17to85 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 A series of poor hires and lack of patience. It's just as simple as that. I'd rather have my head in the sand than up my own ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noeller Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 People with less than 1000 posts to their account (never mind less than 10!) coming on here with conspiracy theories....yeah.....that's cool.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 The fans played a role too, if we aren't as good as the fans think we should be in a year or 2, FIRE THIS GUY, FIRE THAT GUY.. run this QB out of town, rush this QB, what? he sucked, get rid of the bum... It's really the same old same old.. People may not want to hear it but the fans need to be patient, really do.. can ***** about this grey cup drought all you want but its not on this current group... hell, i don't even think anyone in this current regime (board members included) have been around for the whole drought. Patience is needed... people go on about who is available to come here? Reality is nobody, because why would they want to come to a place that has a history of 1.being way too impatient and 2. firing coaches every year or 2. You don't build stability over night, it takes time and these guys seem to be on the right path but really one of the major issues over this drought has been the lack of starting QB... we really haven't had one... Not old enough to go back 24 years, well i am, i just don't remember or wasn't following football when i was like under 5... but.. i'd imagine if you look at the list of starting QB's in the league over those past 24 years... Betcha the team with the most different starting QB's is Winnipeg. That's part of the problem. We got a starting QB now and what's ridiculous is there are some people who think he's not good enough. That just boggles my mind really. iso_55 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Certainly there has been some evidence of cronyism in the past. Bauer wanting his guys (Kelly, Daley) instead of Berry, Ritchie. The Board hiring Joe Mack. However I would say this current regime doesn't have that particular stench. Goalie and sweep the leg 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Well, I believe there has been past cronyism which has led to bad hires which has led to where we are today as an organization fighting for credibility with the fans & media across Winnipeg & the CFL. How can it not be? After so many years, I can't believe that every hire this organization made was never influenced by who the person in charge of the hiring knew. Or favours being repaid. Maybe not here on this board but certainly among the vast majority of fans in Winnipeg, I think there is a sense that this team rewards its friends at every level which is why cynicism is so rampant with fans. I think we can use the Garth Buchko hire as a glaring example of cronyism. Becoming President of the Bombers after the Bombers awarded CJOB the new radio rights at the time. The decision was panned when it occured it was obvious what happened. Buchko delievered the goods financially now he wanted to be rewarded & he was. Joe Mack was friends with then BOD members Joe Poplawski & Paul Robson going back to the 80's who lobbied the other BODs hard to get him the GM job which took place. At least that was the story I heard. I'm not saying every hire was cronyism... actually hate that word... After 26 seasons, there had to be. I prefer favouritism... but I believe a lot were. Just sayin'. TBURGESS 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbrg Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 What's your theory? Inherent suckiness or brown water? Magnets. It's as well thought out as cronyism*, and much like in your case, as long as I strongly believe it, it explains everything. And the internets keep on interneting. What fun. *Clearly the case in the hiring of Mike Kelly, but since every party involved in that is long gone, we can move on with our lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan007 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Certainly there has been some evidence of cronyism in the past. Bauer wanting his guys (Kelly, Daley) instead of Berry, Ritchie. The Board hiring Joe Mack. However I would say this current regime doesn't have that particular stench. Also, maybe in the BOD as well. But that's starting to fizzle out now as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan007 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Hmm. Long on criticism and bereft of anything resembling rational thought or explanation? Kind of like your original post about the Cronyism I guess??? Seriously, Heres some facts... Bombers have been to a few (more than 2 for sure) grey cups in the last 24 years... They haven't won tho. One year they were 14-4 and lost to an 8-10 calgary team, one year their starting QB got hurt and barely lost to sask who wasn't playing a QB who got his first ever start that game. Bombers have been to multiple grey cup games but just haven't won. This idea that the team has been dead awful for 24 years is just bullcrap. They have been good, at times the best team