Flames' Management Structure

[DionTheDman]

Recently they've emphasized a few times that the Flames' current management structure is something new to the NHL and that Burke expects it to be widespread into the future throughout professional sports. What exactly is this structure, and why is it so good? How is it different than what we used to have? On that note, what did we used to have?

[simmer2]

As I understand it, having a President of Hockey Operations and separating that from Arena operations I believe is the main difference. And i think this is perceived as good is because it allows for more focus within the different profit centres.

It is definitely more expensive to have a mgmt structure like this since you simply need more people, but the outcome would theoretically be higher revenue.

EDIT: What I am not sure is how they split up the revenues of the two different portions. I'm not sure for example what would be considered revenue of the arena and revenue of the team with something like ticket sales.

The Flames might sell tickets at a Wholesale price to the arena, then the arena marks up to the general public.

I'd be interested in knowing the structure as well, so if someone has more insight it would be much appreciated

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

I believe the "theoretical" reason it's supposed to be better would be something like this:

- By adding the layer of "President of Hockey Operations" it puts someone who's primary strength is managing the "on ice product" (said another way, the playing performance and success of the team) in a more stable and less volatile position. This person "theoretically" should not be held or feel as responsible for the short term success or failures of the teams on ice performance. Rather, this person should be held accountable to the longer term vision and goals of the club.

In plain English, it should "theoretically" make the club less likely to fall victim to "short" term hockey decisions that are made by desperate GM to protect his job, or stave off his own execution.

In the more common management structure, the GM title is often the last stop up the ladder that a true "hockey expert or hockey management professional" holds. Above him, are usually traditional "non hockey guys" like Owners and Presidents who have achieved their success through business savvy, not assembling winning sports teams. The problem comes with this structure, is when the pressure is on in the interim to win, and the GM is being held accountable for both the long and the SHORT term success of the club. For example, if the GM might feel like his job is in jeporady if the playoffs are missed, he may make some moves that are long term damaging, to hold off his dismal in the short term. A survival mechanism, fix the short term, deal with the long term later and fix it then.

Impacts of a move like that might not hurt or be realized until some years after. Problem being, that in the moment, the non hockey President or Owners of the club, are the only ones truly potentially concerned about the long term impacts, are reliant on their GM to advise them on the hockey impacts of said decision. But in this case, the GMs bigger motivation is to win in the short term, convince owners it will be re-coverable long term and they should go for it.

If you insert a "President of Hockey Ops" like the Flames have, it should prevent the above "short term decisions making" that often hurts teams. He will not be able to be "convinced" that long term impacts of certain moves aren't as harmful, and will force the team to stick to a plan that is consistent with the long term vision. Something he can do because it's not his job on the line (no survival decision making) and because he is also a hockey expert and understand the moves being made.

I'm sure the relationship is not as adversarial as I'm describing above between GM and President, in a functional relationship it should work much more collaboratively. But in a Nutshell, the above would be the benefit of the structure IMO.

[Chip Hilton]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I believe the "theoretical" reason it's supposed to be better would be something like this:

- By adding the layer of "President of Hockey Operations" it puts someone who's primary strength is managing the "on ice product" (said another way, the playing performance and success of the team) in a more stable and less volatile position. This person "theoretically" should not be held or feel as responsible for the short term success or failures of the teams on ice performance. Rather, this person should be held accountable to the longer term vision and goals of the club.

In plain English, it should "theoretically" make the club less likely to fall victim to "short" term hockey decisions that are made by desperate GM to protect his job, or stave off his own execution.

In the more common management structure, the GM title is often the last stop up the ladder that a true "hockey expert or hockey management professional" holds. Above him, are usually traditional "non hockey guys" like Owners and Presidents who have achieved their success through business savvy, not assembling winning sports teams. The problem comes with this structure, is when the pressure is on in the interim to win, and the GM is being held accountable for both the long and the SHORT term success of the club. For example, if the GM might feel like his job is in jeporady if the playoffs are missed, he may make some moves that are long term damaging, to hold off his dismal in the short term. A survival mechanism, fix the short term, deal with the long term later and fix it then.

Impacts of a move like that might not hurt or be realized until some years after. Problem being, that in the moment, the non hockey President or Owners of the club, are the only ones truly potentially concerned about the long term impacts, are reliant on their GM to advise them on the hockey impacts of said decision. But in this case, the GMs bigger motivation is to win in the short term, convince owners it will be re-coverable long term and they should go for it.

