First, you cited a baseball example, and this is the NFL. Do you have knowledge of what the NFL rule is in such a case? As many of the early players were also coaches and owners of the teams, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the NFL actually did operate under different rules. Second, your use of controlling isn't in line with the typical use of 'controlling' in a stock situation, which is why I responded as such. In ANY stock situation, 'controlling' means having enough shares to unilaterally make a decision. Aaron Jones presumably bought one share, which allows for one vote and results in no controlling interest. Jones could have bought every single share made available this week and wouldn't have had a controlling interest. I guess I'm bewildered at the general poo-pooing of this that exists on this at this point, especially on social media. If people aren't interested, why should they care enough to comment on it and crap on others who see some sort of value in it?