The Leafs Management vs NHL

[rdowdall]

Wearing suits to games really doesn't affect their abilities to play hockey as a team.

Is that a stupid rule too?

Well for that matter why do you need to wear a suit anywhere?  Why does a lawyer *have* to wear a suit to a legal case?  Why does a CEO have to wear a suit to a business meeting?  My boss once went a business meeting with people he knew outside of work socially.  He was a little ticked that those people showed up to the business meeting wearing crocs.  I don't know if I would have been upset in the same circumstance.  His point was that they should have taken the time to look presentable.

 

[Kin]

Wearing suits to games really doesn't affect their abilities to play hockey as a team.

Is that a stupid rule too?

Yes, albeit, not to the same extent. Or, at the very least, if someone wanted to make the argument that the sort of discipline or professionalism that wearing a suit implied set a certain standard that carried over into game preparation or off-ice behaviour we wouldn't have a mountain of evidence that clearly showed that the argument being made had no actual basis in truth(well, provided that person wouldn't accept that in other sports they don't require that and teams still manage to win games and championships)

Conversely, we have a ton of evidence that teams do just fine without a policy against facial hair. We have a ton of evidence that when players grow facial hair, they play just as well as they did without it.

Ask yourself this, if there was a team that said "Hey, show up to the rink in whatever you want, just be ready to play when you get there" and they won a couple cups, would that change your perception of the rule about suits? Because that's sort of like this, only if every team that ever won the Stanley Cup had guys in sweatpants.

 

[Kin]

It's also worth noting, I suppose, that the uniformity(pardon the pun) of the rules about suits league-wide do make any individual rule to that effect marginally less stupid. So long as everyone has that expectation, then there's nothing to be lost by adhering to it. It's still meaningless, but it's not a disadvantage.

However being as it's clearly not a league-wide policy and there are clearly some players, including very good players, who would voluntarily choose to have facial hair then the same can't be said. Why in the world would you want to be the "We want the best possible players who are willing to conform to our grooming standards" team as opposed to the "We want the best possible players" team? Even if it's one player in a thousand who that would matter to, why do it?

 

[Frank E]

Wearing suits to games really doesn't affect their abilities to play hockey as a team.

Is that a stupid rule too?

Yes, albeit, not to the same extent. Or, at the very least, if someone wanted to make the argument that the sort of discipline or professionalism that wearing a suit implied set a certain standard that carried over into game preparation or off-ice behaviour we wouldn't have a mountain of evidence that clearly showed that the argument being made had no actual basis in truth(well, provided that person wouldn't accept that in other sports they don't require that and teams still manage to win games and championships)

Conversely, we have a ton of evidence that teams do just fine without a policy against facial hair. We have a ton of evidence that when players grow facial hair, they play just as well as they did without it.

Ask yourself this, if there was a team that said "Hey, show up to the rink in whatever you want, just be ready to play when you get there" and they won a couple cups, would that change your perception of the rule about suits? Because that's sort of like this, only if every team that ever won the Stanley Cup had guys in sweatpants.

Really, why does anybody have to wear uniforms, or "professional attire"? 

We should all be able to wear jeans and a t-shirt to work for comfort...or cargo shorts, they're super handy with all the pockets.  Even combing my hair...why should I have to look "professional" at the office?  How would that affect my ability to work?

Also, flip flops, and no socks ever in the summer.  Or socks with your flip-flops, whatever you want really.  It's not going to affect your job performance.

Or, perhaps a more professional appearance can create a better impression of the organization that you represent, and the organization wants to communicate that in order to earn more money/customers.  They're also willing to to forego those employees that don't want to conform to these types of policies since their brand is more important than the odd person who chooses to work somewhere else because he doesn't like to comb his hair. 

 

[Kin]

Really, why does anybody have to wear uniforms, or "professional attire"? 

We should all be able to wear jeans and a t-shirt to work for comfort...or cargo shorts, they're super handy with all the pockets.  Even combing my hair...why should I have to look "professional" at the office?  How would that affect my ability to work?

Also, flip flops, and no socks ever in the summer.  Or socks with your flip-flops, whatever you want really.  It's not going to affect your job performance.

Or, perhaps a more professional appearance can create a better impression of the organization that you represent, and the organization wants to communicate that in order to earn more money/customers.  They're also willing to to forego those employees that don't want to conform to these types of policies since their brand is more important than the odd person who chooses to work somewhere else because he doesn't like to comb his hair.

It's a fair point. Where would a company get to if they were run by some weirdo who went around all the time in a black turtleneck, jeans and sneakers?

 

[Frank E]

Really, why does anybody have to wear uniforms, or "professional attire"? 

