Howard Shultz news

CatchNShoot · Post #1 » by **CatchNShoot** » Tue Jan 8, 2008 1:48 am

Howard Shultz is returning to the 'bucks. Starbucks, that is. Fortunately he keeps his beans numbered for just such an emergency.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/07/news/companies/starbucks_ceo.ap/index.htm?cnn=yes

What kind of NBA experience can Howie impart to the young baristas across the world?

wiff · Post #2 » by **wiff** » Tue Jan 8, 2008 3:21 am

I hate Howard!

I like to think I am part of the reason for his company slipping. I haven't had a drink of Starcraps coffee since he sold the Sonics to Clay and his band of thieves.

Up yours Howie!

sonichound16 · Post #3 » by **sonichound16** » Tue Jan 8, 2008 4:09 am

That's funny, I haven't had any Starbucks crap either. Even though I loved those damn Frappachinos. In fact, I harshly chastize anyone who I see drinking Starbucks. Damn Howard Shultz!!!!

jenn_gp · Post #4 » by **jenn_gp** » Tue Jan 8, 2008 4:12 am

Haha! I stopped buying Starbucks since the ownership switch as well and have force my husband and parents to stop drinking it since the change as well. Call me crazy, but I can't stand the man...I don't care what you think about banning Starbucks, I just don't want Howie to get any of my or my family's hard-earned cash.

D5150 · Post #5 » by **D5150** » Tue Jan 8, 2008 4:25 am

sorry, i still drink the stuff. i swear to god, there are at least 15 drive up espresso stands in the po-dunk town i live in (wenatchee!), and they all stink. starbucks is still the best (if you are willing to plunk down $3 plus for a cup of joe). although i have a slight beef with howard, i still like his coffee. i think we have 4 here in wenatchee. i dont know, i try not to get too worked up over boycotts. i never did stop drinking french wine.

btw: starbucks will not stop until they have opened a starbucks inside of every starbucks.

wiff · Post #6 » by **wiff** » Tue Jan 8, 2008 4:45 am

D5150 wrote:sorry, i still drink the stuff. i swear to god, there are at least 15 drive up espresso stands in the po-dunk town i live in (wenatchee!), and they all stink. starbucks is still the best (if you are willing to plunk down $3 plus for a cup of joe). although i have a slight beef with howard, i still like his coffee. i think we have 4 here in wenatchee. i dont know, i try not to get too worked up over boycotts. i never did stop drinking french wine.

btw: starbucks will not stop until they have opened a starbucks inside of every starbucks.

Slight beef?

D5150 · Post #7 » by **D5150** » Tue Jan 8, 2008 4:53 am

oh come on wiff.............

i have a slight beef with george lucas for f'ing up the starwars franchise and i have a slight beef with eddie van halen for f'ing up his own band for 22 years. but i still payed to see episodes 1, 2, and 3. and i still plunked down a ton of money to see the VH reunion tour ( i saw them twice, it was unbelievable!) if you like it, you like it. blame howard, blame wally, but what good will it do. if it makes you feel better to boycott howards product, thats fine. but at the end of the day, it wont make a difference.

Post #8 » by **Sweezo** » Tue Jan 8, 2008 7:48 am

D5150 wrote:oh come on wiff.............

i have a slight beef with george lucas for f'ing up the starwars franchise and i have a slight beef with eddie van halen for f'ing up his own band for 22 years. but i still payed to see episodes 1, 2, and 3. and i still plunked down a ton of money to see the VH reunion tour ( i saw them twice, it was unbelievable!) if you like it, you like it. blame howard, blame wally, but what good will it do. if it makes you feel better to boycott howards product, thats fine. but at the end of the day, it wont make a difference.

Ha ha ha...couldn't have said it any better myself.

wiff · Post #9 » by **wiff** » Tue Jan 8, 2008 3:36 pm

It's all about principle and integrity! So HA!

sonichound16 · Post #10 » by **sonichound16** » Tue Jan 8, 2008 5:48 pm

I am with Wiff on this one. It is all about the principle of it for me. I would also rather stick to the belief that my actions, however small in the big picture, can make a difference, however small that difference may be. You know, the straw that breaks the camels back kind of thing.

