View Single Post
Old
09-12-2004, 11:29 AM
  #54
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
That is a big if. Do you know for a fact that most owners treat their team like a toy? If a handful of owners do treat their team like a toy, why do the rest of the owners have to lose money because of the ones that want to treat their teams as toys? If most of the owners did treat their teams as toys, we wouldn't be having a lock out, would we? All the owners would be sitting in front of their fireplaces, drinking their 30 year old scotch, laughing about how much they lost each year. I don't get the impression they are doing anything like that.
Again, read yourself, you are TALKING about OWNER vs OWNER , how does it related to the players giving everything they won in the CBA ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Do you work in a large company? Or more specifically, do you work for a company that is a reletively small part of a large conglomorate? I do. Do you know how often every company of a conglomerate is audited each year to ensure good business decisions are being made? Do you know how quickly the CEO's of these conglomerates want changes when any company under them is losing money? Even when they are making record profits, large conglomerates want every business unit making a profit. While there is little doubt some teams are not managed well, that is a conscious decision by the head of that conglomerate. Most however, would be expected to follow good business practices.
Again, read yourself, you are TALKING about OWNER vs OWNER , how does it related to the players giving everything they won in the CBA ?

A lot of companies that follows the same routes as many others failed in the past because so many managers got a way to think ''If it work for them, it can work for us'' & you have other managers that think ''What can I do to make it work for my company''

It's maybe tough to follow but that's the difference between the San Jose Sharks & the Buffalo Sabres.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
You have sat in on meetings with the NHL executives over the previous 10 years and this is why you know that the GM's didn't read the CBA for the first 8 years?
Well do simple logic analysis.

1st time a GM let go a players for not qualifying a superstar ? Summer 2003 : Paul Kariya. This rule exist since 1994 !!!

1st time a GM let go a rookie for not qualifying him ? 2003 ? This rule exist since 1994

1st time a GM let go a player after winning an arbitration ? 2003 : Bryan Berard. This rule exist since 1994 !

What bothering me with you is that you expect me to challenge all your question when you don't do yourself your own homework. You just believe what the owners said & you are content/satisfy with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Again, you know what the best minds in hockey were thinking? Please teach me how you do this mind reading trick...
There no's real answer to that question. If Wal-Mart got success with their way of doing it, that doesn't mean Target will succeed by doing/copy the same concept.

You need to understand that a GM can be good in evaluating talent but what if like Andre Savard he's so bad in the financial aspect of the franchise ? Don't blame the players for it, that GM was incompetent for giving contract.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
You seem to think you are much smarter than all the owners and GM's in the NHL. Why don't you go to their next board meeting and tell them how easily you can fix all their problems so we can have hockey this season...
I'm not SMARTER & I don't think I am smarter than anyone.

What I do know is that most owner of a sports franchise , they don't manage those entity like they manage their ''real'' companies. They only care about winning & I don't talk about the rich teams only.

I'm just saying what you think I'm defending the players that I'm only talking about management & accountability : Owners didn't do their homework or didn't care about it since the last 2 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Where the owners did screw up is not putting something in place in the last CBA to keep every owner from making decisions that was bad for the league, things like raising individual team salaries and accepting huge losses. This is bad for all the other teams in the NHL that can't accept those losses, but have to field a competetive team. Should they have been smart enough to anticipate that some owners would do this in the future? Maybe, maybe not. It's kind of easy to sit here now and look back how things could have been done better.
Making good & bad decision is part of being a business manager. If you can't be responsible for your bad decisions, why would someone else be responsible for it.

I'm not looking back, I'm talking about relating the past to the present that the owners & the GM are more prepared today. Ziggy Palffy 3 years ago with the same STATS would have been given 9,000,000$ maybe 10M$ without any regrets for that franchise to give him. Today he's having a hard time getting 6-7M$ . Maybe to you , it's only the results of not having a CBA but just read what GM's said & learn from the past that a 9M$ players no matter how good he can be, will only be a handicap to build a franchise instead of making the franchise progress.

Martin StLouis after winning the Hart-Art Ross would have receive 9-10M$ without any hesitation from the FANS & the GM'S. Today he will have a hard time getting 7M$.

Again , you expect me to challenge you with my answer when all you do is regurgitating the same old answers that does not even related to the side (OWNERS vs PLAYERS)
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
We need to find a way for the owner to controls what the other owners do
After that you insult me by telling me , I'm just saying the same thing over & over. please !

Russian Fan is offline