This is a great example IMO. Ireland, Aponte, and Philbin all have checks over one another. None of them can act unilaterally without complicity or consensus. That is exactly my point here! This does not make it seem like Ireland has final say:
The fact that you can remain on staff here and continue to be such a troll reflects on the management of this site. From your avatar to your user title to your posts, all you ever do is exploit the passion of the fans who post here in order to incite anger in them. Every argument of yours is specious, but designed to elicit a response. You shouldn't even still be posting here, yet you remain a staffer. I wonder why.
This is backwards. Dawn Aponte cannot negotiate a contract with a player that Jeff Ireland hasn't selected or approached. Additionally, Jeff Ireland is indeed still operating on the same contract he signed in late '07/early '08. That contract was extended one year this past offseason.
Correct. Dawn Aponte is limited in her authority, just as Jeff Ireland is. We know this how? There was basically an unsourced report that the contract was "extended". That does not mean they just used the same contract. It still doesn't address the fact that the Miami's Dolphins description of Dawn Aponte's job contradicts any claims that Jeff Ireland can sign or release anyone he wants.
We have full authority to invest the money as we choose within the parameters of the investment philosophy and risk parameters we set forth in our marketing materials and contract at the time that our clients decided to invest with us. But I can already see that you're going to try and take things into the extremes of ridiculousness (e.g. penny stocks) to try and prove your point, even if by doing so you make your own point completely irrelevant to what you've been arguing with respect to Jeff Ireland and his decisions.
We have restrictions we as a team have set upon ourselves, and because we advertise those restrictions in our marketing materials as part of our risk control process, they have a way of ending up in the client contracts and we could be sued for violating those restrictions. Otherwise yes we have about $5 billion of client money we can play with however we choose within our own investment philosophy we set upon ourselves and none of us are paid in excess of a million bucks. We are of course answerable for results, and compensated to some extent according to those results. And if our results were poor enough not only could the individual clients fire us but our firm could fire us as well. Sort of like they could fire Jeff Ireland for poor performance whenever they choose. Nonetheless, because I have actual real world perspective with these dollar amounts, I can remain unphased by Stringer's attempt to scare everyone with big impressive looking numbers ex-context.
Jeff Ireland, who has the final authority on personnel matters as per the words coming out of his very own mouth, MAKES IT a collaborative effort. Voluntarily. He doesn't have to listen to the people around him. He can listen to them but still pick his own guys. Or he can not listen to them at all, although that would be a short path toward getting fired. He has the final say and authority to decide how he operates.
That's what I'm saying, the restrictions are set up on ourselves but you can also run a fund without any. If a firm is advertising Graham-Dodd value based investing philosophies but doesn't leave a backdoor for other strategies they are toast (if they lose money ...). But a firm can advertise as a value-investing based shop but still leave open the option to invest small amounts in other strategies. Or just leave it all wide open like a lot of hedge funds do. Hell we started two mutual funds with value in it's name but in the prospectus left open the possibility of investing in almost anything.
So they literally have no oversight? These must be some brave clients. I am in venture capital, and there is literally not one person who has that type of authority. Even the smaller moves aren't made unilaterally by anyone.
Who chose Tanehill. Who drafted him. He has final say. If Ireland chose to target Mike Wallace but Mike wanted 100 million over 5 years, and Aponte couldn't get him to come down, how is that evidence Ireland doesn't have final say? It isn't, but that is what you are arguing. Aponte is not exercising authority or checks over Ireland. Aponte is working to make Ireland's final say decisions work. Sometimes they can't. That's the reality of the league with cap structures and budgets. Ireland does not have the authority he has publicly, and specifically, stated he has in his contract, at least twice now if not more. Jeff Ireland, "I have final say." 2008. "I have final say." 2012. Stringer Bell, "Jeff Ireland doesn't have final say." This is your argument in a nutshell.
Exactly right. The amount restrict yourself is just according to your own philosophies. There are certain things we will not insist on leaving a backdoor available for because we just don't believe in doing those things and we actually have ethics so we'll stick to what we believe in, lol. What I don't like is this hey let's take it to extremes thing with respect to penny stocks and whatnot...because now Stringer has completely disconnected the situations he's trying to compare. The equivalent on Jeff Ireland's end would be Stringer asking if Jeff Ireland is free to try and give John Jerry a $100 million contract. Yeah he's free to try but he'll probably get fired before he can push the button. It's an extreme (and therefore useless) example.
You're saying that Jeff Ireland does not hypothetically have the authority to give Wallace that 100MM over 5 years? If he had final say, you'd think he would say "no we are giving him that"?
