PDA

View Full Version : King Carl and the Hunt Family. The Planet Poll.


BigRedChief
03-17-2005, 08:26 AM
King Carl is making money hand over fist for the Hunt family. If thats your goal sign him to a 5 year contract extension. If your goal is to win the Super Bowl and you haven't won a playoff game in 12 years welll a contract extension is probably not in your thought process.

At least now we know what the Hunt families primary goal is. And that just plain and simple is fill the stadium and make money and then pursue the Super Bowl. And that isn't the same goal as most people here, to win the Super Bowl.

ct
03-17-2005, 08:27 AM
You're not writing the checks, so of course the P&L is not your primary concern.

the Talking Can
03-17-2005, 08:28 AM
I have that turds that haven't won a playoff game in 12 years. You don't see me resigning them, do you Lamar?

ha-ha! take that!






(ok, I got nothin...this shit sucks)

Saulbadguy
03-17-2005, 08:28 AM
Just a reiteration of what has been said already quite possibly over a hundred thousand times.

KCTitus
03-17-2005, 08:29 AM
Time for another rally.

shakesthecat
03-17-2005, 08:29 AM
Lamar is playing you like a fiddle.

Got your season ticket order in yet?

seclark
03-17-2005, 08:30 AM
looks to be an interesting day around here...
sec

ct
03-17-2005, 08:32 AM
Carl Peterson is a terrific CEO for the Chiefs organization. What he is not is a good football GM. I am perfectly fine with CP leading the business side of Chiefs football, I just want a football guy to run the TEAM.

milkman
03-17-2005, 08:35 AM
Carl Peterson is a terrific CEO for the Chiefs organization. What he is not is a good football GM. I am perfectly fine with CP leading the business side of Chiefs football, I just want a football guy to run the TEAM.

Exactly.

Count Alex's Wins
03-17-2005, 08:37 AM
I'm pretty sure Lamar doesn't see it as Carl's job to deliver a dynasty or a SB winning franchise.

That's the job of the coaches/players.

Dr. Facebook Fever
03-17-2005, 08:40 AM
Carl Peterson is a terrific CEO for the Chiefs organization. What he is not is a good football GM. I am perfectly fine with CP leading the business side of Chiefs football, I just want a football guy to run the TEAM.
Well said.

milkman
03-17-2005, 08:42 AM
I'm pretty sure Lamar doesn't see it as Carl's job to deliver a dynasty or a SB winning franchise.

That's the job of the coaches/players.

:stupid:

You are joking, right?

ct
03-17-2005, 08:43 AM
Well said.

I'm certianly not the 1st to say it, nor the last.

Why would Lamar pay 2 guys to do 2 jobs at 2x the salary, when he can pay 1 guy for 2 jobs at 1.5x pay and get 1.5x the results? The business side is 1x the results, with the other .5x the football side of the results, putting us smack in NFL mediocrity, but close enough to keep us all coming back for more.

Don't forget, just because most of us may not have been around or aware back in SB IV, Lamar already has his trophy.

Dr. Facebook Fever
03-17-2005, 08:44 AM
I'm pretty sure Lamar doesn't see it as Carl's job to deliver a dynasty or a SB winning franchise.

That's the job of the coaches/players.
It's Carl's job to draft and sign the players to get the job done. It all starts with him.

Count Alex's Wins
03-17-2005, 08:47 AM
:stupid:

You are joking, right?

In reality he IS responsible. I'm sure LAMAR doesn't see it this way, however.

CosmicPal
03-17-2005, 08:52 AM
Did it ever occur to you that winning a Super Bowl game will fill a lot of empty seats, sell a lot of merchandise, and create a lot of revenue?

Did it ever occur to you that consistently placing your team in the playoffs year after year will do all of the above as well?

Winning begets profits. You can't honestly believe they tried to make a profit by NOT winning the Super Bowl. :rolleyes:

milkman
03-17-2005, 08:56 AM
In reality he IS responsible. I'm sure LAMAR doesn't see it this way, however.

In that case, Lamar IS a senile old bastard.

Saggysack
03-17-2005, 08:59 AM
Welcome to the NFL. It's about making money first, and winning second. It's been only happening for about 103yrs.

BigRedChief
03-17-2005, 09:34 AM
16 years and 19 different teams to the Super Bowl during the King Carl era.