in the league through the regular season... that 14-4 team sure was, but they just haven't won for whatever reason. It's not cronyism, It's more like the inability to show up for the big game... I mean really. If we weren't in several grey cups, perhaps i could get behind this cronyism idea or if we have just been bottom feeders for 24 years or whatever it is, i could get behind it but... reality, we have had really good teams over the years, we have been to the cup several times over the drought, we just haven't won. You know what it is? Players choking at the worst possible times, players getting injured at the worst possible times, kickers missing fgs at the worst possible times, Players (Roberts) staying out too late partying the night b4 (if rumors are true). It's not Cronyism, LOL that's ridiculous. It's just as simple as... we have been to the dance multiple times in the last 24 years or so, but.. what happens is when we get there, we tend to fall on our faces. It is what it is. Sports man, some games you win, some you lose. Just for the count, we've been to 5 Grey Cups since we won in 1990. Just as a comparison (starting 1991): Calgary: 9 (5-4) Montreal: 7 (3-4)/Baltimore: 2 (1-1) BC: 5 (4-1) Edmonton: 5 (3-2) Saskatchewan: 5 (2-3) Winnipeg: 5 (0-5) Toronto: 4 (4-0) Hamilton: 4 (1-3) Ottawa: 0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan007 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Also, we're tied with Edmonton with the most Cup appearances at 24. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Also, we're tied with Edmonton with the most Cup appearances at 24. What has this got to do with the subject we're discussing? You have me confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan007 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Also, we're tied with Edmonton with the most Cup appearances at 24. What has this got to do with the subject we're discussing? You have me confused. I dunno. Goalie mentioned how many cups we had been in and I started off correcting him...then I went off on a tangent cause it started to open my eyes to how fairly equal we were to others in cup appearances. So I derailed the thread...since it was stupid anyway. iso_55 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR. CFL Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 The notion that people hire their buddies because they are buddies is a little far fetched. People might have a familiarity and a prior working relationship with hires but buddies because they are buddies? You are going to put your ass on the line and your own livelihood to give a buddy a job. Granted Robson's prior working relationship with Mack was far to removed and lead to a poor hire. The irony was weeks after Mack's hire both Robson and Poplawski quit the BoD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Everyone in every business everywhere preferentially hires people they know. It's never what you know it's who you know. That's how the world works and it's not cronyism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noeller Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 Part of my job is HR....I'll tell you right now, that I'm always going to favour someone that I know and trust for a job opening vs someone I don't know. Who wouldn't?? comedygeek 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan007 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 cro·ny·ism ˈkrōnēˌizəm/ nounderogatory noun: cronyism; noun: croneyism the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications. Cronyism is only if you hire someone you know into a position they aren't qualified for. If O'Shea hires someone he knows to be a DC, and the guy is a qualified DC or is an up and comer who everyone knows is going to be a DC soon, that is not cronyism. If Noeller hires 17 to be the on air talent, that's cronyism. Cause we all know he sucks at everything so he wouldn't be qualified for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 cro·ny·ism ˈkrōnēˌizəm/ noun derogatory noun: cronyism; noun: croneyism the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications. Cronyism is only if you hire someone you know into a position they aren't qualified for. If O'Shea hires someone he knows to be a DC, and the guy is a qualified DC or is an up and comer who everyone knows is going to be a DC soon, that is not cronyism. If Noeller hires 17 to be the on air talent, that's cronyism. Cause we all know he sucks at everything so he wouldn't be qualified for that. The notion that people hire their buddies because they are buddies is a little far fetched. People might have a familiarity and a prior working relationship with hires but buddies because they are buddies? You are going to put your ass on the line and your own livelihood to give a buddy a job. Granted Robson's prior working relationship with Mack was far to removed and lead to a poor hire. The irony was weeks after Mack's hire both Robson and Poplawski quit the BoD.Stayed long enough to help a friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 cro·ny·ism ˈkrōnēˌizəm/ noun derogatory noun: cronyism; noun: croneyism the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications. Cronyism