Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil
Tons of talk from people who don't even live in Calgary. It's borderline spiteful.
|
Possibly, but still true. Sometimes people need to experience something first hand to truly understand it. Talk to St. Louis football fans right now. Talk to St. Louis city officials. See how they feel about losing their team? Then talk with San Diego and Oakland people and check out their feelings. It ain't fun to lose your team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by corporatejay
Not tougher than forking out a bunch of taxpayer cash for a piece of junk facility.
|
Junk facility? Ah, you're one of the shiny disco ball set. You need the pretty renderings and the pictures of the shiny happy people super imposed over a an animation to judge the quality of something? Isn't the concept the important thing here, since we are still at the conceptualization stage? What has been presented addresses the needs of the city and does so with a responsible approach to handling costs. The funding model needs to addressed, but this is a good start. What could they have done to make this a better design for you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyman
yay, we're back to the fear mongering. If all else fails...
|
You may consider it fear mongering but it is the reality of pro sports. When facilities become old and cannot sustain the operations of the team management has to push for ways to get more money. Ownership has to do the same, and that usually means new facilities with better options to draw in customers and events. If those facilities aren't there then the next natural avenue is to find a market that can sustain the team, or just bail out all together. I'm not saying we're at that point, but it could happen. I didn't think Murray Edwards would abandon Calgary, but that happened. Maybe if he begins to divest himself of his Calgary based holdings we'll see the interest in the marketplace for shares in the Flames. That could be very telling.