How does our being free to buy and sell the stocks we choose within the philosophical parameters we set upon ourselves equate to "no oversight"? Of course there's oversight. There are client reviews. There is monitoring of the investments on the client end. We can be fired by the client for poor performance at any time. If the poor performance is tied to actions which seem to violate the guidelines we voluntarily set forth in the contract, our firm can also be sued for losses. There's also monitoring of our investments within the firm. Our team and team members can be fired by the firm for poor performance at any time. How does that equate to "no oversight"? Seems like a lot of oversight to me. But in the end yes our team controls $5 billion in assets (which is a small amount, other teams control $10 billion or $20 billion, etc)...and we're not necessarily paid a million bucks a year each. In fact I'm not even sure why our compensation matters, and the fact that it seems like you're arguing that our current team setup would be fine if we were each being paid $5 million a year seems to me to be indicative of some of the things that are currently wrong with the country.
No, I'm saying he doesn't have the ability to push the button. He needs others to sign off before the button is pushed. My example was extreme, but the point remains. What apparatus do you believe to be in place that prevents him from sacrificing the team's future in favor of his own?
Again, you bring up this strawman. Nobody is arguing Ireland has ultimate, superior authority. Nobody. He has final say on personnel matters. If we keep with the investment analogy, this is akin to an investment adviser stating it's ultimate investing philosophy will be value stocks in the domestic stock market, mid-cap or higher. Portfolio managers have "final say" over investments. The PM will run screens, talk to the clients about their situation (are they close to retirement, are they young, are they buying a house soon etc.) and then, make decisions on what to invest in for that client. Sometimes they're overruled. Boss says, all stocks except Microsoft, for whatever reason. Sometimes compliance will step in and say not to buy certain stock for this client. That doesn't take away the fact the PM is sitting there making trades/investments every day, 200 days a year on his own. Nobody is saying that PM can unilaterally change the investment philosophy of that firm, or of the client. But he's pulling the trigger and making decisions. This is like Nick Saban really really wanting Brees, but all the doctors told him Culpepper was a lesser risk. Are the doctors now exercising control over Nick Saban? Hell no.
Only one, and that is to do your best through a matrix of compensatory and punitive clauses to ensure that his well being is tied to that of the franchise's. That's why Stephen Ross gave Ireland an extension in the first place, to do his best to close any gap between what is best for Jeff Ireland and what is best for the Miami Dolphins. Which, by the way, is COMMON practice across the wide wide world of business. Especially in my business. It's why the specifics of team compensation are asked about in pretty much every RFP I have ever seen.
I'm talking about on the most granular level. Assessing performance does not change what has already happened. Someone from your team could literally siphon off millions of dollars, and the company's position is "well fire you"? There must be an apparatus to prevent reckless actions before they actually happen.
Are you suggesting that someone on our team could embezzle money? Short of that, no. There isn't an apparatus in place to prevent a bad investment decision before it happens, other than what I've already outlined plus some industry guidelines set forth at the national level.
I'm saying nobody is giving anyone money unless Jeff Ireland said, this guy should be on the Miami Dolphins. Therefore, it stands to reason, nobody is on the Dolphins squad, unless Ireland said so. Therefore, it stands to reason, Jeff Ireland had final say on every single player on the Dolphins today.
I have no idea. We don't know the circumstances. I would assume the decision was made based on whom they could acquire, and how much would be budgeted for his replacement.
Agreed, for the most part. I'm saying if Jeff Ireland said, this guy should be on the Miami Dolphins, that does not mean that player will end up being on the Miami Dolphins. Checks and balances. I do think that if Philbin and Aponte both felt that a certain player should be acquired, they could go to Stephen Ross and make it happen. But that is a pretty extreme user case, and I'm not sure worth debating at this point.
Now we're getting somewhere! I don't see it as a check and balance. Aponte is a glorified compliance department. I've overruled my old company's boss several times. He's the boss, 100% owner, CEO, big kahuna, all of that. He had ultimate authority. But I could come in and tell him the decision he is about to make would be illegal under SEC rules. And he wouldn't do it. Even though he really really really wanted to. It'd be foolish to say the owner did not have final say. I didn't make decisions for him. I told him whether the decisions he was making, were allowed, that was my CCO hat. With my house counsel hat I told him what he should do instead. The decision still rested with him. That whole thing on Hard Knocks with Aponte "threatening" to let Ryan go back to the draft was about as authentic as Kim Kardashian posturing on world issues on her show. Nobody believes Aponte has the power to let Ryan go back unilaterally. Aponte helps Ireland's personnel decisions work. But they are always his decisions.
Jeff Ireland is not limited with respect to player acquisition except by the salary cap and the extremely unlikely veto of his direct boss, Stephen Ross. In other words, Jeff Ireland has everything he needs to do his job, which is to acquire players. He's not subject to another executive's veto.
