Is Ownership a part of the problem?

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by PugnaciousIntern

Some random posters on CP have alluded to ownership reluctance to paying for things outside of the cap, such as coaching. I get where that theory comes from - we seem to have a carousel of low-tier coaches. But that doesn't make a lot of sense. I doubt that they would be so willing to pay players but not a coach. Perhaps it's just not an attractive place to attract the high tier coaches.

There's no cap on coaches though. If top coaches get 4M, then offer one 5M if they don't really want to come there. Or 6M. There is a point where even the most reluctant coach will come.

If you're spending 80M on players, what's the difference between 4M and 6M on a coach? Win one playoff round and that investment is more than worth it. They've won 4 playoff rounds in 30+ years!

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Mightyfire89

Hmmmmm...I’d have to see some actual numbers to believe this.

A quick google search shows $120k last year - for an investment that size it's a poor return. Even with creative book keeping, Flames are not a big money maker. You don't need an ECON degree to see that.

[FiveSeven]

They always spend to the cap but yet refuse to spend the big money on the coach that would extract the most value from the money they spend on the ice....

It makes ZERO ####ing sense to me. The money you spend on a coach would get you 'usually' a more winning team, more playoff success, thus more revenue and better outlook.

HIRE. A. REAL. COACH. PLEASE!

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

There's no cap on coaches though. If top coaches get 4M, then offer one 5M if they don't really want to come there. Or 6M. There is a point where even the most reluctant coach will come.

If you're spending 80M on players, what's the difference between 4M and 6M on a coach? Win one playoff round and that investment is more than worth it. They've won 4 playoff rounds in 30+ years!

The theory that Tre hires morons that won't challenge him is way more believable than this mediocrity conspiracy.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

That's one way to look at it.



$16m in 1980 to $400m now. Most good investments would beat that.



The people that brought this team to Calgary have done a lot more public service than anyone on this forum, maybe more than all of us put together.

Over 8% annual return plus whatever they make annually plus the ability to say, 'I own an NHL team. Don't think anyone would turn that down.

And is the term, 'strawman' the correct word to describe your point that the owners have done more for the community than all of us?

Has anyone here ever said they aren't good corporate citizens? I would think they'd give just as much from their 'real' businesses if they didnt own the Flames.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by FiveSeven

They always spend to the cap but yet refuse to spend the big money on the coach that would extract the most value from the money they spend on the ice....

It makes ZERO ####ing sense to me. The money you spend on a coach would get you 'usually' a more winning team, more playoff success, thus more revenue and better outlook.

HIRE. A. REAL. COACH. PLEASE!

Doesn’t that tell you how dumb that theory is though?

There’s no facts behind it.
There’s no logic behind it.

Beyond paranoia, why does anyone believe that’s true?

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

I think that is the minimum requirement. They want deep playoff runs because that's where they make money.

They don't spend to the cap to stay mediocre. LOL

Until 2021 this had demonstrably been untrue. The VALUE of the Flames franchise has risen over time from $100 million to well over $400 million according to Forbes...whether they make or lose a few million in the year is not going to make or break this ownership group.

They could spend like drunken sailors in a cathouse and still make money.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

That's one way to look at it.

$16m in 1980 to $400m now. Most good investments would beat that.

The people that brought this team to Calgary have done a lot more public service than anyone on this forum, maybe more than all of us put together.

That is, however, not the current primary owner's return. That is true of the entire franchise IIRC.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Moving on from the question of are the owners the problem, here is what I would do if I was.

I would go to the management team and say what we are doing hasn’t been working and isn’t working. We aren’t on a path to winning a cup. Not even close.

I would ask for a plan that details what that plan to become a contender is. I would not time-box it or place other restrictive guard rails around the ask. I would ask the GM, as part of that plan, to detail what a realistic timeline is.
I would expect the plan to include:
- Details of timeline and milestones along the way so we know if we are tracking to expectation or not.
- Retrospective on why this re-build went wrong, what we learned and how we are applying those learnings going forward. With specifics.