If you insert a "President of Hockey Ops" like the Flames have, it should prevent the above "short term decisions making" that often hurts teams. He will not be able to be "convinced" that long term impacts of certain moves aren't as harmful, and will force the team to stick to a plan that is consistent with the long term vision. Something he can do because it's not his job on the line (no survival decision making) and because he is also a hockey expert and understand the moves being made.

I'm sure the relationship is not as adversarial as I'm describing above between GM and President, in a functional relationship it should work much more collaboratively. But in a Nutshell, the above would be the benefit of the structure IMO.

An interesting theory, and one that you have expressed very well; however, in the case of the Flames, what happens if they still haven't made the playoffs five years from now? Would the short term pressure to win not have shifted from the GM to the President at that point? Indeed, under that scenario, there would very likely also be a new GM in place; one who might well want to take a longer term road to success than the now-beleaguered President would want. Their perspectives would have been reversed from those that you describe.

As a long time Burke observer, going back to his first tour of duty in Vancouver in the late 80s as Pat Quinn's assistant, I find the Calgary management situation very interesting. I think the titles of the two jobs, President and GM, are nothing more than new descriptors of "GM" and "Assistant GM", respectively. There is no question in my mind that Burke effectively is, and will continue to be, the "true" GM and that Treliving will effectively be his assistant. Yes, they will work collaboratively, but there will be no trades, contracts, draft picks, etc. without Burkie's sign off - not a chance.

Look at the situations in Toronto and Colorado - Nonis and Sherman, respectively, are nominally the GMs in those two organizations but it is clear that the power they once held has shifted to others. I see the situation in Calgary as no different, regardless of how loudly Burke may protest that he "has no desire to be a general manager."

This is not a bad thing for the Flames; to the contrary, it is a very good thing, as Burke, despite his faults, is overall a very good hockey man and I think he will probably get the Flames' ship back on course before too many more seasons go by.

[Vulcan]

I also think that having Burke as President puts a hockey guy as a go between for owners and hockey management. At least that's how I hope it works.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Chip Hilton

As a long time Burke observer, going back to his first tour of duty in Vancouver in the late 80s as Pat Quinn's assistant, I find the Calgary management situation very interesting. I think the titles of the two jobs, President and GM, are nothing more than new descriptors of "GM" and "Assistant GM", respectively. There is no question in my mind that Burke effectively is, and will continue to be, the "true" GM and that Treliving will effectively be his assistant. Yes, they will work collaboratively, but there will be no trades, contracts, draft picks, etc. without Burkie's sign off - not a chance.

I agree that all but the minor moves will go through Burke first before they are finalized, but calling Burke the true GM is not fair imo. Treliving will be negotiating the trades and contracts with the help of his Asst. GM that he will chose. Treliving will use Burke as a great source of knowledge but it's insulting to call him an assistant GM.

[DoubleF]

I might be wrong, but I thought it was changing the structure to reflect more like a board of directors on a company. (ie: CEO, a COO and CFO). Anyone who tries to move on their own (ie: Owners or GM etc.) will have to grab majority buy in from all individuals at the table. This system gives a more balanced input system. Each individual probably has an input weight of let's say 1-2 out of 10 whereas in prior years, owners + Feaster probably had something like 8 out of 10. Removes bullying or deaf ears out of the equation.

That's what I thought. I thought the current structure was closer to a small business where majority shareholder/owner just did whatever he/she felt like. If they were good (Owner or GM), they would listen to the others, but they still held enough power to veto or run amok whenever they felt like it.

[FAN]

I am only concerned about the on-ice product/hockey operations. I think the current management structure of the Flames is superfluous. Burke has been President and GM before. Burke has proved himself capable of handling both roles, so all of this is very much in name only as far as the on-ice product and hockey operations is concerned because Burke still calls the shots.

For other teams with an inexperienced President, there's really just another guy between the GM and the owners. Someone has to hire a GM and it might as well be a "hockey guy". The key is who really makes the hockey decisions? Here it's clearly going to be Burke. In other places, having an inexperienced President doesn't matter if you have a capable GM who makes the decisions.

[UKflames]

Whilst the description by Cleveland steam whistle is very good, if this is the structure then it would worry me a lot. You have two opposite forces pulling the team in different directions under this scenario.

Using the example given, you have a GM that needs a player or two to take them over the top and to make the playoffs but it needs one of the prospects in the deal to make it work. GM says yes, becasue it will potentially get the team into the playoffs, which he is supposed to be doing, but the president says no because it hurts his long term vision of the team. Who has the final say?

If they don't make the trade, because the president says no, and the team doesn't make the playoffs, does the GM lose his job because the team didn't make the playoffs, which is his responsibility, even though he was unable to make the trades he felt he needed to?

