Quote
RFL
My old friend, I wonder where this idea comes from.
You don't become a multi-billionaire in real estate by keeping overhead low. You do it by understanding when to invest for outsized returns.
Consider the fact that SK is paying the bill for his grandiose stadium. He is NOT asking for that bill to be paid by tax payers. Why? Because he is such a nice guy?
No, because his calculus tells him he can leverage several billion into enormous profits if he pays it all himself. Investment.
This is why I never for the life of me understood why people felt Fisher would still be with us next year. Whatever the extension $ was was, indeed, pocket change. He is laying the investment foundation for a vast real estate and media empire. At the core of that empire, he needs a competitive team. The cost of changing coaches is nothing in that calculus.
I dunno. I guess we see this stuff pretty differently. I don't think much of wealthy people either, but I do think they generally understand when to invest money for a big return.
Two things.
First, I am going by Kroenke's track record. I am not trying to mind read, or project what I would do, or anything else. His track record, and STATED preference, is to keep FO costs down, typically by using up-and-comers as opposed to expensive names. That is simply his track record. I have read about his handling of Arsenal, the Avalanche, and the Nuggets. I looked at his preferences in GMs and in coaches.
Same thing when it came to the firing of Fisher. I looked at the record. And in five franchises averaging about 15 years of ownership (i.e. approximately 75 seasons worth), Fisher is only the second coach he fired during a season, the other one being over 15 years ago at the strong behest of his GM at the time. His son also fired a coach once at the end of a season, but that was a complete meltdown in which players refused to enter a game. So the track record indicated he wouldn't fire Fisher early. For me it was never an argument about the money with Fisher, however. It was the fact that he made a decision to commit another season to Fisher. Kroenke rarely changes a plan in spite of adversity. The firing of Fisher is a rarity in the History of the House of Kroenke. That action was simply inconsistent with Kroenke's history.
So was his hiring of Fisher and letting him hire relatively expensive assistants. (And look how that worked out, so who knows what lesson he draws from that?).
Secondly, I think we are into a debate about what is meant by "whatever it takes" and "bottomless pockets" and that kind of thing. Kroenke may pay the next GM and coach a lot of money. Even the most money in the league. But he simply isn't going to give somebody $20 million a year, or anything stupid like that. Or as one poster suggested, a percentage of the team.
So I feel like I am arguing with people over semantics on this.
