Bouma sits dows with King?

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by BigFlameDog

Oh ,they flipped out then...your darn right they did. To lazy to go looking but King was out of bounds, Feaster was a puppet etc, etc.

Ya, your right, some around here flipped right out and were thanked numerous times...

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...02&postcount=8

[StrykerSteve]

Originally Posted by browna

http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports/...298/story.html

Found this interesting, in light of the management discussion thread:

Even as a pending restricted free agent, Bouma plans next winter to be in Calgary, especially after productive sit-downs with president Ken King, general manager Jay Feaster, and assistant general manager John Weisbrod.

WTF, so does King sit down with every roster player before leaving for the summer?

Almost sounds as if this is a private meeting.,."sitdowns" not a sitdown. Though even a sitdown with all 3 is almost as bad if its a "group think" with Feaster and Wisebrod in the room.

Question is, why is he doing this...to what end as President can justify that? Ridiculous.

It's a clear indictiation that King has his hands in pies that are outside of a role that a President, IMO, should have in regards to hockey operations.

Given the past comments from outside sources like Keenan and others about the structure in the upper offices, having things like one on one chats with all players upon leaving for the offseason, is lending further credence to that...and that sort of "participation" from someone who probably shouldn't be there can't be looked upon favourable by UFA's and other players around the league about what you're about to get into when coming to Calgary.

Management has every right to sit down with employees at the end of a season to discuss the future.

I manage a dozen teams across Alberta and Saskatchewan, and while I may be classified as "upper management" and don't directly manage these individuals on a daily basis (much of my time is spent in Toronto), I certainly make a point of arranging site visits, town halls and various one-on-one assessments at key points throughout the year to determine and evaluate the state of my business.

Your post reeks of overreaction from someone who appears to not understand how business works. If Ken King wasn't involved and speaking with these players, I'd be far more concerned. As it stands, he's showing that he is engaged and familiar with his people, solid traits of a leader.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

Management has every right to sit down with employees at the end of a season to discuss the future.

I manage a dozen teams across Alberta and Saskatchewan, and while I may be classified as "upper management" and don't directly manage these individuals on a daily basis (much of my time is spent in Toronto), I certainly make a point of arranging site visits, town halls and various one-on-one assessments at key points throughout the year to determine and evaluate the state of my business.

Your post reeks of overreaction from someone who appears to not understand how business works. If Ken King wasn't involved and speaking with these players, I'd be far more concerned. As it stands, he's showing that he is engaged and familiar with his people, solid traits of a leader.

I think the meddling of the President isn't the issue, it's the meddling of a president who has little knowledge of what he's meddling in.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I think the meddling of the President isn't the issue, it's the meddling of a president who has little knowledge of what he's meddling in.

That would require King to be meddling in Feaster's and Weisbrod's job. Meeting with a player is hardly strong evidence for that. Getting input from employees in everything area of the business should be a high priority of a president. If they gave him a wig it would practically have been Undercover Boss.

Now yes, there has been some rumours that Ken King is a bit more involved in the hockey operations than he should be. But I don't think an end of the season interview with a player who missed the entire season with an injury is hardly evident of that. I mean it could have been closer to a best wishes, let us know if you need anything, otherwise hope you get better and come back strong for training camp sitdown.

[BigFlameDog]

Originally Posted by Parallex

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...ight=Glencross

I don't see any of that.

Sorry....your right if it didn't happen in that thread it probably didn't happen...my bad.

(didn't actually look at the thread)

[JayP]

Originally Posted by saillias

Agreed, one time I missed a game of my season's tickets so I went to the ticket counter at the Saddledome and asked if I could exchange them for new tickets. Ken King happened to be there and personally did the exchange without a problem - you could imagine my outrage at his meddling. A fiend and a bad President.

Are people questioning him on non-hockey level?

I find it hilarious that people that are saying it's perfectly okay for Ken King to be in these meetings because he needs some involvement in hockey ops are the same ones mock the people who want him fired because "they don't know what his job is".

If he's involved in hockey ops, he should be fired or at least on the hot seat (as typically happens when a team misses the playoffs for four straight years). If he's not involved in hockey ops, his job security should be fine but there's no reason for him to be in a meeting with a mediocre prospect. You can't have it both ways.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

That would require King to be meddling in Feaster's and Weisbrod's job. Meeting with a player is hardly strong evidence for that. Getting input from employees in everything area of the business should be a high priority of a president. If they gave him a wig it would practically have been Undercover Boss.

Now yes, there has been some rumours that Ken King is a bit more involved in the hockey operations than he should be. But I don't think an end of the season interview with a player who missed the entire season with an injury is hardly evident of that. I mean it could have been closer to a best wishes, let us know if you need anything, otherwise hope you get better and come back strong for training camp sitdown.

Well I guess it comes down to who do you believe. I've read and heard enough that King is meddling to believe it. This player interview thing is just more evidence.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

I agree. There's no chance that King was involved in year-end meetings back in 2004 as an example. Does anyone think Ron "Cold Hot Dogs" Bremner was ever involved on the hockey ops side? I sure don't.

Ken King was the reason Darryl Sutter was brought on as coach, and eventually made him GM. Button wanted to go with someone else from what I recall. That was December 2002.

Not saying that's okay nor am I saying he should continue to be in a hockey role... but he's been involved in the hockey operations for a while it seems.

[moon]

Originally Posted by BigFlameDog

Sorry....your right if it didn't happen in that thread it probably didn't happen...my bad.

(didn't actually look at the thread)

It certainly did happen.

People were pissed that King went on a horseback ride with Glencross.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well I guess it comes down to who do you believe. I've read and heard enough that King is meddling to believe it. This player interview thing is just more evidence.

