I’ll always cheer for the Flames no matter what city they are in, even if they moved. Truth is, a new arena has to be built, or it’s likely they will be gone at some point. I’m currently not living in Calgary now, but may move back. If I was living in Calgary and they left, that will be a sad day, even if the city was to get a new franchise, eventually.
To have a city that is over a million people with no major professional sports team is not somewhere I’d want to be long term, as I like attending sporting events. Especially since I do not care about second or third tier leagues, hence, I don’t watch or follow any other local clubs. (Exception, Wranglers due to the Flames affiliation).
LOL, love the 'Mr. Big Time' attitude towards watching sports. "I can only enjoy or derive entertainment out of watching sports so long as other people acknowledge it as important enough or 'big league' enough to warrant my attention"
I recently moved to a mid-sized US city that has a AAA baseball team and an ECHL team that's less than an hour away from Detroit which has the full complement of North American professional sports teams. I find attending the local games are actually more fun than attending Flames/Red Wings games in person or attending games at most MLB venues. The quality of hockey / baseball is still really high (in fact in the ECHL the Give a S*&t meter is much higher for the players game in game out than the NHL), the games are packed, the Fans are engaged and the tickets are much cheaper. The only thing missing is that other people in bigger cities care about it or are aware of it. If you need that external validation to take pleasure in an activity than so be it, but from strictly a sports perspective it's not a requirement to have a good time.
It’s probably less to do with external validation of caring about your team as much as it is the fact that people want to watch the best.
The NHL has the best. This is known. So if you want to watch the best, you watch the NHL. That’s why so many kids are falling in love with the Oilers (shudder)- because of McDavid. People love to see what “the best” can do.
Notwithstanding the above, I agree with you that you can definitely get enjoyment by following minor league teams, and often the entertainment value is equal or better sometimes. Fully agree.
I like going to minor league sports just fine. But it’s just not the same. Plus, by nature, the players are more transient - they move up or out on a regular basis. So if you like the team because of its players, they’re gone in a couple years.
I like going to minor league sports just fine. But it’s just not the same. Plus, by nature, the players are more transient - they move up or out on a regular basis. So if you like the team because of its players, they’re gone in a couple years.
I don't follow baseball, but can someone explain why the Red Sox are content with having a 100+ year park to play in and there doesn't seem to be a threat of relocation? What is the reason the Saddledome can't be a hockey version of Fenway Park?
Let the Flames move to Atlanta or Houston. In the ashes of the team moving have the province / city figure out how to build a new arena. Get an expansion team and then watch them make the playoffs more reliably than the Flames. Process should take 5-10 years, which is probably the current ETA for a competitive team if we went full rebuild anyway!
I don't follow baseball, but can someone explain why the Red Sox are content with having a 100+ year park to play in and there doesn't seem to be a threat of relocation? What is the reason the Saddledome can't be a hockey version of Fenway Park?
The Saddledome is a huge piece of crap, with chunks of concrete falling off it.
A baseball stadium is a lot easier to upgrade. Generally, the design is far more open to begin with, that includes the concourse. Fenway has a large areas of the concourse that are multi-floored and just open girders. So you can swap out and upgrade the seats, dressing rooms, boxes, restaurants, etc.. a lot easier.
The Saddledome is a closed off concrete structure that's falling apart.
I don't follow baseball, but can someone explain why the Red Sox are content with having a 100+ year park to play in and there doesn't seem to be a threat of relocation? What is the reason the Saddledome can't be a hockey version of Fenway Park?
Fenway Park is an iconic landmark recognized as being part of the history and tradition of the game. The facility has been renovated a number of times, including this past year, with hope of extending its lifespan out another few decades, but even the most diehard fans recognize Fenway is coming to an end. The Saddledome is a dump and structurally unsound. It is literally falling apart and cannot be renovated without massive cost. There is no history or tradition behind the Saddledome. The closest comparison to what you're talking about would be the Forum in Montreal, and that facility was replaced for all the reasons the Saddledome needs to be replaced.
Fenway Park is an iconic landmark recognized as being part of the history and tradition of the game. The facility has been renovated a number of times, including this past year, with hope of extending its lifespan out another few decades, but even the most diehard fans recognize Fenway is coming to an end. The Saddledome is a dump and structurally unsound. It is literally falling apart and cannot be renovated without massive cost. There is no history or tradition behind the Saddledome. The closest comparison to what you're talking about would be the Forum in Montreal, and that facility was replaced for all the reasons the Saddledome needs to be replaced.
Yeah, if the Dome wasn't saddle shaped then maybe you could get away with doing a major renovation.
I really want to talk to whoever thought the saddle shape was a good idea. Even it didn't lead to the amount of events that pass it it buy, it's just way to kitchy in a bad ay.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
I'm so confused by some of the takes in here on the building, they are super baffling.
1. Murray should move the team, then the NHL will give us an expansion team and that owner will build the building themselves? At the estimated $684M for the project (which we all know will be higher), the pay back period on that investment based on Flames earnings is around 75 years...........why would that be different / more palatable for a new ownership group. Public partnership is still going to be needed for a different owner.
2. Get the owners out and the Province and City will figure out how to build this then attract a new owner? The the city is already getting enough heat for the original proposal of using public funds for half of this project (many people feel that number should be 0, as we know), why would having public funds pay for ALL of it all of a sudden be a reasonable option?
Losing hockey games sure does make people lose touch with reality doesn't it.
