[poll]Who Gives Less f***s

[Dab]

somehow the alumni seem to give the most shits?

They need jobs!

 

[Dab]

This couldn't be any more off base.

I've had a chat with Francesco (after the canuck's win in San Jose 2011 play-offs, he came to the bar with Jeff Mallet, and some other affluent buds. Mallett happened to be an investor in the company i was working for at time, Indochino, and is one of the owners of the White Caps IIRC. having met Mallett, i kinda got into their circle and was drinking with them. there's a story about a dude who drank with them and made a story about getting alcohol poisoning sound like it was epic, even though it was a cool night, but ok, not epic just because u couldn't handle your booze. Oddly, Judge Reinhold was also there and he hit on my girlfriend. Note: i absolutely don't care if you believe this or not. )

From the chat, I can definitively say, the Aquilinis are absolute fans. They not only want the team to win, they are willing to literally spend money for it. They also don't want a boring team. They want scoring. They own the team because they like hockey, not as a money generator. I literally asked "Why buy a hockey team", and his response "It's not like I did it to make money. There are better investments, but I don't tune into watch them three times a week."

This is what drives me nuts about people that bitch about them. (Not saying you are, Cogburn). If any of us here were owners, we'd have the exact same involvement as the Aquilinis do. bUt tHeY mEdDle is a comical statement considering A) Any of us would do exactly what they are doing B) How TF does someone "meddle" in their own affairs. They own the team. They absolute can, and should mandate how some things are to go.

I think this is generally true but doesn’t explain the strange actions ownership has taken this year! Some are suggested the Aquilini Family itself are divided as to how to run this franchise!

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

What on earth are you talking about. So just because the Aqulinis can meddle nobody should criticize them for it if they hurt the team by doing so? Because Benning can trade Pettersson for a 5th rounder no fans should have an opinion on the wisdom of that trade? Just because Green can play Sutter at 1st line centre nobody should comment if he did so?

What a bunch of nonsense.

The Aquilinis have to come to the realization that they suck at building a hockey team, get rid of puppet Benning and get a solid management group in who they let manage.

Yikes. Your understanding of the point, "The Aqualini's can "meddle" with their own team" is comically off. And your examples are the most nonsensical thing written here; completely not related to the point. Just terrible reading comprehension.

People have cited that just their involvement with the team as meddling. It's not. They absolutely get to dictate how things are run. And yea, you can criticize them for the direction their decisions but not for that they did it. You see the difference? Because others are saying their involvement in general is out of line/off-side.

The Aqualini's can be involved in the team they own. Their involvement is not unwarranted. <- The point being made.

If you want to criticize how they are involved, that's fine, but also pure speculation because you don't exactly know. Criticize them for keeping Benning, or not buying out players, etc, but for just being involved ? That's hypocritical nonsense.

 

[jd22]

Society

We all know there's something wrong, and we've known it all along...

Hit it, m2b

 

[Fatass]

Yikes. Your understanding of the point, "The Aqualini's can "meddle" with their own team" is comically off. And your examples are the most nonsensical thing written here; completely not related to the point. Just terrible reading comprehension.

People have cited that just their involvement with the team as meddling. It's not. They absolutely get to dictate how things are run. And yea, you can criticize them for the direction their decisions but not for that they did it. You see the difference? Because others are saying their involvement in general is out of line/off-side.

The Aqualini's can be involved in the team they own. Their involvement is not unwarranted. <- The point being made.

If you want to criticize how they are involved, that's fine, but also pure speculation because you don't exactly know. Criticize them for keeping Benning, or not buying out players, etc, but for just being involved ? That's hypocritical nonsense.

Sure. This makes sense. It’s FA’s team. He can be involved as he likes.
It’s like getting a house built. Owner hires a builder. Owner sets vision. Owner makes suggestions as the build continues. Owner can choose to pound nails, but they aren’t really a carpenter, so the builder says not a good idea. Owner fires builder, and hires a new one, who lets him pound nails. Owner pounds away. House ends up a disaster, and is condemned.
Maybe it’s best for the owner to keep out of things they really don’t know anything about?

 

[Izzy Goodenough]

The thing is, FA appears to fancy himself as a hockey executive but I agree, it is like contracting a framer to do your cabinet work.

 

[Dab]

The thing is, FA appears to fancy himself as a hockey executive but I agree, it is like contracting a framer to do your cabinet work.

I’ve said it before, but if you’ve had the pleasure of working on an Aquilini construction site then you know exactly how the family reacts when a project hits the skids...

 

[CpatainCanuck]

Yikes. Your understanding of the point, "The Aqualini's can "meddle" with their own team" is comically off. And your examples are the most nonsensical thing written here; completely not related to the point. Just terrible reading comprehension.

People have cited that just their involvement with the team as meddling. It's not. They absolutely get to dictate how things are run. And yea, you can criticize them for the direction their decisions but not for that they did it. You see the difference? Because others are saying their involvement in general is out of line/off-side.

The Aqualini's can be involved in the team they own. Their involvement is not unwarranted. <- The point being made.

If you want to criticize how they are involved, that's fine, but also pure speculation because you don't exactly know. Criticize them for keeping Benning, or not buying out players, etc, but for just being involved ? That's hypocritical nonsense.

There is no contingent of people who are claiming that the Aquilinis meddling in the management of the team is illegal, so if that is all you were trying to argue it is kind of bizarre. Who are these imaginary people you are arguing with?

The point is the Aquilinis have no qualifications or expertise related to hockey. They are not Elon Musk or Bill Gates who built their businesses and had expertise related in some way to the field: they are Billionaires who made their money in real estate and bought the Canucks franchise as a plaything. If they had bought a software company and started to micromanage its operations it would be equally as misguided and disfunctional.

 

[CpatainCanuck]

Double post.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Fewer f***s.

 

[strattonius]

Let's not mistake ineptitude with care.

For sure the fans care the least amount right now- everything else has a job on the line.