1988 Washington and Denver 2
1989 San Franciso and Cincinatti 4
1990 no one new
1991 Giants and Buffalo 6
1992 no one new
1993 Dallas 7
1994 no one new
1995 San Diego Chargers 8
1996 Pittsburgh Steelers 9
1997 Green Bay and New England Patriots 11
1998 No one new from this list
1999 Atlanta Falcons 12
2000 St Louis Rams and Tennesse Titans 14
2001 Baltimore Ravens 15
2002 No one new from this list
2002 Oakland and Tampa Bay 17
2003 Carolina Panthers 18
2004 Philadelphia 19
12 years without a playoff win. Yep, certaintly deserving of a 5 year extension. :banghead:

Manila-Chief
03-17-2005, 09:59 AM
Don't forget, just because most of us may not have been around or aware back in SB IV, Lamar already has his trophy.

Something happened to Lamar. In the beginning he put his money where his mouth was, Hank got the talent, and we won S.B. IV. Lamar had a purpose and built a great team. He gets a whole lot of the credit.

Then he put Steadman in charge because he was losing money.... that was a disaster because we went through years of losing and K's of empty seats.

Now, under Kingless it seems he is still committed to making mo money and that he doesn't care about winning a S.B. How else could you re-sign a G.M. who has not won a playoff game in a dozen years? Or at least he should put pressure upon him to win.

I have no problem with Hunt making money ... but his lack of commitment to winning a S.B. is a big problem. It really looks gloomy for a S.B. win until the owner gets converted or is out of the picture....

Now, a disclaimer ... it is possible that the resigning of Kingless can help us attract the F.A.'s we want sign.... it gives stability to the team. Just maybe Kingless knew a new contract was to be signed and he was able to tell Knight, Bell, Law, etc... that he would be there.

Another disclaimer .... my problem is the timing of the signing. It would have been much better to wait and see how this season goes. We go to the S.B. (and maybe if we lose the AFC championship game) then I'd be willing to give C.P. more time. If we go one playoff and out ... or less ... then he will need to go... Lamar will not fire him until the team begins to lose money.

siberian khatru
03-17-2005, 10:12 AM
I honestly don't think they "don't care about winning." I just think they have no idea how to achieve it.

patteeu
03-17-2005, 11:16 AM
Curiously, the poll options seem to indicate that it's possible to have equivalent top goals of filling Arrowhead AND making money, but you can't have equivalent top goals of being profitable AND winning the Super Bowl. I didn't find my answer among the choices so I didn't vote.

BigRedChief
03-17-2005, 01:17 PM
I honestly don't think they "don't care about winning." I just think they have no idea how to achieve it.

I agree. I think they care about winning. But I also think they care too much about making money.

Wallcrawler
03-17-2005, 02:06 PM
Lamar has lived to see his team win a superbowl.


Im pretty sure all he is concerned with now, is the bottom line. Making sure his team, his business, makes him a profit. If he happens to win a Superbowl while doing that, great, but it isnt something that he is going to go all out for, like we see other teams doing.


Lamar wants a consistently managable team, without a lot of cap headaches. So he adds a couple guys here, and a couple bargain basement guys there, and if it doesnt pay off, hey, he tried, but it just wasnt meant to be, and he still turns his profit.



When was the last time you ever saw a really dynamite player that had already established himself as a great player, worth bigtime cash brought into KC? I think maybe Wille Roaf qualifies, but he wasnt a bank breaker, and he had also suffered a horrible injury which made him a question mark.


I cannot remember at any time, the Chiefs bringing in a standout, top tier player who wasnt either on his way to retirement, or recently injured.

We get em cheap from the outset, injured, or in the twilight of their careers.

BigChiefFan
03-17-2005, 02:51 PM
I honestly don't think they "don't care about winning." I just think they have no idea how to achieve it.
I agree. I don't think it's that they don't care about winning. I just believe they aren't WILLING TO PAY what it takes to go after those players that would help shore up our weaknesses. This year, they've done a BETTER a job, but the certainly haven't addressed our biggest weakness and the majority of the top FAs are GONE. You snooze, you lose and we have no premier corner on the team since Hasty's departure. How long has that been? Long enough, for it not be an issue, but yet it still is, I find it hard to support his resigning looking at his GM role.

