Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinny01
I don’t get these shots at ownership thst they are cheap.
People claim “the Flames do not retain on trades” “ownership won’t pay for top management staff” etc.
If the Flames were so cheap they wouldn’t have a POHO and would just have Burke or Treliving dealing with King. They wouldn’t have Conroy, and Pascall probably just 1. They likely wouldn’t have Chris Snow.
Just because they didn’t hire Boudreau when Hartley was gored doesn’t mean they won’t pay for the right coach.
For instance give AV a 4-5 year deal and sell the owners that this is the guy. You want a top guy you need to pay but then the team will have stability. AV has had 2 jobs in 12 years with no seasons off.
|
Agreed, so many fans have no idea how good we have it with an ownership group willing to spend to the cap, what more do they want.
I figure people are just trying to crap on the ownership group and trying to make tie ins to their stance that they want the city to invest for the development of the new arena.........therefore cheap cause they won't do it on their own and then people try to make correlations with the hockey side to justify their views.
Regardless of where you sit on the arena debate, the owners stance isn't about "being cheap" it's about what they think the right business decision / outcome should be on that particular project. Nothing to do with affordability or having alligator arms, it has to do with what they think is the appropriate structure of the deal based on ROI and the other stakeholders ROI. Again, you don't have to agree with their stance, but this isn't a "cheap" ownership group.