Quote:
Originally Posted by shermanator
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.
|
I think Quebec could be a good place to start for potential, I think Seattle is another massive metropolitan area that is north enough to support a hockey team. I'm not entirely sold on Kansas, but once again their population could easily support a team and they have the desire top build a new arena. Maybe the Flames owners sell to another buyer and just get out of the whole thing. The simple fact of the matter is, the Flames need a new building, the city need s a newer venue for out of town acts, and there is no way the Flames are going to pay for it entirely after the deal the Oilers got. If the city feels the Flames are an important aspect in the culture of this city, they had better pony up the dough.