Speculation: Vancouver Canucks - Now 2nd in League Revenues !!!! Gillis know how to make $$$$

[MarkMM]

What personal insult?

Your logic is badly flawed and I pointed it out. You are now dancing around your badly flawed analogy.

BTW employing logic is what I have been trained to do and apply it on a daily basis.

If you cannot take the heat stay out of the fast food kitchen.

Oh dear, you didn't just...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

...did you?

I kid.

Perhaps we're just missing each other's point, I originally disagreed in this post about the claim that Aquilini is a cheap owner because he doesn't pay concession people well. My argument is that while he doesn't pay those workers well, he's not "cheap" because he is very willing to pay IF there is value to be had. Great players, great specialists, Aquilini pays handsomely and to me that makes him not a cheap owner in comparison to someone like Bill Wirtz.

I don't think his refusal to pay concession workers well automatically qualifies him as cheap or a bad owner. Maybe bad person, that can be debated and is a social call, but on this hockey thread for hockey relevance, I think Aquilini has been a good owner from a spending perspective. (Don't know about any purported meddling but perhaps that's for another thread.)

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Oh dear, you didn't just...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

...did you?

I kid.

Perhaps we're just missing each other's point, I originally disagreed in this post about the claim that Aquilini is a cheap owner because he doesn't pay concession people well. My argument is that while he doesn't pay those workers well, he's not "cheap" because he is very willing to pay IF there is value to be had. Great players, great specialists, Aquilini pays handsomely and to me that makes him not a cheap owner in comparison to someone like Bill Wirtz.

I don't think his refusal to pay concession workers well automatically qualifies him as cheap or a bad owner. Maybe bad person, that can be debated and is a social call, but on this hockey thread for hockey relevance, I think Aquilini has been a good owner from a spending perspective. (Don't know about any purported meddling but perhaps that's for another thread.)

No, its cheap, a bad business practice, and poor Public relations at a time when the team could use it.

 

[MarkMM]

No, its cheap, a bad business practice, and poor Public relations at a time when the team could use it.

No doubt it would make Aquilini better respected in the community if he did pay well (during his divorce he had a bit of a PR effort to show how he supports at risk youth so he's not blind to the benefits of being seen as a good guy), but I don't think people will decide to watch this team based on if they pay their concession people better.

But if the highly paid coach and highly paid GM (both I think are among the highest paid) use their high (cap) spending payroll along with their league-leading operational budget to put on a winning team...I suddenly don't think people would stop cheering on a Stanley Cup contender and President Trophy winning team because the guy making the churros didn't get a raise. Whether or not the team has a fan base doesn't have much to do with the White Spot workers, people watch based on the on-ice product and that's where Aquilini lavishly spends the money compared to most if not all other teams.

Aquilini pays if he thinks you're worth it, and has shown a willingness to pay a lot, more than other teams on his coaches, GM, players, trainers, scouts, sleep doctors, dressing rooms, etc, etc. I believe the Canucks were even one of the teams that paid staff through the lock-out. But yes, he does not pay more than market for easily replaceable, low-skilled commodity work.

Now if he was like Phoenix where at times they had to train at public gyms, let key players walk for a few hundred grand when there's plenty of cap left like Edmonton, or were a low-spending team in a big market like Chicago under Bill Wirtz...now that would be cheap.

 

[RandV]

Really? Who's the one throwing the personal insults out?

Hockey player at elite level is incredibly rare and takes a lifetime of dedicated training to get there, and makes seven figures.

Computer programmer takes years of training and is somewhat rare, makes six figures.

Fast food worker can be done with anyone with competence and hours of training, makes minimum wage.

Aquilini pays what he thinks is needed to field the best for his operations. He'll pay the max to get the best (in his management's minds) available player with $10 million to Sundin. He'll pay a lifetime deal to keep his star goalie. (Oops.) He'll pay to bring in psychologists and sleep doctors even though there's no CBA requirement to do so because he thinks it gives his team an edge.

He won't pay a living wage to the fast food workers because $20/hour for a hot-dog vendor doesn't make his company any more successful than $13/hour.

Aquilini is calculating. Bill Wirtz was cheap. That's the point I was trying to make, and you're throwing out insults. No need for that.

