PDA

View Full Version : "MLSE Execs Feel The Pain Too, Fans"



Shakes McQueen
10-04-2010, 09:55 PM
Great article by the ever-awesome Stephen Brunt - my candidate for best sports writer in Canada.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/stephen-brunt/mlse-execs-feel-the-pain-too-fans/article1742275/

- Scott

menefreghista
10-04-2010, 10:08 PM
The headline doesn't even match the article.

ensco
10-04-2010, 10:09 PM
Where's the pain? Who else gets to keep their jobs year after year for underperformance? Show me somebody in the management structure of MLSE or Teachers who has lost their job in the last 12 years (Erol U left on his own to start a fund.)

Why does Brunt buy the premise that the Teachers overlords, or Peddie, "feel the pain too"?

Just because they say so?

Friday it was the ridiculous chart showing Peddie's favorite fairy tale, about how great MLSE are at creating value. It's pretty easy to prove that value creation at MLSE has been borderline pathetic since 1998, not that anyone can be bothered to raise this fairly simple point. Instead every writer just parrots the MLSE line on this - "we may not have winning teams, but we make gobs of money".

Nobody will say the truth - MLSE don't have good teams or make nearly as much money as they could/should.

MLSE owns these journalists. They're afraid to challenge anything MLSE execs say.

(I agree that Brunt is pretty good generally. But even he's afraid to take these guys on, they're too powerful, MLSE could ruin your career as a journalist if they decided to cut you off.)

Shakes McQueen
10-04-2010, 10:10 PM
The headline doesn't even match the article.

The article isn't quite as sunny as the title implies - I think it was meant a bit sardonically, particularly after reading the end of the article - but I think it's a mostly appropriate title.

- Scott

menefreghista
10-04-2010, 10:12 PM
To be fair to Brunt, writers usually don't write their own headlines. Someone else at the paper does that.

Brunt's article didn't really try to defend the MLSE execs the way the headline tries to.

Shakes McQueen
10-04-2010, 10:15 PM
Where's the pain? Show me somebody in the management structure of MLSE or Teachers who has lost their job in the last 12 years (Erol U left on his own to start a fund.)

Why does Brunt buy the premise that the Teachers overlords, or Peddie, "feel the pain too"?

Just because they say so?

Who else gets to keep their jobs year after year for underperformance?

MLSE owns these journalists. They're afraid to challenge anything MLSE execs say. Friday it was the ridiculous chart showing Peddie's favorite fairy tale, about how great MLSE are at creating value.

Saying MLSE "owns" a guy like Brunt, is patently unfair. Brunt has criticized MLSE many, many times. And I say that as an avid reader of his articles, and an avid watcher of Prime Time Sports (where he is often co-host).

The Globe also has another, mostly positive article looking at MLSE and the future of their stewardship of their sports properties, co-written by Michael Grange - the sports writer who co-penned "Leafs Abomination". Do MLSE own him too?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/mlse-preaches-patience/article1740583/page1/

- Scott

Shakes McQueen
10-04-2010, 10:16 PM
To be fair to Brunt, writers usually don't write their own headlines. Someone else at the paper does that.

Brunt's article didn't really try to defend the MLSE execs the way the headline tries to.

The headline isn't trying to defend MLSE - it's sardonic in spirit. The last couple of lines of the article directly reference it.

- Scott

Beach_Red
10-04-2010, 10:18 PM
Stephen Brunt is a very good writer but that's not much of an article. (they can't all be gems, right?)

menefreghista
10-04-2010, 10:19 PM
I actually like Brunt a lot.

But the line about the MLSE execs feeling our pain is a load of shit. Sardonic or not.

And it actually ruins a perfectly good piece of writing up to that point.

Ensco is right. When did an MLSE exec ever pay for running a crappy sports organization? The answer is never.

Shakes McQueen
10-04-2010, 10:19 PM
Stephen Brunt is a very good writer but that's not much of an article. (they can't all be gems, right?)

Perhaps "editorial" would be a better description of it.

- Scott

Shakes McQueen
10-04-2010, 10:20 PM
But the line about the MLSE execs feeling our pain is a load of shit. Sardonic or not.

I'm wondering if you know what "sardonic" means.

- Scott

menefreghista
10-04-2010, 10:21 PM
I'm wondering if you know what "sardonic" means.

