You have just said in that other thread that I refuse to see your side but it appears to me to be the complete opposite.
Let's take the "facts" of the Cologne situation.
- Devise presumably wanted to step down with no internal solution.
- Greg presumably was the only external option at the time. Or perhaps the easiest one to get to Cologne. This would have been an important consideration.
- Sundberg was on Davos at that time but was he a free agent? Or freshly retired? Or was he going to retire to GM but was also a pending FA in which case the BOG skipped the step of letting him go to free agency and then signing for Cologne for free and just letting him join Cologne asap since they were in a dire state. In that case, I would understand why he would move for free.
- I feel like he wasn't meant to move for free though this bit I am completely unsure of. Perhaps compensation was agreed but not enforced by the commishes or anyone else, which seems to have been alluded to. In that case it is not a failure of the GM succession process but a failure higher up.
I don't think I've considered everything and yet I have already had to make 3-4 assumptions. You have dealt in absolutes so far and I have brought up for every case the mitigating factors which affected the decisions made. I pretty much said that Toronto was a fuck-up, yet you have insisted on focusing on a Cologne case which I can't make a reasonable argument for or against because of the above.
Most importantly, I would like to stress that I have not been saying what I think about each case (most of the time) but rather how the BOG came to the decision it did. Except the Cologne case, because I do not know, but you have pretty much forced me to consider how it was done. Just because I am the current BOG mouthpiece for some reason doesn't mean these are my opinions. I'm just trying to explain why you can't look at the raw data and assume you have all the key facts.