Is Ownership a part of the problem?

[Otto-matic]

Is our ownership group a problem? Are they just happy with the constant mediocre teams that have been assembled in Calgary?

Maybe we need local owners who care about the success of the team.

[the-rasta-masta]

I don't think so. They commit to spending to the cap for us since its inception.

[TheSquatch]

I don't know the current mandate to GMs.

But when Sutter was GM the mandate was "Make the playoffs."

When Feaster took over, the new mandate was "Make the playoffs."

So I mean.... if that's the mandate, this team looks like this forever.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by TheSquatch

I don't know the current mandate to GMs.

But when Sutter was GM the mandate was "Make the playoffs."

When Feaster took over, the new mandate was "Make the playoffs."

So I mean.... if that's the mandate, this team looks like this forever.

I think that is the minimum requirement. They want deep playoff runs because that's where they make money.

They don't spend to the cap to stay mediocre. LOL

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

I don't think so. They commit to spending to the cap for us since its inception.

This is one element, but there are other things that aren't clear.

What is the budget the team operates to for non roster expenses and positions.
What are the expectations and goals they set for the team? Are they demanding to make the playoffs? How long did they set as a reasonable timeline for the re-build.

The reality is we don't know. But I don't think spending to the cap necessarily means they aren't part of the problem

[Manhattanboy]

No. They are committed to keeping the team in Calgary, to a new arena constructed and completed on time (in a bastardized year when revenues are way down) and are spending to the cap.

[PugnaciousIntern]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

I don't think so. They commit to spending to the cap for us since its inception.

Some random posters on CP have alluded to ownership reluctance to paying for things outside of the cap, such as coaching. I get where that theory comes from - we seem to have a carousel of low-tier coaches. But that doesn't make a lot of sense. I doubt that they would be so willing to pay players but not a coach. Perhaps it's just not an attractive place to attract the high tier coaches.

[stone hands]

i think the mandate is


"make money", and they are an nhl team in canada


i dont think they care too much since its basically a license to print money. see: 30 years of medicore to badness as an organization in every respect from the front office, to the product on the ice, to the concessions, to the swag, to the inbetween period entertainment, everything


do the absolute bare minimum(spend to the cap, i would hope an ownership group of multiple billionaires who run a team that has filled out its arena for like 15 years can do that) and people think you're commited. sheesh


the only time the franchise has really had any balls is when ken king veily threatened to move the team if we didnt give them more money for existing

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

No. They are committed to keeping the team in Calgary, to a new arena constructed and completed on time (in a bastardized year when revenues are way down) and are spending to the cap.

Basically this. Owning an NHL team in a small Canadian market I'm sure isn't a barrel of laughs but money talks and our ownership pays up every year. They also don't meddle and generally let the GM do their job, besides big dollar stuff that every owner needs to get brought it on.

The one quibble I would have with them is that there does appear to be a pattern of not wanting to pay for high quality coaches, but that could also be a Treliving thing too. The Sutter brothers werent that cheap. I personally think we're lucky to have them, would people rather have Aquallini owning this team? Or Katz? Or Dolan? Or whatever plug owns the coyotes?

[madmike]

Yes they are part of the problem. Sure they spend money. But they are opposed to tanking - which is how most teams get the players they need to win actual Stanley Cups (Oilers are obviously an exception).

If you’re dedicated to icing a consistently mediocre team, you’re going to get consistently mediocre results.

[TheSquatch]

Spending to the cap isn't the issue, trying to make the playoffs every year and never have a full rebuild is the issue. It means you finish mid pack, draft mid pack, and stay mid pack.

Monahan is our best player. And he's not as good as other teams' best players. Not Monahan's fault. But the Flames don't have a legit superstar, and it's because they haven't had a chance to draft one. Because they stay mediocre, because the mandate is "do what you need to to make the playoffs this year".

[N-E-B]

The only thing I know for sure is that they allow us to spend to the cap every year (including this year). I tend to lean towards no. I think it’s unfair to come to conclusions that they won’t pay a good coach based on nothing but speculation.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by stone hands

i think the mandate is


"make money", and they are an nhl team in canada


i dont think they care too much since its basically a license to print money. see: 30 years of medicore to badness as an organization in every respect from the front office, to the product on the ice, to the concessions, to the swag, to the inbetween period entertainment, everything


do the absolute bare minimum(spend to the cap, i would hope an ownership group of multiple billionaires who run a team that has filled out its arena for like 15 years can do that) and people think you're commited. sheesh


the only time the franchise has really had any balls is when ken king veily threatened to move the team if we didnt give them more money for existing

Except that the Flames don't make profits, they are a break even or loss team.

