(01-06-2021, 01:06 PM)Mikey Wrote:

(01-05-2021, 07:28 PM)Sneakers Wrote: By your definition then, there are no circumstances under which a business owner could ever micro-manage any decisions which are financial in nature under.  Sorry, but you're incorrect and actual ownership is not necessarily a relevant factor. 

Regardless, we're only talking semantics.  How would you describe an owner who has publicly stated that the (yet unknown) incoming GM will not have full authority to do the job he was hired to do?  Meddlesome?  Interfering?  Controlling?

Attentive? Interested? Invested? why do all your adjectives have negative connotation?

we have no idea to what degree the owner will exert his final say regarding roster and spending. What if it's merely "don't blow the entire cap on one free agent, unless for some odd reason the Chiefs wave Mahomes" or "I do not want domestic abusers signed to high-dollar contracts"?

The GM is accountable to the owner. It only makes sense that the GM ensure that the owner is on board with the way the GM is attempting to spend the owner's money, especially early on while the GM is proving that he is on the same page as the owner. We had the polar opposite with TC, and look where that got us. How much dead money was wasted on just the QB position alone?

Why is a non-football guy making football guy decisions ring as a positive thing to you? Do you happily let your mechanic do dental work on you? How about the store bag boy operate on your heart? There is no problem with Khan dealing with financials with the football team outside of the salary cap. Everything within should be entirely in control of a football guy he hired. I would not want to manage a group of people with my higher up over my shoulder at every turn. Been there, done that. It's not a good thing, that is reality.

---