PDA

View Full Version : MLSE CEO, TFC President and Overall Hiring Philosophy Thread



ensco
09-01-2012, 08:59 AM
We're talking too much about Mariner. It's not worth talking about given the broader issues.


Everything is up for grabs. I'm shocked by the Toronto media's lack of interest in the bigger story. It's massive. This is what we need to talk about. Here's what I want to see:


MLSE CEO:
Teachers historically pursued several hiring strategies over time at the team level, but at the CEO level they were steadfast in the only strategy they ever pursued - they backed a marketing executive with no prior record of success in sports, for the entirety of their 14 year tenure. This was the original cardinal sin, and cannot be repeated. It's why nobody at MLSE currently should be given the top job. Despite the undeniable primacy of the Leafs, I don't think hockey experience is important, in fact it could be a negative if it undermines the Leafs team President/GM who reports to him. What this person needs is a record of success, and gravitas. Here are two examples of the type of candidate we need:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_McLoughlin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Gazidis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_McLoughlinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_GazidisNot)

Not saying either of these two are available. If need be, Bogers need to wildly overpay to get an individual of this caliber.


Team Presidents:
Teachers allowed Peddie to pursue all kinds of strategies here (spending big, hiring young guys, everything in between). The one that I think absolutely doesn't work in a corporate setup is the current one, where MLSE wildly overpays (in both dollars, and, even more crucially, in autonomy granted) for the Team Presidents. This screwed up business of the teams not reporting to the CEO has to go. I think the correct model is to let the new president hire the best unemployed GM or assistant GM you can find, and give that person time. I reject Peddie's claim, made loudly and repeatedly at the time of the Burke/Colangelo hires, that MLSE "already proved, with Babcock/JFJ, that this [hiring younger guys] doesn't work in a big market". This is hogwash - it didn't work because the wrong guy was doing the hiring. Here is a good example of the type of NHL/NBA person I am talking about (there are some people here that will have more knowledge of specific leagues than I do, and can suggest others).
http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2012/02/09/paul-fenton-will-run-an-nhl-team-the-question-is-which-one/
In the case of TFC only, I could see the case for a successful MLS coach a la Nicol or Gary Smith, or even an NCAA coach a la Caleb Porter or USL coach like Adrian Heath (I know, it's a big step up from college or USL to MLS GM, but I think it makes more sense in MLS soccer to think this way -recruiting is absolute dominant in MLS, in a way that is totally different from the other sports). But no matter what, no more outsiders from Europe or wherever intent on remaking the league.


Coaches/Managers:
Should be hired by the team presidents with zero involvement from the CEO. Nothing more to say, other than these people need to be protected from the corporate setup. (Winter's comment that he had to make a board presentation on a game day has always bugged me. Why the hell should he ever be at that meeting? That was a classic Anselmi maneuver to distance himself and should have not been allowed by Teachers.)

narduch
09-01-2012, 09:25 AM
I'm shocked by the Toronto media's lack of interest in the bigger story. It's massive.

I agree with you on this.

But I think part of the reason is that Bell/Rogers didn't even make a big deal out of the changeover. I think they are purposely laying low so as not to cause any attention their way.

The NHL CBA is the big story that is being covered by the guys that would be asking the questions about MLSE.

ensco
09-01-2012, 11:04 AM
I agree with you on this.

But I think part of the reason is that Bell/Rogers didn't even make a big deal out of the changeover. I think they are purposely laying low so as not to cause any attention their way.

The NHL CBA is the big story that is being covered by the guys that would be asking the questions about MLSE.

All true.

A lockout would be a godsend, would give Bogers more time to decide what to do.

Pookie
09-01-2012, 11:24 AM
So, Ensco... if I am reading this right you are suggesting the following Org chart:

Board (Rogers, Bell, Tannenbaum) --> MLSE President CEO --> Team Presidents (Burke, Colangelo and TFC's next one) with possible GM/Coaches reporting into them (or in the case of coach, reporting to GM)

If that's the case, what would the function of the MLSE President and CEO be? Team budgets would likely be set by the Board, wouldn't they? That MLSE CEO is unlikely to have knowledge of Hockey, Basketball and Soccer therefore what impact would they have on a President reporting to them?

