HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Hasso Plattner

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-01-2013, 07:35 PM
  #1
Wedontneedroads
Registered User
 
Wedontneedroads's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 3,082
vCash: 50
Hasso Plattner

Looked for an existing thread and didn't find one. Thought the new majority owner deserved at least a bit of general discussion.

I already love the way this guy thinks:

Quote:
"You cannot make money with a hockey team," said Plattner. "You cannot make money with a hotel, either, and you cannot make money with a golf club. I have all three of them (laughs)."
Quote:
"We still want to have a championship team and win the Stanley Cup. That's clearly the number one objective of a sports club, otherwise you should not be in the sports business."
This is why I wanted Larry Ellison to buy the Warriors. I cannot stand an owner who thinks their goal with a sports team is to make money, and the NHL is full of them. The Sharks used to be owned by a bunch of them. If you are the majority owner of a sports team your goal should be one thing. WIN. This guy gets it.

He has been in the wings as a minority owner for some time, and clearly thinks now is his time to step into the spotlight.

Question is would he consider major front office changes if the Sharks miss the playoffs for the first time in 10 years?

Something is just not right with this team.

Wedontneedroads is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2013, 07:37 PM
  #2
Mafoofoo
Jawesome
 
Mafoofoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 15,119
vCash: 500
We're gonna draft so many germans now.

Mafoofoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2013, 07:41 PM
  #3
OffSydes
#tank2014/5
 
OffSydes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,746
vCash: 500
Reminds me of Hank Scorpio

OffSydes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2013, 07:43 PM
  #4
Negatively Positive
Stop Lying!
 
Negatively Positive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,756
vCash: 500
If he doesn't mind losing money then would he be okay with rebuilding and trading off the top players? Although if he trades off the top players and not spend to the cap, he would save some money. Basically if the Sharks do an actual rebuild they'll lose a ton of games and fans, so would he be okay with losing a bunch of money in the hopes that they'll be a cup contender again 5 years from now assuming they draft well and do a proper rebuild.

Negatively Positive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2013, 07:51 PM
  #5
Grave
Chomp
 
Grave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Northern California
Country: Finland
Posts: 13,707
vCash: 78
Wish he had a twitter so I could ask him to fire DW.

Grave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2013, 07:51 PM
  #6
Fistfullofbeer
#FREEHEED #FREERYAN
 
Fistfullofbeer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Whidbey Island, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,538
vCash: 1100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mafoofoo View Post
We're gonna draft so many germans now.
Trade Nemo. Start Greiss. Every game.

Fistfullofbeer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2013, 08:45 PM
  #7
JodyShelleysNo1Fan
Registered User
 
JodyShelleysNo1Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 3,012
vCash: 500
Dont tell me, show me.

JodyShelleysNo1Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2013, 09:05 PM
  #8
SactoShark
\_(ツ)_/
 
SactoShark's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,423
vCash: 2000
* Puts away golf club. Looks at bank statement. Sighs. *

SactoShark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2013, 09:13 PM
  #9
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shark Fin Soup View Post
If he doesn't mind losing money then would he be okay with rebuilding and trading off the top players? Although if he trades off the top players and not spend to the cap, he would save some money. Basically if the Sharks do an actual rebuild they'll lose a ton of games and fans, so would he be okay with losing a bunch of money in the hopes that they'll be a cup contender again 5 years from now assuming they draft well and do a proper rebuild.
If there is a rebuild, it is very important to be selective on the players that are bought. No lineup fillers. Perfection from the vets off the ice and in practice. No vets who party like rockstars. No Heatleys, no Guerins, etc. Patty, Pavs, Couture, no problem. No real problem with JT although not quite like the aforementioned 3. No vets who MUST have their place in the lineup, guys who are willing to take lesser roles as young guys develop. It may mean they won't spend to the cap. They also have to preserve space for when the young guys will get their paydays. No long, high dollar contracts that necessitate lineup shuffling because of a vet with an NMC and a high dollar contract.