CosmicPal
03-17-2005, 03:13 PM
You've gotta be fuggen kidding me? Are you stoned or just plain stupid?

Football is a business. You cannot have a successful business WITHOUT a successful product on the field. The only way to get a successful product is by hiring the right coaches and drafting and buying the right players in order to remain competetive. If the Chiefs were NOT fielding a competetive team on the field - NONE of you would be buying tickets and NONE of you would be here on the Planet, but instead playing with your Star Wars figurine set.

To get people to buy tickets- your product must be attractive enough and CP has done a remarkable job at doing so. We've had PLENTY of chances to get to the Super Bowl in the 90's, but for botched kicks and poor game planning here and there- we didn't accomplish that goal. We failed miserably in the 90's to reach the ultimate goal- the Super Bowl! And you all know damn well we had our best chances then.

We then had another very good chance a couple of seasons ago. We had everything going our way that season and everyone here felt a sensation in their belly we were going to the Super Bowl.

Had we made it in the 90's like we should have, and had we made it a couple of years ago like we should have - NONE of you would be unhappy with this extension. So, shut the hell up 'cause the fact of the matter is- since 1988 the Chiefs have been returned to the echelon of one of the most storied and successful franchises and you should all be proud.

But to honestly think Lamar doesn't want another Super Bowl win and Carl is only interested in money is pure BS. Your team MUST be successful on the field in order to generate any kind of profit. Without a good football team- you have no fans. If you have no fans, you have no money. If you don't like it, go root for someone else....I'm a Chiefs fan, and I may not be too happy with the extension, but I'll still go to every fuggen game until I die....

Logical
03-17-2005, 03:13 PM
I honestly believe they only care about winning to make money. I don't believe that will change at all, unless it is the only way to get a new stadium.

beavis
03-17-2005, 03:17 PM
I honestly don't think they "don't care about winning." I just think they have no idea how to achieve it.
Either way, CP should have been shitcanned a long time ago.

Cochise
03-17-2005, 03:23 PM
Where's the 'GF is a douche' option :shrug:

Logical
03-17-2005, 03:24 PM
...

To get people to buy tickets- your product must be attractive enough and CP has done a remarkable job at doing so. We've had PLENTY of chances to get to the Super Bowl in the 90's, but for botched kicks and poor game planning here and there- we didn't accomplish that goal. We failed miserably in the 90's to reach the ultimate goal- the Super Bowl! And you all know damn well we had our best chances then.

I absolutely do not agree, the Chiefs of the 90s were built so that a major amount of luck wold be required. They were nothing like SF or Dallas.

We then had another very good chance a couple of seasons ago. We had everything going our way that season and everyone here felt a sensation in their belly we were going to the Super Bowl.

I sure did not, and clearly stated that, so there goes your everyone statement.
....

But to honestly think Lamar doesn't want another Super Bowl win and Carl is only interested in money is pure BS.

Your opinion many disagree. Are you saying that if others hold a different opinion than yours it has to be BS?
....

|Zach|
03-17-2005, 04:03 PM
I personally think that Carl has fielded teams good enough to win the Supwebowl in '93, '97, and to a lesser extent. Alot lesser '02.

I think in those instances its the teams that failed and choked. I believe the product put on the field was Supwerbowl caliber.

Mr. Laz
03-17-2005, 04:37 PM
i don't see how there can be any real question

the chiefs haven't won a playoff game in 12 mutha fuggin years!!!

1993 is our last playoff win :banghead:

and Lamar hunt just gave the GM a contract extension ... some owners would of fired the GM just out of principal and send a message that the performance level isn't good enough.


that tells you right there that he has bigger priorities than winning a super bowl.


The Hunt family priorities IMO

1. Money - it's a business and he wants his 20-30 million in profit each year.

2. winning - at least enough to keep fans interested enough to make money

3. prestige - he doesn't want to be embarrassed. So the chiefs must win enough to not be a joke and must have some appearance of integrity within the organization.

4. consistency - he wants to have a decent chance to MAKE the playoffs each year much more than he wants to take the risk and go all out to win a super bowl.

5. super bowl

Wallcrawler
03-17-2005, 05:45 PM
You've gotta be fuggen kidding me? Are you stoned or just plain stupid?

Eh....neither. You dont have to be either simply because you want someone else in here to take a crack at getting this team to a superbowl.

