Mora's blog and McPimp

[memberj]

Exactly.



Josh is not perfect but I would take his reporting of this hockey club over ANYTHING spewed by Foley and or Eddie. If I have to hear Foley let us know ONE MORE TIME how fortunate to see HOME GAMES on TV, I'm going to puke on him. We get it Pat. You didn't like that they were going to simulcast you. You didn't like the fact that they were angry on how critical you were at times over the organization, similar to Josh. But it was Josh getting not renewed verses YOU walking away. The Hawks did not Fire Pat. It was Pat's decision.



I haven't missed a home game in years so I could really give a shit if they are on TV. All I cared about were the road games I could not get too, and yes, those were televised. Bad policy drawing new fans, maybe with a winning product sure.



I once had a conversation with someone who STILL works for the Organization on Pat and how I liked listening to him. This person did NOT think he was a very nice guy and NOT broken up he and the Hawks parted ways. Well the minute he was brought back the new mentality was that the original conversation NEVER happened and he was the best thing since baked bread.



Either you agree with the decisions made, not show any disagreement what so ever, or you get your walking papers. That's how that works.

I don't get it, as a Blackhawks fan, and a hockey fan, you don't care if the Blackhawks are on TV? just because it matters to you..



Don't you want the sport of hockey to grow? Don't you want the Blackhawks to be relevant in Chicago? It seems like you liked it the way the Blackhawks used to run.



Don't you want the Blackhawks to maxamize revenue and be relevant, so they have the resources to pay good players, scout, manage, and draft? Being on TV is a big part of the Blackhawks re-birth. To not care if the Hawks televise home games is a strange thought from a big hockey fan....just sayin

 

[R K]

"Bad policy drawing new fans"



Reading 101.



Maximize profits? Wait they are losing money supposedly... OT....

 

[Variable]

Even with acknowledging that it's a bad policy, it's still kinda weird in the same breath you say you don't care. You had to know that once that winning stopped, once they stopped making the playoffs (when making the playoffs really isn't a big deal when less teams miss it) that they were going to head into a downward spiral of oblivion. That the attitude of "I care about the STH so I won't televise home games" (whether he truly meant it or not) was just going to come up and bite them in the ass. That it would be that much harder to sign high profile free agents, to get anyone to stay and play in Chicago where hockey may as well been non-existent. They were skating on thin ice (pun not intended....well maybe...yeah). And all that happened, they paid the price for not changing.

 

[E Runs]

Let's stay on topic and not rehash the old TV policy here.

 

[R K]

Let's stay on topic and not rehash the old TV policy here.

want a job?

 

[fanof19]

Only a matter of time before they have to rule that blogs are protected under freedom of speech, in which case firing an employee for talking about the workplace would be illegal as well.



http://www.news4jax.com/news/25690723/detail.html

 

[R K]

Only a matter of time before they have to rule that blogs are protected under freedom of speech, in which case firing an employee for talking about the workplace would be illegal as well.



http://www.news4jax.com/news/25690723/detail.html

They twisted it for Mora though. He was not fired, rather his contract was not renewed. Nothing from the organization specifically mentioned the blog as any reasoning for his non renewal.

 

[fanof19]

They twisted it for Mora though. He was not fired, rather his contract was not renewed. Nothing from the organization specifically mentioned the blog as any reasoning for his non renewal.

yep, which kept them out of any future court battles.

 

[FlaHawkFan]

Only a matter of time before they have to rule that blogs are protected under freedom of speech, in which case firing an employee for talking about the workplace would be illegal as well.



http://www.news4jax.com/news/25690723/detail.html

Hmm. I know this is somewhat OT but that decision really makes no sense to me. Speaking is free speech, too, but you can't criticize your boss to his/her face like that and expect to keep your job. Why should posting it on Facebook be any different? And a lot of jobs have rules against posting such things publicly so the employee could still be fired for violating the rules, even if the speech is free.



Also, with Mora, he posted his blog on his employer's site, which is a bit different than posting something on a "public" forum.



Nevertheless, all Mora did was report a story. I see a huge difference between that and saying outright that his "boss" was an idiot!

 

[fanof19]

Hmm. I know this is somewhat OT but that decision really makes no sense to me. Speaking is free speech, too, but you can't criticize your boss to his/her face like that and expect to keep your job. Why should posting it on Facebook be any different? And a lot of jobs have rules against posting such things publicly so the employee could still be fired for violating the rules, even if the speech is free.



Also, with Mora, he posted his blog on his employer's site, which is a bit different than posting something on a "public" forum.



Nevertheless, all Mora did was report a story. I see a huge difference between that and saying outright that his "boss" was an idiot!

Mora didn't do anything wrong. SOMEONE, (and once he has all the legalities in place a can reveal who) didn't like what he wrote and decided not to renew his contract, thus avoiding a wrongful termination suit. He worked for a network. If they had EVER in his career there, asked him for his opinion on-air "gee Josh what do you think of the play tonight?" they have set a precedence, and hence termination for his blog, which was encouraged by the network, would have lost a law suit. That's why they just let his contract expire and not renew it.