The temptation is to sign "stars" no matter the consequences; the reality is that it is better to be selective. Mentor type vets get an even bigger plus. No vets who rebel at the idea of a "cheap" owner not spending to the cap for their buddies. Vets who see the necessity of wisdom over dollars.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2013, 10:03 PM
  #10
deekortiz3
Registered User
 
deekortiz3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 976
vCash: 500
I have a strong dislike for both of the folks you mentioned based on my job... but at least Hasso seems to get what it means to own a sports team.

deekortiz3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2013, 10:13 PM
  #11
WTFetus
Moderator
Marlov
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 14,143
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
No vets who party like rockstars. No Heatleys, no Guerins, etc.
I thought Heatley didn't party that much after the accident. I remember hearing something about him not drinking during the season.

WTFetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 12:09 AM
  #12
ChompChomp
My avi is gospel
 
ChompChomp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, TX (Ugh)
Country: United States
Posts: 9,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wedontneedroads View Post
I cannot stand an owner who thinks their goal with a sports team is to make money, and the NHL is full of them.
This seems to be a little broad, I want to qualify this (IMHO).

It's okay to be in it for the money, IF what you want is to buy the team for $100M and 10 years later they are worth billions. Because, how do you take a team like the Sharks and turn them into a billion dollar franchise? Put a team on the ice that wins multiple Stanley Cups which leads higher TV ratings (think: better local TV deals), more hockey world/sports exposure, which means more merchandise sales and higher ticket prices that people will pay, and if you really build something enormous, next thing you know you putting together your own television network (Leafs TV, YES, I think the Caps are putting one together).

Think Detroit Red Wings. Illitch buys Red Wings in 1982 for $8M(!!!!). In today's dollars, that's about $18.7M (!!!!!). Forbes values the Red Wings at $346M. I'm sure Red Wings fans don't mind if Illitch bought low on a sports team and turned it into a money maker that is worth tons more today.

THAT I'm totally fine with. If Plattner's "goal" is to make this team worth $1B in 10 years, that's flipping fantasic.

I'm sure when you said money, you meaning turning a profit every year. I'm with you on that, that's ridiculous. The big money, though, is in making the team more valuable over a long period of time, and to get there, you almost necessarily need to put a winner out there. According to Forbes, SF Giants were worth $381M. 2012 they were worth $643M, with a big spike the year after their first WS. It's not a coincidence.

If owners are "in it for the money," fine, as long as they are focused on increasing the value of their asset, not making slim profits in any given year.

ChompChomp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 08:52 AM
  #13
LeeIFBB
Teflon Doug
 
LeeIFBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tanning Bed
Posts: 2,061
vCash: 500
Plattner appears to be the type of owner willing to commit the resources necessary to win championships while excluding himself from the day-to-day team decisions. That is usually the ideal situation. Unfortunately for the Sharks, the guy responsible for the day-to-day decisions has no clue what's necessary to win championships.

LeeIFBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 09:56 AM
  #14
Alaskanice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: 1 1/2 hours away
Country: United States
Posts: 551
vCash: 500
Yeah, every one of us has a better clue than DW. Are you serious?? Just because we can sit at a computer and spew our thoughts gives us no claim to being knowledgable of what it takes to win a championship in professional sports.

Alaskanice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 11:38 AM
  #15
LeeIFBB
Teflon Doug
 
LeeIFBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tanning Bed
Posts: 2,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaskanice View Post
Yeah, every one of us has a better clue than DW. Are you serious?? Just because we can sit at a computer and spew our thoughts gives us no claim to being knowledgable of what it takes to win a championship in professional sports.
Well none of us has any idea how we'd do as the Sharks' general manager, but if we consider the actual situation, instead of a hypothetical one, we're left with Doug Wilson's 12.5 years as Sharks GM, zero Stanley Cups, zero SCF appearances.

LeeIFBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2013, 09:49 AM
  #16
Linkster
Beard goggles!
 
