blueandgoldguy
Registered User
fans of failing teams seem to always blame 'bad ownership'.....its a pretty common thread...would this not lead one to believe that instead of bad owners making bad markets maybe bad markets make bad owners?
low fan and corporate support leads to low payrolls which leads to low performing teams which leads to lower support, lower payrolls and lower performing teams....its an endless cycle.
i realize that hulsizer is the only option, but i find it funny that he is being held up as the long lost 'strong ownership' that the coyotes have needed to be successful.....if you took out an ad in the paper to look for an NHL owner, upon receiving his resume, you wouldn't even call him in for an interview.
he is not local, he is not wealthy, he has no experience running any kind of sports franchise, he is trying to swindle a free ride on the purchase....he is not even willing to put his own money into buying the team, what makes anyone believe that he will suddenly invest heavily into payroll?......what evidence is there at all that he will be any better at ownership than the others?
to me, he is pretty much the worst candidate possible to build a hockey market in arizona....the coyotes need deep pockets willing to spend on marketing and players...he needs to be able to withstand the inevitable huge losses he he will incur until a market is established...hulsizer could have owned this team 6 months ago had he been willing to put some of his own skin in the game and he might lose the team because of this lack of commitment....not great evidence that he will be a committed owner.
Nice post Pete. Agree with you 100%, especially the bolded part.