homer
-
Posts
20,872 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
30
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Milwaukee Brewers News, Rumors & Analysis
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospect Rankings
Milwaukee Brewers Videos
2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Milwaukee Brewers Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Milwaukee Brewers Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project
2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by homer
-
Wisconsin wins by 11. That is quite the turnaround after being down 16 in the first half. They are pretty darn quick on defense - gonna get a lot of steals this year. Too bad they don't have a nice big-bodied dude other than Vogt.
-
I forgot that Buzz Lightyear was coach for Texas A&M
-
Badgers on a 43 - 16 run the last 18:23 of game time
-
I just did a google news search on the word "jab" and most of the results were British/European. Turns out, that's what the Brits call a vaccination shot: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/feb/04/why-do-we-call-vaccinations-jabs https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/19/briefing/atlanta-shootings-ncaa-mens-division-teen-vogue.html The Washington Post has used both terms...might depend on who is reading the article and from where they are reading it. Here is a headline from the 18th: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/11/18/covid-vaccine-kids-first-dose/ They use both terms in the article - shot (10) and jab (1). In this case, I am guessing they just didn't want to use "shot" twice in the same sentence: And although more Americans have been getting vaccinated, logistical problems have frustrated parents trying to immunize their kids (in one New York City vaccination site, for instance, parents reportedly waited six hours to get their children vaccine jabs), while confusion over who qualifies for boosters has disrupted administrations of the extra shots in some states.
-
Jenkins torn ACL. Out for the year obviously. Well, it could have been a fun year had we been able to get healthy.
-
Jonathan Taylor might win MVP
-
thanks
-
Braelon Allen is good
-
discuss
-
But as BSCR noted, there is literally no way they CAN have a controlling interest. I explained right before your selected quote what I meant by controlling. If these are actual, legitimate, real shares of ownership then active players that bought them when they played with the Packers would have to sell them if they play for another team. Billy Beane was going to be forced to sell his minority ownership of the A's if he went to work for a non-baseball company that was part of a group the also owned the Red Sox. Everyone wants to play both sides with these shares by saying they're real because you can vote for the Board of Directors but also they're not real because obviously it's just for fun but it can't be both. I would assume all this all has been cleared by and follows SEC rules and regulations otherwise I don't see how it's not fraud. But my point way back at the beginning is why don't other teams do this? It seems like an incredibly easy way to raise money. The NFL probably doesn't allow it. Packers have been grandfathered in.
-
Khalil Mack out for the year
-
-
Good luck. I think the Bears are valued at something like $4billion
-
It's like donating money to Univ of Wisconsin football.
-
That was an impressive half of basketball, Mr. Giannis
-
No Boaty McBoatface?
-
Yes. Mine has the address where I was living at the time on it too. Not sure if I'm supposed to change that somewhere or what. edit: well I'll be....there's a place to change your address on this site: https://shareholder.broadridge.com/gbp/
-
Looks like several Packer players are buying shares.
-
All of their financials would be in the public domain. Also, some leagues (NBA for sure) specify a maximum number of shareholders. The NBA instituted this rule after Lasry and Edens carved out little ownership shares for all of their buddies. Going public would not be feasible when ownership is limited to a max of 25 shareholders. https://www.google.com/amp/s/nba.nbcsports.com/2015/01/29/report-nba-passes-rule-raising-the-bar-for-team-ownership/amp/ https://bleacherreport.com/articles/432359-should-struggling-nfl-teams-be-allowed-public-ownership It's an interesting thought experiment....would the fans of the St. Louis Cardinals/Rams or San Diego Chargers have been willing to purchase the teams through a public stock sale? But NFL doesn't allow it so we will never know.
-
Hahaha
-
I think there are plenty of fans of other NFL teams that would gladly pay more than $300 to get rid of their owners.
-
Well yeah but he's gonna ask for more. Berrios is only one year shy of FA.
-
If you're wondering what a Woodruff or Burnes extension might look like, here's a starting point: Jose Berrios and Blue Jays in agreement on extension for $131m over seven years, per source. Deal is pending a physical.
-
I bet you can do that on the east coast of Door County
