I didn't name names, I am just saying I have seen posters say this fanbase would support a tear it down rebuild and then say they are not renewing because they are not happy with the losses.
I completely fit your characterization and I'm guilt free about it tbh
Team is bad now. There are no franchise players. every key player who hits UFA demands a trade or pouts until they get traded. of course they should rebuild and they've started. that doesn't mean by wanting that i have some obligation to contribute financially. the entertainment value still isn't there, there's zero stars on this team and none in the prospect pool barring a surprise.
I bought a Gaudreau Jersey 2014 and an Iginla jersey 2001ish. I'm not THAT hard to please. but right now there's really nothing.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JobHopper
The thing is, my posts, thoughts and insights may be my opinions but they're also quite factual.
I completely fit your characterization and I'm guilt free about it tbh
Team is bad now. There are no franchise players. every key player who hits UFA demands a trade or pouts until they get traded. of course they should rebuild and they've started. that doesn't mean by wanting that i have some obligation to contribute financially. the entertainment value still isn't there, there's zero stars on this team and none in the prospect pool barring a surprise.
I bought a Gaudreau Jersey 2014 and an Iginla jersey 2001ish. I'm not THAT hard to please. but right now there's really nothing.
I think the premise was that many posters say they will support a rebuild, but know indicate they won't support it financially..
You're indicating that you want a rebuild, but aren't prepared to support it financially.
The owners are concerned that fans will not support a rebuild financially.
So, unless you indicated you would support a rebuild, and are now reneging on that, you do not fit the narrative.
I completely fit your characterization and I'm guilt free about it tbh
Team is bad now. There are no franchise players. every key player who hits UFA demands a trade or pouts until they get traded. of course they should rebuild and they've started. that doesn't mean by wanting that i have some obligation to contribute financially. the entertainment value still isn't there, there's zero stars on this team and none in the prospect pool barring a surprise.
I bought a Gaudreau Jersey 2014 and an Iginla jersey 2001ish. I'm not THAT hard to please. but right now there's really nothing.
How can anyone get on you about this? The real reason you likely feel this way is the organization has failed to communicate a direction. As a fanbase we're left listing in speculation on what they're doing.
As a counterpoint to supporting a rebuild, I fully expect this club to continue with the "make the playoffs" phrasing this season, and highlight that we had a TOP AHL club feeding players in. We're reloading!
The only thing that has given me hope of a new direction with proper communication is the hiring of a new president and operations chief, with the operations guy actually having a bit of a background in entertainment.
I suppose it comes down to what you consider 'supporting' a rebuild is.
Because yeah, I think CSEC has always wanted to avoid it because the 90s scared them off doing it, the Library years etc.
And honestly, I think with Calgary as a hockey market their concerns are valid. Folks on this message board are not the norm.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
If you look at average attendance figures for the last Flames 'rebuild', the drop-off was not all that significant.
I think the concerns about the 'Library' and 90's-like years are grossly overstated. Dating back to last off-season, there have been numerous polls showing the fanbase supports a rebuild.
Youthful enthusiasm and a vision they can sell will go a long way. Like other Canadian markets, Calgary can do it too. There is enough corporate support and steady ownership to see through a couple of lean seasons. Hell, even if they lose money for a couple of seasons, the growth in relative value of any sports franchise has to far exceed that.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to howard_the_duck For This Useful Post:
If you look at average attendance figures for the last Flames 'rebuild', the drop-off was not all that significant.
I think the concerns about the 'Library' and 90's-like years are grossly overstated. Dating back to last off-season, there have been numerous polls showing the fanbase supports a rebuild.
Youthful enthusiasm and a vision they can sell will go a long way. Like other Canadian markets, Calgary can do it too. There is enough corporate support and steady ownership to see through a couple of lean seasons. Hell, even if they lose money for a couple of seasons, the growth in relative value of any sports franchise has to far exceed that.
The biggest thing is that the economics are totally different as well. There was a legitimate chance Calgary could have relocated in the 90s. Zero chance now.
The biggest thing is that the economics are totally different as well. There was a legitimate chance Calgary could have relocated in the 90s. Zero chance now.
It was extremely close. "Save the Flames" wasn't much of a stretch.
If you look at average attendance figures for the last Flames 'rebuild', the drop-off was not all that significant.
I think the concerns about the 'Library' and 90's-like years are grossly overstated. Dating back to last off-season, there have been numerous polls showing the fanbase supports a rebuild.
Youthful enthusiasm and a vision they can sell will go a long way. Like other Canadian markets, Calgary can do it too. There is enough corporate support and steady ownership to see through a couple of lean seasons. Hell, even if they lose money for a couple of seasons, the growth in relative value of any sports franchise has to far exceed that.
This.
The asset has tripled in value over the past 10 years, while receiving hundreds of $millions in public subsidies for a new rink.
If they choose to remain in mediocracy in order to avoid the risk of low attendance for 3 years, then we need new ownership who can see beyond the timeframe of 12 months (although, given the age of our owners, every month matters!).
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Funkhouser For This Useful Post:
I think that Anthony Duclair will be a Flame at some point in this offseason, and will be brought in just to expressly try and resurrect Johnathan Huberdeau's game
I think Francis is just guessing, but Duclair has been the obvious target ever since Conroy said we will be looking for players that had chemistry with Huberdeau.
Francis also thinks it's throwing good money after bad, and would be a mistake.
Not a fan of signing Duclair. I was before, but I don’t want any of our young guys losing valuable ice time. Pospisil, Pelletier, Zary, possibly Coronato. We’re cluttered at wing.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ForeverFlameFan For This Useful Post:
Not a fan of signing Duclair. I was before, but I don’t want any of our young guys losing valuable ice time. Pospisil, Pelletier, Zary, possibly Coronato. We’re cluttered at wing.
They need to try some of those guys at C, which all have played.
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
There presently isn't space for Pelletier or Coronado in the top 9, which there needs to be if we want them to develop. Adding Duclair to the mix seems unnecessary and complicated unless we dump a few other forwards during the off season.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Funkhouser For This Useful Post:
There presently isn't space for Pelletier or Coronado in the top 9, which there needs to be if we want them to develop. Adding Duclair to the mix seems unnecessary and complicated unless we dump a few other forwards during the off season.
I think that's the plan. Likely Mangiapane and one of Kuzmenko, and Sharangovich will be gone.
The Following User Says Thank You to gvitaly For This Useful Post:
There presently isn't space for Pelletier or Coronado in the top 9, which there needs to be if we want them to develop. Adding Duclair to the mix seems unnecessary and complicated unless we dump a few other forwards during the off season.
I think Pelletier’s skill sets is third line checker who has a little pop offensively from time to time and who can move up if you need him to. But having a lot of prospects who can play isn’t bad. Not all of them will be here in 5 years.
There presently isn't space for Pelletier or Coronado in the top 9, which there needs to be if we want them to develop. Adding Duclair to the mix seems unnecessary and complicated unless we dump a few other forwards during the off season.
That is a decent forward group for a non-playoff team, but the weakness there is in the top end talent, especially young talent on their first contract.
What will ultimately decide if Calgary is indeed a bottom feeder or not is whether Marky stays or goes and whether the defence can be rebuilt into a reasonable group.
Not a fan of signing Duclair. I was before, but I don’t want any of our young guys losing valuable ice time. Pospisil, Pelletier, Zary, possibly Coronato. We’re cluttered at wing.
I'd do a 1 year with the intention of moving him at the deadline for a pick. One thing is that Duclair is a finisher, so could help the young guys numbers by finishing their passes
