Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonBlue
Wasn't trying to defend the oiler deal.
My point was king king making fun of the length of the oiler agreement negotiations and how public it was, only to come out with the joke that was Calgary next. Then taking even longer for the flames agreement to finally coming about and having it just as public with the same relocation threats and everything else.
It was enjoyable to follow, was all I was saying.
|
I'm with you on this. As a Calgarian, I was able to look at the Edmonton deal and turn my nose up at it. It was not a wonderful deal for Edmonton, they took on a ton of debt, and the Oilers payment towards it is pretty much just an agreement to keep paying rent for a few decades, as a lot of their payment is baked into their lease. Then CalgaryNext came out, and it was an absolute kick in the balls. Even if you didn't have balls, you looked at the deal and said "ow, my balls!". It was the picture of entitled business explaining to the public that it was planning on making the public pay them just to stay in business. And my own desire to see a new arena was tamped down harder when the negative reaction led to the roundabout threats of leaving. If your response to the taxpayers not wanting to hand you over everything for nothing is to threaten to leave, then I would rather say goodbye to the team I love than give them what they demand. With how much the league gets for expansion fees, if there are any cities that are willing to pony up the cash, why would the NHL care to forego that cash to let Flames ownership move the team to a new market with no guarantees. Further to that, what city is so desperate for an NHL team that it will take on a half billion dollar taxpayer funded arena to get one.
I have very little doubts as to how the Flames as an organization see this city, and wouldn't trust them for a second to not make the choice that maximizes profits, no matter what the cost is to the city or its residents, ie. their fans.