Not sure if I am understanding your view correctly

ensco
09-01-2012, 11:41 AM
MLSE needs a CEO. Budgets are approved by boards. The work, which is complex and time consuming, is done by the CFO and CEO and their staffs.

The typical setup of a multi-divisional corporation would have the overall Head Office responsible for the following:
- business ops (especially in this case areas like TV rights)
- financial planning
- HR (hiring and monitoring of divisional presidents)
- IT (sometimes, depends on the business, probably yes in this case)
- government affairs/lobbying (this is what Peddie was actually good at)

jloome
09-01-2012, 11:54 AM
MLSE needs a CEO. Budgets are approved by boards. The work, which is complex and time consuming, is done by the CFO and CEO and their staffs.

The typical setup of a multi-divisional corporation would have the overall Head Office responsible for the following:
- business ops (especially in this case areas like TV rights)
- financial planning
- HR (hiring and monitoring of divisional presidents)
- IT (sometimes, depends on the business, probably yes in this case)
- government affairs/lobbying (this is what Peddie was actually good at)

If you have divisional substructures run by division presidents, isn't this all -- with the exception of government affairs -- just a way to keep them insulated from the board and senior managers? Doesn't this also rely on a CEO and senior management being competent but still having the divisional presidents to blame if something goes wrong? It may be pragmatic but it seems an awfully laborious ways of insulating the team from sharks.

tfc2008
09-01-2012, 12:36 PM
Cmon guys,nex year we have hi speed soccer players

ensco
09-01-2012, 12:48 PM
If you have divisional substructures run by division presidents, isn't this all -- with the exception of government affairs -- just a way to keep them insulated from the board and senior managers? Doesn't this also rely on a CEO and senior management being competent but still having the divisional presidents to blame if something goes wrong? It may be pragmatic but it seems an awfully laborious ways of insulating the team from sharks.

There is no perfect system. The blame game goes on in every corporation.

I don't think it's laborious. What's laborious is having a management structure, and then undercutting it by having divisional Presidents report directly to the Board, which is what MLSE has been doing in the Burke/Colangelo era.

The structure I outlined is plain vanilla. What's tricky is is the hiring philosophy for the different roles (ie how you fill in the boxes).

james
09-03-2012, 01:12 PM
i really would like to know what Rogers/Bell are going to do different then MLSE did, if any!

Oldtimer
09-03-2012, 04:06 PM
They have several options:
1. Corporate re-org like ensco is proposing, or maybe with some further twists. This is the best action for long-term success, but would require a lot of agreement by Bell & Rogers.
2. Status quo. This is the easiest in the short-haul, and doesn't draw attention to the new owners.
3. A complete clean out. This would let them change the corporate culture. Would require a great CEO to pull off, otherwise it won't happen. The least likely scenario.

Bell and Rogers have an extremely high priority on ML$E, with putting their top people on the board. I actually expect them to take some time at first to understand the business, but afterwards make some significant changes. However, if Anselmi becomes CEO, I would take that as a sign that they will instead go with status quo.

Greatest Ripoff
09-03-2012, 04:37 PM
Bob McCown was talking about the Rogers/Bell take over a couple of weeks ago. He thought most people at MLSE should loose their jobs because of poor performances. He also cited the example of Bell buying CTV in 2010 and how when Bell took control they fired everyone involved in running CTV and brought in new people to run the network. The main problem he brought up was that both Rogers and Bell would want one of their own guys to run MLSE and it could be difficult to find a new candidate.

Shakes McQueen
09-04-2012, 06:17 AM
MLSE have gotten closer to an acceptable management hierarchy with Burke and Colangelo in my opinion - having one strong presidential figure who also performs GM duties overseeing each entity (even if the specific person doesn't do a good job). Have that person report directly to the Board, mostly to get operating budgets or significant transactions approved, and eliminate all of the unnecessary structure above them.

TFC currently seem to run like the Leafs USED to - you have a general manager running the team, but then you have a guy above him (Anselmi, or Peddie back in the day with Leafs) who is basically the boss' boss.

I think this President/GM hybrid position is the right way to go. Of course, is still relies on MLSE hiring the right man for the job. The human element is the fatal flaw in any well-laid plan.

