Gloom and Doom: Chicken Little Says the Carolina Sky is Falling on the Caniacs
by Chuck Burns on Jul 5, 2010 11:04 PM EDT
Email
Print
Given the recent articles and posts by everyone who thinks that the 2010-2011 season is already over before it has started, I would like to present a little more optimism. And this is not because I am some homer who believes everything that management says or that I am entirely happy with the direction of the team at this time. But, I think it is necessary if we are to establish ourselves as a consistent playoff team.
First, I believe that the entire focus of a team must be to win. Anything else is secondary. Sometimes a team won't win due to injuries or other factors beyond the ability of the team to manage. At other times, winning becomes sublimated to other temporary goals. In the case of the Hurricanes this year, that goal is to find a minority purchaser by showing that the team CAN be profitable even if it does not always make the playoffs.
In some ways, I think the fact that we are going to be a salary-floor team this year might actually be beneficial in that it allows us to move up some players to the NHL before they otherwise would have been able to obtain positions. That this might cause the team to become less competitive may or may not be true. If you look at the previous season, you will find that the team was competitive when the younger players were playing.
And I am not looking at the period from January to the end of the season. I am looking at the post trade-deadline team which went 10-7-3. The team was, essentially, the team we are going to start the season with this fall. I realize that going .500 is not going to have us making the playoffs. But, if the team could start out at this level, perhaps by the second half of the season, they could have developed enough chemistry to go on a great run and actually make the playoffs. At least, that is the best scenario.
You might say that we did have several players then we do not have now and you would be correct. Ray Whitney is with Phoenix now. But, I think it has been pointed out and that the statistics would show that Ray was not a significant factor after the trade deadline. Nor was Rod Brind'Amour. Now, I do believe that Brian Pothier played well for us and that Anton Babchuk is not going to be as good as he was, but I do believe that Babchuk should ahve improved with another year of experience. And Babchuk's offensive game is superior to Pothier's.
Furthermore, during that same time period, Tim Gleason and Tuomo Ruutu were playing hurt or not at all. I expect both of those players to be healthy at the start of the season and be able to provide more hitting, a stronger defense, and additional goal scoring. So, I think our defense will be better with them and our scoring should be just as strong as it was with Whitney and Pothier.
This is the starting lineup I foresee although it is possible other players could play themselves onto the team:
Staal/Jokinin/LaRose
Sutter/Ruutu/Boychuk
Dalpe/Cole/Samsonov
Dwyer/Kostopolous/Tlusty
Gleason/McBain
Pitkanan/Carson
Babchuk/Harrison
Ward
Peters
On the first team penalty killing unit I would foresee Sutter and LaRose. It might make some sense to swap LaRose and Boychuk on the first and second lines to give Sutter and LaRose more time to play together. I think not only would they be very good penalty killers, other teams would have to be extremely wary of them gaining possession of the puck and scoring shorthanded goals. The second team penalty kill unit would be Dwyer and Kostopolous.
I think we should recognize that a cap floor team is not going to be able to make the playoffs on a regular basis. However, I sincerely believe that this will be a short term situation and that after a new minority owner has been found, the team will move back up in salary to some place that is probably about halfway between the floor and the cap.
126 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Samonov and Tlusty
Jim Rutherford has said that Tlusty was signed as a top nine forward. I suspect either Samsonov or LaRose will wind up on the fourth line with some degree of consistency. I was watching on nhllive.com the Senators v. Canes game (it was in early March 2010) that the Canes won 4 to 1. The third line was Samsonov/Dwyer/Cole. Forslund and Tripp were heaping praise on the line for its speed. I could easily see a third line of Tlusty/Dalpe/Cole. I agree that early in the season they will try LaRose/Staal/Jokinen on the first line. I think they will try Boychuk/Sutter/Ruutu as a second line, although they also will probably try Tlusty/Sutter/Ruutu as the second line as well (along with every other permutation mathematically possible).
A fourth line of Samsonov/Dwyer/Kostopoulos could add some supplemental scoring. In the Senators v. Canes game I reference above, in the first five minutes of the game on the fourth line of Boychuk/Brind’Amour/Kostopoulos, Kostopoulos had a goal with an assist from Boychuk, and then Brind’Amour scored his 6th goal with an assist by Boychuk. The Senators had been playing great; and the point was well-taken that having a fourth line that could score totally disrupted the Senators’ plans.
I completely agree that there seems to be little factual basis behind the pre-season despair by some Caniacs. Surely with this many young players, there will some occasions where chaos breaks out; but all in all, the team is going to be fun to watch and fun to cheer for; and they are likely to do far better than some people predict.
I actually like the Jokinen/Staal/Larose line combination. I think Jussi and Staal could benefit from having The Madness on their line. Larose’s agitative ability, plus his abilitly to go to the front of the net could be just enough of a distraction for the opposing D that Jussi and Staal could have a little more open ice. Larose and Staal worked pretty well when partnered together last year.
I really enjoyed your article, but I respectfully disagree.
“First, I believe that the entire focus of a team must be to win. Anything else is secondary . . . . In the case of the Hurricanes this year, that goal is to find a minority purchaser by showing that the team CAN be profitable even if it does not always make the playoffs.”
To me, it just kinda sounds like “loser” talk. You want to win, but you also understand that management wants to show that a bad team CAN be profitable. And what happens when they find out that a bad team CAN be profitable? My guess is that they then don’t bother sporting a good team if they are profit driven.
This team will definitely be entertaining, but entertaining in a way that they beat some great teams, lose to some bad teams, but play just well enough to keep people in the stands. Who knows, maybe they will slip into an unlikely playoff spot, but its hard to tell at this point.
As I have said before, under the presumption that this is a one year problem, and they want to be competitive again after a new minority owner is found, everything will be fine. If not, then when some of these “entertaining” players succeed and demand normal salaries, they will be gone, and in return, we will be nothing more than a farm team for everyone else.
Although I understand that my comments may come off as pessimistic, I intend them to realistic.
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 6, 2010 12:47 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
PittsburghCaniac, I was wondering what specifically you would do differently if you were Jim Rutherford. Also, if you were Peter Karmanos and had a friend and partner who died and you owed a legal and moral obligation to make the Hurricanes as attractive as possible in order for his estate to become liquid, what would you do differently?
Now, you certainly don’t know that he owes a “legal” or even a “moral” obligation to make the team profitable. What document would possibly require such a thing? That’s an extreme statement made without evidence and not to be said casually without backing it up.