Linkster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Coastal Sharkifornia
Country: United States
Posts: 7,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OffSydes View Post
Reminds me of Hank Scorpio
I was thinking of the Germans (Hans & Horst) who bought Mr Burns' nuke plant in the "Burns Verkaufen der Kraftwerk" episode.

Horst: "Attention workers, we have completed our evaluation of the plant. We regret to announce the following lay-offs, which I will read in alphabetical order... Simpson, Homer. That is all."

Linkster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2013, 12:17 PM
  #17
rideaucrusher21
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: CA
Country: United States
Posts: 681
vCash: 500
So quickly perusing through articles, I think Hasso Plattner is the richest majority owner in hockey. And by a wide margin. $10.9 billion net worth per a recent bloomberg article http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...es-pledge.html. To put it in context, if he were the 100% owner of the Sharks (which he isn't) it would take over 100 years for him to run out of money if the Sharks lost $100 million per year.. He can say money isn't a problem for him, because it really isn't. That's something not all NHL owners can say, which I think gives the Sharks an advantage. It would be fun if Larry Ellison bought the Ducks to extend their SAP-Oracle rivalry to the ice.

rideaucrusher21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2013, 12:49 PM
  #18
Rickety Cricket
Registered User
 
Rickety Cricket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Not Kent Huskins
Country: United States
Posts: 28,973
vCash: 500
While having a rich owner is nice, a hard cap can equalize things a bit. Its not like the Sharks can just outspend everyone else. We've already been spending to the cap for years.

Rickety Cricket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2013, 01:28 PM
  #19
Barrie22
Shark fan in hiding
 
Barrie22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,603
vCash: 50
you are right having a rich owner in a cap world doesn't really mean much. but in terms of what is about 5 years (max) away with a rebuild. then it can be huge in terms of on ice product, it could be a complete overhaul over 2 or 3 seasons like the bruins, or it could be like the islanders.

i also guess there is a slim chance it ends up like the leafs, with rich owners, incompetent managers and still bottom feeders.

Barrie22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2013, 01:42 PM
  #20
Rickety Cricket
Registered User
 
Rickety Cricket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Not Kent Huskins
Country: United States
Posts: 28,973
vCash: 500
I'd be happy if he overhauled our scouting department and Worcester. He can use his money to do that.

Rickety Cricket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2013, 05:58 PM
  #21
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 49,199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickety Cricket View Post
I'd be happy if he overhauled our scouting department and Worcester. He can use his money to do that.
This right here would turn the organization into a legitimately consistent contender instead of having a peak like we did from 2008-09 through 2010-11 and then falling off into what we were prior to and since. A decent team that will make the playoffs but with obvious weaknesses that will in all likelihood spell a playoff loss earlier rather than later.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2013, 06:03 PM
  #22
JayP812
The Team of Tomorrow
 
JayP812's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bay Area
Country: United States
Posts: 6,484
vCash: 500
Wanting to win is great, but lets hope that he doesn't take that too literally. Really don't want to have the Flames' ownership that demands Feaster to try to contend every year, denying Calgary the eventual rebuild.

JayP812 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2013, 06:34 PM
  #23
Barrie22
Shark fan in hiding
 
Barrie22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,603
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayP812 View Post
Wanting to win is great, but lets hope that he doesn't take that too literally. Really don't want to have the Flames' ownership that demands Feaster to try to contend every year, denying Calgary the eventual rebuild.
the sharks don't need to do a oilers rebuild, if he is willing to spend the cash. then we can have a bruins rebuild 1 or 2 years of missing the playoffs (9th to 11th seeds).

just need a smart gm who has a plan and the players to fulfill that plan.

with the bruins cup winning team they had 5 players who were actually drafted by the bruins (4 of them should of been there property, 1 of them should not have been).

the rest were free agent signings/trades.

