Burke Fired

[Kin]

It's not at all. Bell and Rogers own 75% of the votes and they have to vote together - they don't own the votes separately, they own them jointly. As long as they agree on things, it doesn't matter what Tannenbaum wants, and, so far, he's been the only board member known to have an issue here.

He's the Chair though (not just any board member.) - It's never a good thing when they're not on the same page... at least optically.

But why should hockey fans care about the optics of the corporate structure of the business that owns the team? If it doesn't effect the hockey, the optics can be that the building is on fire for all I care.

 

[Zee]

Perfect.  : So why have a Chairman then?

Well, someone has to run the meetings. He's sort of like the Speaker of the House, except his votes don't really matter.

As far as I'm concerned this has no direct effect on the Leafs on the ice right now.  Sure Nonis is now in charge, and as long as the new owners have confidence in him and his plan, I think the Leafs are in decent hands.  All that boardroom stuff means nothing.  When it does get interesting is when Nonis has the opportunity to acquire some big name, big contract, and he goes to the board to see if he's allowed to.

 

[maplesyrup]

Well, someone has to run the meetings. He's sort of like the Speaker of the House, except his votes don't really matter.

Again, perfect.  : If I'm Bell/Rogers, I hire a clerk to do that for 0.0005% of Tannenbaum's salary.

 

[bustaheims]

Again, perfect.  : If I'm Bell/Rogers, I hire a clerk to do that for 0.0005% of Tannenbaum's salary.

They can't. Tannenbaum doesn't earn a salary. He owns 25% of MLSE. All they can do is remove the title and give it to someone else.

 

[maplesyrup]

When it does get interesting is when Nonis has the opportunity to acquire some big name, big contract, and he goes to the board to see if he's allowed to.

I think that we can agree on. As long as there isn't a meedler among them, it really doesn't matter... but that remains to be seen.

 

[Kin]

Isn't Tanenbaum the Leafs owner with the history of influencing hockey decisions?

 

[bustaheims]

Isn't Tanenbaum the Leafs owner with the history of influencing hockey decisions?

He is reportedly the guy that forced JFJ to re-sign Tie Domi.

 

[Bullfrog]

Things will settle down. The sky is not falling.

Nobody is saying it is and yeah, things will settle down but nobody likes it while things are unsettled either. Nobody likes to see good people canned in restructuring. - and I'm not just talking about Burke either. I suspect we'll see a few more heads roll as chests continue to puff. 

I've served on a few boards. Rarely do questions of this importance get passed with unanimity. I don't really see a big issue at all, to be honest. Tananbaum was overruled essentially by the other board members. It happens.

 

[Fanatic]

Things will settle down. The sky is not falling.

Nobody is saying it is and yeah, things will settle down but nobody likes it while things are unsettled either. Nobody likes to see good people canned in restructuring. - and I'm not just talking about Burke either. I suspect we'll see a few more heads roll as chests continue to puff. 

I've served on a few boards. Rarely do questions of this importance get passed with unanimity. I don't really see a big issue at all, to be honest. Tananbaum was overruled essentially by the other board members. It happens.

I have no problem with Tananbaum being reduced to what he is - a minority owner. MLSE needs a CEO - I have seen a few good names tossed around. Once that happens this will die down fast.

 

[maplesyrup]

They can't. Tannenbaum doesn't earn a salary. He owns 25% of MLSE. All they can do is remove the title and give it to someone else.

I know... Hey, know  where I can get a ceremonial gig somewhere? I could just sit there with tiara and no input whatsoever. I'm a married father of two daughters so I'm experienced and fully qualified.  :-\

 

[Joe S.]

Isn't Tanenbaum the Leafs owner with the history of influencing hockey decisions?

That's the impression I got - but I don't have anything to back that up.

The only 'decision' that I know came down from ownership that was clear meddling was Stavro denying the contract that Fletcher worked out with Gretzky. From a hockey perspective, that was sheer lunacy, but I understand Stavro was counting his pennies at that point due to other financial issues he was having.

Otherwise, I can't think of a hockey player move that was made that just screams 'owners meddling' in the post Ballard era.

 

[Fanatic]

Isn't Tanenbaum the Leafs owner with the history of influencing hockey decisions?