Yeah that's a true statement but it's probably a little dishonest to the discussion here, as I really doubt it's the hot dog vendors making $20 an hour. If you're running a restaurant while you don't want to pay your dishwasher anything over the minimum wage, I would certainly hope you aren't applying the same standards to your cooks. And while GM place has a lot of crappy concession stands, there's also places inside serving restaurant quality food. If you've ever attended a game in one of the expensive corporate suites they're not serving you hotdogs and nacho's

 

[MarkMM]

Yeah that's a true statement but it's probably a little dishonest to the discussion here, as I really doubt it's the hot dog vendors making $20 an hour. If you're running a restaurant while you don't want to pay your dishwasher anything over the minimum wage, I would certainly hope you aren't applying the same standards to your cooks. And while GM place has a lot of crappy concession stands, there's also places inside serving restaurant quality food. If you've ever attended a game in one of the expensive corporate suites they're not serving you hotdogs and nacho's

You're absolutely right, not meaning to derail the thread here, this whole point for me began with certain posters decrying Aquilini as a bad, cheap owner because certain workers like the concession hot-dog makers don't get paid much if any more than minimum wage. I'm sure those who make more sophisticated food do get paid more and that's been my point, if you have skills, you get paid, the more valued the skills, the more you get paid. Aquilini abides by that and if we cry "cheap" at him for that and ignore the cap payroll, the millions in arena upgrades, the widely reported investments beyond what other teams receive then we're forgetting what many other teams suffer through.

 

[SgtToody]

No, its cheap, a bad business practice, and poor Public relations at a time when the team could use it.

Maybe he'll just truck in his farm workers, who after 10 hours out in the rain or hot sun would love to squeeze back on those buses and stand behind a counter serving stale buns and soggy fries for $8 an hour. Of course that'd be a raise on what they earn in the fields.

 

[SgtToody]

I honestly got to question the validity of this assertion..

Why does Tony use the language: "..numbers can be manipulated in many ways,.." and then continues with ".. you could argue that in fact the Canucks have gone from seventh to second"...


So isn't it totally obvious Tony is twisting whatever data he's looking at in favor of making the 2nd in the league "argument".

Gallagher schilled for Gillis to get the job, now he's schilling to make his 5h!+ smell like roses. Unfortunately, the regular hockey fan here has to scrap it off his shoes...

 

[Raincouver]

No, its cheap, a bad business practice, and poor Public relations at a time when the team could use it.

How is paying LESS by NOT contracting out a service a bad business practice? If the Canucks can save 10-40% of their labour cost, that would be a success. That's a GOOD business practice. And its the same reason why your Ipads and Cell phones are made in China and you Nikes are made in Bangladesh and not in North Burnaby or Cleveland or Dublin.

And its not bad PR at all. You think that Canuck fans are going to be upset that a company like Aramark, which has had PR issues of its own, is no longer in charge of popcorn and peanuts in the arena?

Besides, Aramark's contract was signed almost 20 years ago with The Griffiths family. Why not do it in-house?

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

How is paying LESS by NOT contracting out a service a bad business practice? If the Canucks can save 10-40% of their labour cost, that would be a success. That's a GOOD business practice. And its the same reason why your Ipads and Cell phones are made in China and you Nikes are made in Bangladesh and not in North Burnaby or Cleveland or Dublin.

We are talking about a service industry, not manufacturing. Cutting labour costs doesn't always make a business more profitable, especially in the service industry model.

And its not bad PR at all. You think that Canuck fans are going to be upset that a company like Aramark, which has had PR issues of its own, is no longer in charge of popcorn and peanuts in the arena?

The contract with Aramark employed 1000 people in concessions around the arena. The Canucks just hired 800 to replace the 1000. If you don't think this will result in poorer service, you are fooling yourself.
And why the "popcorn and peanuts" talk? Is that to degrade the work that these people do?

Besides, Aramark's contract was signed almost 20 years ago with The Griffiths family. Why not do it in-house?

Fair enough, why weren't the laid off staff given the opportunity to apply? Why was the union told workers could reapply for the new positions, and told the fired employees would be told the day of the hiring fair, only for the hiring fair to be held the next day without any notice to those workers?

