sure you get a right to vote but so do millions of other shareholders and your voting rights are limited to what management wants you to vote on.

[SmootSmack]

Maybe it's because it's I've been following this story for months now but $250 stock with no voting rights has been pretty common knowledge. But maybe it was only to me.

Either way, I don't think there was any intent to deceive

[saden1]

The deception is that they call this sale a common stock sale.

[MTK]

I don't think people are buying a share with the intent of being a major player in the decision making of the team.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I don't think people are buying a share with the intent of being a major player in the decision making of the team.

You forget the fantasy football mentality that some fans have and they actually believe they should have a 'say' for their $250. It's a fun gimmick to say you are part owner of a team. If you want to do it, do so. If not, keep it moving. Must everything devolve into a debate?

[Ruhskins]

Don't people understand this is more of a souvenir?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Don't people understand this is more of a souvenir?

You can't refer to it as Common Stock then.

[Schneed10]

Any investor with a modicum of knowledge about financial markets would be outraged at this, including me.

Stock is equity in a company entitling you to a share of the profits. Green Bay is calling this a Common Stock - which is a specific financial term - and then saying on the page that it doesn't entitle you to any profits.

It's incredibly confusing, even if the Packers didn't intend to deceive.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Any investor with a modicum of knowledge about financial markets would be outraged at this, including me.

Stock is equity in a company entitling you to a share of the profits. Green Bay is calling this a Common Stock - which is a specific financial term - and then saying on the page that it doesn't entitle you to any profits.

It's incredibly confusing, even if the Packers didn't intend to deceive.

Well said.

If you call something a Common Stock and charge 250 dollars for it many people will believe it is worth something. Its purely a souvenir and a fund raising gimmick, which is fine, but to not clearly disclose that is deceptive.

[Schneed10]

And I'm sure there's a good many people reading this thread and rolling their eyes at the outrage over this, but I'd bet a lot of money that the SEC will have a problem with this.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

And I'm sure there's a good many people reading this thread and rolling their eyes at the outrage over this, but I'd bet a lot of money that the SEC will have a problem with this.

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?

P.S....also a question, does it pay a dividend .....most don't but some have.

[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