- Scott

I know what it means, but when I read the article it doesn't come across that way to me.

ensco
10-04-2010, 10:23 PM
Saying MLSE "owns" a guy like Brunt, is patently unfair. Brunt has criticized MLSE many, many times. And I say that as an avid reader of his articles, and an avid watcher of Prime Time Sports (where he is often co-host).

The Globe also has another, mostly positive article looking at MLSE and the future of their stewardship of their sports properties, co-written by Michael Grange - the sports writer who co-penned "Leafs Abomination". Do MLSE own him too?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/mlse-preaches-patience/article1740583/page1/

- Scott

OK this is a valid point. Poor choice of words on my part. What I mean is: journalists may write critical opinion pieces, but they won't ask the follow up challenging question that would embarass MLSE execs directly. Even when the exec makes a statement that is ridiculous/absurd/false. They just won't. It's just part of the code of how "the game" is played between the media and ownership. Brunt included.

Grange: given his background, I am amazed at how tame that series was. It's mindboggling. Everyone's got a family I guess (myself included)

menefreghista
10-04-2010, 10:25 PM
Grange: given his background, I am amazed at how tame this series was. It's mindboggling.

Ya. The 3 part series was rather tame. And the 3rd part was an absolute joke.

Shakes McQueen
10-04-2010, 10:25 PM
I know what it means, but when I read the article it doesn't come across that way to me.

Even in light of the end of the article where he references the title by asking if MLSE "feeling our pain" makes us feel better then says "No? Okay."

Like I said - I think the title makes fine sense.

- Scott

Beach_Red
10-04-2010, 10:38 PM
Where's the pain? Who else gets to keep their jobs year after year for underperformance? Show me somebody in the management structure of MLSE or Teachers who has lost their job in the last 12 years (Erol U left on his own to start a fund).

.)

This really seems to be they key. Players get cut, coaches and GMs get fired but the execs roll on, claiming they feel bad about it.

rocker
10-04-2010, 10:40 PM
regardless of that one line, the column is correct.

Brooker
10-04-2010, 10:41 PM
Climaxica (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/community/?userid=60069187&plckUserId=60069187)

10:28 PM on October 4, 2010

And all they have to make themselves feel better is millions of dollars and immunity from being punished for their incompetence, so you see Leaf fans, they're no different from you...
yuuuuuuuup.

Shakes McQueen
10-04-2010, 10:44 PM
Ya. The 3 part series was rather tame. And the 3rd part was an absolute joke.

I'm wondering where specifically you think the miscarriage of journalism occurs in the 3rd article. They had a former MLSE exec speak frankly about the inner workings of the company - including speaking honestly about the kinds of criticisms Grange had in his book (the board needing to approve trades, etc.), then they talked to another sports team owner (AEG) about the perception of MLSE within the sports ownership community.

They even lampoon the company for the dysfunctional joke it was during the tenures of JFJ and Babcock.

I'd love to see an adversarial interview with Anselmi and Beirne about the state of TFC specifically, but the image this article paints of the company as a whole roughly falls in line with how I see them. They were a giant, inept behemoth that is starting to get a bit better.

The article also makes an interesting point about the value of winning, when they note that a championship can create all kinds of new value by generating new generations of lifelong Leafs fans. This is an interesting perspective, considering how often we read or hear from other fans that MLSE has nothing to financially gain from winning.

- Scott

Shakes McQueen
10-04-2010, 10:54 PM
This really seems to be they key. Players get cut, coaches and GMs get fired but the execs roll on, claiming they feel bad about it.

Should the MLSE execs be fired for the failure of the teams on the field of play? Do owners ever fire themselves?

The MLSE execs imperative is to manage the fiduciary health of the company. They hire other executives to manage the success of the sports properties, in terms of wins and losses - just like any private owner does. If MLSE ever starts stagnating or failing financially, guys like Peddie will get fired. When their sports properties are losing on the field of play, it's the coaches and GM's that bear the responsibility.

The real problem came when guys like Peddie were inserting themselves into the chain of command on SPORTS-RELATED decisions, meaning they did bear some direct responsibility for on-field failure. Now they appear to have learned from this (at least in the case of the Raptors and Leafs), and have given proper GM's full control (and hence, full responsibility).

Should Daryl Katz have fired himself as owner based on the Oilers' dismal season last year? Or should he have done what he did, and held the hockey people in charge of on-ice results responsible?

- Scott

Whoop
10-04-2010, 11:05 PM
Great article by the ever-awesome Stephen Brunt - my candidate for best writer in Canada.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/stephen-brunt/mlse-execs-feel-the-pain-too-fans/article1742275/

- Scott

Fixed.

menefreghista
10-04-2010, 11:11 PM
I'm wondering where specifically you think the miscarriage of journalism occurs in the 3rd article.