Barrie22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2013, 01:23 PM
  #24
Wedontneedroads
Registered User
 
Wedontneedroads's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 3,082
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shark Fin Soup View Post
If he doesn't mind losing money then would he be okay with rebuilding and trading off the top players? Although if he trades off the top players and not spend to the cap, he would save some money. Basically if the Sharks do an actual rebuild they'll lose a ton of games and fans, so would he be okay with losing a bunch of money in the hopes that they'll be a cup contender again 5 years from now assuming they draft well and do a proper rebuild.
This was kind of my thought. The guy is not going to care if he loses $100 mil over 5 years because fans disappear as long as by the end of those 5 years they are back as a contender. This is the type of guy that thinks much longer term. Definitely not the case of the past Sharks owners.

The question then becomes what is the current evaluation of this franchise. What direction do you go in? I don't think he has the hockey knowledge to really make those decisions, and I'm curious who he is going to consult for advice (if anyone)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChompChomp View Post
This seems to be a little broad, I want to qualify this (IMHO).

It's okay to be in it for the money, IF what you want is to buy the team for $100M and 10 years later they are worth billions. Because, how do you take a team like the Sharks and turn them into a billion dollar franchise? Put a team on the ice that wins multiple Stanley Cups which leads higher TV ratings (think: better local TV deals), more hockey world/sports exposure, which means more merchandise sales and higher ticket prices that people will pay, and if you really build something enormous, next thing you know you putting together your own television network (Leafs TV, YES, I think the Caps are putting one together).

Think Detroit Red Wings. Illitch buys Red Wings in 1982 for $8M(!!!!). In today's dollars, that's about $18.7M (!!!!!). Forbes values the Red Wings at $346M. I'm sure Red Wings fans don't mind if Illitch bought low on a sports team and turned it into a money maker that is worth tons more today.

THAT I'm totally fine with. If Plattner's "goal" is to make this team worth $1B in 10 years, that's flipping fantasic.

I'm sure when you said money, you meaning turning a profit every year. I'm with you on that, that's ridiculous. The big money, though, is in making the team more valuable over a long period of time, and to get there, you almost necessarily need to put a winner out there. According to Forbes, SF Giants were worth $381M. 2012 they were worth $643M, with a big spike the year after their first WS. It's not a coincidence.

If owners are "in it for the money," fine, as long as they are focused on increasing the value of their asset, not making slim profits in any given year.
That is exactly what I meant. I have no issue with an owner building up the value of a team over years of ownership. That is absolutely the goal of a sports franchise.

However, the way to do that isn't always make money year in and year out. Sometimes you need to take a long term look, and that's what I think this guy can bring to the table.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rideaucrusher21 View Post
So quickly perusing through articles, I think Hasso Plattner is the richest majority owner in hockey. And by a wide margin. $10.9 billion net worth per a recent bloomberg article http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...es-pledge.html. To put it in context, if he were the 100% owner of the Sharks (which he isn't) it would take over 100 years for him to run out of money if the Sharks lost $100 million per year.. He can say money isn't a problem for him, because it really isn't. That's something not all NHL owners can say, which I think gives the Sharks an advantage. It would be fun if Larry Ellison bought the Ducks to extend their SAP-Oracle rivalry to the ice.
It's funny I actually ended up reading a Ratto article while researching this guy, and kinda agreed with the sweater monkey.

He talked about how this could be Plattner's attempt to become one of the guys in the negotiating room when it comes to NHL policy. Talked about how Plattner was most likely one of the guys pissed the lockout happened, because he is rich enough to just want hockey to be played.

He could have settled the lockout by just opening his check book real quick.

Wedontneedroads is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2013, 01:40 PM
  #25
magic school bus
***********
 
magic school bus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 18,884
vCash: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaskanice View Post
Yeah, every one of us has a better clue than DW. Are you serious?? Just because we can sit at a computer and spew our thoughts gives us no claim to being knowledgable of what it takes to win a championship in professional sports.
The argument that NHL GMs are so much smarter than us threw itself out the window when we found out Feaster doesn't even know the rules.

magic school bus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:25 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.