is only if you hire someone you know into a position they aren't qualified for. If O'Shea hires someone he knows to be a DC, and the guy is a qualified DC or is an up and comer who everyone knows is going to be a DC soon, that is not cronyism. If Noeller hires 17 to be the on air talent, that's cronyism. Cause we all know he sucks at everything so he wouldn't be qualified for that. The notion that people hire their buddies because they are buddies is a little far fetched. People might have a familiarity and a prior working relationship with hires but buddies because they are buddies? You are going to put your ass on the line and your own livelihood to give a buddy a job. Granted Robson's prior working relationship with Mack was far to removed and lead to a poor hire. The irony was weeks after Mack's hire both Robson and Poplawski quit the BoD.Stayed long enough to help a friend. Part of my job is HR....I'll tell you right now, that I'm always going to favour someone that I know and trust for a job opening vs someone I don't know. Who wouldn't??I guess the size of the organization has a lot to do with it. If you know someone in HR at GWL it may not mean much but a small radio station or a football team then it might. I'd like to think if I was hired on merit & experience to be Bombers GM that I'd hire the best HC available who applied & not a football friend. My approach would be to let to know any applicant I may have worked or played with in the past that while it may have some impact on my decision it won't be the primary one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 cro·ny·ism ˈkrōnēˌizəm/ noun derogatory noun: cronyism; noun: croneyism the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications. Cronyism is only if you hire someone you know into a position they aren't qualified for. If O'Shea hires someone he knows to be a DC, and the guy is a qualified DC or is an up and comer who everyone knows is going to be a DC soon, that is not cronyism. If Noeller hires 17 to be the on air talent, that's cronyism. Cause we all know he sucks at everything so he wouldn't be qualified for that. The notion that people hire their buddies because they are buddies is a little far fetched. People might have a familiarity and a prior working relationship with hires but buddies because they are buddies? You are going to put your ass on the line and your own livelihood to give a buddy a job. Granted Robson's prior working relationship with Mack was far to removed and lead to a poor hire. The irony was weeks after Mack's hire both Robson and Poplawski quit the BoD.Stayed long enough to help a friend. Part of my job is HR....I'll tell you right now, that I'm always going to favour someone that I know and trust for a job opening vs someone I don't know. Who wouldn't??I guess the size of the organization has a lot to do with it. If you know someone in HR at GWL it may not mean much but a small radio station or a football team then it might. I'd like to think if I was hired on merit & experience to be Bombers GM that I'd hire the best HC available who applied & not a football friend. My approach would be to let to know any applicant I may have worked or played with in the past that while it may have some impact on my decision it won't be the primary one. so you narrow your search down to two people that you feel are close, one is a long time friend who you have worked with before and trust, the other is a guy you don't really know... who do you hire? Obviously the person with the history. It is very rare that you get a candidate that is completely head and shoulders above everyone else. Noeller 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 17, the most honest answer I can give you is that if I felt the guy I don't know is the best candidate then yes, I'd hire him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noeller Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 If they were close, no chance.....never. Above all else, I want a guy I know and trust can do the job... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 If they were close, no chance.....never. Above all else, I want a guy I know and trust can do the job... Well, all I can say is different people have different perspectives on hiring. I mean, we assume that at the CFL level all head coaching candidates have a proven track record of success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 17, the most honest answer I can give you is that if I felt the guy I don't know is the best candidate then yes, I'd hire him. But this is what I'm saying, it's rare that you get a case where one guy is obviously the best candidate. Usually you got a couple guys that there's very little to choose between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Share Posted July 30, 2015 17, the most honest answer I can give you is that if I felt the guy I don't know is the best candidate then yes, I'd hire him. But this is what I'm saying, it's rare that you get a case where one guy is obviously the best candidate. Usually you got a couple guys that there's very little to choose between. Yep, true. Then it comes down to who you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now