Sounders to let fans vote on fate of general manager

[BuzzAndSting]

I'm sure there's a few TFC fans who wish this would happen in Toronto.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/soccer/mls-club-to-let-fans-vote-on-fate-of-general-manager/article4569010/

[Free kick]

I'm sure there's a few TFC fans who wish this would happen in Toronto.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/soccer/mls-club-to-let-fans-vote-on-fate-of-general-manager/article4569010/

whats a fan and whose a fan? how qualified are fans to make the proper decision? When you buy ticket or Season tickets, are you required to demonstrate any knowledge of player personnel, tactics or anything related to the game?

Is a season ticket holder who goes to half of the games and, when present, spends more time chatting to the person next to them, qualified to make a decision on the best man to make player personnel decisions? Is this kind of person more qualified than someone who cant go to game but follows intensely the matches on tube and/or follows teams team and league activities closely every day?

Are the fans, who get to vote, also in the dressing room or around practice facilities to see and understand how a General manager interacts with coaches or players or other personel around the club? Do all a fans really understand the implications of player personnel decisions, such who gets along who...etc.? who has a long term upside and who doesn't?

GM of sports club is a job role. Its not a political function. Funny that TFC was brought up. Well, In My Opinion thats the problem with TFC and MLSEL, they listen to the fans too much. They make decisions based on populist sentiment. And that why they are in this mess with all their clubs. Keep the focus groups/town halls etc but focus on customer service and experience rather than things related to soccer.

I can understand giving the fans a vote on picking the CEO. Thats a "bigger picture" function and since shareholders vote for CEO's in public companies, why not fans SSH's? But a GM? that makes no sense to me and is backward thinking. A fan is customer, how many companies do you know of, let their custmoer pick their managers, directors and VP's

Ps.: the most powerful influence that fans can have is in their decision to buy or not buy a ticket(s). and all fans still have that one.

[jonovision]

While it would be hard for TFC fans to make decisions any worse than those that have already been made, in general this is a foolish idea.

[BuzzAndSting]

While it would be hard for TFC fans to make decisions any worse than those that have already been made, in general this is a foolish idea.

Hahaha... Too true.

I agree with Free Kick that leaving these decisions up the fans is not conventional and they may not have the insight into the job to make the proper personnel decisions but in this particular situation it's a confidence vote for the GM, basically they're asking SSH and paid members if they approve of the job Hanauer has done so far. Is this binding? Will ownership be forced to offer a contract if his approval rating is 51%? I don't know and haven't been able to find any info about it.

I would be more concerned if this was an election of sorts and there was multiple people running for the job. This idea was proposed by the initial ownership group that in time the fans would have a say in the direction of the club and correct me if I'm wrong but is this not the way they do it at Barcelona? What about the Green Bay Packers? I imagine they run things similarly.

[Greatest Cockney Rip Off]

Isn't this something that happens in south american and spain? Doesn't seem like too much a of a radical or unsuccessful model.

[ag futbol]

^ Well... it depends how far you take it. Seen more than a few instances where it has created problems.

But correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't this "fans deciding the fate of GM in Seattle" story been over-sold? The way I remember it, the fans collectively vote to decide what they think of the GM. Their decision is taken as one vote, among the other decisions makers (owners, board members, etc...) get votes as well. They can still out vote the fans and do whatever they want, but in the strange event of some sort of deadlock the fans could tip the scales. So really it's not that fans deciding the fate of the GM at all, it's just that they have a minority say in the process. Anyway, that's just what I remember reading in a press clipping multiple years ago. Could be mistaken.

[BuzzAndSting]

^ Well... it depends how far you take it. Seen more than a few instances where it has created problems.

But correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't this "fans deciding the fate of GM in Seattle" story been over-sold? The way I remember it, the fans collectively vote to decide what they think of the GM. Their decision is taken as one vote, among the other decisions makers (owners, board members, etc...) get votes as well. They can still out vote the fans and do whatever they want, but in the strange event of some sort of deadlock the fans could tip the scales. So really it's not that fans deciding the fate of the GM at all, it's just that they have a minority say in the process. Anyway, that's just what I remember reading in a press clipping multiple years ago. Could be mistaken.

This scenario seems more realistic. I think this is common at some clubs in Europe, where the SG have 1 seat on a board.

[Free kick]

Isn't this something that happens in south american and spain? Doesn't seem like too much a of a radical or unsuccessful model.

yes. this topic came up in the past and someone (Jeffrey I think) mentioned that that happens in Spain. And, that is does get political.