Last edited by Cleveland Steam Whistle; 04-20-2023 at 10:35 AM.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Cleveland Steam Whistle For This Useful Post:
The Flames are not going anywhere. If the Flames ownership can't get an arena deal done they will be forced to sell to another group that will. That is the way the NHL works under Bettman, there are plenty of suitors willing to buy the team and keep them in Calgary. Edwards can't just take his ball and go elsewhere, it doesn't work that way.
Yeah I can't see the NHL working so hard to keep a market like Arizona in the NHL while completely abandoning Calgary and poisoning the well so to speak. Even if Edwards finds a way to convince all the other shareholders to abandon ship, he's going to have to convince what is it, 17 other owners to pull out of a Canadian market with all the history and the Battle of Alberta and etc? No chance. The NHL and Edwards can talk big in order to gain some leverage, but in the end, the Flames are staying put and we'll get an arena one of these days.
The Following User Says Thank You to Classic_Sniper For This Useful Post:
Yeah I can't see the NHL working so hard to keep a market like Arizona in the NHL while completely abandoning Calgary and poisoning the well so to speak. Even if Edwards finds a way to convince all the other shareholders to abandon ship, he's going to have to convince what is it, 17 other owners to pull out of a Canadian market with all the history and the Battle of Alberta and etc? No chance. The NHL and Edwards can talk big in order to gain some leverage, but in the end, the Flames are staying put and we'll get an arena one of these days.
I mean, I don't really remember Bettman doing a whole lot to save the Nordiques. To his credit, he got us the salary cap that allowed most of the rest of the Canadian teams to survive (TOR and MTL didn't really need it), but fighting to keep teams in four cities (Ottawa, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver) is different than just fighting to keep a team in Calgary.
If this city doesn't want a new arena, then it doesn't want pro sports or marque concerts and events either. Can't see anyone fighting to keep an NHL team in a city like that.
I'm so confused by some of the takes in here on the building, they are super baffling.
1. Murray should move the team, then the NHL will give us an expansion team and that owner will build the building themselves? At the estimated $684M for the project (which we all know will be higher), the pay back period on that investment based on Flames earnings is around 75 years...........why would that be different / more palatable for a new ownership group. Public partnership is still going to be needed for a different owner.
2. Get the owners out and the Province and City will figure out how to build this then attract a new owner? The the city is already getting enough heat for the original proposal of using public funds for half of this project (many people feel that number should be 0, as we know), why would having public funds pay for ALL of it all of a sudden be a reasonable option?
Losing hockey games sure does make people lose touch with reality doesn't it.
This forum is unhinged right now. This season has hurt some a lot.
After a few weeks of settling down, the dramatics should dissipate.
I can't wait for a new arena deal to be down soon, and shovels actually in the ground. Then we can finally end this discussion about the Flames leaving for good; and pretend it'll be a good thing for this city. It's not happening.
The Following User Says Thank You to Joborule For This Useful Post:
I don't follow baseball, but can someone explain why the Red Sox are content with having a 100+ year park to play in and there doesn't seem to be a threat of relocation? What is the reason the Saddledome can't be a hockey version of Fenway Park?
Over the past 10 years renovations on Fenway have totalled about $300 million
If Calgary were such a great market the building would be sold out every night.
It isn’t.
Yes Calgary has grown. The building has stayed the same size. So, maybe Calgary isn’t as good a hockey market as people think it is. Based on the energy level of the crowds (they suck) and happiness generally of the fan base, personally I think Flames fans are amongst the lowest 1/3 of the NHL. This team gets not a ton of volume support and part of the teams home ice problem is the awkward tension of having an extremely judgmental and quiet fan base sit on their hands.
I just don’t think Flames fans or Calgarians should be patting themselves on the back so much. Like, honestly? Calgarians and Flames fans need to be better.
Guess every Canadian team in the NHL shouldn't be patting themselves on back either because none of them completely sell out every night. The Leafs and their giant population don't sell out 100%. The Jets can't even sell out their tiny arena. Even the mighty Oilers with their rabid fanbase, new building and generational superstar don't sell out every night. Actually, in terms of the sheer numbers, the terribly average Flames sold more tickets than the Oilers. We're doing just fine.
How many cities have expressed a desire for a team:
Houston, Atlanta, Quebec City, Portland, Kansas City, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toronto 2nd team (I have seen mentions of Salt Lake City, Jackson fla, and Indianapolis).
3 of those have modern arenas. How does CGY get to the top of that list?
Also, to get an expansion you need an ownership group with cash for A) the fee $650m USD and b) the Arena $500m USD. If I am a billionaire looking to get into the NHL and want any hope of increased franchise value I am going to Houston. CGY isn't on the list.
If there was a billionaire willing to get into the CGY market, they would just offer money to the current group.
Move the Flames back to Atlanta, get an expansion team that is contender ready. Yeah, let's make the NHL give us Bedard and force Fox to play here and strip the oil of 1st rd picks for three years while we are wishing.
I mean, I don't really remember Bettman doing a whole lot to save the Nordiques. To his credit, he got us the salary cap that allowed most of the rest of the Canadian teams to survive (TOR and MTL didn't really need it), but fighting to keep teams in four cities (Ottawa, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver) is different than just fighting to keep a team in Calgary.
If this city doesn't want a new arena, then it doesn't want pro sports or marque concerts and events either. Can't see anyone fighting to keep an NHL team in a city like that.
Bettman worked pretty hard to keep the Flames here back in the SOF days.
