Quote:
Originally Posted by ricoFlame
Speak with your $$. Unlike edmonton, where they would pack the place and occasionally toss a jersey on the ice when they were upset...still filling managements pockets...don't go. Through the 7 year misery of the "young guns" era, there were times where there were 10, 11 or 12,000 fans in the building, they moved people around the building to make it look more full on TV.
Calgary fans are more fickle and they should be...can't rely on the edmonton model of a decade ineptitude and luck to build a team and get a new stadium.
It's not the same here, and i'm proud of that. We aren't as willing to be fed pure bull$hit year after year and just sit there like a bunch of robots and be happy with it.
Things will improve if the front office sees it as a necessity.
|
That's some very revisionist history there. Both the Flames and Oilers were very realistically at risk of needing to move locations in the late 90's, and the Oilers were actually at more of a risk then the Flames were.
Very different economic conditions going on during the young guns era in Calgary, versus Edmonton's latest decade of ineptitude. Not only was the NHL a much less friendly place with no cost control for small market teams, the Canadian dollar was in the tank and the local economy wasn't the hottest. It's actually very similar to what's going on right now in our city, while once again the Flames are in a rebuild mode, only this time the NHL's structure is much more favorable for our team.
While attendance is down in Calgary the past few years, and a lot of it has to do with a non winner on the ice, one also can't discount the economic factors at play the past 2 years. One also can't discount that the building is still 95% paid for every night and Flames fans are still paying full pop for those tickets. While I think attendance could still get worse through this rebuild, the risk you are trying to suggest exists simply isn't there.