At the end of the day, in any management structure, you ultimately need one person who makes the final decision, so is that Burke or Treliving??

[PeteMoss]

Burke is there to maintain a organizational team identity. So if Treliving doesn't work out you still have players that fit the organizational needs and don't have to spend the year getting players who fit the new gm type guys.

He'd also have helped avoid panic moves like when Sutter went crazy with Phanuef/kotalik and hopefully be able to convince ownership to rebuild when the time is right as opposed to waiting two years too late.

[PeteMoss]

Columbus has the same structure, St.Louis had it when Davidson was there (not sure about now)

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

I might be wrong, but I thought it was changing the structure to reflect more like a board of directors on a company. (ie: CEO, a COO and CFO). Anyone who tries to move on their own (ie: Owners or GM etc.) will have to grab majority buy in from all individuals at the table. This system gives a more balanced input system. Each individual probably has an input weight of let's say 1-2 out of 10 whereas in prior years, owners + Feaster probably had something like 8 out of 10. Removes bullying or deaf ears out of the equation.

That's what I thought. I thought the current structure was closer to a small business where majority shareholder/owner just did whatever he/she felt like. If they were good (Owner or GM), they would listen to the others, but they still held enough power to veto or run amok whenever they felt like it.

I think its like this. This would be consistent with Murray Edwards' "management by committee" models that he uses at some companies.

[Huntingwhale]

Great description by Cleveland and while I'm not expert, I think he hit the nail on the head. It would also explain how a President like Lowe is able to stay on board for this amount of time while his team has had no success. He keep selling the long-term vision of what he thinks the Oilers can become, while having a GM as his scapegoat. Might also explain why Katz doesn't hold Lowe personally accountable for the on-ice disgrace of the Oilers.

Either way I think it's a good thing for the Flames to have. Clearly the previous structure wasn't working and having a great hockey mind like Burke in charge can't be anything but positive for the club.

[troutman]

How the Denver Broncos do it:

http://www.denverbroncos.com/team/staff-directory.html

Boston Bruins:

http://bruins.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=65112

LA Dodgers:

http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com/te...ce.jsp?c_id=la

Miami Heat:

http://www.nba.com/heat/contact/directory_list.html

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I believe the "theoretical" reason it's supposed to be better would be something like this:

That's part of it. Also, most of the guys hired to these positions have been popular former players. So the President role is also a figure-head. Someone who can give some popular prestige to the management group, glad-hand the corporate crowd in the boxed seats, and leave the GM to deal with the nitty-gritty of the job.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That's part of it. Also, most of the guys hired to these positions have been popular former players. So the President role is also a figure-head. Someone who can give some popular prestige to the management group, glad-hand the corporate crowd in the boxed seats, and leave the GM to deal with the nitty-gritty of the job.

Mmm, not sure I agree with this.

I think this management structure is only successful or has a chance of being successful when the President of hockey ops (the guy in Burke/Davidson's chair) has the respect of most of the people affiliated with the league. He's an emotional bottleneck between owners/marketing and the GM/Coach/Players.

That just doesn't work with someone without a track record.

This is obviously simplistic, but Burke was brought in by the Flames because it probably became clear to them that they didn't know what they were doing. Burke assuages their fears as a competent and respected hockey person with experience and connections around the league. "Well, Burke is convinced this is the way to go. I trust him."

Edit: I think Jim Devellano provided the same service in Detroit, which might be where this all started. "Oh, you built the Islanders? Well, I guess we can see how this pans out..."

Trevor Linden does not provide this same buffer.

[PeteMoss]

I think it varies - I don't think Brian Burke is there to make fans happy or forget the issues at hand. In Vancouver's case (and some others), its more of a figurehead thing to keep the fans happy.

[FanIn80]

Being a successful business is part of being a successful sports franchise. Most business guys don't know a lot about the sports side, and more sports guys don't know a lot about the business side.

So... do you hire a business-minded President and give him authority over the GM, or do you hire a sports-minded President and give him authority over the marketing and sales? Instead, you can hire a business-minded President and give him authority over the business side, and then a sports-minded President and give him authority over the GM.

The difference: Ken King hired Feaster, Brian Burke hired Treliving.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

The difference: Ken King hired Feaster, Brian Burke hired Treliving.

Bingo.

Such a succinct way of putting it.

[Coach]

What confuses me is why they keep pumping their chests telling us its a new thing. Doesn't Boston, St. Louis, and Columbus all have these structures? I'm sure there's more.