Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle
I think people constantly make two potentially wrong leap when the start to critique the ownership groups "alleged" win now mandate, as a lack of foresight. BTW, I actually believe that the ownership group does have a win now, or no full rebuild mandate, but I don't KNOW that they do, that's why I say alleged, but I do think it's the most likely.
The wrong leap people make IMO is that they assume the owners think it's actually our best strategy to win. I think it's less to do with that, and more to do with what the owners are willing to spend, or more appropriately, what they aren't willing to LOSE financially during the rebuild. People falsely think the Flames make money for our ownership group, it doesn't, it likely loses them money. At the very least, it's a massive opportunity cost for them in that every dollar they "invest" in the Flames would generate a much much higher rate of return invested elsewhere. The Flames are not a good investment for our ownership group, they do it for other reasons.
Which leads to the second leap, which is that the owners should just throw more money at this team, even if that means more losses, because, well they are rich right? They certainly are, wealthy beyond my wildest dreams. But that doesn't actually mean they should / can afford to lose millions and millions of dollars (it would be a staggeringly high number) during a multi year rebuild.
While most of us on here, who spend time posting about the Flames, would certainly tolerate a rebuild and likely invest in the team the same amount (although certainly, even in this community much of our investment in the team doesn't actually translate to real value creation for the team), the fact in a market the size of Calgary, the fringe fans, the bandwagon fans are required to push the team financially to break even or make a little money each season. The team needs the extra playoff games, and they need the building to creep up to 95% to 100% full (at meaningful ticket prices too, not overly discounted) to do that. That doesn't happen in this city (or any small market Canadian city) when the games aren't meaningful. When the team is not playing for anything, the casual attendance wains, and so does the teams cost recovery or profits. I actually find the expectation that the ownership group should just eat that, or even that they can just eat that from many in here to be a little ridiculous / borderline entitled.
Our ownership group isn't perfect.........but I think if we were to get a new owners there is a more than likely chance we'd realize the grass if far from greener on the other side. Generally the team has been allowed to spend to the cap, we don't see them in front of the cameras all day, and seemingly we have to invent our own ownership is meddling stories. I think it could be a lot worse ownership wise, and we should be careful what we wish for. I'm happy that we have owners committed to keeping the team here, and that are willing to invest reasonably to bring players here, I don't think people should assume that would be a given.
|