View Single Post
02-26-2012, 05:56 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,424
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Goldthorpe View Post
Of course they chose to try to make the playoffs, duh. That's my point. It's very important for them.

The fans reaction would be even worst if the team rebuilt. That you belief the contrary is your own little narrative. In practice all the fans are interested is the "right now", and they will spend accordingly.

Again, that's your little analysis, with no ground on reality. In practice, no ownsership will accept to see the value of its company go down - even just for a year - just on the remote possibility that it could go up latter. This is pure wishful thinking.

All these things can happen without the team sucking for a while and risking massive lost in value. That it would be easier to get these kinds of players by tanking is beside the point.

'cause most of the time (including the last few years, and exceptionally not this year), this strategy has allow the team to make the playoffs and be very popular in Montreal - and when you make the playoffs, you don't know what will happen next. No franchise is going to risk its core value just for the possible chance of doing better latter. You problem is simple: you vastly understestimate how much a franchise value can fluctuate over the years if the team isn't competitive. You're doing this because it's the only way your tanking theory makes sense. If you remove this assumption, suddenly it's not workable anymore.


Leonsis "tried" because that was the only thing he could do! The Capitals were a joke of a franchise back in their Jagr days. The value of the team couldn't be lower. So in these circumstances, yes, it makes sense to take some risk. Had Leonsis managed a rich team, he would never had go this route.

This is what happen to every team that goes the tanking route. They never starts as a rich bubble team - they start at the bottom, and then decide to stay there for a few years in order to try to draft super stars.

LG, I don't want to sound harsh, but nobody care if you find this acceptable or not. Especially not management. You're not a stakeholder here. I'm not trying to have a conversation here, I'm trying to explain to you something that is actually pretty obvious if you have any kind of business experience. Managers don't let the value of their company go down - period. The Molsons don't want to learn that their baby lost hundreds of millions because their manager believed it made sense to ran the team to the ground on the vague hope of getting better on the long term. That's why your stuff about "ROI" and "you never worked with CEO" is LOL worthy: you so obviously don't know what you are talking about, and you're trying to cover it with theoretical crap. And you're entire argumentation is built on this. You've devoted so much time making your point, it's just too late for you do admit your assumption was pure speculation and walk back a little. No, instead, every single manager of the Montreal Canadiens franchise must sucks because they don't do what you think they should do.
I'll sum up all of your posts by saying that the Habs don't sell Coca Cola. They are a pro sports CLUB, and your corporatist thinking does not apply. If you love corporate thinking so much, go chear for the Leafs.

And by the way, I would not be proud of any of our corporations or the way they are run the last 20 years. 20% youth unemployment throughout the west say lots about how effective they've been.

bsl is offline   Reply With Quote