travel_dude

How's the reno on the bandwagon going? Probably have some ex-Nucks posing as Flames fans so they can cheer for a team. I hope we don't have to drag around that trailer again. Perhaps we can park it next to Rogers in EDM and just leave it there. People will probably pay big bucks to live close by.

Since the dome can get as quiet as a library at times, perhaps they could pour in 250m into an arena that has an attached library. I wonder how many Calgarians use a library in the space of a year?

What a mess. Not you. The situation. Instead of talking hockey, we are drawn back into a debate about who pays for something that should benefit both parties. I hated the look of the Next proposal. See-thru roofs? Come on. I liked the idea of building an arena away from the current location. Not sure how it's an improvement to move it a few blocks away. What does the design look like? Some random cube? The dome is iconic. Should be something unique if you want to sell the idea in the form of an Olympic bid. Or at least have a design that is modern enough that there is easy access to the cheap seats (ARI has escalators) and enough bathrooms that you don't need to wear depends. Maybe building a rink near a Stampede park doesn't make a lot of sense. Pretty bad that the rink was 1/2 submerged in dirty water only a few years ago and the push to get it built is still mired in mud. What should have been resolved years ago somehow had to wait till after the election. It was put off to prevent it from being a reason to vote for/vote against the current council. Now it's become part of the campaign. I would hate for Neshi to win just because the public turned sour with King. Then again Nenshi is only part of the council that sat on this. I didn't mean to post about the topic, but I really don't like the situation. It would be nice to see a game in a shiny new arena. Nobody wants to see an increase in taxes, but they will happen anyway. Building things employ people. Employed people spend money. Employed people pay taxes. I'm not going to support ether side in this. Both are hypocritical.

The debate over the cost of the Next proposal comes down to the cost of the cleanup. The Flames say one thing and the city says closer to $1B. Oh well, no point in discussing the cost of a cleanup effort that doesn't want to be tackled. I'm going to sit out the rest of this debate of use of public funds. If the city wants the arena built, they will come to the table. Same holds true for the Flames. One side of the facts are out, so there isn't any point on coming down on one side right now.

I don't know if you classify a contribution that is totally paid back through tax and other benefits as paying a 1/3 of the cost. Nenshi has not shared the amount that would be coming back, but said that it would more than cover the investment. He used a hypothetical amount of $5m. It's all perspective I guess. Anyway, I am opposed to there being no willingness to get a deal done by either side. Willingness has to be willing to budge, which neither side seems to be displaying. The unfortunate thing to all of this is that it doesn't give as much benefit to eith side that the original proposal would have. Clean up an environmental disaster in your city, provide a field house, and allow for two venues to be combined into one.

When you have two sides so far apart, how are you able to negotiate? The city has maintained all along that they would only do a deal that worked for both sides, but their position is 100% private payment. A loan that has to be paid back is still a loan. I don't see where the city has budged at all. I see both sides as being too stubborn to budge at all. CSEC wants some investment in the building, while Cagary does not want to pay any of that. I know it's not that simple, but the concepts are where the divide is. Some vs none.

I sit corrected. What I had heard was that it wasn't just principal. I think that one of the sticking points is that the ticket surcharge was already part of the Flames revenue. So they would have to forgo that to have a new one, and use that entirely on the cost of the arena. If I understand it correctly, that is basically asking the fans for more money so that the arena can be paid for by the team.

The city proposal suggests that the city has no investment in the arena other than taking out a loan and getting repaid. How do you make a big for the Olympics for an arena that has no public ownership whatsoever? Speaking of the Olympics - isn't the benefit for hosting one of these outweighed by the cost? Even if the city has no involvement in the arena funding, the cost of security and other required investment would sink the city in debt. Economists often bring up the lack of benefit of public funds spent on sports teams, but somehow that goes out the window when an Olympic bid is considered. Somewhere between the two sides is a solution. Perhaps the Flames ownership can build an office tower and lease the space back to the city as a concession.

I have to ask this because I am not fully understanding the city's "offer". In effect the city is paying nothing for the new arena as a backstop to the revitilization of the area around the proposed site. There will be an investment in the area for the other projects. There will be new restaurants etc. So, the city pays upfront towards the cost of building it, by the way of loans that the CSEC has to pay back starting at once. The Flames pay 1/3. The ticket levy pays for another 3rd. What exactly is the city paying for with the new arena? I see nothing. Is that the jist of it?

The notion was that they tried to change Lack's game from where his strengths were. We shall see

I'm not sure of the funding model for this, but I imagine there is "public" money. Do you have any details on it?

As a comparable venture, I am including the EDM funding: https://www.edmonton.ca/projects_plans/rogers_place/the-agreement.aspx Specifically, the funding for the Arena: Funding for Rogers Place Rogers Place is being built for $483.5 million, including underground parking. The Katz Group is paying $132.5-million. $112.8-million of their contribution will be paid to the City as rent over 35 years, and cover the City’s principal and interest costs. The remaining $19.7-million will be paid as cash. The City of Edmonton’s contribution of $226-million to the arena building includes funding through a Community Revitalization Levy, new parking revenues, and redirecting the current Rexall Place subsidy. $125-million will be collected through a ticket surcharge.

