Jump to content

Protestor

SeniorMembers
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    42

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Protestor

  1. The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread

    in Flames Talk

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, cross16 said:

     

    I agree to a point. The issues should be a separate debate because the clean should be done whether or not CalgaryNext gets built I agree there. However, to clean it up AND build CalgaryNext means you are now asking for a siginifance amount of public money PLUS using up a large chunk of what is very viable and likely pricey land the city could be selling to developers. The city has to decide do we pay for the cleanup, yes imo irregardless of CalgaryNext, then pay 100s of millions for the arena, and lose that land to a building they will own and make little money off of. That's why I think you have to consider the costs lumped together

     

    The opportunity cost of the land is certainly a very valid thing to consider - but it doesn't make the costs of cleanup assignable to the new stadium.

  2. The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread

    in Flames Talk

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

     

    Calgary Next put it into the proposal, if I remember correctly? That could also be what kills that project, business trying to tell govt how to do their job?

    Because it'd have to be done in order to build there. It'd be far worse to not include it - that'd come across as trying to hide the real costs of the project. But it's not like they're asking the city/province to pay for that part of the stadium - it's a cost they're already on the hook for.

  4. Flames Defense

    in Flames Talk

    Posted

    2 hours ago, robrob74 said:

     

    In the grand scheme of things, he is realistically/probably better anyone else in our system. So depth isn't quite there. Is Kulak better? Maybe at times he has shown signs. They signed him so that they'd have someone to expose for the expansion draft. 

     

    Overall, I think the D has looked better with both Stone and Bartkowski. I don't think he is the long term answer.  Our D is far from its final look... 

    I liked Jokipakka better than Bartkowski. I'm not saying we have a better choice right now, just that I don't think he's very good and I hope we find a replacement for him soon.

  5. Flames Defense

    in Flames Talk

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Kulstad said:

    What is it about him you don't like?  I haven't seen anything to excessively hate on him about, and think he's right where he should be....3rd-pairing D.

    He seems to be weak on both the puck and other players. Far too often I see him turn it over far too easily.

     

    But, like with all things of this variety, I figure the Flames' staff are far better at seeing this sort of thing than I am so if there's a problem they'll deal with it.

×
×
  • Create New...