We should all be able to wear jeans and a t-shirt to work for comfort...or cargo shorts, they're super handy with all the pockets.  Even combing my hair...why should I have to look "professional" at the office?  How would that affect my ability to work?

Also, flip flops, and no socks ever in the summer.  Or socks with your flip-flops, whatever you want really.  It's not going to affect your job performance.

Or, perhaps a more professional appearance can create a better impression of the organization that you represent, and the organization wants to communicate that in order to earn more money/customers.  They're also willing to to forego those employees that don't want to conform to these types of policies since their brand is more important than the odd person who chooses to work somewhere else because he doesn't like to comb his hair.

It's a fair point. Where would a company get to if they were run by some weirdo who went around all the time in a black turtleneck, jeans and sneakers?

That was his brand, and he didn't deviate from it.  He only wore black turtlenecks and jeans and sneakers.  It's the consistent look that he wanted to communicate.

So if the Leafs asked everyone to wear only black turtlenecks, Levi jeans,  and grey sneakers, that's OK with you?

 

[Kin]

That was his brand, and he didn't deviate from it.  He only wore black turtlenecks and jeans and sneakers.  It's the consistent look that he wanted to communicate.

Fair point again. So if someone walked around looking like some dopey college age slacker, jeans, t-shirts, hoodies, flip-flops...that would really be bad news for business.

 

[Frank E]

That was his brand, and he didn't deviate from it.  He only wore black turtlenecks and jeans and sneakers.  It's the consistent look that he wanted to communicate.

Fair point again. So if someone walked around looking like some dopey college age slacker, jeans, t-shirts, hoodies, flip-flops...that would really be bad news for business.

Same thing, it's the brand he wanted to communicate, and it's his company.  He is also, like Jobs was, very consistent:

"I really want to clear my life to make it so that I have to make as few decisions as possible about anything except how to best serve this community," Zuckerberg said, after clarifying that he had "multiple same shirts."

http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-same-t-shirt-2014-11

 

[Kin]

Same thing, it's the brand he wanted to communicate, and it's his company.  He is also, like Jobs was, very consistent:

He's consistent, but not uniform. Sometimes he wears other things. He, however, wears generally what he wants because it realizes that it doesn't matter. That nobody will or won't do business with Facebook depending on what shoes he wears. He's rejected the paradigm you're clinging to. Look up Sergey Brin or Elon Musk or just about anyone who's built a company in the last 20 years. Sometimes they wear suits, sometimes they don't. Some of them need haircuts. A lot of their companies don't have particularly strict dress codes so long as you get your work done.

You have it backwards. These guys didn't choose to wear what they do to establish a brand, their brands grew around them and what they wore. Look at the NBA, players in the NBA wear goofy stuff all the time. Does anyone take Russell Westbrook or Dwyane Wade less seriously as players because of it? Or does their talent as world-class athletes give legitimacy to what they wear?

So long as someone plays well in the actual Maple Leafs sweater? I couldn't possibly care less about what they wear on their own time. It doesn't effect how they play, it's not representative of who they are. It's a stupid rule.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Wearing suits to games really doesn't affect their abilities to play hockey as a team.

Is that a stupid rule too?

Well for that matter why do you need to wear a suit anywhere?  Why does a lawyer *have* to wear a suit to a legal case?  Why does a CEO have to wear a suit to a business meeting?  My boss once went a business meeting with people he knew outside of work socially.  He was a little ticked that those people showed up to the business meeting wearing crocs.  I don't know if I would have been upset in the same circumstance.  His point was that they should have taken the time to look presentable.

I'd be most upset that I knew someone socially that wore crocs.

 

[rdowdall]

Wearing suits to games really doesn't affect their abilities to play hockey as a team.

Is that a stupid rule too?

Well for that matter why do you need to wear a suit anywhere?  Why does a lawyer *have* to wear a suit to a legal case?  Why does a CEO have to wear a suit to a business meeting?  My boss once went a business meeting with people he knew outside of work socially.  He was a little ticked that those people showed up to the business meeting wearing crocs.  I don't know if I would have been upset in the same circumstance.  His point was that they should have taken the time to look presentable.

I'd be most upset that I knew someone socially that wore crocs.

True .

 

[Kin]

Apparently after deciding not to let the radio broadcasters on team flights, Rogers/Bell have also decided not to pay for the broadcasters to go to away games. So from now on all radio broadcasts of road games will be called off a TV from a Toronto studio:

http://awfulannouncing.com/2015/toronto-maple-leafs-announcers-calling-road-games-from-a-studio-this-year.html

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Apparently after deciding not to let the radio broadcasters on team flights, Rogers/Bell have also decided not to pay for the broadcasters to go to away games. So from now on all radio broadcasts of road games will be called off a TV from a Toronto studio:

http://awfulannouncing.com/2015/toronto-maple-leafs-announcers-calling-road-games-from-a-studio-this-year.html

Rogers/Bell quickly changed that yesterday, it's assumed from all the outrage on social media.