Evaluation of the current roster and prospects
- Who do we think we can extract the most value out of to re-build the asset base in a sustained way
- Evaluation of when we should act to extract this value. Now? At the deadline? In the off-season? I would want this detail for each player that we would consider moving
- Which prospects do we see part of a future contending club
- What roster players are potentially part of that based on current age and upside
-Evaluation of the next 5 drafts to establish when ideally we should be bottoming out and how that aligns to the quality of those drafts. Kids are scouted in their early teens now – this is information that is available. The further out the less certainty, but still an important consideration.

- Overview of resources required including:
o Key positions including net-new roles requires and salaries required for each
o Overview of current scouting staff – amateur and pro. This would include specific summaries of which players they scouted, decisions and recommendations made, and if those proved to be positive and negative. This should be used to turn over anyone without a track record of being a strong talent evaluator
o Cap required by year

Plan for ensuring that when we are ready to contend we have maximum cap flexibility, or at least have maintained reasonable flexibility
o Other resources to be identified including if we are investing enough in scouting and analytics. Where can we fund more to create an advantage?
o Overview of key talent in front offices that we can try to recruit to supplement or replace the current management team.

I would then evaluate on the basis of the plan delivered if BT is the right guy or not.

[browna]

I think the lack of Burke and now King is a subtle but big issue. Even Edwards not as nearby now, again without having King either to trust to carry out some things.

Bean was brought in to assist with the CalgaryNext, but he doesn’t have that unifying ability or presence that either two of the above guys did.

Clearly Burke more on the hockey side but King to keep the bottom from falling out for the payers and coaches and GM, and generally overall in the organization like it has the last few weeks.

This organization needs to make some strong decisions and they don’t have that leader in the same sense as has been there since King started to help guide the club.

Not sure who you could get, but...

[motorcrosser]

Im sure the ownership uses this as a tax write-off and for the real estate. Many business owners do it this way.

[CliffFletcher]

Of course the owners (let’s be honest - Murray Edwards) are part of the problem. What has been the enduring constant over decades of mediocrity? Multiple sources have commented that GMs in Calgary have to deal with a lot of meddling. Clearly that includes Edwards, who has long been cited as one of Bettman’s closest confidants and one of the hardliners in ownership ranks.

I find it hard to believe the short-sightedness and impatient asset-management that we have seen over multiple GMs now has not been in service to the strategic directives of Edwards.

[saillias]

Long time no post. The upper right corner says i last logged in 2019.

I've been hearing this for years that owners won't let Brad get a good coach due to penny pinching? Are we serious here Brad has been given so much leeway with buyouts to fix his mistakes. But his hands are tied to keep a tight budget for his coach. I don't buy that. The difference between Ward and Gallant or whoever is a few million. That's the price of a Derek Ryan or Cam Talbot. Brad is not allowed to bring a contract like that? How do you square that. Either it's not true or we have the silliest and most pigheaded ownership in the league.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by browna

I think the lack of Burke and now King is a subtle but big issue. Even Edwards not as nearby now, again without having King either to trust to carry out some things.

Bean was brought in to assist with the CalgaryNext, but he doesn’t have that unifying ability or presence that either two of the above guys did.

Clearly Burke more on the hockey side but King to keep the bottom from falling out for the payers and coaches and GM, and generally overall in the organization like it has the last few weeks.

This organization needs to make some strong decisions and they don’t have that leader in the same sense as has been there since King started to help guide the club.

Not sure who you could get, but...

Worth more than a thanks.

Kinger was a great man, and when culture starts at the top, there are some huge gaps left behind

[PepsiFree]

If the Sutter rumours are true, doesn’t that kind of completely negate the idea that they’re unwilling to pay for a coach? They wanted Sutter, remain close with him, and Treliving made his own decision.

I dunno, feels like browna probably nailed it. I don’t think it’s a money issue, I think it’s a personnel issue. I doubt the owners want to be hands on managing the hockey side of things. I wouldn’t be surprised if instead of firing Treliving they hire a PHO and let them make the decisions that need to be made.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by PugnaciousIntern

Some random posters on CP have alluded to ownership reluctance to paying for things outside of the cap, such as coaching. I get where that theory comes from - we seem to have a carousel of low-tier coaches. But that doesn't make a lot of sense. I doubt that they would be so willing to pay players but not a coach. Perhaps it's just not an attractive place to attract the high tier coaches.