You crazy!

[Hockey_Ninja]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Awesome! Deserves more than simple thanks...

Just admit you're Ken King already...

[Major Major]

Can someone explain to me how you can be President of a hockey team and not be involved with 'hockey ops'? There seems to be quite a bit of outrage at King being involved with 'hockey ops'. Maybe someone could even define 'hockey ops' for me. That might be helpful.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Ken King was the reason Darryl Sutter was brought on as coach, and eventually made him GM. Button wanted to go with someone else from what I recall. That was December 2002.

Not saying that's okay nor am I saying he should continue to be in a hockey role... but he's been involved in the hockey operations for a while it seems.

I think most people knew Button was a dead man walking long before he himself did. Personally, I think they had Sutter tagged for the GM role from day 1 - Button's final trades had Sutter's fingerprints all over them - while the coaching role was transitory.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Hockey_Ninja

Just admit you're Ken King already...

It's not Ken King, it's someone who knows Ken King.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I think most people knew Button was a dead man walking long before he himself did. Personally, I think they had Sutter tagged for the GM role from day 1 - Button's final trades had Sutter's fingerprints all over them - while the coaching role was transitory.

and Sutter was a dead man walking when Feaster was hired.

[doctajones428]

Oh no! Not a meeting with... Lance BOUMA!

He's meddling with our best player and prospect in decades!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FIRE KING!11!!11111!

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Major Major

Can someone explain to me how you can be President of a hockey team and not be involved with 'hockey ops'? There seems to be quite a bit of outrage at King being involved with 'hockey ops'. Maybe someone could even define 'hockey ops' for me. That might be helpful.

I'm wildly guessing here but I think the outrage is that King is not qualified to be the kind of President that gets involved with hockey ops.

After all, what is the "hockey op" play off record during his tenure? One Cinderella run on Kipper's back and...?

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I'm wildly guessing here but I think the outrage is that King is not qualified to be the kind of President that gets involved with hockey ops.

After all, what is the "hockey op" play off record during his tenure? One Cinderella run on Kipper's back and...?

A fine argument to make, and I don't disagree. but there are two different arguments here. One is, A President should not be involved in hockey Ops, the other is King should not be President. So long as King is President, he should be involved in hockey ops because the operations of a hockey team is what he is the president of.

[browna]

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

Management has every right to sit down with employees at the end of a season to discuss the future.

And isn't the "management", on the hockey operations side that would best be suited for evaluating those employees, consist in the hierarchy of Feaster/Weisbrod?

I manage a dozen teams across Alberta and Saskatchewan, and while I may be classified as "upper management" and don't directly manage these individuals on a daily basis (much of my time is spent in Toronto), I certainly make a point of arranging site visits, town halls and various one-on-one assessments at key points throughout the year to determine and evaluate the state of my business.

Your post reeks of overreaction from someone who appears to not understand how business works. If Ken King wasn't involved and speaking with these players, I'd be far more concerned. As it stands, he's showing that he is engaged and familiar with his people, solid traits of a leader.

Backhanded swipe at me aside, you should also already know that good managers and leaders also know their role and know their strengths, and also know how and when to delegate duties to those they've entrusted below them to utilize their specialized knowledge and manage their people accordingly. Does King not trust Feaster to carry out the end of season talks, so he wants to sit down with each of them formally as well? Or that Feaster won't give King the full answers?

Good leaders can be engaged with several levels within the company, on an awareness level, conversational and a visibility level, as all good leaders and management people should. But it doesn't mean you should be making the decisions for your managers either, ones that usually have a more intimate knowledge than yours.

The teams I manage are within an office, so yeah its easy to check in and be visible and keep up to date with them on an ongoing basis, and be aware of the bigger picture items and issues surrounding them. Same goes for when meeting with my managers of those people, though obviously my evaluation and guidance is a little more directed. Having once been where they were, both as a worker bee and a first level manager, I can relate to the duties, which also helps.

However, when it comes for the carrying out those formalities, managing staff and issues around them, and evaluating the day to day operations/duties of that staff under my manager as a formal process, I defer to and trust the managers that I've hired. They're more aware of the overall day to day and month to month performance.

From the sounds of it, I think we can liken this Flames end of the year talk of every player, to a performance evaluation and a look ahead session going forward. That should be all on Feaster and his team to carry out, and pass things up to King, and if he has to get involved in particular cases, so be it....but King getting in front of every player?

Ken King has been the one in charge to oversee the transformation of the franchise on and as importantly off the ice with charities and corporate initiatives and on and on. He's a PR guy, so walking around shaking hands and handing out pop corn and solving some ticket snafu's can easily be justified, and he's genuine in that personality wise, in addition to being part of his role. His contributions in that regard are and will be continue to be valuable, and that should be the focus, along with the high level hockey decisions, not the end of the year meetings.

Bottom line he can and should be engaged with all parts of the organization at some level, as he should as the President. However, becoming a part of the decision making process in the critical areas that he's not been hired into, is more than an issue, which his bosses have to answer for; both because he doesn't have the background, and, that he's not able or willing to completely trust those that have those supposed positions of authority underneath him.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Major Major

So long as King is President, he should be involved in hockey ops because the operations of a hockey team is what he is the president of.

He's the president and CEO of the Calgary Flames organization. That extends far beyond the hockey operation. There's a million decisions that the Flames need to make that have little to do with the actual on-ice product. Advertising, new arena location, beer sponsors, urinal cake scent. He's in the position to oversee everything. If he doesn't have the experience or knowledge to deal with hockey operation it's his responsibility to hire people who do, namely the GM. That doesn't require him to be involved in the hockey operation.