Mr. Perfect Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 Signing Hank helped create excitement and sell tickets, so from that perspective it was a good business move. Yup, IMO, signing hank was all about name recognition, people know who henry buriss is, I'm not sure Kevin Glenn sells tickets. Henry is more marketable than Glenn, he is a name, he can put his name on things, Glenn, decent qb but if you were to poll a group of casual fans, and said... Glenn or Buriss, most would say Buriss just cuz they have more than likely heard his name before. Burris wasn't brought in to sell tickets. The fact that there's football again in Ottawa, and for the first time in nine years is more than enough reason to buy tickets. The fans know full well what happens when you don't buy them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbill2004 Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 Signing Hank helped create excitement and sell tickets, so from that perspective it was a good business move.Yup, IMO, signing hank was all about name recognition, people know who henry buriss is, I'm not sure Kevin Glenn sells tickets. Henry is more marketable than Glenn, he is a name, he can put his name on things, Glenn, decent qb but if you were to poll a group of casual fans, and said... Glenn or Buriss, most would say Buriss just cuz they have more than likely heard his name before. Burris wasn't brought in to sell tickets. The fact that there's football again in Ottawa, and for the first time in nine years is more than enough reason to buy tickets. The fans know full well what happens when you don't buy them. The entire Burris package all factored into the decision to sign him. If you don't think ownership/management took Burris's ability to create excitement and sell tickets into consideration as part of the decision, you are dead wrong. Goalie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 "Big" name free agent signing, they probably thought him signing there would want other guys to sign there too, they might have paid too much though and handcuffed themselves in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 The point isn't signing Burris for all that money..it's what they could have done with the extra money and FAs. Name recognition? Nick Moore, Koch, Laurent? or any one of the other FAs that they would have had with the extra cash. They still wouldn't have done much more, but they could have had a more complete team. People in Ottawa were excited when they drafted Kevin Glenn. The team would have sold out anyway so I question whether signing Hank was really a good business decision. They tied up more $$$ in Hank & that money could have been spent elsewhere, as Mr Dee said,to make a more complete team. They signed Burris to a $475,000 per season contract. Kevin Glenn has an incentive based contract. The more he starts the more he gets paid. His base salary according to some in the media here in Calgary was only $100,000 a year. Even if Glenn started all 18 games, he wouldn't be close to Hank's contract. That's why signing Hank was a dumb move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now