I think miscarriage is too strong a word.

I just thought it was fluffy. That's all.

The opening bit was almost vomit inducing.

Beach_Red
10-04-2010, 11:16 PM
Should the MLSE execs be fired for the failure of the teams on the field of play? Do owners ever fire themselves?

The MLSE execs imperative is to manage the fiduciary health of the company. They hire other executives to manage the success of the sports properties, in terms of wins and losses - just like any private owner does. If MLSE ever starts stagnating or failing financially, guys like Peddie will get fired. When their sports properties are losing on the field of play, it's the coaches and GM's that bear the responsibility.

- Scott

I can't speak to the financial stagnation (though Ensco makes a good case for it) but execs aren't owners, they didn't invest in the teams (like Katz did) they just got hired. They CAN get fired, they just don't here.

I know Billy doesn't like the comparison, but it is like the TV business and for some reason in Canada execs don't get fired like they they do in the US. Sure, the Canadian networks are profitable, but not as profitable as they could be - the same as MLSE.

Maybe we really are in the early days of a new era and we'll see terrific results soon. I hope so.

Shakes McQueen
10-04-2010, 11:17 PM
Fixed.

He's certainly up there for me, as one of the best in Canada, yes. I was really happy to see him back from NFLD and co-hosting with McCown again this week. The banter between those two guys is often hilarious.

- Scott

Shakes McQueen
10-04-2010, 11:22 PM
I can't speak to the financial stagnation (though Ensco makes a good case for it) but execs aren't owners, they didn't invest in the teams (like Katz did) they just got hired. They CAN get fired, they just don't here.

I know Billy doesn't like the comparison, but it is like the TV business and for some reason in Canada execs don't get fired like they they do in the US. Sure, the Canadian networks are profitable, but not as profitable as they could be - the same as MLSE.

Maybe we really are in the early days of a new era and we'll see terrific results soon. I hope so.

For all intents and purposes, the MLSE BoD ARE the owners though, as they are the representatives of ownership. They represent the stakeholders in MLSE the company. They fulfill the role that an owner would fill.

And like I said, the true problem with MLSE came when guys like Peddie were inserting themselves into sports-related decisions, instead of behaving like hands-off owners. The revelations of GM's needing to approve trades with the BoD was particularly troubling.

It appears they may have learned from those years, though. And I agree - I hope better days are ahead for Raps and Leafs fans. The article certainly seems to lean that way.

- Scott

torontocelt
10-05-2010, 06:12 AM
Perhaps "editorial" would be a better description of it.

- Scott

Yep it comes across more as an editorial for sure. My problem with it is that I did not really learn anything from it but that is probably due to reading about the MLSE so much on this website. It says a lot about how badly the sports teams are doing when your average fan is so aware of the supposed faceless corporation that is behind the team.

It angers me when I read in the article that the explanation for ticket price increases etc can be pardoned just by MLSE exects 'trying to find their maximum profit level'. This of course is good business acumen but boy we must be total mugs to pay some of the prices we do at TFC, talk about playing into their hands. What disappointments me with Toronto FC fans is that we have brought a lot of this on ourselves. We have seen how the previous MLSE franchises have went and many people thought this would not happen with TFC. We stood back and watching the FO sell fans Marlies tickets with football tickets and instead of fans going crazy we stood back and accepted this insane business practice of cross selling sports. We let them get away with including meaningless friendlies in the ticket package and we let them charge an arm and a leg to see a team like Bolton. We let them charge more than premiership prices in some parts of the stadium to see a product that is pitiful at times. We let them do a 100% price increase in some sections in only a five year period, I think everyone knows where the rest of my points are going...

The only way that the MLSE will ever change is when either people stop playing into their hands and stop paying over inflated prices for a product that simply does not warrant it. Until people stop doing that, until people stop buying marlies tickets, until people stop paying $130 for a football jersey that retails for half that price in the uk, then we will continue to be taken for a ride by MLSE. If you are contributing to the money making machine then in reality you are part of the problem and you cannot really complain. I am definitely not renewing this year, MLSE can go f*ck themselves, that is my contribution to fixing this situation.