 

[E Runs]

Hmm. I know this is somewhat OT but that decision really makes no sense to me. Speaking is free speech, too, but you can't criticize your boss to his/her face like that and expect to keep your job. Why should posting it on Facebook be any different? And a lot of jobs have rules against posting such things publicly so the employee could still be fired for violating the rules, even if the speech is free.



Also, with Mora, he posted his blog on his employer's site, which is a bit different than posting something on a "public" forum.



Nevertheless, all Mora did was report a story. I see a huge difference between that and saying outright that his "boss" was an idiot!

I agree Fla, not only does is this not germane to the Mora topic, the decision made in that case is mind numbing. There are repercussions to Freedom of speech.



Back to Mora, he has hinted that we'd be surprised who the 'bad guys" actually were. What if the Hawks really weren't behind it? what if some sackless Comcast exec pushed the panic button?

 

[R K]

I'd bet money that didn't happen E.



I've talked with Josh a few times but those are personal conversations so can't really repeat them. But I would be Floored if the true reason wasn't exactly what everyone assumes.



Steve Stone might be too!

 

[E Runs]

I'd bet money that didn't happen E.



I've talked with Josh a few times but those are personal conversations so can't really repeat them. But I would be Floored if the true reason wasn't exactly what everyone assumes.



Steve Stone might be too!

Me too but it's odd he'd say we'll all be surprised.

 

[Tater]

Me too but it's odd he'd say we'll all be surprised.

He probably was directing that towards the boobs and bandwagoners that still think McDouche had a lot to do with the success of the team on the ice last year. I'm sure they're out there.

 

[MassHavoc]

He probably was directing that towards the boobs and bandwagoners that still think McDouche had a lot to do with the success of the team on the ice last year. I'm sure they're out there.

Yeah that's what I assumed as well, but at the same time, how many of those people actually know who he is, let alone care what he has to say enough to go to his site. He's talking to a very specific crowd on his blog and needs to just spit it out if he's going to.

 

[Larmer83]

This is what Mora posted in the comments section:



Yes, Dale is 100% class an 100% authentic. The truth about what happened to him is what I wrote in my original CSN blog last July, 2009. The truth about my situation is still untold, and the bad guys may surprise you.



As to the person(s) that pushed the button on Mora remains to be seen. Going back to his blog in 2009 we get this...



During the playoffs, there were even some front office people who weren’t thrilled to see the Hawks advance as far as they did because that made it tougher to move Dale out.



and this...



But could someone else, have intentionally held up those contracts, knowing it would make Dale look bad and cause the kind of negative publicity that McDonough detests? Last blog I said that though I hoped not, it was plausible, and I think so again here (Though for the record, I’m not referring to Stan Bowman. This isn’t how he operates. Nor am I trying to out the person here. It really isn’t relevant to the larger point).



I could never understand the title of "senior director of hockey administration/assistant to the president" when there was a GM and Asst GM. Why have a GM reporting to the President and another hockey guy reporting to the President. Perhaps the reason is plausible deniability.



There's my guess.

 

[Kerfuffle]

The part I don't believe is the organization intentionally holding up the contracts to make Dale look bad and pave his exit. That makes no sense when you really really think about it. Holding up the contracts cost the organization millions more - no executive would spend millions just to target another exec with the blame. There's 2 sides to every story and I think Josh is spinning this out of animosity for his own firing.

 

[E Runs]

The part I don't believe is the organization intentionally holding up the contracts to make Dale look bad and pave his exit. That makes no sense when you really really think about it. Holding up the contracts cost the organization millions more - no executive would spend millions just to target another exec with the blame. There's 2 sides to every story and I think Josh is spinning this out of animosity for his own firing.

How much extra did it really cost the organ-I-zation? They were probably going to spend near the Cap anyway. It cost them having to trade away Lang and forced them to keep Barker in Rockford til he couldn't reach his games played bonus, and of course what happend this Summer but how much did it cost in actual dollars?

 

[LordKOTL]

Thing is, Fuffle, if there's one thing I gathered about the unwritten rules of the business side of hockey from those more-in-the-know that I am, it's that you don't move out a GM ith the hockey background that Tallon has for no apparent reason just to put a yes-man in his position--especially if you're not a hockey man.



And McD is not a hockey man.



So could I see McD, a marketing guy, pulling something like this. Yes. And Eruns is right...we would have spent to the cap anyway, last year was the year to do it all.

 

[R K]

The part I don't believe is the organization intentionally holding up the contracts to make Dale look bad and pave his exit. That makes no sense when you really really think about it. Holding up the contracts cost the organization millions more - no executive would spend millions just to target another exec with the blame. There's 2 sides to every story and I think Josh is spinning this out of animosity for his own firing.

It did not cost them millions more.



As for what you think about Josh, not knowing anyone involved, your opinion is flat out fucking wrong. I can tell you for FACT it is. Josh is not spinning a fucking thing. Only the extremely ignorant fans would think that.