That's the impression I got - but I don't have anything to back that up.

The only 'decision' that I know came down from ownership that was clear meddling was Stavro denying the contract that Fletcher worked out with Gretzky. From a hockey perspective, that was sheer lunacy, but I understand Stavro was counting his pennies at that point due to other financial issues he was having.

Otherwise, I can't think of a hockey player move that was made that just screams 'owners meddling' in the post Ballard era.

Somone pointed out Domi. That is the only other one I know of.

 

[Kin]

Otherwise, I can't think of a hockey player move that was made that just screams 'owners meddling' in the post Ballard era.

Well, no. I suppose it depends on how loosely you want to describe running the team as "meddling". I mean, apparently the whole post-Fletcher Smith/Dryden/Quinn era was apparently one where the board had to sort some things out but I don't know what, if any, extent that counts as meddling.

 

[Bullfrog]

Well, someone has to run the meetings. He's sort of like the Speaker of the House, except his votes don't really matter.

Again, perfect.  : If I'm Bell/Rogers, I hire a clerk to do that for 0.0005% of Tannenbaum's salary.

Generally a chairman has to be a director. And it's  unlikely they're being paid to be on the board.

I wouldn't say his votes don't matter. I'm sure his opinions are heard and considered. Good or bad, he is the only director that has any tenure with the company and will have valuable input. Given how easily it'll be to be outvoted, he'll have to make friends and be convincing on items that matter to him.

 

[bustaheims]

I know... Hey, know  where I can get a ceremonial gig somewhere? I could just sit there with tiara and no input whatsoever. I'm a married father of two daughters so I'm experienced and fully qualified.  :-\

Well, first, you need to rise through the corporate ranks, make millions and millions and millions of dollars, and, then, maybe, if you buy into the right organization, you can get that kind of ceremonial gig - though, it's probably worth point out that Tanenbaum (and guys like him) tend to sit on dozens of various boards with varying degrees of influence and workloads from them.

 

[Joe S.]

Somone pointed out Domi. That is the only other one I know of.

True - but really, re-signing a fan favourite (lets be honest, more people loved this guy than hated him for some reason) isn't crazy.

 

[maplesyrup]

I've served on a few boards. Rarely do questions of this importance get passed with unanimity. I don't really see a big issue at all, to be honest. Tananbaum was overruled essentially by the other board members. It happens.

I guess. Though a continual pattern of Bell/Rogers vs. Tananbaum could be a problem. I' monly afraid that could be the case. If not, than yeah, fine.... Nothing to see here.

 

[bustaheims]

I guess. Though a continual pattern of Bell/Rogers vs. Tananbaum could be a problem. I' only afraid that could be the case. If not, than yeah, fine.... Nothing to see here.

In the boardroom, maybe, and that's only if we believe that Tanenbaum isn't familiar with how corporate boardrooms work (which, considering his history, we know is not the case). It will be a blow to Tanenbaum's ego, but, that's about it.

 

[maplesyrup]

In the boardroom, maybe, and that's only if we believe that Tanenbaum isn't familiar with how corporate boardrooms work (which, considering his history, we know is not the case). It will be a blow to Tanenbaum's ego, but, that's about it.

Hey, like I said, I'm only concerned about the product on the ice and the direction it's going. I'd be perfectly happy if hockey operations and and the rest only met once per year at the Christmas party.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

In the boardroom, maybe, and that's only if we believe that Tanenbaum isn't familiar with how corporate boardrooms work (which, considering his history, we know is not the case). It will be a blow to Tanenbaum's ego, but, that's about it.

Hey, like I said, I'm only concerned about the product on the ice and the direction it's going. I'd be perfectly happy if hockey operations and and the rest only met once per year at the Christmas party.

I'm with you. If this decision about how this Burke firing went down, is any indication, it just strengthens the idea that people from telecommunications or any other industry, shouldn't be making hockey decisions in any capacity. To me, it was a disaster from the time it hit the airwaves.

So, I guess I'm with Cox again, in that if there is any hope here, MLSE will quickly find a CEO and stay the heck out of things and stick to screwing people with the TV and telephone gig. At the very least in my opinion, Burke should have either been fired after the season, or given this short season to put it all together.