I don't think you can really call it negotiation. Nenshi put the arena as part of his election platform. That is now dead. Pretty poor political move to have no talks with the Flames since July and talk about an arena as part of your platform. As bad as King looks, the mayor looks like a liar.

Yes, I was going to post the link, but it was just audio and had no URL other than the main TSN hockey site. Great discussion of the team, the prospects, the challenge for spots.... Jagr is denied, but in the same breath he says he doesn't discuss things before they happen. Then he says there won't be anything big. Should be a politician.

I think Stone is a bit of a project. A long term one, in case Hamonic doesn't stay beyond the three years. Stone had a down year, but could become a true top 4 on this team in the future. I'm all for draft picks, but not every pick is a gong to be a homerun for a given team. For every Dvorak, there is a Jimmy Hayes. I wanted to draft Debrincat, but CHI took him after our pick traded to STL. But, I am happy with Parsons, Dube and Fox.

Would you have freaked out if the Flames selected a Russian with a year in the MHL? Probably. How about a player with 33 games n the OHL and 13 points? Probably. Demko could easily be the far better goalie, but he played behind a Johnny Hockey team in his rookie season. Year one in the AHL, he was less than spectacular. No point in looking at the 2016 draft picks, since only a handful has played any NHL at all. Raddysh and Dube are both prospects with zero NHL experience.

Here's a little piece about Pribyl, if you like: https://flamesnation.ca/2017/08/09/flamesnation-top-20-prospects-18-daniel-pribyl/

Let me put it this way. If Poirier is making the team as a 3rd line RW, then Lazar is fighting it out for a spot in the lineup. The T-B-P line would only happen if Poirier can beat out Lazar for a spot. Unfortunately, we have prospects that are waiver eligible (Shinkaruk, Poirier and Lazar). Lazar has a leg up based on experience. Both Poirier and Shinkaruk were costly to obtain, so losing either would sting. Any of them could be effective NHL players.

I would think Janko is better off on the 4th line with Stajan playing LW and maybe Brouwer. He can learn there. I am thinking that a line of Tkachuk-Bennett-Poirier might be something to consider, assuming that Poirier shows what he did in Dev Camp. Three known agitators. None afraid to go to the net. Greasy goals would abound. I'm saying that because I think Poirier is suited for RW. If he makes the team over someone like Foo.

It's true that we have less depth on the RD side. But it's also true that that side is where the Flames organization is most stacked with young NHL players. Hammy, Hamonic, Stone. Prospect-wise, there is just Andersson and Fox. But those two are the next wave and will have trouble breaking the NHL lineup for the next 3 years if ready. I am less concerned about depth as much as high-end depth. Valimaki-Kylington (LD) and Andersson-Fox (RD) does not leave me concerned about either. Having a lack of high-end forwards on the farm is more concerning to me. Our top prospects are playing in the NHL or should be. There are a few guys like Mangiapane, Poirier, Shink and Klimchuk that could step into a bottom 6 role, but I'm not convinced yet they are NHL level. That's not a lot of forward depth of high-end prospects.

We learned thru the BH firing how important it is for the coach to be on the same page. BT's going to have a big say on who's left on the roster come October. The where is for sure up to Gully. The only downside to that is that BT may not want to have Stajan or Brouwer healthy scratched, deserving or not. It will be interesting to see that dynamic this year.

Now you're talking. You could even alternate Foo with Ferland, just by switching Frolik to LW. He could well be a top 6 player out of the gate. I have no problem with Ferlie on Backlund's line. He provides a similar skillset to Tkachuk. And I happen to think that Janko would push Stajan to LW or pressbox. It just makes so much sense. Versteeg can fill in Lazar's spot sometimes or Brouwer's or Stajan's. I think we may see Freddie sent to the AHL this season. They need centers. The 14th F can be Hathaway and Gazdic alternating. Play Gazdic to fight Bollig or Lucic or Kassian. He's not a huge liability on the ice, but he doesn't need to play more than a dozen games.

TBH, I don't know if Smith is any better than Elliott or Mason. Elliott lost the confidence of the GM, or at least they weren't confident that he could play 50+ games consistently. He would have cost a 3rd. Mason would have cost nothing and is close to Smith in most regards. What I don't get is why they made the trade when they made it. The pick is from 2018 anyway, so the only asset that was expiring was Johnson. ARI could have just exposed Smith over CJ. Waiting till FA started might have given us time to look at other options or possibly reducing the cost. I'm not sold on Smith, but if he can give us a win in game 1 and our first home game, I will be very happy. When was the last time we had wins in those two situations?

Flames have signed both Rittich and Gillies to one-year, 2-way deals. Aaron Vickers‏ @AAVickers #Flames announce signings of goaltenders David Rittich and Jon Gillies to one-year, two-way contracts.