"Lambeau Field at Menard's Stadium."

Which raises two thoughts: "Yeah, right", and, "I just puked in my mouth a little bit."

Cory, you should have mentioned that in the early days even the dreaded Bears Goerge Hallas, helped to keep the Packers solvent and saved the league.

If the other owners are trying to push the Packers into a deal to make everyone even, the Packers just might have to sell more stock to make up the difference. Some say to have the state help but that opens up another whole can of worms. I don't believe that people who don't watch or like football (as horrible as that is) should be required to help a billion $ business operate. Just sell stocks and cut out the middleman. Then even people outside of the state can help pick up the tab.

Never say never. If it comes right down to it, I'd rather have the Packers in GB than worry about what they call the stadium.

"When the NFL began in the 1920s, Canton, Ohio, Akron, Ohio and Rock Island, Illinois all had teams."

Oh, this hurts...

Lambeau Field is leased from the city.

They are considering selling naming rights to generate revenue to stay competitive.
Which Policy said they might explore.

From !933 to 1994 the packers did play in Milwaukee for a larger fan base, and economic viability.

"Everyone has a price" involving money, power, or personal gain.

"History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes,” mark Twain.

If these men 'cared' that much they would have done their part first--(stepped aside-Gute,MLF) Policy would have done what better men than he (Harlan/Wolf) did,. ie., made the team great again, made it an asset fans and Wisconsonites could be proud of and want to invest in. That included hiring the best GM, HC, etc.

Instead, Policy, took the cowardly approach which was to pay mediocre men exorbitant, undeserved salaries for the next 5 years and and take little real interest in the inevitable decline of a once-great team-all the while sticking his woe-is-me hand out.

I had high hopes for Ed Policy thinking he'd clearly present his vision for Packers. I have been disappointed. It has mostly been auto pilot status quo.

Since being enshrined as Chairman of the Football Committee, he has been nearly invisible to the fans since being "elected" unanimously by the BOD to be President/CEO. He rarely makes public statements.

But he decides he has to finally talk...about the pressing need for more revenue...after giving his 3 Football committee members new status quo contracts and very large raises.

Then as Ed was decrying the Packers future revenue streams, he tossed new LB Franklin a quick $2,000,000 (before he has even been fitted for a helmet) like it was loose pocket change, because...well because he's a nice guy who spends freely?

In decision making timing is important. This call for more revenue while spending freely was ill timed and a bit off to me.

If he tries to sell naming rights to Lambeau, it should be a more difficult sell than Harlan trying to convince voters to accept a tax to help fund the team. But who knows who Ed Policy is? It may already have been approved by the Board's Exec. Committee. He's not very transparent, and the BOD seems content to be a rubber stamp for his opaque decisions for the publicly owned Packers.

I didn't know what to expect from Ed's policies. He's a lifelong lawyer and finance guy. One would think as President/CEO he's stay in his lane and let a real GM run the Team. He's decided he is adept at managing the football operation too. But he doesn't discuss the football operation much at all.

Well done, Cory.
What do the Packers gain by selling out? Is it a make-or-break situation? Are the Packers just this one deal away from going into ruins? Will Lambeau Field sit empty and crumbling like the Roman Colosseum?
What a crass, commercial, and sad society we live in these days.
It seems just about everything is getting made cheaper and cheaper but being sold pricier and pricier.
It seems Americans are working harder and harder and getting less and less.
It seems almost everything is a scam, even if it's technically legal.
America is becoming a land of quantity but not quality.
America is becoming a land of addiction, divorce, and diabetes 2.
America is becoming the artificial society.
Even our bread is about as nutritious as foam padding, and almost as toxic.
At least we have Bad Bunny to amuse and enlighten us. He'll show us the way.

Do not get me wrong I hope that the Packers never sell their naming rights but at least hopefully in my lifetime, which has about 140 more years left, but if the do the best company to buy the naming rights is Tundraland Home Improvements.

There is so much dishonesty and lack of transparency surrounding the Board of Directors, the 'football committee', the Packer's front office, etc. that one needs to be adept at reading smoke signals, tea-leaves etc. Anyone notice how national media is absent (not for lack of interest), how the GB media is exceedingly deferential and tip-toes around the egos of Murphy, Gute, Policy? They went after MLF ,though, this year--he was the designated fall guy. Another elephant in the room is Mark Murphy and the tremendous damage he has wrought on this team-Not one GB media individual has reported on this phenomenon.

Even Justis Mosqueda is 'not approved' to join other GB media during OTA's/Mini-Camp. My guess is Justis hasn't fully 'tamed' the commenters on his site (Acme) with Packer's PR influence. He has the most intelligent, articulate, honest commenters but that is a no-no in Packerland.

The only tradition in the world is change always happens.

How many fans will stop watching or attending games if they sell naming rights to the stadium? I am going to guess that number will between 0 and too few to care. They will complain, they will threaten never to watch again or never to attend a game again (most might never would have anyways because they can't afford it) but they will keep watching and following like they always have.

The Packers are at a disadvantage many ways for trying to create revenue. They don't have the marketing opportunities that larger markets have. They can't sell 1% of their franchise for $150M to pay for a new locker-room or practice facility. People want to attack Policy but he is just talking truth of the situation.