Football is a business. You cannot have a successful business WITHOUT a successful product on the field. The only way to get a successful product is by hiring the right coaches and drafting and buying the right players in order to remain competetive. If the Chiefs were NOT fielding a competetive team on the field - NONE of you would be buying tickets and NONE of you would be here on the Planet, but instead playing with your Star Wars figurine set.


Well, the Chiefs have only made the playoffs ONE time in the past 8 years. If you call that being successful, Id hate to see your idea of failure.

Marty's team melted down in 98.

Gunther was an even .500 over his two seasons here. 16-16, making the playoffs in neither year.

Vermiel went 6-10, 8-8, 13-3, and then lapsed back to 7-9. I guess the talk of the 13-3 schedule being soft holds merit.


Vermiel has been 34-30, one playoff appearance, but a consistently bottom feeding defense for his four seasons here.

When your defense is dead last, and you resign every player in that unit, and dont add new players, you have to question that move. There are teams with top ten defenses that are always adding new players, ever striving to get better.

This team wants profit. Its not worried about fielding a better defense. If it were, it would have done something last season.






To get people to buy tickets- your product must be attractive enough and CP has done a remarkable job at doing so. We've had PLENTY of chances to get to the Super Bowl in the 90's, but for botched kicks and poor game planning here and there- we didn't accomplish that goal. We failed miserably in the 90's to reach the ultimate goal- the Super Bowl! And you all know damn well we had our best chances then.


Perhaps. But The Hunt family has recently rested on its success in the 90's. The fans loyalty, and hope for a return to the competetive, annual playoff teams that they once were are the reason that the stadiums are full.

The fans are repaid with the same garbage. Either adding second tier talent, or bargain basement players, or not adding anyone. If this team were really wanting to win, they would have signed some players to the defense after the 13-3 season, to try to get back to that level. Did they do that? No. They kept the shoddy group together, and added a couple bargain basement guys. No significant improvement was made to the team. They had money. They just didnt use it.




We then had another very good chance a couple of seasons ago. We had everything going our way that season and everyone here felt a sensation in their belly we were going to the Super Bowl.



Had we made it in the 90's like we should have, and had we made it a couple of years ago like we should have - NONE of you would be unhappy with this extension. So, shut the hell up 'cause the fact of the matter is- since 1988 the Chiefs have been returned to the echelon of one of the most storied and successful franchises and you should all be proud.


Proud? Of WHAT? Not winning a playoff game in 12 seasons? Only making the playoffs once in the past 8? Im very sorry, but it takes just a little bit more than that for someone like me to be proud of this team.

The team doesnt seem to want to improve in great leaps. They would rather pinch their pennies, reach on some cheaper players, and hope for the best. While we have other teams in the league going out and aquiring top tier talent.

Case in point, the Philadelphia Eagles. They appeared in the NFC title game 3 years running, but they didnt just re-sign their players. They went out and got two of the top caliber players offensively and defensively in Terrel Owens, and Jevon Kearse.

Result: Superbowl appearance.

The Chiefs reach the playoffs with an outstanding record, and they are happy. No improvements are needed in their book. If it worked this year, its good enough to work next year. Reality check shows itself in a 7-9 record.






But to honestly think Lamar doesn't want another Super Bowl win and Carl is only interested in money is pure BS.


Is it now?

Then explain the standing pat last offseason. They had money. Why didnt they use it? The defense was dead last. As I said, even top 10 defenses try to get better every season.

Why didnt they try to improve the team that went 13-3 instead of sitting back and hoarding the cash, if money isnt their only concern?



Your team MUST be successful on the field in order to generate any kind of profit.

Once again. Loyal fans who desperately want to see the team that played in the 90's return is responsible for the ticket sales over these past 8 seasons.

Vermiel's teams score a lot of points and are fun to watch. But they havent been successful in any season save for the 13-3 year with the easiest schedule in the league.

Vermiel is barely over .500

Gun was .500

One playoff appearance in 8 years is not a successful product.

No Playoff wins in 12 years is not a successful product.




Without a good football team- you have no fans.

Wrong. Without LOYALTY, you have no fans. If your argument were true, the Bengals would have had no fans for years. Arrowhead stadium hasnt sold out the past 8 years based on success. A record barely over .500 over that span is not a successful product that is capable of selling out stadiums.