The team could certainly be sold without being profitable, as a “rich man’s hobby” for someone similar to him. It’s really more like PK has decided he can’t afford it this year, and is operating under the smokescreen of the sale of the share.
He may choose to try to make the team’s budget be profitable, for a variety of reasons, but he has no such “obligation” to do so.
Let’s be realistic about this. He’s lost money in every year he’s owned the team, except the 2006 championship team. It’s part of being a small market owner.
Next year, he chooses not to do so. That’s his choice, and all reactions to his choice are also choices.
Legal Duty
Elsker, I can assure you that few legal doctrines are as well-established as the duty of a majority shareholder to a minority shareholder. Here are few cites to legal articles. If you google a search, “Legal Duty Majority Shareholder Minority Shareholder,” you can spend weeks discovering the fascinating nuances of that legal premise.
Protection of Minority Shareholder Rights and Shareholder Oppression Doctrine in Texas
By Samuel Goldman and Matthew Weldon
http://www.abanet.org/buslaw/newsletter/0011/materials/managingcorps.pdf
This article discusses the legal principles in detail. Westlaw and Lexis are two other sources for learning more about the long history of the legal principles. Indeed, the protections are increasingly available on an international basis.
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/lwsch/journals/bciclr/23_2/03_TXT.htm
PROTECTING MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS IN CLOSE CORPORATIONS: MODELING CZECH INVESTOR PROTECTIONS ON GERMAN AND UNITED STATES LAW
The legal duty and accompanying moral duty of the majority shareholder often arises in the context of Estate Tax issues from the estate of the minority shareholder. That duty exists in every State in the United States. So, yes, I indeed did have very, very substantial support for the statements.
Absolutely some duties exist. Of course they do.
But the duty to make the team “profitable” (whatever that is, since “profit” is that funny thing that’s left over when you quit spending money) is not one of them.
That’s a choice.
Throw all the citations you want, but you’ve yet to deliver the smoking gun that “obligates” PK to seek profitability on a business model that depends more on the rising value of the asset than it does positive cash flow.
The legal duty imposed is one which requires Peter Karmanos to use his best efforts to make the minority shares reasonably likely to sell. Allen and Company was hired and they are experts in the field. One way of meeting the requirement of due diligence is to follow the advice of experts such as Allen and Company. Allen and Company advertised that the Hurricanes would be cutting their salary budget to reduce expenses. That approach is logical from the standpoint of seeking a purchaser for the minority shares. Perhaps you can show me one legal opinion that states a majority shareholder does not have to consider reducing expenses to increase the likelihood of profitability as one of the ways to assess his responsibility? I am aware of no such case; but as always I am open to being shown such a case exists anywhere in the United States.
One way of meeting the requirement of due diligence is to follow the advice of experts such as Allen and Company.
Yes, it is one way. It is not the only way. A choice was made.
…consider reducing expenses to increase the likelihood of profitability as one of the ways to assess his responsibility
Yes, “consider”. As “one of the ways”.
Again, a choice, not a mandate.
I said smokescreen. I stand by my assessment of the choice that was made.
He’s not without options, nor helplessly forced to follow no other path.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand just why he made the choices he made.
But, I’m not willing to give him a free pass on the “aw, shucks, folks, I had no other choice” act.
In fact, it concerns me that his choice was to “follow” the consultant’s advice to shop it as a “break even” enterprise. If that’s the ugly duckling they’re buying, then how does it turn back into a swan?
Instead, he could have marketed it as what it is, a helluva trophy possession that’s cash negative but increasing in value. And, maybe he is, after all, on the side. I’m willing to give him that.
It’s the threat of seeing the passion snuffed and corporate beancounters getting their hands on the org that scares me the most. I’ll feel better when it’s announced that Jim Goodman, or someone local like that, has stepped up to the plate.
Temporary uneasiness, if you will.
Generally, you are referring to the duty of care – good faith, best interest of the corporation, reasonably prudent person (negligence) standard. Those can be argued in a multitude of ways. (For example, he could argue that reducing the cap will have such a detrimental long term affect on the franchise that it is not in its best interest, or vice versa). Courts generally will not substitute their judgment for that of the business.
There are three main theories associated, pull these cases up on westlaw or lexis – Litwin v. Allen, 25 N.Y.S.2d 667 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1940)(holding directors are liabile for negligence in the perfomance of their duties); Shlensky v. Wrigley, 95 Ill.App.2d 173 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1968)(holding motives need to show fraud, illegality, or conflict of interest); Smith v. Van Gorkom 488 A.2d 858 (Del. 1985)(holding liability predicated on gross negligence).
If you are going to read any of these, check out the famous Wrigley field case (Shlensky above) where Henry Ford refused to install lights “not because of interest in the welfare of the corporation but because of his personal opinions that baseball is a daytime sport and that the installation of lights and night baseball games will have a deteriorating effect upon the surrounding neighborhood.” The court goes on to state “we do not mean to say that we have decided that the decision of the directors was a correct one. That is beyond our jurisdiction and ability…” Ford won. Very famous case.
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 6, 2010 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions
BTW – you have no support from those cites. They are off-point/secondary sources with no authority.
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 6, 2010 11:35 PM EDT up reply actions
You can’t seriously be suggesting that there is no authority for the legal principle that a majority shareholder has no legal duty to a minority shareholder. If so, please provide it to me. I can’t imagine any attorney suggesting to the majority owner of a closely held corporation that he ignore completely the advice of the specialists the closely held corporation retained to help sell the minority shares. One area of my work is legal negligence litigation on behalf of the person harmed by the attorney. If an attorney for a majority owner of a closely held corporation were to advise the owner of the majority shares of a closely held corporation that he had no legal duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid destroying the rights of an estate of the minority shareholder, the attorney would face some very significant questions about his legal advice if not a legal negligence lawsuit. The question is not whether there is a legal and moral duty, the question is what conduct is or is not reasonable and appropriate. Losing money by overspending well beyond the foreseeable revenue of a corporation could easily be viewed as wasting of the corporation’s assets and highly irresponsible. Such a view would be particularly likely where specialists in the sales of closely held corporations advised that until the revenue can be built up that expenses for salaries be reduced.
