Scott Hill Play On ! Case Study
In the information presented by the Ivey School of Business, it is evident that many of the reasons behind the failure of Scott Hill’s Play On! street hockey tournament are rooted in the management and development errors along with some important outside factors. Reasons behind the failure of Play On! include Hill’s failure to fully understand the market and the business, his inability to maintain a positive cash flow, inadequate financing, poor management and planning. While Hill had a lot of passion for street hockey, he was not able to translate that drive and energy into profitable results. The most important reasons are his inadequate financial funding and his lack of forward vision and planning. As described in the reading, Hill did not
…show more content…
was also accelerated by outside problems such as the lockout and bad public reputation of the NHL. In 2004, when the NHL joined in as the major sponsor, Play On! began to attached outside many other outside sponsors and experienced great success. However, as soon as lockout began, the other sponsors left and the organization found itself struggling yet again. This situation would have been avoided with some efficient management and marketing skills. After the successful 2004 tournament, Hill should have captivated on the momentum and begin to reach out to other sponsors. Also, news of a possible lookout had been spreading in 2003 when the NHL and the Player’s Association failed to reach an agreement on revenue sharing. Therefore, Hill should at least acknowledge the risk of a lockout and reached to other sponsors after the initial success instead of scrambling and reaching out to TSN at the last moment. During the 2005 season, he should have scaled back his operation to only one or two tournament instead of five in order to save resources and money. Furthermore, instead of simply following Warrington’s suggestion with the tax structure, he would have potentially saved tens of thousands of dollar if he had consulted outside
was also accelerated by outside problems such as the lockout and bad public reputation of the NHL. In 2004, when the NHL joined in as the major sponsor, Play On! began to attached outside many other outside sponsors and experienced great success. However, as soon as lockout began, the other sponsors left and the organization found itself struggling yet again. This situation would have been avoided with some efficient management and marketing skills. After the successful 2004 tournament, Hill should have captivated on the momentum and begin to reach out to other sponsors. Also, news of a possible lookout had been spreading in 2003 when the NHL and the Player’s Association failed to reach an agreement on revenue sharing. Therefore, Hill should at least acknowledge the risk of a lockout and reached to other sponsors after the initial success instead of scrambling and reaching out to TSN at the last moment. During the 2005 season, he should have scaled back his operation to only one or two tournament instead of five in order to save resources and money. Furthermore, instead of simply following Warrington’s suggestion with the tax structure, he would have potentially saved tens of thousands of dollar if he had consulted outside