This is correct. Mostly because the player could choose as a free agent to not sign with the Miami Dolphins. However if it's a draft pick then your statement is incorrect. If Jeff Ireland says we're taking a guy, we're taking a guy, and that's that. That's within his control. Also, if it's a guy off waivers, then your statement is also incorrect. Ireland could take any guy off waivers he wants. There's nobody overruling him unless people appeal to the owner to step in. In fact that most likely happened with Evan Rodriguez. And where you seem to believe that Jeff Ireland has zero control on the money offered to a player, I don't think that is true at all. I think he very much can tell Dawn Aponte whether to set the market on a certain player, pay market price, or offer below market. The Dolphins clearly SET the market on Richard Marhall and Dannell Ellerbe. As per the players themselves, there were no teams bidding the same amount on those players. Incidentally, Steve Ross HIMSELF confirmed the above when he talked about the money that the Dolphins offered Matt Flynn, versus the evaluation of Flynn given to them by Joe Philbin. In his own words, if Flynn's former coach had given input to the personnel department that this was a franchise quarterback that the team had to have, that player would be in a Miami uniform. The personnel department could have told Dawn Aponte to set the market and make sure Flynn is signed. They have that ability, based on their evaluation of the player.
Let me just reiterate that. Steve Ross HIMSELF admitted that the personnel evaluation of Matt Flynn's importance to the team would dictate the amount of money that Dawn Aponte would offer Flynn in contract negotiations. So absolutely, Jeff Ireland has authority over what Aponte can offer a guy.
Apparently if I want to cook three eggs but can only afford two, I don't have final say on what I eat. It's a collaborative effort between me and my wallet. Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk
Aponte doesn't have that power. Neither does Ireland. As you said in your example, you made your opinions known to your CEO. Your CEO's job is to take the opinions of those he hired, and act accordingly. Stephen Ross makes those decisions after consulting all the parties involved. That includes Jeff Ireland's evaluation of the personnel, Joe Philbin's opinion in relation to how it affects the team, and Dawn Aponte's position regarding the budgetary and financial impact. None of those aspects should be considered less important than another. That is the key to the system in place. Jeff Ireland can't fall in love with a player and overpay him. Joe Philbin can't cut someone that Jeff and Dawn can't replace. Dawn Aponte can't try and improve the team's cash flow at the expense of the performance on the field.
Just because Ireland has final say doesnt mean he is the one with the sole responsibility in picking every one of the players. Thats why we have scouts and directors of scouting and other jobs like that to give input on Ireland on who to draft. Yes he makes the ultimate decision but scouts and directors of personnel also play a huge role in that.
I don't believe he has zero control over money. I am sure a lot of what Dawn Aponte does is based off the evaluations given to her. Ireland is in charge of the scouting departments, so logically she is relying on the information he's responsible for. Whats most interesting to me is the process of re-signing players. Bringing in outside FAs, I think its pretty clear that process is mostly Ireland and Aponte. But when it comes to players already on the Dolphins, I think Aponte may lean on Philbin a lot more than Ireland. It would explain why Aponte and Philbin spend so much time with one another during the season.
But that isn't a self-imposed limitation. A more analogous situation would be your wife telling you how much you can spend on breakfast, and you having to make a decision within those guidelines.
And you can even take this a step further. Do you think that when the team signs someone like Mike Wallace, they don't consider the impact on marketing?
I think there are other things at play there, and no I'm not insinuating an affair. I think the distance that has grown between Joe Philbin and Jeff Ireland has resulted in Dawn Aponte becoming something of a chief advisor on topics of how to handle the public aspects of being the visible head of an organization. That is something Joe Philbin had absolutely no experience with going into the job, and he may honestly be struggling with it. Even if a distance hadn't opened up between Philbin and Ireland, the ham-handed cave recluse Jeff Ireland is probably the LAST person Philbin felt like he could turn to for advice on how to handle the creation of his public persona. And no I don't think Harvey Greene is necessarily a guy he could turn to when it comes to how Joe Philbin should be styling himself, his words and his persona in the public. That became Dawn Aponte, somehow. Probably because of her previous relationship to Bill Parcells, who should rightly be viewed as something of a master when it comes to styling his own persona.
Can someone explain to me where they are creating this Ireland and Philbin rift from? I am seeing none of that.
Who is going to overrule Jeff Ireland on personnel decisions? Joe Philbin does not have that authority. If he did, Richie incognito would not be on this team. Dawn Aponte is not deciding who is signed or who is drafted. Jeff Ireland has the power to draft and sign players. Dawn Aponte's job is no different than what Matt Thomas's job was when he was the lead counsel for the Dolphins.
Exactly. If no offset language is what gets Ryan to sign, then Jeff can overrule Aponte on her stance. The fact that she insists on offset language shows me that she has no confidence in Jeff's ability to evaluate talent. If they did hire an outside consulting group evaluate quarterbacks, then why do we even have Jeff Ireland?
It was probably Ireland himself that hired that outside consulting group. I could actually imagine the offset language thing being something within Aponte's authority and Ireland having to go to Ross to appeal to her to relax the standard in order to get a certain guy signed. But I also imagine that when the policy was put into place (offset language on all contracts), that Jeff Ireland had a say in that decision.