An article that the writer could write in the future could be about how the devoted yet placid Toronto sports fan helps the MLSE exploit them to their full capabilities despite being continuously shafted good and hard on a regular occurrence, perhaps a title of 'trick me once shame on you, trick me twice shame on me' would be a good headline.

ensco
10-05-2010, 06:35 AM
I'm wondering where specifically you think the miscarriage of journalism occurs in the 3rd article. They had a former MLSE exec speak frankly about the inner workings of the company - including speaking honestly about the kinds of criticisms Grange had in his book (the board needing to approve trades, etc.), then they talked to another sports team owner (AEG) about the perception of MLSE within the sports ownership community.

- Scott

OK this is a fine example of the problem with business journalism in general (this problem is way bigger than Grange or Brunt or MLSE or sports reporting). The people who write the stories do not understand the subject.

Erol Uzomeri is a deeply biased source spewing a highly predictable line. By definition. Not that the Globe even remotely understands this.

When you raise a new fund, you are relying almost entirely on your "track record", which means (i) you need to make everything you were involved in previously look great, and (ii) you have to stay in the good graces of your former colleagues/employers, who will get calls about you from potential new investors as part of their decision to invest.

Ex employees raising funds always do what Erol did in talking about previous gigs, you shower complements on everybody you worked with - everyone in the business kind of rolls their eyes at this stuff..... "I'm great, you're great, it's the love train".

Same goes for the Leiweke/AEG bit. What did the Globe expect an MLSE partner to say to their puffball questions?

In this story, The Globe was getting used by absolutely everyone involved and didn't even know it.

Pookie
10-05-2010, 07:17 AM
Should the MLSE execs be fired for the failure of the teams on the field of play? Do owners ever fire themselves?

The MLSE execs imperative is to manage the fiduciary health of the company. They hire other executives to manage the success of the sports properties, in terms of wins and losses - just like any private owner does. If MLSE ever starts stagnating or failing financially, guys like Peddie will get fired. When their sports properties are losing on the field of play, it's the coaches and GM's that bear the responsibility.

The real problem came when guys like Peddie were inserting themselves into the chain of command on SPORTS-RELATED decisions, meaning they did bear some direct responsibility for on-field failure. Now they appear to have learned from this (at least in the case of the Raptors and Leafs), and have given proper GM's full control (and hence, full responsibility).

Should Daryl Katz have fired himself as owner based on the Oilers' dismal season last year? Or should he have done what he did, and held the hockey people in charge of on-ice results responsible?

- Scott

Owners firing themselves?

Well the Teachers own something like 2/3 of the team.

Peddie is a Board Member, not an owner. Board Members can be removed as can Presidents simply by agreement of the majority of the Board.

Anselmi is an employee, hired presumably by Peddie since he reports to him. He's fair game without the Board politics.

I agree with you. Both have inserted themselves into the sports team decision making process and as a result are fair game IMO to be accountable for the decisions made for each team.

Alixir
10-05-2010, 07:25 AM
unfortunately the only way the MLSE execs can cure thier pains is by rubbing all of our money all over thier wounds.

Shakes McQueen
10-05-2010, 07:40 AM
Owners firing themselves?

Well the Teachers own something like 2/3 of the team.

Peddie is a Board Member, not an owner. Board Members can be removed as can Presidents simply by agreement of the majority of the Board.

Anselmi is an employee, hired presumably by Peddie since he reports to him. He's fair game without the Board politics.

I agree with you. Both have inserted themselves into the sports team decision making process and as a result are fair game IMO to be accountable for the decisions made for each team.

I'm aware that Peddie and Anselmi aren't actually owners of the team, and I said as much. What I said, is that they are the representation of "ownership" to their teams. They speak for the stakeholders, and manage the company for the stakeholders. They fulfill the practical role of "owner" - they just aren't actually the owners of the company.

And I agree with you that Peddie should be held accountable for his past meddling on the sports side of their business. The things that man did to the Leafs, are unforgivable.

- Scott

rocker
10-05-2010, 10:42 AM
OK this is a fine example of the problem with business journalism in general (this problem is way bigger than Grange or Brunt or MLSE or sports reporting). The people who write the stories do not understand the subject.

Erol Uzomeri is a deeply biased source spewing a highly predictable line. By definition. Not that the Globe even remotely understands this.

When you raise a new fund, you are relying almost entirely on your "track record", which means (i) you need to make everything you were involved in previously look great, and (ii) you have to stay in the good graces of your former colleagues/employers, who will get calls about you from potential new investors as part of their decision to invest.