I suggest anyone making gross assumptions like this person about these jobs should go to the CKNW audio vault to the Simi Sara show for friday, March 14th. She go's into detail about the contract and the type of work most of these workers did, and the kind of shameful treatment they just received.

 

[Raincouver]

We are talking about a service industry, not manufacturing. Cutting labour costs doesn't always make a business more profitable, especially in the service industry model.

The contract with Aramark employed 1000 people in concessions around the arena. The Canucks just hired 800 to replace the 1000. If you don't think this will result in poorer service, you are fooling yourself.
And why the "popcorn and peanuts" talk? Is that to degrade the work that these people do?



Fair enough, why weren't the laid off staff given the opportunity to apply? Why was the union told workers could reapply for the new positions, and told the fired employees would be told the day of the hiring fair, only for the hiring fair to be held the next day without any notice to those workers?

I suggest anyone making gross assumptions like this person about these jobs should go to the CKNW audio vault to the Simi Sara show for friday, March 14th. She go's into detail about the contract and the type of work most of these workers did, and the kind of shameful treatment they just received.

This has nothing to do with the workers.

They were Aramark employees, and their employer lost a contract. It happens. If I own a plumbing business, and you no longer use me to repair your plumbing, I don't send my workers.

Aramark can bid for other arenas, other contracts, etc within a free market.

You can't guarantee that 800 workers vs 1000 = poorer service. There are plenty of changes the Canucks can make to increase efficiency and automation to streamline services to make this cost saving measure work.

 

[Dutchess]

Canucks Failing Business Management 101?

http://twopadstack.net/canucks-failed-business-management-101/

I'm a Sabres fan, so I come in peace and definitely am familiar with failure. I understand that Gillis was handcuffed with Lou, but it just seems like he's made some really questionable decisions over the last couple of years, starting with the Schneider deal and maybe even going back to the Hodgson deal. What's going on with the Nucks?

 

[Bgav]

Would do the Hodgson deal every day of the week

 

[y2kcanucks]

Would do the Hodgson deal every day of the week

I wouldn't. The timing of it was especially illogical.

 

[Zombotron]

Would do the Hodgson deal every day of the week

This. The Sabres are gonna end up dealing Hodgson to another team as their next wave of young players emerges, and at that point the Canucks will have officially won the Hodgson - Kassian trade. It's only a matter of time. If Bo Horvat pans out I'll take our cheap meatball goaltending over Schneider and Luongo. Put the goaltending money elsewhere.

 

[Ryp37]

This is so poorly written I couldn't even finish it

and I'm sure a site called twopadsstacked would definitely give a un-biased look into the goaltending situation

 

[tantalum]

I wouldn't. The timing of it was especially illogical.

I know we've been down this road countless times but it really wasn't illogical timing.

Given the trust level on the defensive side of the puck AV demands from all of his players one Cody Hodgson was not going to see much icetime down the stretch or in the playoffs. In all likelihood he is sitting in the press box for important games. It is now clear that they were showcasing him to drive up the value not because AV actually wanted to play him when it counted. His value wasn't going to get any higher than it was. Perhaps it doesn't get lower, though with the inevitable trade request it would have, but for the type of trade that was going to happen (young player for young player) there was no issue witht he timing. Especially when there were specific targetted players.

And I do that trade again and again and again and again right now and because of that the timing was just fine.

 

[Peen]

To be fair, the Hodgson trade is pretty much a washout.

Both kinda useless. One is an inconsistent 3rd liner who shows flashes of brilliance

The other is a bottom 3 defensive player in the NHL

Let's just stop talking about that one.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I know we've been down this road countless times but it really wasn't illogical timing.

Given the trust level on the defensive side of the puck AV demands from all of his players one Cody Hodgson was not going to see much icetime down the stretch or in the playoffs. In all likelihood he is sitting in the press box for important games. His value wasn't going to get any higher than it was. Perhaps it doesn't get lower, though with the inevitable trade request it would have, but for the type of trade that was going to happen (young player for young player) there was no issue witht he timing. Especially when there were specific targetted players.

And I do that trade again and again and again and again right now and because of that the timing was just fine.