That legal duty is about as well-established as the duty of a driver to stop at a red light. On the other hand, if you can cite me a single case anywhere in the United States that suggests there is even a minority view that the owner of a closely held corporation has no legal duty to protect the rights of the minority shareholder, I would be happy to read the case. In fact, I would very much like to read any such case because it would be a radical departure from the North Carolina law and the law of the other forty-nine States.
Typo Fixed
You can’t seriously be suggesting that there is no authority for the legal principle that a majority shareholder has a legal duty and moral to a minority shareholder. In fact, I would like to see any case in any State that supports the premise no such legal duty exists. If you have any case, please provide it to me. I can’t imagine any attorney suggesting to the majority owner of a closely held corporation that he ignore completely the advice of the specialists the closely held corporation retained to help sell the minority shares. One area of my work is legal negligence litigation on behalf of the person harmed by the attorney. If an attorney for a majority owner of a closely held corporation were to advise the owner of the majority shares of a closely held corporation that he had no legal duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid destroying the rights of an estate of the minority shareholder, the attorney would face some very significant questions about his legal advice if not a legal negligence lawsuit. The question is not whether there is a legal and moral duty, the question is what conduct is or is not reasonable and appropriate. Losing money by overspending well beyond the foreseeable revenue of a corporation could easily be viewed as wasting of the corporation’s assets and highly irresponsible. Such a view would be particularly likely where specialists in the sales of closely held corporations advised that until the revenue can be built up that expenses for salaries be reduced.
That legal duty is about as well-established as the duty of a driver to stop at a red light. On the other hand, if you can cite me a single case anywhere in the United States that suggests there is even a minority view that the owner of a closely held corporation has no legal duty to protect the rights of the minority shareholder, I would be happy to read the case. In fact, I would very much like to read any such case because it would be a radical departure from the North Carolina law and the law of the other forty-nine States.
I told you the duty is the “duty of care” (toss in the “duty of loyalty” too) and provided you with three different cases showing the standard of care that needs to be provided to minority shareholders. What more do you want?
“None of the fifty states has a statute that imposes a duty to profit-maximize or that makes profit-maximization the sole purpose of the corporation.” Sacrificing Corporate Profits in the Public Interest, 80 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 733, 738 (2005). Additionally, during a sale of ownership “[t]he duty of the board [is] to the maximization of the company’s value at a sale for the stockholders’ benefit.” Revlon, Inc. v. Macandrews & Forbes Holdings, 506 A.2d 173, 182 (Del. 1986).
Define value however you want, but it is not synonomous with profit.
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 7, 2010 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
BTW, is this even applicable? Meaning, does PK now own all of the Canes and is simply waiting to sell a portion of his share, or is the minority share still sitting in his partners estate? Who knows, there is not enough factual information to even be speculating on half of this, but if he wanted to argue that the team would be more valuable at a competitive level with player “assets” and etc. I most certainly believe that he could have; it was simply his choice not to go that route. Value can be increased in a lot of ways.
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 7, 2010 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I think he owns 100% free and clear, he just doesn’t want that much invested, if he does, this is whole conversation is moot.
“My partner, Tom Thewes, passed away two years ago, and we have been putzing around trying to figure (out) how to replace the partner,” said Hurricanes owner Peter Karmanos, who currently controls 100 percent of the franchise. “We just went to Allen & Co. to explore the different ways. It’s certainly not to sell the team.”
http://www.sportingnews.com/nhl/article/2010-05-24/sbj-hurricanes-hire-allen-co-sell-50-percent-team?obref=obinsite
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 7, 2010 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Very intelligent .....
…..conversation here, but understand that Parsons simply believes The Party can do no wrong. You aren’t going to win this one.
it always burns within
the downward spiral never ends
when driven into sin
your salvation's found in a sinner's deed
by Douchebag St John on Jul 7, 2010 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually, what I believe is that the law is clear on the subject and only a fool of an attorney would tell his client to take reckless changes in how he handles the legal and moral duty he owes to a minority shareholder. There are facts we don’t know, but what is clear is that an expert in the niche field of the sale of interest in a hockey club has advised Peter Karmanos to reduce salary expenses. There may well be other choices available to Peter Karmanos; but this choice has the benefit of being that proposed by an expert in the field.
If an attorney wanted to advice Peter Karmanos to ignore Allen and Company that attorney ought to call Lawyers’ Mutual and up his legal negligence liability coverage to around $100 million.
You make it sound as though Allen and Company sat PK down and told him what to do, I seriously doubt that was the case. I cannot believe that as an attorney you think that it is this cut/dry and perfect – because its not. People get the results they want in ways that protect their interests everyday. Its almost like getting a doctor to help you get a surgery covered by insurance that ordinarily wouldnt. The business world simply does not work like this. If this were true, experts would never sit in a court room and disagree – because everything would be perfect and easy. And if you are correct in assuming that every attorney that acts contrary to an expert is negligent, then you are out of a job, the client should just defer to the expert.
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 7, 2010 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Actually, unfortunately for the adverse attorneys as parties, I have handled cases where the attorneys/parties ignored the advice of experts and wound up being legally responsible for tremendous problems they caused. It is far, far better to use fairness and decency as the guide and to consider seriously the advice experts provide. If you had a partner in a law firm and ran your proposed course of conduct by him or her, they’d likely be extremely distraught at your proposed approach.
You are missing my point…I am betting the advice was based on what PK wanted in a way to keep out of trouble. Had they decided otherwise, you would simply have deferred to that decision without another thought.
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 7, 2010 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I wasn’t saying go against the expert here, rather, I am saying that the “advice” is just what the PK ordered! He got what he wanted, they provided their blessing, and hence he may have a rebuttable presumption. But lets not be naive here.
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 7, 2010 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Is that clear?
Did you sit in on the meeting?
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '010: Save the Richardson family coffers! We'll take the winning if we stumble into it.
by MichaelProcton on Jul 7, 2010 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions
The course of conduct chosen by Peter Karmanos is entirely consistent with that of an intelligent person following the advice of experienced attorneys and experienced experts in the field. The law is really clear on the subject.
I disagree. The law is not clear, it is very broad and factually based and the burden of proving a breach of the duty of care is on the defendant unlike the duty of loyalty.
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 7, 2010 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions
meant that the duty is on the plaintiff to prove breach of the duty of care.
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 7, 2010 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions
I WISH I WOULD HAVE LISTENED TO YOU!!!!!!!
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 7, 2010 11:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Controls and owns are different things, though...