Ex employees raising funds always do what Erol did in talking about previous gigs, you shower complements on everybody you worked with - everyone in the business kind of rolls their eyes at this stuff..... "I'm great, you're great, it's the love train".

Same goes for the Leiweke/AEG bit. What did the Globe expect an MLSE partner to say to their puffball questions?

In this story, The Globe was getting used by absolutely everyone involved and didn't even know it.

That's journalism, my friend. People in privileged positions always get interviewed in stories. At the very least, it's the journalist's job to interview those people. NOT interviewing Erol would be considered a serious deficiency in the story.

But what do you expect? Who would you interview that knows MLSE inside and out and would speak against them? And even if you did, you'd still need Erol's quote in "defense." That's objectivity.

jloome
10-05-2010, 11:18 AM
I actually like Brunt a lot.

But the line about the MLSE execs feeling our pain is a load of shit. Sardonic or not.

And it actually ruins a perfectly good piece of writing up to that point.

Ensco is right. When did an MLSE exec ever pay for running a crappy sports organization? The answer is never.

Sardonic. Sarcastic. As in they meant the opposite of what it said.

Good Lord, people, how could anyone read that column and not conclude that the headline was mocking MLSE?

I weep for the newspaper industry.(Well, OK, not weep, because that's just too damn fey. But you get the drift.)

jloome
10-05-2010, 11:19 AM
Fixed.

Nope, I vote for Dan Gardener at the Citizen.

Or were you being sardonic?Lol

Beach_Red
10-05-2010, 11:25 AM
Sardonic. Sarcastic. As in they meant the opposite of what it said.

Good Lord, people, how could anyone read that column and not conclude that the headline was mocking MLSE?

I weep for the newspaper industry.(Well, OK, not weep, because that's just too damn fey. But you get the drift.)


The question is, was Brunt mocking MLSE?

menefreghista
10-05-2010, 11:27 AM
I weep for the newspaper industry.(Well, OK, not weep, because that's just too damn fey. But you get the drift.)

I weep for the newspaper industry too. If the shit the Globe and Mail just produced about MLSE can be considered hard hitting journalism than journalism is dead.

If I wanted fluff like their series on MLSE I would just watch Entertainment Tonight. At least they don't try to pretend to be something they are not.

Fuck, I'm tired of the this sardonic/sarcastic debate. When I first read the article I didn't catch the sarcasm. It just goes to show you how shitty a use of sarcasm it was if the reader has to read it over 2 or 3 teams to catch it.

And I still think the headline sucks and overall its a pretty shitty article from someone who is usually better.

The Globe is just trying to get some buzz on their site relaunch because they know that the topic of MLSE will get them lots of hits on their comment sections. But overall the articles were nothing but a weak look into the company. I found the entire series embarrassing.

DangerRed
10-05-2010, 11:46 AM
Great article by the ever-awesome Stephen Brunt - my candidate for best sports writer in Canada.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/stephen-brunt/mlse-execs-feel-the-pain-too-fans/article1742275/

- Scott

Sorry, I fail to see anything amazing about this story.

Yes, there's a corproation controlling the Leafs, Raptors and TFC instead of a Liverpool-like situation where you have two very clear whipping boys.

Yes, that corporation is owned by Teachers', TD Capital and Larry T. None of those entities have any obligation whatsoever to explain why the MLSE teams continue to flounder, regardless of sport and spending.

All of those have an obligation -- Teachers' to the pensioners, TD Capital to the fund investors and Larry T to, ostensibly, himself -- to maximize return.

Why is this newsworthy?

Oldtimer
10-05-2010, 11:47 AM
But overall the articles were nothing but a weak look into the company. I found the entire series embarrassing.

Weak, but not horrible. At least they got a former exec from Teachers' to go on the record, something that I've never seen before, even though he was defending their actions.

menefreghista
10-05-2010, 11:49 AM
Weak, but not horrible. At least they got a former exec from Teachers' to go on the record, something that I've never seen before, even though he was defending their actions.

Well, part of the problem for me is that very little new was learned from them. If you've followed Toronto sports long enough you already knew most of the info. It was almost like one long neutered wikipedia entry on the company.

Beach_Red
10-05-2010, 12:20 PM
Well, part of the problem for me is that very little new was learned from them. If you've followed Toronto sports long enough you already knew most of the info. It was almost like one long neutered wikipedia entry on the company.


And it's not like there isn't analysis to do. Paul James wrote a good article a few months ago comparing the Vancouver front office to the TFC front office. If any reporter asked anyone at MLSE why they thought one guy with no experience could do the job and Vancouver felt it necessary to bring in a more experienced guy from DC United and a more experienced guy from Tottenham and a more experienced coach, they haven't reported an answer.

