I was literally joking when I said the Yanks should call Dee about Headley......then this .....Cashman trying to burn him.....
Initials polls strongly indicating their disapproval about the referendum, constant *****ing throughout the region about how they got dupped by the marlins, no ground swell of support that understood the goal of what it meant to get the renovations done at the stadium in relation to bringing more superbowls and other events...Half empty stadiums, declining attendance, fans that don't show up on time for games, I certainly don't put declining attendance on Mike dee, that is a deep rooted culture problem of not caring anymore, the only thing that will turn that around is a long run of fielding a competitive team, and that's certainly not his responsibility..lets not kid ourselves, this region and big pic fanbase does not support their home team very well, fine if you want to blame a subpar team over the last decade, just don't put it on one man from Boston.. You are aware we've already last two bids on superbowls...are you or anyone gonna tell me that's mike dee fault because he didnt know how to pitch it to the committee...That's lol ridiculous.
Incorrect. The numbers quoted to you were actual attendance, not tickets sold. Sorry that you don't like it.
The only thing wrong with the fan experience in Miami is the result of the game. Thats it. This post though is as bizarre as the rest of your posts vis a vis Mike Dee. None of the good really "matters", because they aren't winning. The good stuff you can point to is as irrelvant as the bad stuff you can point to.
Great point. The best way to improve the culture is to start winning. In that regard, MD was irrelevant.
If by simple, you mean inaccurate, then by all means go ahead and make things "simple" by going on a completely illogical line of reasoning.
This line of reasoning that the only thing that matters to a fan base is winning or losing and that everything Mike Dee botched up is irrelevant because the team has a 27-37 record while Dee was here is the largest truckload of poo I've just about ever heard on this forum. Even the NFL would simply laugh at the entire line of reason. Every single executive in every single organization including the NFL head office. They spend hundreds of millions, even billions, on making the fan experience better and more unique...so that they can get more money. Oh but the only important thing is putting a team on the field that wins games. Sure. LMAO.
Winning and losing is the biggest factor and by a country mile at that. But yes, other things can be done outside of that. Still most of the individual gaffes that are pointed too about Dee's tenure aren't that bad and would be even less a big deal if we were winning when they happened or if Parcells hadn't pissed off the local media. He still failed overall though.
Doesn't surprise me in the least that you would "LMAO" at the most relevant aspect of the fan experience and attendance. You try so hard to see (and enlighten us on) the "subtleties", you don't see the obvious. And not to be outdone, you portend to speak for "every single executive in every single front office". Seriously? LOL. You don't lack audacity, thats for certain. But let me ask you...since you seem to know the "ubiquitous mindset" of the whole NFL. If given a choice, do you think the "business side" would have better looking carpets, fan days, and contests--OR--a team that wins 7 home games and makes the playoffs every year? Which do you think "every single executive of every single front office" would rather? Hopefully this break down helps you to understand. Have a great day.
I believe Mike Dee tried to accomplish the most important factors in relation to fan experience, he tried to gut the venue...he was on point by always talking about how our stands were farther away that any other field n the NFL, how our upper decks were bigger than everyone else, how he wanted to move the stands to get the fans closer to the action, he made the blueprint to improve the venue in these aspects, he got the problem, he just couldn't finish, and it most certainly was not his fault..for me, I appreciate the effort, it's better than anyone in an executive position with this franchise has understood, he knew there is a problem with the venue.
This is true, but using the teams record or attendance as a barometer for what Dee did himself is misguided IMO. Sent from my HTC One GE using Tapatalk 4 Beta
It's not a DIRECT measure, but it absolutely is an indirect measure. The team lost about 20k of season ticket holders during the time period, and you're going to tell me that Mike Dee's dissolving the season ticket holder retention department had nothing to do with that?
Let me ask this as well. Have other teams with a 0.428 record or worse over the time period lost 20k worth of season ticket holders?
It's interesting that you seem incapable of grasping any kind of subtlety or nuance. It has to be extremes. Everything extremes. Either winning doesn't matter at all, or winning is EVERYTHING. Nothing in between. LOL. Good day indeed.
I disagree. No way should Kellogg's marketing division spend millions making an attractive looking box when the only thing that matters is how good the cereal tastes. I mean, put a baboon sucking another baboon's **** on it for all anyone should care. It's all about how good the cereal actually is.
I believe I can accurately say that this is incorrect to an extraordinary degree, especially as it relates to your example. And I say that as someone that spends time evaluating consumer companies for investment. I'm not trying to criticize,, but you're actually just plain wrong with that example. Sorry.