TheUrbanZealot · Post #11 » by **TheUrbanZealot** » Tue Jan 8, 2008 6:07 pm

sonichound16 wrote:I am with Wiff on this one. It is all about the principle of it for me. I would also rather stick to the belief that my actions, however small in the big picture, can make a difference, however small that difference may be. You know, the straw that breaks the camels back kind of thing.

What did Schultz do that was wrong from a principle standpoint? Schultz is a businessman that ended up making a profit on a failing business. Yes he may have shown a little fake loyalty, but he didn't do anything that should warrant us Seattle fans taking some "moral" stand. Nothing he did was immoral.

I am with the others that were saying at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. I mean, it's just coffee, for God's sake.

There are plenty of things that we could take some type of moral stand on, albeit as subjective as our righteous ideals may be, that are warranted and justified. Not drinking Starbucks coffee really doesn't cause Schultz to go "damn, I sure did make a big mistake with those fans".

I do, however, understand from a psychological perspective your passion and the reason behind why you would want to take some type of moral stand vs. an indirect facilitator of the Sonics potential move. However, for as much as howard was a phony fan, he did something that any of us in business would have done- he took a failing franchise and sold it for a triple digit million profit to an anxious bidder. Schultz definitely is a shrewd, proactive BUSINESSman.

Now I don't want to trump your passion, so if you feel like not buying Starbucks is going to somehow show Howard" karma-tically, by all means, go for it. At the end of the day though- it's just coffee, and he will still be a multi-millionaire and we won't.

TheUrbanZealot · Post #12 » by **TheUrbanZealot** » Tue Jan 8, 2008 6:12 pm

Also, if we REALLY wanted to be technical we can blame the bad lease agreement that the Ackerleys signed. Hindsight is always 20/20, and at that time Seattle had a successful product so revenue/profit was no issue. If Seattle were selling out every single night like they used to in the 90's, Howard Schultz would never have needed to sell the team in the 1st place...

sonichound16 · Post #13 » by **sonichound16** » Tue Jan 8, 2008 7:31 pm

I can't blame him for selling the team if he wasn't making money and wanted to get out of the market. What I can blame him for is being a lying snake in the grass who professed to be a true fan and then when it got rough he turned to the first available buyer and tried to spew some BS line about them wanting to stay in Seattle when everyone knew they would leave at the first opportunity. You have to wonder how hard they looked for a local ownership group when there are options out there right now if Clay was willing to sell.

You are right, it is just coffee. It doesn't matter what the product is, it is the fact that he represents Starbucks in my mind. It could be McDonalds, Pepsi or Q-tips! It doesn't matter that I have boycotted Starbucks but if 1 million of me did then it would make a difference. I don't really expect it to mean anything, I jut do it for my own peace of mind.

TheUrbanZealot · Post #14 » by **TheUrbanZealot** » Tue Jan 8, 2008 8:36 pm

sonichound16 wrote:I can't blame him for selling the team if he wasn't making money and wanted to get out of the market. What I can blame him for is being a lying snake in the grass who professed to be a true fan and then when it got rough he turned to the first available buyer and tried to spew some BS line about them wanting to stay in Seattle when everyone knew they would leave at the first opportunity. You have to wonder how hard they looked for a local ownership group when there are options out there right now if Clay was willing to sell.

You are right, it is just coffee. It doesn't matter what the product is, it is the fact that he represents Starbucks in my mind. It could be McDonalds, Pepsi or Q-tips! It doesn't matter that I have boycotted Starbucks but if 1 million of me did then it would make a difference. I don't really expect it to mean anything, I jut do it for my own peace of mind.

Well most owners as far as I know are not loyalists and are in it for the money. If they happen to play fairweather fan then so be it. I think it's safe to say their fiscal ties to a team far outweigh their emotional ones...

