Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501
If Hunt wanted to keep Pioli, he wouldn't have hired Reid,
|
Depends on the timing of the vote among Hunt family members, donovan, etc. That vote could have happened prior to interviewing Reid, and Hunt could have had Pioli semi-involved in that process just because he was under contract regardless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501
Well, let's consider the history.
-Hunt gave up an opportunity to go to LA
|
link? As far as I know, the chiefs have been under contract with Kansas city for awhile. Was their an "out" in the lease agreement?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501
-Hunt fired Carl Peterson to hire Pioli, a guy who was insanely expensive for a GM
|
true, but apparently Pioli found some mismanagement in books/record keeping. There have been some articles in the past regarding that. Pioli also gutted overhead by getting rid of old (higher salaried) staff and replacing them with younger (cheaper) staff, and had a small coaching staff and relatively inexpensive head coach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501
-Hunt led a series of moves leading to the firing of Pioli and probably paid out the ass for severance.
|
that was very expensive. Gretz has said that Clark Hunt voted to keep Pioli. Thus his vote was over-ruled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501
-Hunt then hires Reid and stocks a pretty expensive coaching staff
|
true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501
I don't for a second think Hunt doesn't want to win. I agree that he has a long way to go to prove he knows how to win. But he's made some really expensive moves that he didn't have to do.
|
I dont think most of us are questioning that. I believe that Profit Margin is a bigger motivator for him than winning. The new CBA prevents him from having a small player salary. The best way for him to increase revenue is to get taxpayer money (either tax breaks, stadium upgrades, or other incentives such as for training camp), and corporate agreements. That comes with winning.