I guess that's all I'm looking for. We see in all their actions that MLSE realize they've made a mistake by the way they correct it (not just Burke for JF Jr., but Burke and Nonis and so on). But by never admitting to the mistake in the first place we have no confidence it really will be corrected.

And then, with no one hired to run the team they raise the prices. It does seem to be past the point of gentle, sardonic headlines and puff pieces about how they feel bad, too.

ensco
10-05-2010, 12:23 PM
Sardonic. Sarcastic. As in they meant the opposite of what it said.

Good Lord, people, how could anyone read that column and not conclude that the headline was mocking MLSE?

I weep for the newspaper industry.(Well, OK, not weep, because that's just too damn fey. But you get the drift.)

sorry jloome, this has nothing to do with the industry or the decline of the reader. That's just a bad story compounded by a bad headline.

This isn't the Times Literary Supplement, spare me the "say something by not saying it" stylistic affectation. I wish someone would just address what they say. Straight up.

But they're all terrified of going too far and losing their sources.

ensco
10-05-2010, 12:28 PM
That's journalism, my friend. People in privileged positions always get interviewed in stories. At the very least, it's the journalist's job to interview those people. NOT interviewing Erol would be considered a serious deficiency in the story.

But what do you expect? Who would you interview that knows MLSE inside and out and would speak against them? And even if you did, you'd still need Erol's quote in "defense." That's objectivity.

No, that's not journalism. If the writer had understood the dynamics, he would have asked a very different set of questions and/or challenged the answers he got. He also would have disclosed the inherent bias in the source, instead of portraying him as the secret voice of truth.

menefreghista
10-05-2010, 12:30 PM
And it's not like there isn't analysis to do. Paul James wrote a good article a few months ago comparing the Vancouver front office to the TFC front office. If any reporter asked anyone at MLSE why they thought one guy with no experience could do the job and Vancouver felt it necessary to bring in a more experienced guy from DC United and a more experienced guy from Tottenham and a more experienced coach, they haven't reported an answer.

I guess that's all I'm looking for. We see in all their actions that MLSE realize they've made a mistake by the way they correct it (not just Burke for JF Jr., but Burke and Nonis and so on). But by never admitting to the mistake in the first place we have no confidence it really will be corrected.

And then, with no one hired to run the team they raise the prices. It does seem to be past the point of gentle, sardonic headlines and puff pieces about how they feel bad, too.

This is all I'm asking for. Not a cursory overview of the organization that I already knew being a fan of all three of their teams.

As for your last point, don't worry about it, Paul Beirne is off traveling the world looking at training facilities from top clubs. I'm sure we will get some kind of announcement on TFC's new facility in the lead up to the October 15 renewal deadline.

Beach_Red
10-05-2010, 12:39 PM
No, that's not journalism. If the writer had understood the dynamics, he would have asked a very different set of questions and/or challenged the answers he got. He also would have disclosed the inherent bias in the source, instead of portraying him as the secret voice of truth.


So what you're saying is instead of having a sports reporter ask the execs if they feel bad the teams are all losing, you would prefer that a business reporter ask them how come the shareholders don't mind that they aren't maximizing profits the way winning teams would?

But you understand that no reporter in any section of the newspaper is going to ask tough questions.

Beach_Red
10-05-2010, 12:41 PM
This is all I'm asking for. Not a cursory overview of the organization that I already knew being a fan of all three of their teams.

As for your last point, don't worry about it, Paul Beirne is off traveling the world looking at training facilities from top clubs. I'm sure we will get some kind of announcement on TFC's new facility in the lead up to the October 15 renewal deadline.


I forgot all about that training facility. Have they found a partner yet? Isn't that what they were looking for?

DangerRed
10-05-2010, 12:43 PM
I forgot all about that training facility. Have they found a partner yet? Isn't that what they were looking for?

PB's twitter says he's looked at Chelsea's, Arsenal's, Man City's and others. I don't know whether this is looking for a partner or just looking at how it's done properly.

ensco
10-05-2010, 12:46 PM
So what you're saying is instead of having a sports reporter ask the execs if they feel bad the teams are all losing, you would prefer that a business reporter ask them how come the shareholders don't mind that they aren't maximizing profits the way winning teams would?

But you understand that no reporter in any section of the newspaper is going to ask tough questions.

