ESPN NEWS: Shanahan to KC?

[orange]

Originally Posted by BigChiefFan

You must have missed Bowlen saying he prefered ShanaCAN not going to KC.

I don't know what relevance that would have one way or the other.

Here's one thing I DIDN'T miss:

But ultimately, most of his sentiments were saved for Bowlen. As he mentioned the owner's name, Shanahan had to pause more than once to collect himself.

"It's tough because he's a great friend," he said. "He'll always be my great friend. The best owner in sports. I appreciate every opportunity he gave me to be successful. You have to make tough decisions in any organization, and Pat made a tough decision. . . . I've got no problem with it."

[BigChiefFan]

Originally Posted by orange

I don't know what relevance that would have one way or the other.

Here's one thing I DIDN'T miss:

But ultimately, most of his sentiments were saved for Bowlen. As he mentioned the owner's name, Shanahan had to pause more than once to collect himself.

"It's tough because he's a great friend," he said. "He'll always be my great friend. The best owner in sports. I appreciate every opportunity he gave me to be successful. You have to make tough decisions in any organization, and Pat made a tough decision. . . . I've got no problem with it."

The relevance is, he was FIRED by that so-called loyal friend. He owes Bowlen zilch now, friendship or not. What better way to say **** you and to show Bowlen how much he screwed up than to accept the KC job and kick the Broncos asses every year. Remember, revenge, is a dish, best served cold.

[orange]

Originally Posted by BigChiefFan

The relevance is, he was FIRED by that so-called loyal friend. He owes Bowlen zilch now, friendship or not. What better way to say **** you and to show Bowlen how much he screwed up than to accept the KC job and kick the Broncos asses every year. Remember, revenge, is a dish, best served cold.

That statement I quoted was from the press conference where Shanahan's firing was announced, you understand. He already knew he was fired.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he wouldn't coach the Chiefs. I'm just saying he wouldn't go along with the scheme that ESPN reported that would have Bowlen paying most of his salary while coaching the Chiefs. There's no reason to do that other than pettiness - a sentiment totally foreign to those he has already expressed regarding Bowlen.

(You would have to dig through several pages of this thread to get back to my original comment.)

[Nightfyre]

Originally Posted by orange

That statement I quoted was from the press conference where Shanahan's firing was announced, you understand. He already knew he was fired.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he wouldn't coach the Chiefs. I'm just saying he wouldn't go along with the scheme that ESPN reported that would have Bowlen paying most of his salary while coaching the Chiefs. There's no reason to do that other than pettiness - a sentiment totally foreign to those he has already expressed regarding Bowlen.

(You would have to dig through several pages of this thread to get back to my original comment.)

It's strategically beneficial for him to hamstring Bowlen if he were to coach here.

[orange]

Originally Posted by Nightfyre

It's strategically beneficial for him to hamstring Bowlen if he were to coach here.

This wouldn't hamstring Bowlen in any way as far as football operations go - there's no salary cap for coaches.

It would just be taking money out of Bowlen's pocket and putting into Hunt's.

[Nightfyre]

Originally Posted by orange

This wouldn't hamstring Bowlen in any way as far as football operations go - there's no salary cap for coaches.

It would just be taking money out of Bowlen's pocket and putting into Hunt's.

Or putting it into his own on a deferred basis.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by orange

This wouldn't hamstring Bowlen in any way as far as football operations go - there's no salary cap for coaches.

It would just be taking money out of Bowlen's pocket and putting into Hunt's.

It is beneficial to Bowlen that Shanahan get a job so instead of paying him $7 million dollars the next 3 years he will only have to pay a portion of that.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by orange

That statement I quoted was from the press conference where Shanahan's firing was announced, you understand. He already knew he was fired.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he wouldn't coach the Chiefs. I'm just saying he wouldn't go along with the scheme that ESPN reported that would have Bowlen paying most of his salary while coaching the Chiefs. There's no reason to do that other than pettiness - a sentiment totally foreign to those he has already expressed regarding Bowlen.

(You would have to dig through several pages of this thread to get back to my original comment.)

It is in his contract that if he got a job he would have to pay the difference for the next 3 years IIRC. I believe he owes Shanahan $7 million a year.

[orange]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

It is in his contract that if he got a job he would have to pay the difference for the next 3 years IIRC. I believe he owes Shanahan $7 million a year.

He still owes Shanahan the full amount even if Shanahan doesn't work - and is going to pay it without any problem, as far I've heard.

Shanahan has no reason whatsoever to take less from the Chiefs. That $7 million is the market price for Mike Shanahan.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by orange

He still owes Shanahan the full amount even if Shanahan doesn't work - and is going to pay it without any problem, as far I've heard.

Shanahan has no reason whatsoever to take less from the Chiefs. That $7 million is the market price for Mike Shanahan.

He only owes that money if Shanahan doesn't get a job. If he gets a job he pays the remaining portion.

Also the $7 million dollars market value was Mike being HC and GM. Here he would only be HC

[BigChiefFan]

Originally Posted by orange

He still owes Shanahan the full amount even if Shanahan doesn't work - and is going to pay it without any problem, as far I've heard.

Shanahan has no reason whatsoever to take less from the Chiefs. That $7 million is the market price for Mike Shanahan.

That $7 million is market price for being the GM AND coach. He wount be getting the GM role, so his price will go down considerably.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by BigChiefFan

That $7 million is market price for being the GM AND coach. He wount be getting the GM role, so his price will go down considerably.

I don't think it'll be much less than $6 million.

Herm was paid $4 million and he didn't coordinate a unit that won a Super Bowl or coach a team that won two.

[orange]

Originally Posted by BigChiefFan

That $7 million is market price for being the GM AND coach. He wount be getting the GM role, so his price will go down considerably.

Excuse me, but that doesn't even make sense. Shanahan WANTS the GM role as well. The coaching job without the GM job is LESS desirable. Logic would dictate that you would have to pay him MORE to take that job than the one he really wants.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by orange

That statement I quoted was from the press conference where Shanahan's firing was announced, you understand. He already knew he was fired.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he wouldn't coach the Chiefs. I'm just saying he wouldn't go along with the scheme that ESPN reported that would have Bowlen paying most of his salary while coaching the Chiefs. There's no reason to do that other than pettiness - a sentiment totally foreign to those he has already expressed regarding Bowlen.

(You would have to dig through several pages of this thread to get back to my original comment.)

Money that is not spent on Shanaha's salary can be spent on signing bonuses. Gives the rat a competitive advantage. Business, not personal.