Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
First of all what BS? Seriously I want to know. The Flames are looking at what Edmonton did and what the province did for the Oilers in Edmonton which was to pretty well fully fund that rink and saying, hey in the province of Alberta that's the deal that was made.
I think the Flames are also savvy enough to know that they're not going to get that. But going from a fully paid rink to a screw you pay for it yourself is frankly going to convince the owners to go elsewhere, its that simple, they're not stupid at all, and they know by looking at it scientifically that fully privatized buildings will leak money, whereas the hybrid models of public and private money stand a better chance of being positive for both sides.
Frankly what you want is irrelevant to be honest based on what you said, because clearly the dome is not adequate in the NHL, and not adequate for the long term survival of the NHL in Calgary, and at some point as they can't upgrade the dome and replacing the ice plant for example and moving into the future information age in the dome we have to ask the question. Is Calgary an NHL city at that point, because if the city isn't willing to give some percentage of public funding like the majority of other major league cities, then it won't be a NHL city.
Because the Dome isn't anywhere near a long term home for the Flames and its not about shiny.
And frankly if the city is adamant on no public funding, then this whole exercise is done. Get the mayor to stand up and say, absolutely no public funding, no bond issues will happen, and have the province say the same thing , get it out and get it clear so the Flames can stop negotiating and make up their mind on what they're going to do, because I tend to think that the idea of a 100% privately building is going to be a non starter.
And then we can get to the business of converting to Oiler fans if we want to follow an Alberta NHL team, and maybe we can get a nice AHL team or ECHL team to play out of the come.
But sitting here and saying, well the dome is good enough for you is a showing a massive misunderstanding of the business and future business of the NHL.
Like I've said before, I'm not a public funding guy. That deal in Edmonton was ridiculous. But I'm also a realist in that the Flames owners won't sole fund a building and the Flames will eventually leave if the City doesn't provide any incentive to stay.
That's just simple business.
|
Okay, so let's say CalgaryNEXT is dead forever, and the city also refuses to pay a dime on Plan B.
Do you think the Flames will actually pick up and move if they don't get a new building? I don't. I don't for a second think there is a city out there where the Flames can bail to today and make more money than they are now. So they can puff their chest and threaten to leave, but I really don't see them pulling the trigger. That, to me, is the BS.
So then the question is the long term sustainability of the club. To me, it comes down to whether the Flames will no longer have the ability to make a profit given their current building, as opposed to the "we make a profit but we want to make more profit" argument that is posed. So the questions are:
- Do the Flames make money now, even in non-playoff seasons?
- Will staying in the Saddledome mean that at some point, the Flames will not be able to make a cent in profit?
If the answer to the second is yes, then yes I agree that the building will not sustain the club.
I can get on board with a hybrid model for Plan B depending on what the numbers in the hybrid model are. But I don't think any numbers have been presented yet.