He may be holding the 49% in trust, rather than in deed.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '010: Save the Richardson family coffers! We'll take the winning if we stumble into it.
by MichaelProcton on Jul 7, 2010 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Very True, I have no idea how him and his partner worked it out in the case of death, but a few insurance policies could have provided the necessary money to immediately pay off the estate.
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 7, 2010 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions
You guys are cracking me up. I don’t think I’ve seen this much case law quoted since my Academy. Hahaha!
Duty of Care
As one of the cases you cite notes: Litwin v. Allen, 25 N.Y.S.2d 667 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1940)(holding directors are liabile for negligence in the perfomance of their duties). That law is generalley accepted. The idea that you as an attorney could assure Peter Karmanos that he has met his responsibility when he took actions contrary to the advice of the experts he hired is hard to fathom. The question was whether Peter Karmanos owed a legal and moral duty to help his minority partner’s estate reap the benefits from the sale of stock. The answer across the United States is yes he does have that duty. By following the advice of his retained experts, he has not only likely meet his burden but has safe harbor by following that advice. I doubt any attorney being retained in the sale of involving $90 million of stock, give or take a few million here or there, would have the audacity, if not recklessness, to counsel Peter Karmanos to spend like a drunken sailor and don’t worry about the effect that has on his minority share partner.
The citations for the premise are too numerous to list but here's one
Here’s just one of innumerable citations on the duty of care of member of board of directors:
If Plaintiffs can prove these allegations, Defendants will, in fact, be liable for a breach of their fiduciary duty to discharge their duties in "good faith," which includes a responsibility to act with undivided loyalty to the Company. See generally Madvig v. Gaither, 461 F. Supp. 2d 398, 408 (W.D.N.C. 2006).
Further...
This citation is vague, at best. The desire to field a competitive team and therefore produce more income would certainly not be viewed as unloyal.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '010: Save the Richardson family coffers! We'll take the winning if we stumble into it.
by MichaelProcton on Jul 7, 2010 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions
its a federal court applying state law :)
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 7, 2010 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions
There's certainly a difference...
between meeting industry-average expenses and “spending like a drunken sailor.”
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '010: Save the Richardson family coffers! We'll take the winning if we stumble into it.
by MichaelProcton on Jul 7, 2010 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions
If the team’s revenues are significantly below the amount needed to fund a team at or near the salary cap that can only be viewed as spending excessively. “spending like a drunken sailor” is an expression not a statement of a legal opinion and was intended as somewhat hyperbolic.
And, again, that's more hyperbole.
There’s $16 million between the cap floor and its limit.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '010: Save the Richardson family coffers! We'll take the winning if we stumble into it.
by MichaelProcton on Jul 7, 2010 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Doug, what are you basing your assumption on that the “advice of the experts he hired” was to slash payroll? I’ve not seen the information reported anywhere that it is in fact the consultant pushing this payroll reduction. As PittsburghCaniac noted, there are many ways to increase value of a franchise, and reducing payroll to the minimum is by no means the sole method for doing that.
Is it possible to be addicted to hockey?
by C-Leaguer on Jul 7, 2010 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The Allen and Company prospectus recites that the Hurricanes will drastically reduce the salary expenses and cited a $10 million to $15 million reduction. That prospectus and the various comments related to it at the time indicate Allen and Company were part of the decision-making process for reducing salary.
Also, I think you’re misrepresenting that quote a bit. The article I found it in (article here) says the payroll reduction is “a step toward consistent profitability.” Being profitable every year is not necessarily maximizing value. To use a sports analogy, sometimes to hit the most home runs you have to strike out a few more times.
Furthermore, one could suggest validly that short term profits could hamper long term value. See the current depression for examples.
Is it possible to be addicted to hockey?
+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 7, 2010 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions
See the current depression for examples.
Did you just admit we were in a depression Mr Bush?
it always burns within
the downward spiral never ends
when driven into sin
your salvation's found in a sinner's deed
by Douchebag St John on Jul 7, 2010 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions
I told you he had that duty!!! But proving a breach is very difficult. Look at Madvig, the special committee was comprised of the defendants, hows that for a potential conflict!!! In a derivative law suit “good faith” is always presumed because it is not usually in the corporations best interest to be forced to litigate to improve itself – kinda hypocritical unless it is absolutely necessary.
I am not an attorney; I sit for the bar later this month. I never stated that I would assure PK that he met his responsibility were he to take actions contrary to the advice of experts – but we frankly do not have enough factual information to understand what “the experts” based their advice on…I am sure that they took PKs goals into account during that conversation (if they didn’t they would have NO clients), and if he said he wanted to minimize losses, surely they created a reasonable business plan accordingly. Had he said skating a team at a salary cap min could only cause long term detriment, that could be deemed good faith too. It would not be prudent to think that he couldn’t pick which result he wanted and not find a good faith reason for achieving it. Its a question of fact, and you would have to subpoena the documents as to why those decisions were made to combat any “good faith” decision they came to. Whatever the generally accepted principle, breaching the duty of care ranges from showing negligence to actual fraud. He could defend his decision on ANY good faith basis, he is not limited to his “choice.”
“North Carolina courts have consistently held that ‘the business judgment rule protects corporate directors from being judicially second-guessed when they exercise reasonable care and business judgment.’” Madvig
Last, this whole thing is moot if he owns a 100% and his partner is out of the picture, then he is just being cheap; his partners estate would have no cause of action because they would have NO STANDING!
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 7, 2010 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I suggest you call Warren Savage at NC Lawyers Mutual and run your theory by him. He is a great guy and used to work in a firm that defended attorneys in legal negligence claims. There is a universe of difference between giving a client advice that virtually ensures he will not be involved in litigation and giving advice that leaves the issue for a jury to decide.
If the question is on the bar exam where ever you are taking it, I strongly suggest you not proceed with your argument on that exam unless you want to risk taking the bar exam later in the year. Part of my work is giving businesses advice of how to avoid needing me as a litigator. Your advice could well lead to years of traumatic and expensive litigation. You are also correct that there is far more information an attorney would need before offering legal advice on the subject to Peter Karmanos.
A little knowledge in the law is a dangerous thing. In any event, good luck with your bar exam where ever it is. It is an ordeal to study and pass the bar; but you’ll be fine. Practicing law is a fantastic way to help people.
Thanks for the blessing. Studying for the bar is quite terrible.
