lowest the flames have ever finished in regular season ?

[zelig]

What's the lowest the flames have ever finished in regular season ? And who was the coach , gm and president at the time

[Tyler]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997–98_NHL_season

[zelig]

Thanks ... I guess this will be the worst year ever for the team .... Sad

[kyuss275]

They have picked 6th 3 times. Once in 92- Cory Stillman, 97-Daniel Tzachuk and 98-Rico Fata

No idea who the mangagers were

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Tyler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997–98_NHL_season

That team had 3 OT losses that they did not get points for, so that would be 70 points today. That team also had 15 games where they would be in a shootout in today's NHL. This years team is far and away the worst Flames team ever.

[zelig]

What's surprising is the lack of action by the owners , I can't imagine owning something and paying out the level of funds required and getting these results .they must be choked ...

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by zelig

What's surprising is the lack of action by the owners , I can't imagine owning something and paying out the level of funds required and getting these results .they must be choked ...

When you are making the profits that the Flames are making you do not care.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

When you are making the profits that the Flames are making you do not care.

Can you back this up at all?

My understanding is that they are break-even or in the red without making the playoffs

[EddyBeers]

I have never ever seen a public source under the cap era where the Flames are losing money. Not sure where you got that understanding. Without rehashing months of lockout arguments, one can look at the Forbes numbers.

[puckluck2]

Knowing the Flames they'll make a magical run and end up in 9th.

[HPLovecraft]

Feaster is a good GM. He brought skill to the team. Being the worst Flames team in franchise history is a triviality.

[zelig]

Why is it trivial,I think it's a new historical low for the team ,and I believe that when you own something it must hurt to see it this bad

[zelig]

If I owned something ,a team or a store or a company and the management brought the worst results ever in the history of the asset ,I would have to do something ,how can being last be acceptable ?

[Vox]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

I have never ever seen a public source under the cap era where the Flames are losing money. Not sure where you got that understanding. Without rehashing months of lockout arguments, one can look at the Forbes numbers.

The Forbes numbers show the Flames making a million or two a year, if I recall correctly. Murray Edwards and Al Markin were making upwards of $10M a year each, just from CNRL. I presume they make a ton from other interests as well. Their fractional share of a couple million dollars is probably not material to them.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Vox

The Forbes numbers show the Flames making a million or two a year, if I recall correctly. Murray Edwards and Al Markin were making upwards of $10M a year each, just from CNRL. I presume they make a ton from other interests as well. Their fractional share of a couple million dollars is probably not material to them.

The Flames ownership group collectively is one of the wealthiest in the NHL.

However, historically, they have typically tried to run the team on a cash flow neutral basis while benefiting from capital appreciation of the potential re-sale price of the franchise.

Historically as well, they get very agitated when fans disappear and cash low drops into negative territory when the team is a prolonged loser. In that circumstance in the past, they've threatened to sell the team to another location. Ergo, their pact with fans seems to be: "We will reinvest the money you give us into players and operations provided you show up and bring money with you, no matter what happens."

They seem to be deeply scarred by the memories of the "Young Guns" era, as an example, and seem to have a deep distrust of any step back for rebuilding, hence this interminable and lengthy decline.

And now they will have to transition to a new building in the middle of a rebuilding phase, probably a far different scenario than they envisioned.

They will reap what they have sown.

Cowperson

[Vox]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

The Flames ownership group collectively is one of the wealthiest in the NHL.

However, historically, they have typically tried to run the team on a cash flow neutral basis while benefiting from capital appreciation of the potential re-sale price of the franchise.

Historically as well, they get very agitated when fans disappear and cash low drops into negative territory when the team is a prolonged loser. In that circumstance in the past, they've threatened to sell the team to another location. Ergo, their pact with fans seems to be: "We will reinvest the money you give us into players and operations provided you show up and bring money with you, no matter what happens."

They seem to be deeply scarred by the memories of the "Young Guns" era, as an example, and seem to have a deep distrust of any step back for rebuilding, hence this interminable and lengthy decline.

And now they will have to transition to a new building in the middle of a rebuilding phase, probably a far different scenario than they envisioned.

They will reap what they have sown.

Cowperson

I don't disagree. Where I disagree with Eddiebeers is that they are fine with losing because they are raking in cash.

In fact, I believe your argument supports my thinking. A successful and well run franchise should be worth a lot more than one that struggles year after year.

[t0rrent98]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

The Flames ownership group collectively is one of the wealthiest in the NHL.

However, historically, they have typically tried to run the team on a cash flow neutral basis while benefiting from capital appreciation of the potential re-sale price of the franchise.

Historically as well, they get very agitated when fans disappear and cash low drops into negative territory when the team is a prolonged loser. In that circumstance in the past, they've threatened to sell the team to another location. Ergo, their pact with fans seems to be: "We will reinvest the money you give us into players and operations provided you show up and bring money with you, no matter what happens."

They seem to be deeply scarred by the memories of the "Young Guns" era, as an example, and seem to have a deep distrust of any step back for rebuilding, hence this interminable and lengthy decline.

And now they will have to transition to a new building in the middle of a rebuilding phase, probably a far different scenario than they envisioned.

They will reap what they have sown.

Cowperson

IMO, that young gun era was probably due to poor drafting. If the Flames finally decided to one up the Oilers by rebuilding (probs not as long) with thier prospects and have a young fresh team to watch, i don't think it would be so bad. TBQH, I watch more Oilers games these days due to the fact that they are very exciting to watch.

Also, seeing as how this team is in a downward spiral, I am surprised the Dome is still packed. I'd much rather watch a young team with good/decent prospects give it their all every night than an old team that just doesn't seem to care much.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by t0rrent98

IMO, that young gun era was probably due to poor drafting. If the Flames finally decided to one up the Oilers by rebuilding (probs not as long) with thier prospects and have a young fresh team to watch, i don't think it would be so bad. TBQH, I watch more Oilers games these days due to the fact that they are very exciting to watch.

Also, seeing as how this team is in a downward spiral, I am surprised the Dome is still packed. I'd much rather watch a young team with good/decent prospects give it their all every night than an old team that just doesn't seem to care much.

The young guns era was caused by more then bad drafting. It was the out of control salary structure and terrible Canadian Dollar that forced this team to pretty much dump anyone who developed.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

The Flames ownership group collectively is one of the wealthiest in the NHL.

However, historically, they have typically tried to run the team on a cash flow neutral basis while benefiting from capital appreciation of the potential re-sale price of the franchise.

Historically as well, they get very agitated when fans disappear and cash low drops into negative territory when the team is a prolonged loser. In that circumstance in the past, they've threatened to sell the team to another location. Ergo, their pact with fans seems to be: "We will reinvest the money you give us into players and operations provided you show up and bring money with you, no matter what happens."

They seem to be deeply scarred by the memories of the "Young Guns" era, as an example, and seem to have a deep distrust of any step back for rebuilding, hence this interminable and lengthy decline.

And now they will have to transition to a new building in the middle of a rebuilding phase, probably a far different scenario than they envisioned.

They will reap what they have sown.

Cowperson

Yeah, if they are deeply scarred by the young guns era, that explains the schizo way they don't face the reality of what team management needs to do. The problem with that era was not only did they have a bad team but there was no hope to make a great team because once the players became good, we couldn't afford them. That isn't the case anymore and it's being proven in Edmonton.

As for the new arena, I believe new arenas give a team a few years of good attendance. Everybody likes the novelty and the positive vibes even with a bad team.