Given the position the team was in, trading a producing roster player for futures was a stupid move. Yes, it was pathetic timing. We needed to load up for another playoff run and instead he sold a producing center man for a player who didn't help us at all that season. That's not a knock on Kassian. The same could be said about any other prospect acquired in a Hodgson trade.

You never see contending teams trading away producing players at the deadline for futures, especially when they have blatant holes in their team that said player was also helping to address.

 

[dave babych returns]

Given the position the team was in, trading a producing roster player for futures was a stupid move. Yes, it was pathetic timing. We needed to load up for another playoff run

I love, love, LOVE the irony of seeing people like you saying things like this.

I thought this team would never win while they were built around the Sedins?

But you think it's "stupid," "pathetic" etc that they made a move that made them worse in the short term, while Ryan Kesler was playing injured I might add.

"We need to rebuild completely, ZOMG we traded a player who was losing matchups against third liners!"

The fact is that if the other deal the Canucks made that day hadn't been so unsuccessful their moves would have made them a better team in the present and in the future. The Pahlsson deal was the real failure of that deadline.

 

[dave babych returns]

Also I'm not even going to click the link to read the article the OP is flogging; I should think that the wildly successful business the Canucks are running (regardless of the on ice results) would be evidence enough of the comically-poor choice of headline.

 

[Amused To Death]

http://twopadstack.net/canucks-failed-business-management-101/

I'm a Sabres fan, so I come in peace and definitely am familiar with failure. I understand that Gillis was handcuffed with Lou, but it just seems like he's made some really questionable decisions over the last couple of years, starting with the Schneider deal and maybe even going back to the Hodgson deal. What's going on with the Nucks?

The Schneider deal was a result of Luongo's desire to go to Florida. If we hadn't traded one of Lou or Schneider to somebody, the other teams would have had all of the leverage, due to us being cap-******. Soo we traded Schneider, got the bluechip, and went on down the road. And then traded Lou after Florida had an owner with money.

Hodgson deal I would do again and again.

 

[Tobi Wan Kenobi]

Given the position the team was in, trading a producing roster player for futures was a stupid move. Yes, it was pathetic timing. We needed to load up for another playoff run and instead he sold a producing center man for a player who didn't help us at all that season. That's not a knock on Kassian. The same could be said about any other prospect acquired in a Hodgson trade.

You never see contending teams trading away producing players at the deadline for futures, especially when they have blatant holes in their team that said player was also helping to address.

Are you serious?? You're the one who's been clambering for the team to be blown up and rebuilt. So we trade a player at his peak value while in a Canucks uniform for a younger and more needed player. You're the biggest Captain Hindsight I've ever come across in my life. I seriously feel sorry for the people that have to deal with you. What happened to "The Sedins aren't player you can win with" Yet you talk about going for a playoff run? Make up your mind gawd.

 

[Tobi Wan Kenobi]

http://twopadstack.net/canucks-failed-business-management-101/

I'm a Sabres fan, so I come in peace and definitely am familiar with failure. I understand that Gillis was handcuffed with Lou, but it just seems like he's made some really questionable decisions over the last couple of years, starting with the Schneider deal and maybe even going back to the Hodgson deal. What's going on with the Nucks?

lol. Hodgson mediocre at best. He's not even a WAR player imo. He'll get surpassed by your up and coming cneterman real quick. As for the the Schneider trade. I'm fine with it. Goalies aren't at a premium as they used to be. There's only 30 net to fill and a ton of good goalies. It's not what it used to be. Only a few teams lack goaltending. A lot of backups that could be starters. We got Horvat our future cornerstone player. I'm fine with it. I'd would have been happy to get rid of Luongo contract and received nothing in return. At least we got two players that have value. So GTFO.

 

[Barney Gumble]

To be fair, the Hodgson trade is pretty much a washout.

Both kinda useless. One is an inconsistent 3rd liner who shows flashes of brilliance

The other is a bottom 3 defensive player in the NHL

Let's just stop talking about that one.

Key difference is what each player is paid. For example, could give a **** if David Booth was on the team next season if his cap hit is exactly the same as Kassian's.

 

[MrShift4]

Writer fail

and agitator Maxim Lapierre from Montreal

I have zero tolerance for writers that can't get basic facts straight. If they can't get basic facts straight there is no need to swallow their conjecture.