Former Union CEO & Operating Partner Nick Sakiewicz, who was relieved of his duties Friday, and team Chair & Majority Owner Jay Sugarman "had different visions on the direction of the team," which ultimately "cost Sakiewicz his job," according to Marc Narducci of the PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER. Sugarman, who "had limited contact over the years with the media was expansive during a Friday conference call in explaining Sakiewicz's ouster." Sakiewicz "was often criticized for meddling too much in player acquisition." As the Union have "three games left in a disappointing 9-15-7 season, Sugarman felt a change was desperately needed." Sugarman said, "It was clear we necessarily weren't on the same page." Narducci noted fan backlash "reached its peak earlier this year when the influential Sons of Ben fan club staged a pregame protest march before a May 17 home game against DC United, demanding better management." Sakiewicz "bore the brunt of the blame." Sugarman: "It is never good when fans aren't happy and I do take that as one of the signals we have to do better." Union CRO Dave Rowan "will assume day-to-day business operations in the interim" (PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, 10/3).
BITTERSWEET FOR SUGARMAN: In Philadelphia, John Smallwood wrote Sakiewicz' work "was critical to founding the franchise six years ago." Sugarman added, "I appreciate everything Nick put in to this. He put his heart and soul into this club." But this dismissal "was not solely because of a multiseason revolt by Union fans frustrated with Sakiewicz' leadership." The demonstrative nature of their protests "had more impact than any story or column from the media." Union fans "did not let management sleep quietly." Sugarman: "Our counsel was to try to ignore the uniformed rants or the flamethrowers, but when fans are telling you a message that is thoughtful, they've put in the work (and) are asking honest questions, you need to give them honest answers. The fan input is an important input. It is never good when your fans aren't happy, and I do take that as one of the signals that we've got to do better." Sugarman said that the two "did not see 'eye to eye' on a number of things." Still, the "almost universal dislike and mistrust of Sakiewicz among an increasingly frustrated fan base cannot be ignored." Until his removal, Sakiewicz "gave the impression he was invincible to the criticism." Sugarman clarified that while Sakiewicz was "entitled to some ownership stock, contingent on the franchise's value 'increasing materially above how much capital' was invested, that threshold has not yet been met." He said that even if it had, Sakiewicz "would not have gained voting power." Sugarman: "We need to win. I can't think of anything else to say" (PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, 10/4).
