Author Topic: Teachers won’t sell MLSE  (Read 2123 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bustaheims

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 20194
  • 56!
    • View Profile
Re: Teachers won’t sell MLSE
« Reply #15 on: November 25, 2011, 03:33:49 PM »
Come on Cox, seriously?  I have not seen one iota of evidence that MLSE being cheap has caused the Leafs or Raptors or FC to not be competitive.

Seriously. While I can't speak for the Raptors or TFC, as I don't really follow either of them, there's plenty of evidence against the theory that the OTPP have caused MLSE to cheap out on the Leafs. I mean, the Leafs have one of the highest paid front office teams, one of (if not the) largest groups of scouts, have been pressing against the cap ceiling in all but one season since it was introduced, sacrifice income with the Marlies for the good of the team and so on. When you really take a look at things, the Leafs pretty much have free rein when it comes to cash and management has been able to do whatever they feel they need to for the good of the team.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Offline riff raff

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
    • View Profile
Re: Teachers won’t sell MLSE
« Reply #16 on: November 25, 2011, 03:34:28 PM »
It's frustrating, and lazy "journalism" from Cox to fall back on the 'corporate entity' ownership as the reason for the Leafs' lack of success.

Both L K and cw have pointed this out: what is it that Leaf ownership should have done (presumably by a single owner) that hasn't been done as the team is currently constituted?  Spending money? Hiring a high profile GM?

Where is the evidence of profit over wins? They spend money - sometimes unwisely.

I find it ironic that Cox wrote a book (with Gord Stellick) on the Leafs ('67: The Maple Leafs, Their Sensational Victory and the End of an Empire) that, in its opening chapters describes in great detail how individuals (Ballard, Smythe) stripped the Leafs of assets in order to maximize their own profit.

In other words, he knows what that looks like and this isn't it.
Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck.
- Dalai Lama

Offline Deebo

  • Global Moderator
  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 4425
    • View Profile
Re: Teachers won’t sell MLSE
« Reply #17 on: November 25, 2011, 03:35:08 PM »
Wasn't the "man who's sole interest was being the proprietor of the team" the same guy who nixed a contract with Wayne Gretzky?

Offline riff raff

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
    • View Profile
Re: Teachers won’t sell MLSE
« Reply #18 on: November 25, 2011, 03:40:03 PM »
Wasn't the "man who's sole interest was being the proprietor of the team" the same guy who nixed a contract with Wayne Gretzky?

Yes because of personal money flow problems.
Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck.
- Dalai Lama

Offline Nik the Trik

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 23888
  • Some Guy On a Message Board
    • View Profile
Re: Teachers won’t sell MLSE
« Reply #19 on: November 25, 2011, 03:49:18 PM »
We've seen many private/key NHL owners get into financial trouble:
Stavro (Leafs)
Hicks (Stars)
Del Biaggio (Predators)
Baldwin (Penguins - Baldwin's specialty was buying franchises with very little of his own money invested. For example, his actual cash investment in the Penguins was just $1,000.
Moyes (Moyes)
Bryden (Senators)
McNall (Kings)
Regas (Sabres)
Potter & Block (IRS -> 1975 Penguins bankruptcy)

Fair enough. Here's another list though:

Jeremy Jacobs(Boston)
Rocky Wirtz(Chicago)
Mario Lemieux(Pittsburgh)
Mike Ilitch(Detroit)
Henry Samueli(Anaheim)
Peter Karmanos(Carolina)

Now, there's a reasonable pattern there and it extends backwards too. Bill Davidson, Tom Hicks(who, financial issues aside, did win a Cup), Illitch again. I think you'd probably have to go back to '96 to find a club owned in a similar situation to the Leafs that won the cup(depending on how you want to look at the Devils situation).

Edit: I also think this holds true for other sports. The most successful Baseball franchises(Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals), basketball franchises(Dallas, LA), Football franchises(Pittsburgh, New England) and even EPL franchises(Chelsea, Man United) have easily identifiable owners who are deeply invested in their franchises.

Oddly enough I think this argument would kind of mirror the team-building argument we've had ad nauseum here where the committed passionate owner is like the full-scale rebuild that can succeed or can fail and the faceless corporate behemoth is the build while competing MOR extravaganza we've seen to date.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2011, 03:55:24 PM by Saint Nik »
Give a man the reputation of an early riser and he can sleep 'til noon
-Mark Twain

Offline Guru Tugginmypuddah

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 2711
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Teachers won’t sell MLSE
« Reply #20 on: November 25, 2011, 04:09:47 PM »
They should take MLSE public.