We have nowhere near the information available to determine the effect of dissolving that department. It very well could have played a large role, but we need more information.
Have those economies collapsed the same way South Florida has? Are they competing against the Miami Heat? There are a million factors, its silly to try to reduce it to such simple terms.
No excuses. I'm simply asking for information. I would be happy to create a model for attendance if we can get all the information together. We could then make an informed opinion.
I can see where the things like the carpet, the gator day, the leak would have some residual effect on the mentality of a potential season ticket older, I'm not sure it outweighs the positives, bigger things he tried to accomplish.
Why would the Heat be a relevant variable? Football season and basketball season don't overlap, plus the Heat won the title in 2006 anyway. It's a conceit to say there's too many variables to make any kind of a reasonable analysis. It doesn't need to be 538 to be instructive.
I think that mainly is directly related to the culture and the passion of that culture..This region has two things going against it when it comes to attendance, below average team for an extended period of time, and a venue that can not draw on it's own.none of which are mike dees fault.
Because the consumer has a limited amount of resources to spend on entertainment. The Heat and Dolphins compete for those resources. People are trying to make the case that a businessman was a failure, without actually making a business case.
Among some people. Others tend to be only fans of one team or another. Anyway it's not like the AAA was empty before James and Bosh got here. It was still a popular team and the games were still all sold out. If you're going to make the case that people were buying so many Miami Heat hats they couldn't afford to go to Dolphins games then God speed. Not a case I'd want to be making. Because Mike Dee's job was less about business and more about marketing. How would you define success versus failure where a marketing effort is concerned?
I don't think you really understand what Mike Dee's responsibilities entail exactly. The guy was responsible for things from marketing; parking lots; concessions; security; radio broadcast; information technology; alumni relations; youth programs; to the maintenance of the HVAC systems, and a whole bunch of other things. By all means if anyone can provide the finances for all these things, we can accurately judge how good of a CEO Mike Dee was. Until then, these opinions are being formed with incomplete information. For all we know, he has saved the team a ton of money on various operational issues. This doesn't even really get into the entire administrative process in place either.
Marketing. Fan experience = marketing. Fan experience = marketing. Marketing. Marketing. Web site = marketing. Can be marketing, if you're hoping to get alumni to help promote (ie market) the team. Marketing. Are you kidding with these now? The majority of which, I'd imagine -- outside of stocking the office supplies closet, which maybe you think he did -- have to do with marketing... selling the product on the field to the consumer.
To be fair to CK what you were saying was so ridiculous it probably made a sarcastic post seem sincere.
How in the world does the cost of security equate to marketing? Are fans getting the check? Is negotiating contracts with vendors a marketing issue? Do fans know the accounting practices of the Dolphins? This is getting ridiculous. Supplies are another good example. Who do you believe is ultimately responsible for this type of thing? How much did the team spend on these things prior to Dee and after Dee? How much do you believe it costs to maintain the actual stadium?
Ugh. I hate when that happens. I'm not as good at noting sarcasm on a message board as I wish I were. Thanks for not making fun of me mercilessly for not noticing.
What is the security for? To make the fans feel safe and to break up disturbances and remove drunk or otherwise rowdy fans. It's a fan experience issue, which means it's a marketing issue. And the amount that you spend on it is going to be relative to the amount you need. Do you mind a rowdier stadium, like the one in Oakland? Or do you want something more PC? It sure is, because apparently you think unless we're privy to the back and forth Mike Dee had with the Cheetos people we can't judge whether he was a good CEO or not.
I don't know how much it costs, and as you know the Dolphins don't release their books. But Dee admitted that the team was operating in the red, and I doubt it their Post-it note contract was what got them into trouble.
Amount you need? What exactly does that mean? Mike Dee isn't given a blank check and told "use as much as you need". You're essentially saying that Mike Dee could have cut the security costs in half, but its irrelevant to the team because your experience is the same. Yeah, you can't evaluate a CEO without actually looking at an operational budget, balance sheet, etc. Amazing how this is even controversial.
Right. What got them in trouble is their stadium financing under Huizenga. Thats not a Mike Dee issue, which is why the teams overall operating profit isn't a good indicator of his performance. The point here is that nobody knows the finances behind Mike Dee's performance. For all we know he saved the team millions every year by cutting costs. Nobody has a clue, and its silly to pretend otherwise.
You're welcome, though I would have thought a cereal label with baboons sucking each other off would have been a dead giveaway. lol