Please do not attempt to discredit me because I am not a practicing attorney. It is hardly unreasonable to argue that had PK wanted to spend 5-8 million dollars more in cap money, significantly less than the cap maxium, at a loss in an effort to bolster his team by adding value both inside and outside the organization, and preserving season ticket holders by providing a superior product, goes so far as not exercising reasonable care and business judgment. It is almost as arguable as providing a team at cap minimum, risking the loss of season ticket holders and future value of the team, while placing more money in his own pocket.
No state requires a duty of profitability!
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 7, 2010 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Just call Warren Savage. You will be glad you did. Much of my time is spent teaching other attorneys. You seem like a fine person; but in this instance you are unfortunately mistaken however well-intentioned. I suspect given the amount of money involved that Peter Karmanos retained very experienced atttorneys and that he is following their advice. Obviously, there is no direct duty of profitability, but there is a duty not to waste assets by over-spending. Just go focus on studying for the bar, relax when you take it and it will all work out great.
I know, I do need to get back to studying, I have been putting it off since I walked out of Barbri today and will be up all night now :)
Anyway, I am sticking to my guns on this one. I challenge you to find a duty of care theory that provides that a corporation MUST reduce expenses to increase profitability – a reverse of what you said before, then I will shut up with my tail between my legs :-) Until then, no can do.
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 7, 2010 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions
BTW – if I called him up to discuss how those providing advice take into account the desires of the clients, he would probably say yep, that sounds about right. That is all I am arguing here, is that PK worked it with Allen and Company to design this plan to fit his personal motivation – saving money. In no place have I said that he should act contrary to their advice. Thats the little red herring that you brought in after I answered your question:
“Perhaps you can show me one legal opinion that states a majority shareholder does not have to consider reducing expenses to increase the likelihood of profitability as one of the ways to assess his responsibility? I am aware of no such case; but as always I am open to being shown such a case exists anywhere in the United States.”
I believe that has been answered :)
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 7, 2010 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually, that point has not been answered by you. After you speak with Warren Savage and report back his comments, I’ll be happy to discuss it further. If you tell me where you are in law school, I can look up some of your professors and am happy to email them.
IMAO, I don’t know how I can be more clear and repetitive in one thread.
And what? Report back to you…huh? And for wanting to contact my alma mater and previous professors about this – you just won the sketchy comment of the year award – congrats. Do you want to contact my previous employers about our discussion about PK too?
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 7, 2010 9:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Glad I’m not the only one to think that was a bit creepy. Didn’t want to be the first to say it.
Is it possible to be addicted to hockey?
Sorry, I actually know quite a few of the law professors around and wasn’t trying to sneak up on you. Many of them are personal friends and we discuss various issues that are of intellectual interest. I had envisioned sending them a short hypothetical to get their response. The legal community is a actually relatively small. These issues are not life and death to a professor or to me; and instead it is an intellectual discussion of legal principles. It is also part of the legal education process. You will find that attorneys try to help each other and particularly try to help young attorneys or law students. You are clearly well-intentioned, but you are mistaken about this issue. For example, you suggest, quite wrongly, that attorneys or clients call up an expert witness in a field such as the sale of sports franchises and tell the experts what to say. That is a completely inaccurate understanding on your part. If an attorney tried to buy an expert’s opinion, he would be at risk of losing his law license.
I apologize that you took my comment the wrong way. These kinds of questions appear on bar exams and it is in your interest to determine whether or not you are correct or incorrect prior to the bar exam wherever it is you are taking the exam.
Where am I mistaken, please be more specific…quote me…i.e. where did I say “that attorneys or clients call up an expert witness in a field such as the sale of sports franchises and tell the experts what to say.” I am not trying to be rude, I just have no idea where you draw these conclusions from…continuously.
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 7, 2010 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
“You make it sound as though Allen and Company sat PK down and told him what to do, I seriously doubt that was the case. I cannot believe that as an attorney you think that it is this cut/dry and perfect – because its not. People get the results they want in ways that protect their interests everyday.”
“That is all I am arguing here, is that PK worked it with Allen and Company to design this plan to fit his personal motivation – saving money.”
“It would not be prudent to think that he couldn’t pick which result he wanted and not find a good faith reason for achieving it.”
It is not good faith for a majority owner to fore-ordain and result and then find an expert to support the approach. An attorney who condoned the approach of “find me a way I can reduce expenses to the detriment of minority shareholders” would likely lose a legal negligence claim. The exact opposite is true. The majority owner and his attorney would work with an expert to find the most rational and appropriate alternatives for selling the minority share. They would all weigh the pros and cons fairly and in depth. They would explain the pros and cons to the trustee of the estate of the minority shareholder and try to reach consensus.
Where did I say that he wanted to “reduce expenses to the detriment of minority shareholders?” Cmon, that is ridiculous. You take everything out of context.
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 7, 2010 11:07 PM EDT up reply actions
where did I say that he came up with his goal and then looked for an expert to specifically support it? Again, I truly am not intending to be rude, its just when you take everything that I say out of context, I have no other way of forcing you to answer.
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 7, 2010 11:19 PM EDT up reply actions
I meet with experts several times a week. I would not work with any expert who wanted me to tell them what to say. They would not work with me if I told them result I wanted and for them to come up with some explanation how to get that result.
The reason I suggest you go talk with a law professor is I think it will help you understand more fully the ramifications of what you are saying. It is all hypothetical and not world-shattering. It would help you however as a young attorney to take that extra step.
Where did I say that attorneys tell experts what to say?
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 7, 2010 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions
No offense, but you are just pulling this out of a hat. Surely a business owner can sit down with someone providing advice, explain his/her ultimate goal, and find a way to rationally get there.
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 7, 2010 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
No. I am trying to help you understand why as a young attorney your approach has flaws and I am suggesting you test my premise by asking a law professor or Warren Savage from NC Lawyers Mutual what he or she thinks. In theory, by pointing out my concerns about your approach and understanding you will think about the points being made; and if a situation arises in real life where your clients depend on you to give them accurate advice, you will think deeply about the entire thread.
You still didnt answer my question, where did I say that attorneys tell experts what to say? Nonresponsive.
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 7, 2010 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions
So if someone wanted to discuss retirement with you, you wouldn’t ask them where they wanted to be in 50 years, you would just start planning…is that what you meant by “No?”
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 7, 2010 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions
This is the way consulting works. Consultants can provide information and guidance but it requires certain policy decisions by the ultimate client to set the limits and direction.
Is it possible to be addicted to hockey?
