Green Bay isn't respected because they punch above their weight. They are respected (though not by me) because they win. The myth is they win because they are the model franchise in all respects, respect tradition, play the game the right way with the classiest fans, etc. and if you have that you cannot fail. The size of the media market/population or finances of the area are relevant only to show that those are weak excuses and have little to do with winning. People in the US do not have quite the same issues you all do about "big clubs" and small clubs. In large part because most leagues have a salary cap, but also because there is no relegation here. If you finish last, instead of being relegated and facing huge financial obstacles and no one wanting to play for you, you get the #1 draft pick who will sign for you cheap because he has to. So the last five finishers would get say, Shaw, Barkley, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Sterling. If that's not enough and they still finish last then they get the cream of next year's crop. And on and on until they become competitive. The best teams are viewed as having deserved the title on the basis of good management and the worst teams because they have bad management. The only exception might be baseball and the NY Yankees who are the equivalent of Manchester United. But even then, it's still not to the same degree.
He was making an analogy...like most analogies you mustn't look too closely. Krueger has looked at our USP which he sees at the moment as a smaller club doing well and servicing the England team. Our 'niceness' was a selling point for Markus (as well as us being a bargain as he put it ). The Leihberrs are known as a good family, so this is a characteristic that Katharina will want to encourage. Doesn't mean it is true and we are all angels, but it is a perception that could be used to get us the worldwide fans needed to do well financially. The good thing is that it requires us to carry on producing players that others admire and covet. By the by, would hate a system where the best players can be shunted around, though I can see it produces a competitive league. Players aren't really yours, they haven't chosen to be with you, may not be there next year...just not a system I could warm to.
If we are to be like the Packers we can all look forward to going to matches dressed like this: please log in to view this image
That'll be why every neutral loves the Patriots, Steelers and Cowboys then? What do you think the Premier League is? There's probably more loyalty in terms of keeping your best players over there than there is here - very very rarely do you see a proper franchise QB move teams, while in association football top names transfer clubs very regularly.
I'm just waiting for someone to point out the difference between an analogy and a simile...always get that wrong.
Well, it's the same with the Patriots. The city where the stadium is located is a few tens of thousands, but the stadium is what, 60/70 thousand? And it's always looked full or close to full whenever I've seen it. I suppose it makes sense though, in the UK most major towns and cities have a professional side (or two) while in America there's only 32 teams in a country the size of a continent. Of course, then you have college teams which races that figure somewhat, but the relatively low density of professional sports teams means they would all have a bigger catchment area (likely state wide rather than city wide)
An Analogy is some type of bum operation and a simile is something which happens on your face from time to time
I used to work in that area back in the 80's. The people generally have a "work hard, play hard" kind of attitude. I was right out in the sticks for a while where they had a snowshoe softball league in the winter. Anyway, I've always followed the Packers. Everyone knows that they wouldn't be successful without a fair bit of money but there is a sort of romantic, 'working class boys done good' sort of quality about them also. I don't know if you can really compare us but good to know that our boss is probably a Packers fan too 9i wonder if he could get me a ticket?).
Well aren't you a bundle of joy Dan..... My logic goes as follows:- 1) Ralph Krueger's comments were talking about the future more so than the present. In that he wants us to punch above our weight with our resources similar to the way the Green Bay Packers do in the NFL. 2) That it is similar that we have a big catchment area. 3) That part of the model we aspire to would include getting further support from the wider metropolitan area due to the lack of any other top level sports teams for miles rather than resting on our laurels. Your logic assumes that either:- Ralph Krueger was talking about the present only regarding the similarity of ourselves and the Green Bay Packers. Would be pretty odd in my opinion for a new chairman to be referring only about the present with no future aims. OR That I had assumed RK was talking only about the present and not the future. Again, would be pretty odd. Really is a shame I had to explain something that simple in that level of detail just because a more regular keyboard warrior 'knows he's right'. I'll leave this post open in that you may still be right (if RK's comments were talking only about the present similarities), and in that case I would be wrong regards my interpretation of his comments. You were certainly incorrect though, if you assumed that I was talking only about the present.
Krueger likened us to the Packers when talking about commercial possibilities and our identity. He was talking about the Packer's popularity. I don't think he meant it in any more detail than that....after all there are loads of differences: a different sport in a different country. Too much analysing going on.
No one views them as "plucky underdogs," or classy teams that's for sure. I'm not sure there's any such thing as a Patriots, Steelers, or Cowboy "neutral." Those are probably the simultaneously most popular and most hated teams in the NFL.
Before I got into the NFL properly, I had a soft spot for the Patriots, mainly because they were the only team I knew of and Tom Brady was the only player I knew of.
Another reason for the Packs popularity was their rivalry with nearby(in US terms) Chicago Bears. The match ups were very much seen as the big city slickers against the country bumpkins. They struck a chord with their neighbouring small towns and that helped galvanise support from outside the town
It's nothing special that people outside of Green Bay root for Green Bay. The whole "small town" thing is a myth. The Green Bay Packers are essentially the Wisconsin Packers. Wisconsin is a middle-sized state, so the Packers are in reality not a small team. I guess they get most of the Yoopers as well, but those guys are weird anyway. Technically they are part of Michigan, but they are separated by a Great Lake and are closer to Green Bay than Detroit. And it's not like there are that many of them. Baltimore is a much bigger city than Green Bay, but Maryland is no bigger than Wisconsin in terms of population. And a decent (and heavily populated) chunk of the state really functions more as a suburb of Washington DC. So in that sense, the natural fanbase of the Baltimore Ravens is smaller than that of the Packers. It's like saying the New England Patriots are different than the Boston Celtics. They're not. They were the Boston Patriots until they relocated the stadium a mere 20 miles to a suburb of Boston. But the fanbase didn't change and it's the same fanbase as the Celtics... which is New England.
Of course it's a myth. As Fran has said a couple of times, you're taking this far too seriously. It's about how they might be perceived rather than what the reality is. We're owned by a billionaire but still have the "plucky underdog" image to a lot of people.
Just noticed this. Don't know what the hostile reply was all about, you implied that Packers selling out the Lambeau every game despite being in a small city was similar to Southampton and I pointed out that we've got nowhere near that level of support because we hardly move tickets at all. No need to dig so far into the deepest meanings of Krueger's words and certainly no need for the ad hominem. Still, I'm sure Krueger will be delighted by how some are going to great lengths to find meaning in what was probably a throwaway comment.