You're right. Business reporters aren't better, mostly. They have the same issue of being captive to their sources.

I just want someone not to insult my intelligence by just taking dictation. Guess I need to go find another universe to go live in.

Mikey
10-05-2010, 01:03 PM
The only time these assholes feel the pain is when their sides ache from laughing at us.....

Roogsy
10-05-2010, 02:41 PM
Where's the pain? Who else gets to keep their jobs year after year for underperformance? Show me somebody in the management structure of MLSE or Teachers who has lost their job in the last 12 years (Erol U left on his own to start a fund.)

Why does Brunt buy the premise that the Teachers overlords, or Peddie, "feel the pain too"?

Just because they say so?

Friday it was the ridiculous chart showing Peddie's favorite fairy tale, about how great MLSE are at creating value. It's pretty easy to prove that value creation at MLSE has been borderline pathetic since 1998, not that anyone can be bothered to raise this fairly simple point. Instead every writer just parrots the MLSE line on this - "we may not have winning teams, but we make gobs of money".

Nobody will say the truth - MLSE don't have good teams or make nearly as much money as they could/should.

MLSE owns these journalists. They're afraid to challenge anything MLSE execs say.

(I agree that Brunt is pretty good generally. But even he's afraid to take these guys on, they're too powerful, MLSE could ruin your career as a journalist if they decided to cut you off.)


You're right. Business reporters aren't better, mostly. They have the same issue of being captive to their sources.

I just want someone not to insult my intelligence by just taking dictation. Guess I need to go find another universe to go live in.


QFFT... on both points.

Oldtimer
10-05-2010, 02:45 PM
PB's twitter says he's looked at Chelsea's, Arsenal's, Man City's and others. I don't know whether this is looking for a partner or just looking at how it's done properly.

The "Partner" MLSE is looking for is a GTA community or community organization that will pick up part of the cost for the training facility in exchange for getting to use it themselves. It has nothing to do with Paul B.'s tour, which is gathering info on how to properly set up such a facility once you've inked the deal.

menefreghista
10-05-2010, 02:58 PM
The "Partner" MLSE is looking for is a GTA community or community organization that will pick up part of the cost for the training facility in exchange for getting to use it themselves. It has nothing to do with Paul B.'s tour, which is gathering info on how to properly set up such a facility once you've inked the deal.

Aren't they also looking for a Municipality to foot some of the bill? Whether its in the form of money or land.

Oldtimer
10-05-2010, 03:07 PM
Aren't they also looking for a Municipality to foot some of the bill? Whether its in the form of money or land.

That was in my point that you quoted:


The "Partner" MLSE is looking for is a GTA community or community organization that will pick up part of the cost for the training facility in exchange for getting to use it themselves. It has nothing to do with Paul B.'s tour, which is gathering info on how to properly set up such a facility once you've inked the deal.

municipality = community

DichioTFC
10-05-2010, 03:10 PM
I'm pretty surprised how long its taking them to find a corporate sponsor for the academy. BMO jumped in right away 4-5 years ago, but the failed product is really hurting their off-field enterprises as well (one would assume).

menefreghista
10-05-2010, 03:12 PM
That was in my point that you quoted:

Sorry, I never tried to imply that you didn't know. I just wanted to be blunt about what MLSE/TFC is looking for.


I'm pretty surprised how long its taking them to find a corporate sponsor for the academy.

I don't think they are looking for a corporate sponsor.

They are looking to see which GTA municipality is willing to cough up the most amount of land/money to help build the training facility.

TFC07
10-05-2010, 03:15 PM
I don't think they are looking for a corporate sponsor.

They are looking to see which GTA municipality is willing to cough up the most amount of land/money to help build the training facility.

I hope it isn't Brampton even though both of academy players sign to the first team are from Brampton. :)

Macksam
10-05-2010, 03:38 PM
I hope it isn't Brampton even though both of academy players sign to the first team are from Brampton. :)
From a talent stand point, Brampton would make the most sense.:D

Oldtimer
10-05-2010, 03:40 PM
They are looking to see which GTA municipality is willing to cough up the most amount of land/money to help build the training facility.

Far be it for ML$E to pay for their own academy's expenses. :picard:

jimiv
10-05-2010, 05:52 PM
The "Partner" MLSE is looking for is a GTA community or community organization that will pick up part of the cost for the training facility in exchange for getting to use it themselves. It has nothing to do with Paul B.'s tour, which is gathering info on how to properly set up such a facility once you've inked the deal.

