Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames

Mike_Oxlong

SeniorMembers
  • Content Count

    825
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

16 Good

About Mike_Oxlong

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. What's the perfect follow-up to signing Jagr? Signing Tanner Glass. One step forward, one step back!
  2. If they're going to invest in native inspired art (which the artist claims that it isn't, but we all know it is), why not have an artist from the Tsuu T'ina nation design something? For instance - take a look at this painting by Kalum Teke Dan (Blood Tribe). Wouldn't that be cooler embossed onto the embankment walls than the Bowfort Thing? Also, how about that Arena? I had an interesting discussion at lunch today about it.
  3. I wouldn't purchase a $5 share of that piece of $#!t. (Pardon my french) It's a $#@& embarrassment. Part of the problem with the "art" commission or whatever they call themselves, is that they only serve a specific genre of art form. There is an awful lot more to art than the ridiculously interpretive modern stuff. The giant blue hula hoop (Travelling $hite, I think it's called?) and Bowfort Travesty are a problem mainly because they completely lack in context. Personally, I love the art component to the Glenmore Trail project at Chinook Centre. Spawning Salmon adorn the sides of the highway walls, and is really cool! It's an awful lot easier to appreciate than a monumental piece of crap. So why couldn't the Bowfort project have been made to look like the Palliser expedition to the Rockies? Or perhaps something evocative of the CPR's transcontinental railway; maybe that one could've been a posthumous memorial to all the Chinese immigrants who were slaves in all but name in building that railroad? Just sayin' is all. Anyways, that rant is over so I also want to say that I like the idea of the donation to get your name on a memorial tile/plaque/wall for a new arena. I walk past Olympic Plaza almost daily and love seeing the names on the bricks there. Unfortunately the arena would be much less of a legacy project since these types of buildings have very limited lifespans, but the appeal remains.
  4. Well, when I mentioned the equity stake, the $500 investment would net me a millionth share. Thus an event that generated a million in net profit would earn me a dollar as part owner. That's over-simplifying but it's the gist of the idea.
  5. You raise a valid point! I had hoped that an option available to us would be to purchase shares in the arena. Thus private individuals could purchase an equity stake in the arena and raise funds for construction. Unfortunately this doesn't appear to be legal in Canada. I'd buy a $500 stake.
  6. So many people demonizing the Flames ownership group for walking away from discussions with the city but few people seem to have noted another group that did so just a day later. Arts group walks away from city negotiations to transform old planetarium. By no means am I suggesting that the circumstances are identical but I find it odd that two groups have broken off talks with the city within a day of each other. Nenshi has proven himself to be a divisive, arrogant prima donna, while accomplishing very little of note while in office. He launched his campaign with a grand vision of the East Village to which the Flames' responded; "not so fast." Suddenly the contemporary arts group also breaks off talks. What's really going on here and with the city? Is this Nenshi's directive to dig in his heels and pout until he gets his way as he did with the city's building industry? He certainly has a history of picking fights and pissing industries off. Certainly there's some middle ground to be reached and most of what I'm reading echoes what's going on in society at large nowadays, in that everyone loves to take extreme viewpoints. On one hand you have a vocal group claiming the Flames are trying to bilk Calgarians and that the owners should build it with their own money. The city has claimed that they're willing to pay a third of the cost but misrepresents the facts. They're not paying an third; they're fronting a third. The Flames claim that they'd prefer to have the facility be owned by the city (a la the Saddledome) and pay rent as the operators. Here's where it's blatantly obvious a middle ground must be reached. The problem with the city's proposal is that the Flames not only ultimately pay 100% of the cost; they also pay a lot of property tax in addition to a ticket surcharge pushing their investment to well over 100%. The problem with the Flames' proposal is that the city recoups their investment but loses out on a significant revenue source as regards the property tax. So where's the middle ground? I'm not opposed to the City truly paying for a third of the cost as there's significant public benefit to the new arena. The Flames should bear a third of the cost as they're the private industry that the facility most directly benefits. Lastly, there should be a user pay component which is already in the mix in the form of the ticket surcharge. Finally, the Flames should not get a free pass on property tax. Thus we have a middle ground. Can anyone propose a more fair way to divvy the costs? I'm not claiming to have the answer or even the best solution.
  7. Can anyone shed some light on why Kylington isn't at the prospect tourney? I've done some digging but laziness overcame me and I thought I would just ask.
  8. Yep, I think I saw that about half an hour after my post. I think barring the potential resignings of Versteeg and Stone, we likely have our opening night roster in place. I doubt we see much in the way of further trades as we've expended most of our capital.
  9. So in preparation for that possibility, does anyone think a Brouwer for Niemi deal could be done straight up? Neither one has any trade value and Niemi is UFA at the end of the year. Dallas needs to dump a goalie sooner rather than later and with our D, he'd have a decent season in spite of himself.
  10. So out of several D-men below, how would you all rank them in terms of priority target with the assumption that the price is reasonable? (I.e. No giving up 2, 1st rounders for Hamonic) What would you offer for each? Anyone else that we should consider? Travis Hamonic Marco Scandella Jason Demers Brayden McNabb Brendan Smith (UFA) Michael Stone (UFA) Kris Russell (LOL)
  11. Ha! That's hilarious. That's what I get for not scratching beyond the surface.
  12. For the sake of objectivity, you're right; long-term has to come under consideration as well. That said, what were the factors that led to such an alarming drop-off? Everyone has an off-year, right? For the price of two first-rounders, I'm still looking elsewhere first.
  13. I would argue that we need more puck-moving d-men. The reason that we got bottled up in our own zone so often was our pathetic failure to clear our own zone with any sort of competence. Particularly from Bartkowski and Engelland.
  14. Interesting blog on Flames Nation by Ari today on Hamonic. I like the analysis and get the sense that Hamonic is much like Alzner in that he has appeal due to reputation rather than fact. Hamonic seems like a Kris Russell type of d-man, sans shot-blocking ability. in other words, "Nothing to see here!" Nope.
  15. I completely agree! I like McNabb and his excellent advanced stats. Forgot all about him!
×
×
  • Create New...