Agreed, now watch him spin your words like a machine.
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 8, 2010 8:32 AM EDT up reply actions
Who suggested Karmanos "bought an expert's opinion?"
The vast majority of consultants take their client’s individual needs and desires into consideration. That’s all PC suggested that I saw.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '010: Save the Richardson family coffers! We'll take the winning if we stumble into it.
by MichaelProcton on Jul 8, 2010 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I have been extremely respectful to Doug while arguing my points in this thread. Rather than addressing my points, he has chosen to attack my credibility and character without merit. I have not responded in the same manner, nor will I.
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 9, 2010 1:17 AM EDT up reply actions
Good for you.
People’s disrespect will take care of itself.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '010: Save the Richardson family coffers! We'll take the winning if we stumble into it.
by MichaelProcton on Jul 9, 2010 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Parsons is either a plant or a complete sycophant. Its like arguing with a wall….
With that being said, this was good reading. I think I have a Law Degree now.
it always burns within
the downward spiral never ends
when driven into sin
your salvation's found in a sinner's deed
by Douchebag St John on Jul 9, 2010 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions
Is minimizing costs the best way to sell half of the team?
I hope some of you more knowledgeable Canes fans will help me understand why the Canes’ current strategy makes sense.
I’m all for the Canes youth movement because I think the strategy of relying on mediocre or over-the-hill veterans usually will fail and makes for a dull team. And even if everything breaks your way and you make the playoffs one year, you have every reason to expect to have a worse team the following year. A bright present doesn’t mean a bright future. Having a good year doesn’t mean you’re building a strong franchise.
Building on a base of young players makes much more sense to me. If you squeak into the playoffs, you can imagine going farther in the playoffs the following year, and farther still the year after that. And as a fan, you get to see young talent blossom.
What puzzles me about the way the Canes are going about their youth movement is that they seem to be hoping to be at best barely competitive with the certainty of spending minimal dollars. They don’t seem to comprehend how important it is with a youth movement to generate hopes for a bright future. If slashing expenses and going young fails to do that, things can get very bad very fast as fans reject a noncompetitive team with a dim future.
I can see that slashing expenses would be one way to make the team attractive to the new investor that Peter Karmanos is looking for. However, as others have pointed out, a really bad team is going to slash revenues as well as expenses. Furthermore, in a medium-sized Southern city, making a minimum salary budget the team’s primary objective for the year could be a great way to destroy the emerging fan base and the value of the franchise. That could drive away any local investor—only those who want to relocate the franchise would be willing to put up money.
If the franchise is staying in Raleigh, won’t investors want more than a business whose upside is minimizing expenses and losses? Won’t they be looking for trend lines that might show increased revenues and profitability?
If so, there should be a business case for fielding the most competitive possible young team even if it costs $3 or $ 4 million above the minimum. A more competitive team would generate more revenue and seems more likely than sheer cost-cutting to minimize LOSSES even though it doesn’t minimize expenses. A truly competitive young team would also generate hope for a brighter future.
Wouldn’t reduced losses, a trend toward profitability, and good reason to hope for continued improvement in the team and in its financial position be more attractive to investors than what the Canes seem to be doing?
by curiouscanesfan on Jul 6, 2010 9:07 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I would spend more money to skate a decent team; somewhere in the middle of the cap min/max; we are a small market team, I don’t expect to be at the top.
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 6, 2010 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Your comments may certainly be realistic but they are imbued entirely—as many of your comments are—completely with negativity. Further, you do point out problems, but all of us can do that. You fail in offering any solutions, which is what those of us who are guardedly optomistic about this team are trying to do.
And how you use my comments to say I am engaging in “loser talk” baffles me. I believe we actually will have a winning season this year and stated that in my post. Further, it is impossible for me to be negative about the Canes since chrissy is the eternal optimist and tempers my normal pessimism. It is too bad she abhors the negativism of these online boards because her hockey knowledge and acumen are far superior to my own.
Now, if two years from now, the team remains a salary-floor team and noncompetitive, you will have been proven right. I will, however, still be a season ticket holder and cheer for my team even when acknowledging our chance of making the playoffs will be abysmal and winning the Cup virtually impossible.
I will not, however, give up on this team’s prospects before the season has even started, and I think you and others already have.
by Chuck Burns on Jul 6, 2010 1:25 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
1) If you don’t like my comments, I am not forcing you to read or respond to them. 2) My solution is that we spend more money. 3) “loser talk” is finding ways to rationalize what management has shoved down our throats and making the best of it despite knowing that they are trying to make more bang for their buck with a inferior product they could have fixed all at our expense…whew, too long of a sentence…but I am not going back to edit it.
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 6, 2010 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Your first point is defensive and disingenuous. If I never read your comments and responded to your comments, you would claim I was nothing but a shill for management and unwilling to listen to opposing viewpoints
You also attempt to present yourself as some sort of victim because I disagree with you, that I don’t “like” your posts. That is an indirect attack on me, that I do not like people and their points of view because they disagree with mine without you being able to provide any factual evidence.
As to your second point about wanting to spend more money, it is ALWAYS easy to advocate spending someone else’s money. But unless this fanbase is willing (even in these uncertain economic times it certainly should be able) to generate more season ticket sales, then the owner does not have any obligation to do more than provide a cap-floor salary team.
That the owners have taken losses for most of the franchise’s history here suggests that money is not their entire or sole focus. That the organization has chosen to make it one for this year is understandable given the need to sell the minority interest to help settle a former partner’s estate. That there are possiblely other ways to handle such a settlement may be argued, but those options were not chosen, so arguing about them ad nauseum is not going to do anything but make you look even more intransigent than before.
Finally, in your third point you seem to be suggesting that we are going to be given less than what we paid for. Or are you suggesting that perhaps they should raise ticket prices to gain more revenue to spend the money on salaries to get the players you want? I would be willing to pay another 20% for my tickets. Are you?
I don’t like the fact we are a cap-floor team. But I accept it for one year given an unusual set of circumstances that will not likely repeat in my lifetime. And I’ve already stayed if they remain a cap-floor team, you will be right in your criticism. But, that does not make you right now nor should you demand that your viewpoint which all but dismisses any possibility for this season’s team to be successful to be the only one presented.
by Chuck Burns on Jul 7, 2010 1:20 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Wow, I am very surprised you took that personally, don’t quite know why, definitely was not my intention. Yes, that would be great if they were able to raise ticket prices in order to increase revenue for the team. Tickets in Carolina are the cheapest I have ever seen and any time I can sit in the upperdeck to see a pro hockey team for a little more than going to a Durham Bulls game makes it seem out of whack. If they could maintain ticket sales with a price increase, I wish they would do it.