It wasn't even a controversy for long enough to actually get talked about here.

 

[Kin]

Rogers/Bell quickly changed that yesterday, it's assumed from all the outrage on social media.

It wasn't even a controversy for long enough to actually get talked about here.

Neither company has announced anything to that effect, have they?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Neither company has announced anything to that effect, have they?

Bowen and Ralph both "announced" it on twitter. I don't think Bell/Rogers actually ever officially commented on this. The news first broke from a tweet from Bowen as well.

This is all just pure speculation in my head, but I wouldn't be too surprised if this was all just a negotiation tactic from the broadcasters' side to rile up support for themselves. Maybe once they were kicked off the teams charter Bell and Rogers weren't giving them the accommodations they wanted and decided to rile things up? I don't know, I know Bell and Rogers can be cheap but surely they knew how people would have reacted to a bush-league move like that.

 

[herman]

Rogers/Bell quickly changed that yesterday, it's assumed from all the outrage on social media.

It wasn't even a controversy for long enough to actually get talked about here.

Neither company has announced anything to that effect, have they?

http://torontosportsmedia.com/sports-and-toronto/common-sense-prevails-joe-bowen-jim-ralph-on-road-with-toronto-maple-leafs/20197

Just heard from multiple sources that the decision to leave the on air talent at home while the Toronto Maple Leafs are on the road has been changed. Joe Bowen and Jim Ralph still have to fly with the Plebs on commercial airlines but they will be conducting the road games from the road arena.

It is a little bit unclear as to what exactly transpired. It sounds like the Leafs were taken aback by the combination of Joe?s tweet, the article here from earlier today and then the public bashing on social media and elsewhere the team took and the decision was either killed or reversed depending on how you look at things.

More later..

 

[bustaheims]

Apparently after deciding not to let the radio broadcasters on team flights, Rogers/Bell have also decided not to pay for the broadcasters to go to away games. So from now on all radio broadcasts of road games will be called off a TV from a Toronto studio:

http://awfulannouncing.com/2015/toronto-maple-leafs-announcers-calling-road-games-from-a-studio-this-year.html

Rogers/Bell quickly changed that yesterday, it's assumed from all the outrage on social media.

It wasn't even a controversy for long enough to actually get talked about here.

That, or someone high up pointed out just how stupid that was and how little a financial impact sending the radio guys on the road to follow the team really has.

 

[Kin]

Neither company has announced anything to that effect, have they?

Bowen and Ralph both "announced" it on twitter. I don't think Bell/Rogers actually ever officially commented on this. The news first broke from a tweet from Bowen as well.

This is all just pure speculation in my head, but I wouldn't be too surprised if this was all just a negotiation tactic from the broadcasters' side to rile up support for themselves. Maybe once they were kicked off the teams charter Bell and Rogers weren't giving them the accommodations they wanted and decided to rile things up? I don't know, I know Bell and Rogers can be cheap but surely they knew how people would have reacted to a bush-league move like that.

Well, my crotchety old-man aversion to twitter making me hopelessly out of touch aside, I doubt it. I think the explanation given of Lamoriello's decision creating a sudden problem for the Radio stations and their budgets makes a lot of sense. I know we like to think of Rogers or Bell having just one big Scrooge McDuck style vault to cover all of their businesses but the reality is that a sudden 6 figure shortfall in a radio station budget probably does create a situation that needs several layers of fixes.

Either way, it sure seems like an awful lot of press behind what remains a completely pointless policy.

 

[Highlander]

As someone who has worked in media marketing for most of 35 years, I can tell you Radio as we know it is dead or next to dead, on life support really, and has been the most fragmented advertising platform forever. Used to be relevant a tiny bit before the TV and then the Net came along.
Sorry but there is nothing to be fixed, except the Priest administering last rites.
Sorry Joe, I love you but da truth is da truth.

 

[Al14]

As someone who has worked in media marketing for most of 35 years, I can tell you Radio as we know it is dead or next to dead, on life support really, and has been the most fragmented advertising platform forever. Used to be relevant a tiny bit before the TV and then the Net came along.
Sorry but there is nothing to be fixed, except the Priest administering last rites.
Sorry Joe, I love you but da truth is da truth.

If it weren't for the Automobile, I think radio would have been put to rest a long time ago!