Pitchforks And Torches?

Randy,

Are you inferring that I should have incorporated "Flamethrowers" somewhere into the title of this post?

8)

Lets see. Ive done no research on this but me thinks that every single team in our division has been to the Superbowl except us. Tack on the Seahawks when they were in our division. Does the residency of the ownership of those teams say anything about our divisions success, or our lack of it? DD you sure can get a thread going....

Super Bowls are all that "anybody" cares about, Double D? Well I happen to take pride in a winning history as well, recent championship or not.

And Whir is correct, man. If you want to protest our ownership by boycotting games, go right ahead. But all that's gonna do is make it look like the fans don't care... which would be a sad thing for a franchise that takes so much pride in its dedicated fan base.

Whir,

Educate me.

Other than staying home, what other effective means is there for fans to get the attention of ownership for purposes of making change on that front? Again, not advocating, just asking . . .

Non-attendance is the absolute worst idea I have ever heard of, no matter the situation. What does that really say about the fan base? I'm not suggesting that everyone has to put blinders on, but in my opinion staying home from a game in order to prove a point never proves the right point and just makes the stadium look and feel like a quiet mortuary. Stupid idea.

bbq,

Plus we have Bill Muir as our offensive line coach.

bbq,

The only measure of long-term success in the NFL that anybody cares about is not the number of games won, but the number of Superbowls won and how recently. Fair or not, that is the undeniable truth.

I appreciate as much as anyone what Lamar Hunt has done for the game. The trophy that bears his name is rightly deserved. What Lamar Hunt has done for pro football is one thing. What Lamar Hunt, and now Clark Hunt, has done/is doing for Chiefs football is another matter entirely and should not be above scrutiny.

Here's the thing.

You keep saying that we're acting as if you've acted in a sacrilegious manner. In a certain sense, you have done that by suggesting this.

The NFL Network recently listed their top 10 things that changed the game. Number one on the list, ahead of television, free agency, Paul Brown, 1978 rules changes.. that's right: the AFL-NFL merger.

Lamar Hunt was the founder of the AFL. The inventor of the Super Bowl. The owner of the AFL's flagship franchise, the Dallas Texans/Kansas City Chiefs.

He took us through good years, even though we have experienced bad years just like every other team does in its history. We were the winningest NFL team in the '90s, even though we don't have a championship to show for it. Like I said, only one team can do that a year.

Lamar is gone now, and his son has taken over. Clark has just hired the hottest young executive in the business to be the Chiefs' GM, and a fiery young coach whose offense just took the Cardinals to a Super Bowl.

We've signed what many believe could finally be our franchise quarterback for years to come. We're making bold moves to build for the future.

The Hunts are not stupid. Lamar proved that by being one of the most innovative minds in football. They do not lack passion, either.

As far as I'm concerned, the Hunt family has a right to own the Chiefs as long as they want to, and I hope they want to continue to run things for a very long time.

Double D,

Okay I see where you are coming from. Posing the question is fair. However the Hunts have been very passionate and patient with the team. Perhaps too patient in not expecting W's in the win column. We are in a transition period, and I feel the team is solidly moving in the right direction.

Clark Hunt has acted decisively in making future improvements a virtual certainty. In two years everyone will be very much in Clark Hunt's camp and this type of conjecture will be a non issue.

You can argue with Steinbrenner's style, but you can't argue with his results. Same goes for Kraft, the Rooneys, etc.

Merlin,

Answer: Leadership that results in routine success.

As I stated at the outset, I don't know whether hometown ownership makes a difference or not. I just offered some anecdotal evidence of very successful franchises that also happen to have owners who are either from or very involved in the communities where their teams are based. Maybe it makes a difference, maybe it doesn't? Maybe it's a silly question to ask? So far, the reigning sentiment seems to be that I've committed some sort of sacrilege in posing the question. I don't get that.

DD:

I guess I am not getting your point. Are you arguing against out of town owners? Are you arguing for visible, passionate owners? You can be a passionate owner without being visible and it doesn't matter where you live. The Hunts have been model owners, IMO. I am a huge Yankee fan and, like most Yankee fans, we wanted Steinbrenner to shut up and write the checks. Jerry Jones is a camera whore embarassment to the NFL and America. What are you looking for from an owner?

bbq,

For the sake of argument, let's suppose Clark Hunt does have the best interests of the team at heart. No problem. Does that automatically qualify him as a passionate owner? A visionary owner? Does he want to win the Lombardi Trophy for the sake of KC or for the sake of his team? Or for some other reason?

Why aren't these fair questions to ask?

hammer, et al, I'm not advocating, nor would I advocate, a change to local ownership unless there's sufficient reason to believe it would produce a successful franchise. At the same time, I feel it is important to point out that we fans have contributed substantially to the financial success of the Hunt's through this endeavor, while simultaneously enduring not even an AFC Championship for the past 40 years. For this reason alone, I am rather astounded that there remains such a strong "sacred cow" sentiment about Chiefs ownership by some of you. At what point should a team's ownership be held accountable?

Merlin,
I get that Steinbrenner is from Cleveland but I think it's hard to argue that he has not been a very visible, very committed, and very active figure for the Big Apple, going beyond the Yankees - over the years, his name has become nearly synonomous with Manhattan. It is his identity. Much like Jerry Jones and Dallas. Can the same truly be said of the Hunts?

Lamar Hunt started the AFL. The Hunt name is synonymous with the NFL as we know it today. Lamar Hunt's name is on the AFC Championship Trophy. Let me get this straight, because the Hunts live in Dallas, a town THEY moved the Texans from to become the Chiefs, you think that they should not own the team because they are not local? Wow, that is absolutely absurd.

Good one bbq. The Hunts can not be blamed for the Chiefs poor performance. Only two men in the upper echleons won that title...Herm and Carl. The Hunts have been part of this francise for over 50 years, and we all owe them our support for putting their hearts and souls into making this team a contender again.

Ridiculous, Double D.

The Hunt family has always owned the Chiefs, and I believe Clark has the best interests of the team at heart. We haven't won the big one since Super Bowl IV, but you know what? Only one team can do that a year. We've been unlucky.

It makes absolutely zero sense to say that "local ownership" would fix this team's problems.

Additionally, the Chiefs seems to headed in the right direction. Clark Hunt is really doing everything in his power to bring home a Lombardi Trophy. Get off it.

George Steinbrenner is from Cleveland. That hasn't seemed to have hurt the Yankees.