A friend of mine stated that he was at the Milton City Council when they voted to "send a letter of intent" to ML$E regarding the aforementioned training facility.

jloome
10-06-2010, 11:25 AM
sorry jloome, this has nothing to do with the industry or the decline of the reader. That's just a bad story compounded by a bad headline.

This isn't the Times Literary Supplement, spare me the "say something by not saying it" stylistic affectation. I wish someone would just address what they say. Straight up.

But they're all terrified of going too far and losing their sources.


Unlikely. Stephen Brunt doesn't give a shit if MLSE stops talking to him for a little while. Brunt has an agent, for fuck's sake, he's not a newsroom hound. And good reporters know how to take advantage of blackouts or censure.

More likely it was just lazy. But the point of the headline was still supposed to be sardonic, and the fact that people didn't get their is an indictment both of readers and of the press for the general decline that's led to this point. If the piece had been more obviously sardonic, the headline would've been more obviously sardonic.

Seriously, when I say I weep for my industry, it's a two-way street. We've been boiled down to the cheapest and least-experienced writers and journalists you'd ever meet, and yet the readership declines aren't as staggering as people think; the Sun here still has about 70% of the readers it had a decade ago. Vast swaths of the public, the industry has decided (and by industry, I mean owners), will read anything.

So it's led, through 30 years of cutbacks and almalgamations following the Kent commission, to a general degradation of both quality journalism AND the expectations from the public.

The other day, we had an editorial board meeting with mayoral candidates. I spent half an hour asking questions while six other members of the media sat there like blank slates, just waiting for it to be over. If they didn't have to do the work, they weren't going to.

THAT in large degree is what you're experiencing with the average MLSE conference: disengaged reporters who are only there for the paycheque and don't give much of a shit about the material. Few old-school journalists would have the stomach to work in the current environment, so that's what we're left with.

And part of that is the cynicism that comes with knowing all of these declining standards haven't stopped many , many newspapers from still making money hand over fist.

And Eugene, 10 years ago, even obtuse readers would occasionally appreciate a little narrative, when "saying something without saying it" was just another literary affectation.

Now, obtuse readers call and ask for directions home at night. Consequently, I'm not even sure the media is serving your market (i.e. addressing what they say, straight up) anymore.

ensco
10-06-2010, 12:44 PM
^We agree on virtually all of that.

Good journalists are the vanguard of a functioning society. A good writer needs/demands an engaged audience.

I would be happy if my kid wanted to be a journalist. I think it's still a career with a future. At some level, all the good contributions on this board are a kind of good journalism.

I just don't want the Globe to think that because Brunt occasionally pens high-concept parodies, that may or may not hit the mark, it excuses their lack of interest in actual facts.

Beach_Red
10-06-2010, 12:44 PM
^ In this case I think you also have to take into account the newspaper's inability to read the mood of the readers. Sports fans in Toronto are pretty much past the point of appreciating, "saying something without saying it." We're looking for someone - anyone - to start actually saying something.

jloome
10-06-2010, 08:20 PM
^ In this case I think you also have to take into account the newspaper's inability to read the mood of the readers. Sports fans in Toronto are pretty much past the point of appreciating, "saying something without saying it." We're looking for someone - anyone - to start actually saying something.

I'd like to tell you it's going to get better before it gets worse, but that wouldn't be true.

But for a variety of reasons, it will eventually get better. We're in a couple of different social cycles right now -- including a vein of anti-intellectualism reacting, incorrectly, to the dissolution of our political orthodoxies. The state of the news industry, and corporate North America, both relate directly to that.

Mark in Ottawa
10-08-2010, 07:28 AM
The only time these assholes feel the pain is when their sides ache from laughing at us.....
:smilielol5: So True.

The folks who must really be hurting at ML$E have gotta be the poor schmows who get to call up season ticket holders to talk renewals and the like. Talk about a thankless job! :facepalm:

Shakes McQueen
10-08-2010, 07:56 AM
I'd like to tell you it's going to get better before it gets worse, but that wouldn't be true.

But for a variety of reasons, it will eventually get better. We're in a couple of different social cycles right now -- including a vein of anti-intellectualism reacting, incorrectly, to the dissolution of our political orthodoxies. The state of the news industry, and corporate North America, both relate directly to that.

The advent of the 24 hour news cycle has also been disastrous to public discourse. When you've got 24 hours to fill, suddenly the minor becomes the major, and ginned up storylines replace the actual facts of a matter.

- Scott