Frank Seravalli

I'm judging based on a couple things.

One, the notion that

there seems to be a clash in terms of what this looks like moving forward.

And two, just based on a pure meritocracy, over these last four years running the Vancouver Canucks, as this organization has been plunged into further chaos, and some of it unpredictable, some of it entirely predictable, and some of it due to the Canucks' own doing,

that why should Jim Rutherford be afforded the opportunity to pick his successor?

Or at least someone that for the very beginning stages is someone that he's comfortable working with.

If he's not going to be here anyway, what's the difference?

Just get out in front of it and make the decision that you think is best.

How much of... Oh, sorry, keep going, Frank.

No, I realize that me saying that

about Canucks ownership, make the decision that you see is best sends a shiver up the spine of Canucks fans.

But I mean, it can't, it can't be any worse than the job that Jim Rutherford has done to this point.

I'm always a big advocate for a fact-finding mission and to learn as much about

how the perspective on the outside views your organization.

I think there's a ton of value in that.

I just don't, I don't necessarily see that being a logical explanation for the potential difference in path based on what we're talking about.

Sure.

You know, the Canucks have really never been big on

outside influence and league view because just look at their searches over the last number of 10 years they generally tend to be pretty short-lived and with a small pool of candidates that some of it seems predetermined from the start like when when Jim Rutherford was brought in like we didn't there wasn't like a big

wide-ranging net that was cast around the league.