- Scott

Shakes McQueen
09-04-2012, 06:21 AM
Bob McCown was talking about the Rogers/Bell take over a couple of weeks ago. He thought most people at MLSE should loose their jobs because of poor performances. He also cited the example of Bell buying CTV in 2010 and how when Bell took control they fired everyone involved in running CTV and brought in new people to run the network. The main problem he brought up was that both Rogers and Bell would want one of their own guys to run MLSE and it could be difficult to find a new candidate.

"Most people"? I think that's tremendously unfair. I could see giving the board golden parachutes and telling them to go away, but the Anselmis and Peddies at MLSE are far from most of them. MLSE needs new leadership, not to toss out the rank and file just doing their jobs.

- Scott

ensco
09-04-2012, 07:44 AM
MLSE have gotten closer to an acceptable management hierarchy with Burke and Colangelo in my opinion - having one strong presidential figure who also performs GM duties overseeing each entity (even if the specific person doesn't do a good job). Have that person report directly to the Board, mostly to get operating budgets or significant transactions approved, and eliminate all of the unnecessary structure above them.



In my experience, the management structure you suggest is actually only used in family owned companies, and is rarely seen in institutional situations.

Most board members don't have the specialized industry-specific skills to do the hiring and oversight properly. They also don't have the time (sorting out competing budget claims is massively time consuming and contains its own political dynamic. Boards need a layer of management to do it for them.

Oldtimer
09-04-2012, 07:47 AM
In my experience, the management structure you suggest is actually only used in family owned companies, and is rarely seen in institutional situations.

Most board members don't have the specialized industry-specific skills to do the hiring and oversight properly. They also don't have the time (sorting out competing budget claims is massively time consuming and contains its own political dynamic. Boards need a layer of management to do it for them.

The CEOs of Rogers and Bell are going to be on that board. They certainly know how to run corporations properly. Do they know much about sports? Probably not, they know how to hire smart people to run things for them. They are not going to micro-manage like Teachers did.

The big change will probably occur in January. Peddie will retire in December, and in January they will install their new leader. If it's Anselmi, expect everything to be "business as usual." If it's someone else from the outside, expect significant change. I actually think it's more likely going to be the latter.

Change will probably occur too late to save TFC's next season, but I would expect significant changes for the 2014 season.

Beach_Red
09-04-2012, 09:02 AM
The CEOs of Rogers and Bell are going to be on that board. They certainly know how to run corporations properly. Do they know much about sports? Probably not, they know how to hire smart people to run things for them. They are not going to micro-manage like Teachers did.

The big change will probably occur in January. Peddie will retire in December, and in January they will install their new leader. If it's Anselmi, expect everything to be "business as usual." If it's someone else from the outside, expect significant change. I actually think it's more likely going to be the latter.

Change will probably occur too late to save TFC's next season, but I would expect significant changes for the 2014 season.

This may be a bit of a leap. For both companies you can divide their businesss into where they are a monopoly and where they have to compete. They have both successfully defended their monopoly situations and run the CRTC the way MLSE runs the local government. Does anyone really like dealing with either Bell or Rogers?

And if you look at the areas where they have to compete on the open market - creating their own TV shows - well, I'll leave that up to you, but for me The Listener is about the same as a Mariner-run TFC.

The new ownership may make very good changes and do really well, I hope they do, but it's a longshot. They don't have to be better than Teachers, they have to be better than the other ownerships in MLS.

Shakes McQueen
09-04-2012, 09:11 AM
Yeah, the only thing Bell and Rogers have demonstrated an aptitude for, is getting the government to firmly ensconce their shared monopoly of telecoms in this country. The "success" is just a byproduct of that.

- Scott

ensco
09-04-2012, 09:13 AM
The big change will probably occur in January. Peddie will retire in December, and in January they will install their new leader.

Peddie left last January. The position is vacant.

Bogers silence post-closing is interesting. These guys have had months to think about what they want to do.

Oldtimer
09-04-2012, 09:21 AM
Peddie left last January. The position is vacant.

Bogers silence post-closing is interesting. These guys have had months to think about what they want to do.

Was it really last January? C'mon Bodgers, get with it!!!!

ensco
09-04-2012, 09:28 AM
They don't have to be better than Teachers, they have to be better than the other ownerships in MLS.

Now you're making me cry.

billyfly
09-04-2012, 02:07 PM
Close Thread?


UGH

ensco
09-04-2012, 02:31 PM
Close Thread?


UGH

I would appreciate that.

Oldtimer
09-04-2012, 02:39 PM
/ closed