It's always going to be Lambeau Field regardless of any other name is on the stadium. If you look around the stadium there's a number of advertisements. Doesn't take away from the game, does it? The Brewers have had Miller Park and American Family for years. Does it take away from enjoying the Brewers?

In a perfect world it would stay only Lambeau Field. But if that means the Packers evolve into the a non-competitive team just to hold onto 'tradition', give me a great team with a corporate sponsor.

I don't think too many people would like the Orlando Packers if the team becomes unsustainable in Green Bay?

"You can’t put a price tag on that."

It depends on who 'you' is.

Cory and the many others who believe it won't happen will be getting a huge slap of reality upside the head. Everything has a price, and that statement will always last longer than the culture of anything. Have you been sleeping the last 20 years or simply ignoring the end of everything cultural? Sorry, but a piece of worthless paper saying you're an unpaid, profiting stockholder isn't stopping the inevitable. The faster the NFL grows outside the USA, the faster the Packers will NEED to succumb. This isn't 1920; it's the 2020s. WAKE UP!

Is it up to the team? Lambeau Field is owned by the city/county and leased to the Packers. The Packers pay a million dollars to lease the stadium for ~10 weekends per year. Mark Murphy really wanted to turn that into a one dollar per year lease. If Policy ends up winning that negotiation with the city/county stadium district, they'll want to recoup that money somehow, and adding a sponsor to the stadium name seems like the easiest way to do that.

Just popping in to remind the CHTV Commentariat that horse racing was the most popular spectator sport in the good ol' US of A from about 1940 until well into the 1960s.

One day soon, those who can afford it will gleefully walk from the Hillshire Farms Tailgate Zone, across the SC Johnson Championship lot, up the Menards Stairs of Savings, through the Kwik Trip gate (see ya next time), and into ABC Supply Stadium to watch a live presentation of world-class football entertainment on the one and only Lambeau Field. Make sure to arrive early for the MMA matches in the EPIC Systems Octagon (extra ticket required).

This is and has been the issue with the Packers being a non-profit organization. They are limited by state and federal regulations in terms of how they raise additional revenue and also in terms of how they can use the money once they receive it. I'm not sure what regulations the state of Wisconsin imposes on non-profit organizations. They are most likely are similar to the federal regulations for non-profits. This issue is important not only for raising additional revenues but also because it impacts the Packers non-profit tax status.

I would hate to see the Packers sell the naming rights to Lambeau. That would be a tragedy. One strategy that the Packers should consider is moving from a non-profit organization to a corporate profit organization. This would mean that the Packers would have an owner or a coalition of owners who would own the team. Then they could raise capital through any number of legal measures, including selling actual shares of stock on the stock exchange via an IPO. This could mean that for those us who are currently shareholders could choose to have our currently worthless glorified thank you cards (shares) converted into actual shares (ownership) in the team. This would come with a price I''m sure.

More importantly for the Packers it would mean they could sell shares to the big institutional investors which could bring in hundreds of millions of dollars to the organization. Note that the approach of converting from a profit to a non-profit organization would probably take 3-5 years, maybe longer. But it would be, IMO, preferable to selling the naming rights to Lambeau.

The big changes would be that the Packers could end up with a major shareholder (owner) like Jerry Jones or worse and that the value of the franchise would be subject to market fluctuations and to someday possibly being sold and/or moved by a new owner.

As for Ed Policy, as a lawyer, he should be fully aware of how the Packers can legally add revenue and remain as a non-profit organization. He should also be aware of the process for converting from a non-profit to a profit corporation, whether they sell actual shares of stock or not. It's a matter of determining how much additional revenue is needed and prioritizing the best approaches to acquire it. Keep in mind that whatever the Packers consider doing in this situation Policy will not be able to speak to it in public. This is the stuff of Confidentiality Agreements and NDAs. Therefore the rumor will become quite frantic.

My hope has been and will be that the Packers can maintain their non-profit status. Thanks, Since '61

My reply to Bucky Badger as it relates to 'attacking' Ed Policy' was just deleted by CHTV. My comment will likely be deleted again but just in case. Ed Policy just allocated (likely)100-150M to a coach, GM and others whom have under-performed.
We still do not know the particulars of the contracts in a 'publicly-owned co'. There is a lack of transparency and wasteful spending on these contracts in the Packers 'hour of need'

We aim to hold tradition, but the gravity of preserving sacred lore is the opportunity cost passing us by. Maintaining status quo on the stadium is, has, and always will be the revenue stickler; if only the stadium had been upgraded / converted (yes a dome--retractable of course) to provide year-round revenue sourcing.

I'm not sure where all this is rooted from.
Was it Policy's 'warning' about future viability, financial solvency, or is there a real problem existing...today?
Does Policy want to build a new Stadium?
Is the 'TT District' not as lucrative as once hyped?

It seems this topic is built on 'IF's'.
IF...NFL teams no longer have a hard salary cap.
IF...NFL teams no longer have equal revenue sharing.

As far as i can tell the Packers are financially stable and viable.

In the NBA, and MLB....small to mid market teams would kill for equal revenue sharing, and a 'real salary cap'

The Packers get the same revenue sharing check as all 31 other NFL teams.
The Packers can spend as much as any other NFL team in football on players, period.

So...what are we talking about here.
We should talk again when there is a real issue financially with the Packers, today isn't that day.

The Packers are just fine, sans winning a divisional playoff game or even their own Division.

Couldn't really care less.