Originally Posted by O.city
IMO, if Clark wants to be the type of owner we have all talked about, you can't have someone with absolute power, as we've seen what can happen.
Therefor, you bring in a HC and a GM, tell them "damn it, you two are gonna work together and we're gonna get this right" and roll from there.
I don't agree at all. CEOs with what you're calling "absolute power" run large organizations all over our country. It's the standard organizational model. IMO, it's a lot better to have one person in charge than it is to expect two to work together without one being able to have the final say. Ideally, the person in charge will be good at accepting input and forming consensus within the leadership of the organization but someone has to make the final decision. It can be the GM or the HC, but someone has to be the final say unless the owner is willing to referee disagreements.
I don't know who it was that said that Carl and Marty were peers, but that wasn't the case. Carl was the boss for most of their time together. Marty was reportedly given greater control over personnel at the end, but it's not clear to me what the arrangement was and it certainly didn't improve the product on the field.
"Well, it is one thing for Bill Clinton to say, I feel your pain. It is another thing for Barack Obama to say I feel your pain that I have caused." - George Will