If you have no fans, you have no money. If you don't like it, go root for someone else....I'm a Chiefs fan, and I may not be too happy with the extension, but I'll still go to every fuggen game until I die....


Have fun. Youre easy to please if a team that barely reaches .500 is considered a success in your book. If thats what you pay to see, power to you my friend.

BigRedChief
03-17-2005, 09:27 PM
and lest we forget that every other AFC West team has been to the Super Bowl during the King Carl era but the Chiefs.

Wallcrawler
03-17-2005, 09:35 PM
and lest we forget that every other AFC West team has been to the Super Bowl during the King Carl era but the Chiefs.



Thats right. Denver twice, San Diego and Oakland both once.


Denver circumvented the cap, so they shouldnt count really, but at least it shows a desire by the organization to do more than just fill the stands.

BigRedChief
03-21-2005, 09:11 AM
Thats right. Denver twice, San Diego and Oakland both once.


Denver circumvented the cap, so they shouldnt count really, but at least it shows a desire by the organization to do more than just fill the stands.

Good point. At least we were not lying cheaters like some in our division. And I guess the bottom line is that I'd rather not win the Super Bowl if I had to cheat to win it all.

The Pedestrian
03-21-2005, 11:49 AM
Making money? It's up there on their list, but the Super Bowl is top priority. The improvements that should be made to Arrowhead are investments that will do much more than pay for themselves....

WilliamTheIrish
03-21-2005, 12:17 PM
Carl should be fired.

The rest of the post is bullshiot.

WilliamTheIrish
03-21-2005, 12:20 PM
Are you stoned or just plain stupid?

ROFL

BigRedChief
03-21-2005, 12:31 PM
Making money? It's up there on their list, but the Super Bowl is top priority. The improvements that should be made to Arrowhead are investments that will do much more than pay for themselves....

Chico almost 10,000 posts and you got some heavy neg rep there. How come?

Bowser
03-21-2005, 12:49 PM
Cosmic - 3 playoff wins since 1989 does not in any way make this team "upper echelon". You are a rabid fan that desperately wants his team to win it all, as am I. But even a stadium full of fans like you and I doesn't make this team "upper echelon".

Logical
03-21-2005, 01:01 PM
Chico Diablo (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=1539), Cochise (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=2470), Dartgod (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=126), DeepSouth (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=424), heapshake (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=1561), Idahojim (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=351), Idahored (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=5217), jiveturkey (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=920), kc1977 (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=1211), KCFalcon59 (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=1712), kcnut (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=849), Rausch (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=188), Sam (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=5333), Saulbadguy (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=3168), splatbass (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=553), Traveller (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=153), ZachKC (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=1754)

Wow I would have thought for sure jiveturkey, Rausch, Saulbadguy and ZachKC would be more on the realism side and less on the homer side.

Mr. Flopnuts
03-21-2005, 01:05 PM
and lest we forget that every other AFC West team has been to the Super Bowl during the King Carl era but the Chiefs.


can't argue with facts

Mark M
03-21-2005, 01:09 PM
Question—What do some of you think Carl and his ego would prefer:


1. Going into a meeting of NFL executives and bragging about making a profit?

2. Going into a meeting of NFL executives and bragging about winning the Super Bowl?

I can't for the life of me think it's #1.

With that being posted, the goal of ANY business is to make money. Not doing so would mean you would not be in business.

And, as hard as it may be for some of you to accept or acknowledge, the NFL is a business.

MM
~~:shrug:

BigRedChief
03-23-2005, 11:22 AM
And, as hard as it may be for some of you to accept or acknowledge, the NFL is a business.

MM
~~:shrug:

WTF? Next thing you are going to tell me is the Elton john is gay? No way. :p

Mr. Laz
03-23-2005, 11:43 AM
And, as hard as it may be for some of you to accept or acknowledge, the NFL is a business.

MM
~~:shrug:
you correct it is a business, but there's a big difference between

1. striving for a super bowl, but keeping the books balanced

or

2. striving for a large profit margin, but hoping for a super bowl


a huge difference ... the top priorities are basically in reverse


by extending carl's contract the hunt family has clearly indicated that their financial interests are their first priority.

Making 20+ million dollars profit each year is much more important then making 5+ million in profit and having a legit run at the super bowl.