They spend within their means.

[mikephoen]

I have little doubt they're a big part of the problem. They held onto Iginla and the old core too long, rather than start a rebuild when it was pretty obvious it was time. Then the team tried to accelerate out of the rebuild too quickly. Every regime since Sutter has echoed the same 'just get in and anything can happen' rhetoric. Then there is the bizarre bargain bin coaching carousel where there are clearly better coaches available. Even Treliving started out as a bargain bin GM hire. Sure, they spent on Burke for a few years, but then they reversed course on having a GM and PoHO once Treliving needed a new contract.

Sure, they spend to the cap, but if they didn't do at least that they never would have got enough support to get a new building. Getting the new building was the endgame I think. Where they go from here is anyone's guess.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by madmike

Yes they are part of the problem. Sure they spend money. But they are opposed to tanking - which is how most teams get the players they need to win actual Stanley Cups (Oilers are obviously an exception).

If you’re dedicated to icing a consistently mediocre team, you’re going to get consistently mediocre results.

Well I don't think you'd want an ownership that purposefully plans for tanking. Isn't that what we all made fun of the oilers for? Now we wish did it too?

Also they did give the greenlight to rebuild, which cost them money and a franchise icon in Iginla. It's not their fault that a bunch of teams outsucked us in 2013 and we missed on MacKinnon, or that the 2014 draft class and Bennet kinda busted. The plan was to still rebuild in 2015 but was anyone complaining when we made the playoffs? That we weren't tanking hard enough?

I see an ownership group that spends to the cap when we go for it, and gives the greenlight to rebuild. Our rebuild ran out of steam, we didn't get the elite talent we needed. It happens, I don't see how that's ownership's fault. For every Chicago or Pittsburgh there are rebuilds that don't work out like Arizona or Buffalo. Or Edmonton. We just didn't get there, some of that is on drafting but honestly most of it is just crappy luck. I still remember 2013 hoping all these other loser franchises that had already picked high recently like Colorado and Nash and TB would figure it out but they didn't, if we had grabbed MacKinnon this whole operation would be different now.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

Except that the Flames don't make profits, they are a break even or loss team.



They spend within their means.

Does anyone really believe that? And the value of the team has gone up, what, 10 times in the last 20 years? Pro sports teams are toys for the egos of billionaires.

[Mightyfire89]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

Except that the Flames don't make profits, they are a break even or loss team.

They spend within their means.

Hmmmmm...I’d have to see some actual numbers to believe this.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Basically this. Owning an NHL team in a small Canadian market I'm sure isn't a barrel of laughs but money talks and our ownership pays up every year. They also don't meddle and generally let the GM do their job, besides big dollar stuff that every owner needs to get brought it on.

The one quibble I would have with them is that there does appear to be a pattern of not wanting to pay for high quality coaches, but that could also be a Treliving thing too. The Sutter brothers werent that cheap. I personally think we're lucky to have them, would people rather have Aquallini owning this team? Or Katz? Or Dolan? Or whatever plug owns the coyotes?

Agreed, they are a smart, stable and established ownership group with a long history in this town, and have set up and donated huge dollars to many charities including the Flames Foundation and the Libin Cardiovascular Institute at the Foothills Hospital. To that extent we as Calgarians are very lucky.

I feel badly for Mr. Libin, who is 90 or near 90, with failing eyesight, and I know this Covid year has been really hard on him. Would love to see a cup run for him and the others, but unfortunately that seems like a distant dream.

[nik-]

Squeak in, get the revenue bump. No real push to really win it. A demonstrated lack of willingness to hire the big fish coach. Mostly in the hands of one guy whose probably got twenty more years of owning it. They're a part of the problem and now that we handed them a bunch of tax money to increase their asset value it won't change.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by chedder

Does anyone really believe that? And the value of the team has gone up, what, 10 times in the last 20 years? Pro sports teams are toys for the egos of billionaires.

That's one way to look at it.

$16m in 1980 to $400m now. Most good investments would beat that.

The people that brought this team to Calgary have done a lot more public service than anyone on this forum, maybe more than all of us put together.