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 7, 2010 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Now who is the one who is completely engaging in hyperbole and exaggeration. The most expensive ticket for a Durham Bulls game is $9 and you can sit almost on the field. The cheapest ticket for a Hurricanes ticket in the upper deck is about $30. To buy a ticket where chrissy and I sit is $70, which is almost 8 times the cost of a similar ticket to the Durham Bulls. By the way, I have season tickets to both the Hurricanes and the Bulls and can buy three Bulls tickets including Diamond Club membership on all three for the cost of one of my Hurricanes tickets. So, if you are going to try to use something comparable, do so, but don’t insult my intelligence.
Wow, they have gone up a bit, last time I went I bought upperdeck for $11. Now they are $20. http://hurricanes.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=61871
Durham Bulls tickets are what, from 7-9 bucks. I hardly believe $11 to be a LOT more than a Durham Bulls game. But, yes, you are right, I was definitely wrong in that prices have gone up a lot over the past three years. But that is not a huge difference, it costs a lot more for me to buy tickets to see them up here…a LOT MORE!
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 8, 2010 8:30 AM EDT up reply actions
It costs more in just about every other market too. The Canes have one of the best ticket prices in the league, and I would say in any of the four major sports (factoring in of course that baseball has twice as many home games and football about a fifth).
Is it possible to be addicted to hockey?
Absolutely. Heck, the ’06 dvd that I had Staal sign at southpoint mall costed more than an upperdeck ticket the last time I was there.
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 9, 2010 2:11 AM EDT up reply actions
Nice article!
So how many short-handed goals do we think a Rosie/Sutter combo will this year?
"The increase in pain is way beyond what you would expect a person to play with," said coach Paul Maurice. "Unfortunately it’s even beyond what Tim Gleason can play with, because he can play with just about anything."
I'm gonna sing the doom song now!
"Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?" -- Oddball, from Kelly's Heroes
[My Hockey Photoshops] [My Music] [Beat a Dead Horse]
good ole Doom – it was a PC game LONG before XBox was even a glimmer in MS’s eye. I have an unopened collector’s box set around here somewhere.
And yes – I’m a proud card carrying NERD! hehe
"The increase in pain is way beyond what you would expect a person to play with," said coach Paul Maurice. "Unfortunately it’s even beyond what Tim Gleason can play with, because he can play with just about anything."
Doom3
Completely rules….and gives me nightmares after playing it in the dark with a surround sound system.
it always burns within
the downward spiral never ends
when driven into sin
your salvation's found in a sinner's deed
by Douchebag St John on Jul 7, 2010 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions
That game used to absolutely freak me out at night. Duke Nukem used to be pretty kicka$$ too!
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 7, 2010 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I can’t go into a movie theater without thinking about going into the projector room to get the jetpack… or was that behind the screen? Maybe the RPG was in the projector room… Man this brings back memories. Nothing better than 72 hour LAN parties in a dark room drinking way too much soda and eating a kinds of junk food.
Online gaming kind of killed LAN parties. Sad in a way.
"The increase in pain is way beyond what you would expect a person to play with," said coach Paul Maurice. "Unfortunately it’s even beyond what Tim Gleason can play with, because he can play with just about anything."
BAWLS!
"The increase in pain is way beyond what you would expect a person to play with," said coach Paul Maurice. "Unfortunately it’s even beyond what Tim Gleason can play with, because he can play with just about anything."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA – I haven’t heard that term in a long time!!!!
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 8, 2010 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions
They had the best ads...
“We’ve got you! Buy the bawls!” also, “Suck my…” etc. =)
Unlike Jolt, which I thought tasted pretty awful, Bawls is actually really tasty. And it has that bottle that’s ribbed… man, you just can’t talk about it without it sounding dirty. ;)
"Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?" -- Oddball, from Kelly's Heroes
[My Hockey Photoshops] [My Music] [Beat a Dead Horse]
by Raccoon Fink on Jul 13, 2010 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions
Dude, we must have played the demo of that level in the Computer Lab in HS for months. At one point a friend laid Pip-bombs for half an hour…when he finally detonated it crashed the school PC network….those were the days.
it always burns within
the downward spiral never ends
when driven into sin
your salvation's found in a sinner's deed
by Douchebag St John on Jul 8, 2010 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions
haha awesome!
Some friends and I used to organize large LAN parties (300+ gamers) hosted at a hotel. We had to move locations one year and the new hotel had a weird power box. Can’t remember the details, I just know somehow the cable/TV system for the hotel got knocked out around 2am. We have a guest wearing nothing but a too-small bathrobe come storming into the ballroom swearing us up and down because his show was blacked out.
"The increase in pain is way beyond what you would expect a person to play with," said coach Paul Maurice. "Unfortunately it’s even beyond what Tim Gleason can play with, because he can play with just about anything."
my guess is one of the adult variety :)
"The increase in pain is way beyond what you would expect a person to play with," said coach Paul Maurice. "Unfortunately it’s even beyond what Tim Gleason can play with, because he can play with just about anything."
Meet the Press? Could have been the replay at that late hour.
Is it possible to be addicted to hockey?
no no no no … got a image of the Meet the Press naked doing naughty things…. I think parts of my mind shut down.
"The increase in pain is way beyond what you would expect a person to play with," said coach Paul Maurice. "Unfortunately it’s even beyond what Tim Gleason can play with, because he can play with just about anything."
Ewwww. But I have to ask, which host were you thinking of David Greggory or Tim Russert?
Is it possible to be addicted to hockey?
LOL – this whole fanpost is off the wall! I loved Tim Russert – got to see him speak at my wifes graduation.
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 8, 2010 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I have a strong desire to take this thread super duper off topic and start professing my love of Tim Russert. He is one of my heroes and will always remain as such.
Is it possible to be addicted to hockey?
His grad speech was one of the best that I have seen. Such a smart likeable person. And he loved his chicken wings (I heard he would visit his son & sons friends and fly them down from Buffalo)
by PittsburghCaniac on Jul 8, 2010 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions
actually, I don’t think I could tell you which is which, it was more of ‘generic old wrinkled guy’
"The increase in pain is way beyond what you would expect a person to play with," said coach Paul Maurice. "Unfortunately it’s even beyond what Tim Gleason can play with, because he can play with just about anything."
