where you imply that I'm a chucklehead. Which, by the way, is a great word.
I don't disagree that "cozy relationships with vendors are fraught with potential mischief." I do disagree that this conclusion somehow follows directly from the preceding paragraphs, except for the Anthony Travel situation, which is screwy to the extreme. Yes, our relationships with our existing vendors -- the proper term, as you noted elsewhere -- are problematic in some ways.
But at least for Adidas, nothing you've said leads one to the conclusion that "quid pro quo cronyism, unseemly nepotism and corruption" existed. Boneheaded decision-making? Sure. But nepotism or corruption? I don't see any evidence for it (as opposed to opportunity for "potential mischief").
I would also note that neither you nor anyone else has produced any tangible evidence, as opposed to speculation, innuendo, or conspiracy theorizing, that Chuck or Molly Lennon engaged in any wrongdoing at all. I recognize that you claim no beef with Ms. Lennon, but the post to which I was responding was a bit over the top. (And it was only with respect to Ms. Lennon that I was speaking about networking and using connections to get jobs -- again, precisely what we crow about at ND all the damn time.)