Controlling say? Mmm, must be something in your delivery.Kowch wrote:Where have I misquoted you? Or anyone else for that matter?micky107 wrote:Not going to quote something that (misquotes) parts of what others and myself said.
You really should get that right. It's like misrepresentation, (liable)
J/K, won't sue, this time.
Of course I know that. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I think I have any controlling say. I'm a fan of the Vancouver Canucks, same as you.micky107 wrote: Well, like quite a few here, I've supported this club since the start but the owners are the owners and where as you may question, ridicule, cheer, boo anything they do or don't do. Hell, you can even make out a protest sign and go on a little march in front of their offices if you desire.
What you cannot do is have a controlling say in what they do.
Unless, of course, you buy them out or they allow you to become a share holder.
But you know this, right?
But this isn't any different than calling for the GM or coach to be fired or certain players to be traded. We (as fans) have no control over the running of the club but yet we come to boards like this one to have our say on what we like about the team and what we don't like about the team. I don't see you saying "The GM is the GM" or "the players are the players" or "the coach is the coach" in other threads. Why is this topic any different?
I posited that the current ownership group is hindering the teams ability to win it all. Their hands on approach to managing the team is a problem and they don't seem to trust the hockey people they hire to make hockey decisions. If you disagree,that's fine but you need to articulate why; "the owners are the owners" isn't an argument.
One more wee little try;
The President, General manager, Coaches, Players, Trainers, Scouts and everyone else are "HIRED".
That would be by the Owners/ Owner and your right, that isn't an argument. It's a dead cold fact.
Business 101, remember?