Huh huh, you said " ballroom ".
it always burns within
the downward spiral never ends
when driven into sin
your salvation's found in a sinner's deed
by Douchebag St John on Jul 8, 2010 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I see some good analysis by all the contributors above. One thing I am not sold on is the presumption made by some that the reason for our going with a payroll substantially below the cap is to attract investors. It could be because:
1. We are going to younger players to improve the team and a by product of this is lower salaries or
2. We are going to younger players to save money, performance be damned.
What do you think of this as a possible Karmo/JR plan. We concentrate this year on going with our youngsters to see what we have thinking we will be competitive for a playoff spot. A t the end of the year, if we see we are missing a player or two (M. Staal, etc.) that would make us a Cup contender we go after them.
Also keep in mind when doing your analysis that the team can earn as much as it is saving by a lower payroll by making the playoffs. This being the case, I see no reason to believe Karmo & JR won’t do everything they think is necessary to at least make the playoffs this year.
What are your thoughts?
Missing a couple points..
I think one big thing that’s been minimized, or overlooked completely. One of the affects of lowering the salary is losing popular players (like RAY), that doesn’t help keep current fans, or create interest for future fans!! When people are “asking for a program” because they don’t know who those new players are (in the regular season/ not preseason), you might have a problem!
we need those fan-favorities, and stars. If you doubt that ask the KC Athletics/ Royals (better known as the NY Yankees farm team) If anything adding a star, or “star-to-be” to the roster can increase interest, and profits!! 2nd it’s pie-in-the-sky to think that just because you have younger
players that they’re gonna be better!! Some may be better, but many may not. losing known talent
for unknown, is risky, and the more times you do it the more likely you LOSE!!
by randycane on Jul 6, 2010 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
One more thing...
For you business people: if your product is inferior, your profits may be too!!
There is nothing to suggest, and a lot of previous analysis would refute, that the team we start with this year will be inferior to the one we had at the end of last season. If this team can stay together and focused, they should be able to maintain a .500 record through December.
And I agree that some fans will become disgruntled that their favorite player or players were traded or released. But other fans will become excited as they see the young stars they’ve heard so much about finally get an opportunity. So I think on the whole, that will be a wash.
As AD has pointed out many times, for this team to be able to spend to the cap, we need more season ticketholders to provide long-term stability in the revenue projections, which are always harder to make than expense calculations over which management has more control just as individuals do in their own lives. I always find it much easier to live within budget by cutting expenses than expecting my income to go up.
by Chuck Burns on Jul 6, 2010 2:18 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Frankly...
“Other fans” who have actually “heard so much about” NHL prospects are likely already excited about the team and will continue to be regardless. 20-something AHL studs don’t bring in the casual fan.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '010: Save the Richardson family coffers! We'll take the winning if we stumble into it.
by MichaelProcton on Jul 7, 2010 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions
I will admit that staying near the cap floor is not my favorite strategy, and I fully expect the team to spend beyond their budget before it’s over. But trying to save money is not necessarily a bad thing in my mind. Not every team can be like the New York Yankees and unload the dollars to basically buy a championship (I’m a life-long Yankee fan by the way). I think the fact that Carolina has so many young players competing for a limited number of spots leaves us with a potentially dangerous team. These players will know that once they make the team, they will need to show up all day every day, or someone else will be called up to take their place. I expect these guys to be hungry when the season starts.
I’m glad we weren’t caught up in a FA spending spree, signing players who care more about the money than anything else. The Free Agent Frenzy was full of them. Look where the New Jersey Devils are sitting now. Facing a payroll that is about 5 million above the cap. They need to get rid of players in order to shed salary because they wanted the big prize of UFA. If they need the money later, too bad. Look at the mess Carolina was in last year.
A perfect example of frivolous spending is the NBA. For instance, Lebron James. How much money was Cleveland paying him? Only to listen to him complain that they weren’t willing to get HIM some help so HE could win a title. Same thing with Kobe Bryant (although he’s won his titles), Dwayne Wade, Amare Stoudamire, and so on. Stoudamire, if you haven’t heard, just signed a deal that will pay him almost 20 mil per year for the next 6 years. Good luck getting any quality players to support you because you want the big payday. Hockey has this type of player too (Kovy). But in a way, it’s a good thing they don’t play on Carolina (Staal haters unite here!). Money might buy a superstar, but it won’t necessarily buy character or heart. Those are the things that win trophies.
I think what distresses many fans about this year is this :
Always before we had the feeling that the goal was to put a team on the ice that would try to make the playoffs and make a run for the cup. In recent memory that team had many veterans and the expenses were at the upper end, closer to the cap. There were many fan favorites in that group.
Suddenly this year there is a strong purging of veterans, starting at last years trade deadline, and a huge emphasis on going supercheap, and an influx of young, untested talent. We will hardly recognize the team when they first come out on to the ice.
Management is stressing cost containment, not winning games, and little mention is being made this year about making playoffs. Hence gloom and doom.
But I have to believe this severe cost containment is temporary until a new partner helps to recapitalize the franchise. I say this because PK is a business man and he knows a consistant low cost team will not compete for the playoffs year after year——-because these young players will grow into more expensive contracts as they get better and become more able to compete !
Part of this fan’s angst is the loss of favorite players in favor of unknowns. This is compounded by PK and JR deliberately lowering expectations for this year while we have the ASG to distract us.
The cheap,cheap budget is not sustainable year after year unless we dump the players we have just worked to train, and bring up more AHLer’s.
JR is wiley and wise. He thinks several years ahead of us, I think. Bottom line, we have to trust him on this one !!
We have to trust the veterans we have left, like Timmy and Ruu, and Cam and Jussi to provide the “heart” in the locker room, until it infects all of them !!
GO CANES! Go Heels!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Puck Previews: Ducks’ road trip continues; Sens, Panthers in battle of most surprising teams
- Watch the weirdest goal of the year, courtesy of ECHL ref’s rulebook gaffe (VIDEO)
- Jeremy Roenick’s OK with Blackhawks trading Patrick Kane for goalie upgrade
- Puck Headlines: Rick Nash chatter; Jagr turns 40; Ovechkin too much of a rock star?
- NHL Trade Deadline Dream Scenarios: Whom do you want to go where?
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