Offline Significantly Insignificant

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 2949
    • View Profile
Re: Teachers won’t sell MLSE
« Reply #21 on: November 25, 2011, 04:49:14 PM »
We've seen many private/key NHL owners get into financial trouble:
Stavro (Leafs)
Hicks (Stars)
Del Biaggio (Predators)
Baldwin (Penguins - Baldwin's specialty was buying franchises with very little of his own money invested. For example, his actual cash investment in the Penguins was just $1,000.
Moyes (Moyes)
Bryden (Senators)
McNall (Kings)
Regas (Sabres)
Potter & Block (IRS -> 1975 Penguins bankruptcy)

Fair enough. Here's another list though:

Jeremy Jacobs(Boston)
Rocky Wirtz(Chicago)
Mario Lemieux(Pittsburgh)
Mike Ilitch(Detroit)
Henry Samueli(Anaheim)
Peter Karmanos(Carolina)

Now, there's a reasonable pattern there and it extends backwards too. Bill Davidson, Tom Hicks(who, financial issues aside, did win a Cup), Illitch again. I think you'd probably have to go back to '96 to find a club owned in a similar situation to the Leafs that won the cup(depending on how you want to look at the Devils situation).

Edit: I also think this holds true for other sports. The most successful Baseball franchises(Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals), basketball franchises(Dallas, LA), Football franchises(Pittsburgh, New England) and even EPL franchises(Chelsea, Man United) have easily identifiable owners who are deeply invested in their franchises.

Oddly enough I think this argument would kind of mirror the team-building argument we've had ad nauseum here where the committed passionate owner is like the full-scale rebuild that can succeed or can fail and the faceless corporate behemoth is the build while competing MOR extravaganza we've seen to date.

But can the lack of involvement, at least publicly, be mitigated by hiring a larger than life GM who does the advocating for you?
"Progress lies not in enhancing what is, but in advancing toward what will be.” - Khalil Gibran

Offline Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 14483
    • View Profile
Re: Teachers won’t sell MLSE
« Reply #22 on: November 25, 2011, 05:15:21 PM »
As long as the ownership is investing enough money to hire the best staff & players, and as long as the oowner doesnt meddle in the team's mgmt, it doesn't make a lick of difference if the owner is a corp or a corporeal person.

Cox mailed that column in.  Probably just uploaded it from a preexisting template.

Offline L K

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 9152
    • View Profile
Re: Teachers won’t sell MLSE
« Reply #23 on: November 25, 2011, 05:36:59 PM »
We've seen many private/key NHL owners get into financial trouble:
Stavro (Leafs)
Hicks (Stars)
Del Biaggio (Predators)
Baldwin (Penguins - Baldwin's specialty was buying franchises with very little of his own money invested. For example, his actual cash investment in the Penguins was just $1,000.
Moyes (Moyes)
Bryden (Senators)
McNall (Kings)
Regas (Sabres)
Potter & Block (IRS -> 1975 Penguins bankruptcy)

Fair enough. Here's another list though:

Jeremy Jacobs(Boston)
Rocky Wirtz(Chicago)
Mario Lemieux(Pittsburgh)
Mike Ilitch(Detroit)
Henry Samueli(Anaheim)
Peter Karmanos(Carolina)

Now, there's a reasonable pattern there and it extends backwards too. Bill Davidson, Tom Hicks(who, financial issues aside, did win a Cup), Illitch again. I think you'd probably have to go back to '96 to find a club owned in a similar situation to the Leafs that won the cup(depending on how you want to look at the Devils situation).

Edit: I also think this holds true for other sports. The most successful Baseball franchises(Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals), basketball franchises(Dallas, LA), Football franchises(Pittsburgh, New England) and even EPL franchises(Chelsea, Man United) have easily identifiable owners who are deeply invested in their franchises.

Oddly enough I think this argument would kind of mirror the team-building argument we've had ad nauseum here where the committed passionate owner is like the full-scale rebuild that can succeed or can fail and the faceless corporate behemoth is the build while competing MOR extravaganza we've seen to date.

I guess my issue is that I have a hard time seeing the causation in the correlation between single-owner and winning a championship.  What is it that Mike Illich has done that MLSE/Peddie haven't done?  What has Illich done differently between the Red Wings and Tigers that one team has won Stanley Cups while the other hasn't won a World Series since he purchased the Tigers in 92'? 


Offline Tigger

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 6368
  • You can play
    • View Profile
Re: Teachers won’t sell MLSE
« Reply #24 on: November 25, 2011, 05:50:56 PM »
Same reason Tom Monaghan got out, more pizza sold at hockey games?...
"My father was born shortly after the Wright Brothers" Charlie Duke

TMLfans.ca

Re: Teachers won’t sell MLSE
« Reply #24 on: November 25, 2011, 05:50:56 PM »