Bingo

[GirlySports]

I can't see how ownership is the problem. It's not like we're not paying players. They spend to the cap. Who is signing Brouwer? Who is signing Neal? And now they got the best FA goalie. I can't imagine they are saying you csn only spend on players but not staff. Tre has 3 assistant GMs! This list is incredible.

https://www.nhl.com/flames/team/staff-directory

[Lanny_McDonald]

No, ownership is not a problem. I don't know what people want? They stay out of the way and people question them. They get involved and people accuse them of meddling. What the heck is it that the ownership can do to keep people happy?

[Erick Estrada]

I don't believe ownership had anything to do with the Gulutzan or Peters hires. IMO those are all on Treliving. It's possible in this economic climate they had influence on the Ward hire in that they would rather not spend big on a coach in these times. That said this is just a theory. The reality is that you have to take this at face value and put it at the feet of the GM because there was a poll here for the coaching hire and I recall the support for Ward being below 50%. If the fans can identify that he's not head coach material that's a big problem and lets not forget most of us were not happy about the Gulutzan hire. Personally I don't think hiring a head coach is that hard. A GM should be able to make some calls and look at the records of established winning coaches (plenty were available this fall) and if he decides he's going to unearth his own guy from the scrap heap as he did with Gulutzan and now Ward there's considerably more risk involved there as they have no resume of excellence. Even Peters had a sub-500 record prior to joining the Flames so the reality is that the GM has stayed clear of proven winners and has chosen the risky approach and it's blown up in his face three times. The fact that he didn't learn in free agency after Brouwer and didn't learn anything from hiring Gulutzan tells me that Brad Treliving is the head of the snake here and to kill that snake he needs to go.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Moving on from the question of are the owners the problem, here is what I would do if I was.

I would go to the management team and say what we are doing hasn’t been working and isn’t working. We aren’t on a path to winning a cup. Not even close.

I would ask for a plan that details what that plan to become a contender is. I would not time-box it or place other restrictive guard rails around the ask. I would ask the GM, as part of that plan, to detail what a realistic timeline is.
I would expect the plan to include:
- Details of timeline and milestones along the way so we know if we are tracking to expectation or not.
- Retrospective on why this re-build went wrong, what we learned and how we are applying those learnings going forward. With specifics.

Evaluation of the current roster and prospects
- Who do we think we can extract the most value out of to re-build the asset base in a sustained way
- Evaluation of when we should act to extract this value. Now? At the deadline? In the off-season? I would want this detail for each player that we would consider moving
- Which prospects do we see part of a future contending club
- What roster players are potentially part of that based on current age and upside
-Evaluation of the next 5 drafts to establish when ideally we should be bottoming out and how that aligns to the quality of those drafts. Kids are scouted in their early teens now – this is information that is available. The further out the less certainty, but still an important consideration.

- Overview of resources required including:
o Key positions including net-new roles requires and salaries required for each
o Overview of current scouting staff – amateur and pro. This would include specific summaries of which players they scouted, decisions and recommendations made, and if those proved to be positive and negative. This should be used to turn over anyone without a track record of being a strong talent evaluator
o Cap required by year

Plan for ensuring that when we are ready to contend we have maximum cap flexibility, or at least have maintained reasonable flexibility
o Other resources to be identified including if we are investing enough in scouting and analytics. Where can we fund more to create an advantage?
o Overview of key talent in front offices that we can try to recruit to supplement or replace the current management team.

I would then evaluate on the basis of the plan delivered if BT is the right guy or not.

If that plan has not already been created and presented by BT, then that's reason enough to move on from him right there.

The whole keep or fire BT decision is dependent on the vision and plan he has articulated to date IMO. It's not like this season is the tipping point to changing course. I don't want a GM who needs seven seasons to realize his approach isn't working and needs to be asked for a new plan..

I'm not really buying that ownership is the problem. And if they are truly are putting a cap on what to spend on coaching, then if I'm the GM I'm asking for a $1 million to be diverted from the player salary budget to the coaching budget. Or some other number because I think it's probably worth it.

Problem is that it's expensive burinng through coaches and buying out salaries, and having a lot of one way contracts. This is an organization that spends money IMO>