Quote:
Originally Posted by Cappy
I think it has something to do with the fact that they are bringing it up so early in the game. It's been two years since they made their proposal, which in the grand scheme of arenas, is very short.
They jumped a few chapters in the field of schemes playbook.
But it's also hard for them to try and tug at the emotional angle (the fans, the sick kids, the charity) and talk about how integral the team is to the city, and then threaten to leave it all behind. It's kind of a slap in the face.
If they want to make a business case, then we, as a city, will make a business case too. We can leave emotion out of it... unfortunately the business case for stadium subsidies has been disproved so many times that it's amazing people still argue it.
|
Disingenuous to transfer the emotion of fans to the organization.
This is the last statement from King regarding any 'threat' to move.
Quote:
“We’re not threatening people,” King said. “And furthermore, I think and hope we’re going to get a deal. The truth of the matter is, we would just move. Which is not to be confused as a threat.”
King said the Flames wouldn’t use “silly tactics” like shopping the team to different cities and touring arenas to force a decision, alluding to Edmonton Oilers owner Daryl Katz’s trip to Seattle in 2012 while the fate of Rogers Place was still up in the air.
Many saw the visit as a threat to move the team, drawing enough public outrage that Katz issued an apology to Edmontonians.
“This has to be good for everybody, and if it isn’t good for everybody it shouldn’t happen, pure and simple,” King said. “And if it turns out to be not working for us then nobody’s going to argue that we should try to secure our future in whatever way’s necessary.”
|
Doesn't get much more business (and less emotional) than this statement.
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...just-move-king