Not to beat a dead horse, but let me give you a scenario, just to lend some perspective. Let's say you worked for Starbucks during the Schultz regime. Would you quit Starbucks because of Schultz' phoniness? Further, if you found out that Schultz has helped millions of needy kids via charitable drives/donations (which he has, tax write-off formality aside), would you still see Schultz in such a negative light? If I told you that the pair of Nike's you have on are in part a result of kids working in sweatshops for virtually nothing, would you still buy Nike's? If I told you that the leather in which those Nike shoes came from is a result of an animal being torchered and slain, would you still buy Nike's or leather, period? You see where I'm going with this? If we were to play corporate martyr, we would basically relegate ourselves to living in the wilderness away all that has an indirect/direct effect on someone's pocketbook. It's easy to get caught up in the battle of moral vs. reality, but you don't want to let your passion skew your better judgment. In other words, we can try crusade against all the un-ethical, immoral, unjust acts we want, but it ain't gonna stop those acts...

sonichound16 · Post #15 » by **sonichound16** » Tue Jan 8, 2008 8:41 pm

Good points Zealot! I guess it makes it easier to boycott since I don't especially want to pay $4.00 for some hot milk with a shot of coffee in it! (plus the $$ tip). I wear Adidas by the way, Nike's suck. :lol:

TheUrbanZealot · Post #16 » by **TheUrbanZealot** » Tue Jan 8, 2008 9:01 pm

sonichound16 wrote:Good points Zealot! I guess it makes it easier to boycott since I don't especially want to pay $4.00 for some hot milk with a shot of coffee in it! (plus the $$ tip). I wear Adidas by the way, Nike's suck.

Will you still wear adidas after reading this?

http://commondreams.org/headlines/112300-02.htm

Anyways, i promise that is my final point on it, but I'm sure you get where I'm coming from. I actually have become an adidas guy myself...

asdfgh · Post #17 » by **asdfgh** » Tue Jan 8, 2008 9:03 pm

I still drink my peppermint mocha every morning but after reading this I think I'll stop

wiff · Post #18 » by **wiff** » Wed Jan 9, 2008 3:31 am

The principle I was speaking about is that you simply don't buy a professional sports franchise and when you start to hemorrhage money sell it to an out of state buyer who has been on the prowl to bring a Pro franchise to his neck of the woods.

You're right Zelot, Howard did what most business men do, sell for a high profit. But Howard isn't like most businessmen. Howard is like very few businessmen. He bought an NBA franchise and with that comes a civic duty. He may have owned it but the Sonics belong to the city of Seattle.

Everyone knows that you don't make money while you own the team you simply do your best to break even. Then you make your money on the sale. Kind of like a fixer upper that's a house.

In my opinion Howard should have done a few things different. But this thread isn't about that. It's about not supporting the A-Hole who sold my favorite franchise out from underneath the Sonics fan base so he could make a buck.

D5150 · Post #19 » by **D5150** » Wed Jan 9, 2008 4:00 am

if we continue to follow this line of reasoning, then i would have to agree with zealots earlier post. blame the ackerleys, they signed the lease aggrement, they sold to howard, they bailed on the city....at some point we have to deal with what is and stop worrying about what was. lets deal with what is at hand and stop looking for someone to blame.

wiff · Post #20 » by **wiff** » Wed Jan 9, 2008 4:56 am

D5150 wrote:if we continue to follow this line of reasoning, then i would have to agree with zealots earlier post. blame the ackerleys, they signed the lease aggrement, they sold to howard, they bailed on the city....at some point we have to deal with what is and stop worrying about what was. lets deal with what is at hand and stop looking for someone to blame.

The Ackerleys sold to a local buyer who was gung ho on the Sonics. Howard didn't want to move the team.

Howard could have sold to a local buyer. There are two local buyers right now as we speak.

Personally I think Howard wanted to stick it to the city and the state government, that's why he sold to Clay.

And with that belief of Howard giving the city and state government and all the rest of Sonic fans the big middle finger. I'm giving it right back to him buy not using his product.