[Free kick]

^ Well... it depends how far you take it. Seen more than a few instances where it has created problems.

But correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't this "fans deciding the fate of GM in Seattle" story been over-sold? The way I remember it, the fans collectively vote to decide what they think of the GM. Their decision is taken as one vote, among the other decisions makers (owners, board members, etc...) get votes as well. They can still out vote the fans and do whatever they want, but in the strange event of some sort of deadlock the fans could tip the scales. So really it's not that fans deciding the fate of the GM at all, it's just that they have a minority say in the process. Anyway, that's just what I remember reading in a press clipping multiple years ago. Could be mistaken.

I think you are correct.

[TheKottonmouthed1555362307]

^ Well... it depends how far you take it. Seen more than a few instances where it has created problems.

But correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't this "fans deciding the fate of GM in Seattle" story been over-sold? The way I remember it, the fans collectively vote to decide what they think of the GM. Their decision is taken as one vote, among the other decisions makers (owners, board members, etc...) get votes as well. They can still out vote the fans and do whatever they want, but in the strange event of some sort of deadlock the fans could tip the scales. So really it's not that fans deciding the fate of the GM at all, it's just that they have a minority say in the process. Anyway, that's just what I remember reading in a press clipping multiple years ago. Could be mistaken.

That's sports marketing at it's finest.

[ThiKu]

Isn't this what they do at South American and other major clubs, including Barcelona?

[elmateo]

Isn't this what they do at South American and other major clubs, including Barcelona?

Not sure to the extent of all of South America, but in Argentina the vast majority of teams are actually sports and social clubs - of different sizes and number of sports offered. People become members (socios) of the club, paying a monthly rate, to gain access to the services offered by the club (gyms, pools, amateur athletic teams, etc.). For clubs with professional football teams, socios usually are allowed to enter the 'popular' section of the stadium and can buy season tickets in the seated sections or pay reduced tickets. Some clubs make a distinction between football memberships and athletics/sports memberships.

Clubs owned by socios are led by a board of elected officials; socios need to be members for a certain number of years to vote. At the larger clubs elections can be big events - lots of publicity with many competing lists for the election. Socios vote for a "list" that has a President, Vice-President(s), treasurer, and a few other positions as well as members-at-large to sit on the board of directors.

I believe in Spain La Liga), at this time, only four clubs still are operated along this model: R. Madrid, Barcelona, Athletic Bilbao, and Osasuna (I'm not sure if the Vigo and Depo. are member owned clubs). Many were 'privatized' during the 90s and early 2000s and a 'resolution' to debt problems (obviously didn't work out). Germany has a similar model but unlike Spain the German football federation enforced member-owned clubs, requiring a majority ownership of shares by the membership and a certain level of electoral participation.

The BOD is responsible for the financial operations of the club and can be in charge of choosing the technical group (as well as players) of the

professional team (though this varies on the structure of the clubs). At big professional clubs, where the large number of members are focused on the professional football team the major voting issues revolve around the successes/failures/problems of the professional team. Though this is a bit of a misdirection, or problem, because the clubs themselves offer a range of services and have employees involved in many other parts of the operation besides the professional team. And in clubs the strong 'social and athletic' part of the club supports the functioning of the professional team by bringing in large numbers of members (and membership fees) and providing a stability that allows the team to avoid the pitfalls of extravagant spending to maintain the spectacle of the professional team. Other clubs exist almost based entirely on their professional team and the number of people they can draw on match day and media attention they can drive during the week; one very large club Huracan has recently crashed into the second division and is on its way to the third division because of failures on the field and very little base in other club services to members... leaving the club with a diminishing fan base and no other reason to keep memberships. Thus turning around the financial situation has become more desperate and the ability to buy a team to salvage the club is near impossible. On the other side, a club like Velez has managed to create a strong professional team on the back of its club culture, while not attracting the number of supporters that one would expect of a team with its recent history of successes.

Thus the idea of voting is not directed towards the manager, but higher up and away from the field. This brings its own host of problems - particularly within the political-economic history of Argentina and Argentina in the economy of football - but it is a very strong alternative to the corporate model of NA sports. It also is part of the reason why Buenos Aires supports dozens of professional team each with their own stadium and the wide extent of passionate support; within the culture of 'hinchas' to be a socio of a club is a deeply respected commitment and for some is also taken as a responsibility to politically participate within the operations of the club itself... thus potentially overcoming attachments to the up and downs of on the field success. I've witnessed a stadium of 40000 fill to capacity BECAUSE their team and club was losing, and media interest in the behind the scenes operations significantly increase driven by interests of socios.