Did Bettman try and save the Jets?

Ismellofhockey

Registered User
Mar 31, 2002
2,843
0
Visit site
That writer is naive, not to mention full of BS. He (and presumably you) are expecting new markets to behave the same as markets that are 40+ years old.


You do realize that people outside of your little "approved hockey areas" also love hockey, do you not?

First of all no, he's not, and that's the point. New markets behave differently than older markets: they are attracted by the novelty, which boosts attendance short term but in the long run, when the team isn't winning, they're no better than the original market whence the team came from and perhaps even worse. All of a sudden you've got a market alienated by the departure of their team and a market that's criticized for not foaming at the mouth at the thought of hockey.

I dislike the argument that cities don't deserve their team for the main reason that in every NHL city there's a good group of fans that have bought into hockey 100% and they're no different in Phoenix than they are in Winnipeg.
The problem comes from the bitterness of fans in a market that lost their team seeing the new market perform marginally better.
IMO the true lesson to be learned from that is not that Phoenix doesn't deserve a team nor that Winnipeg didn't deserve theirs but that Phoenix didn't deserve Winnipeg's team.

Corporate sponsorship and new arenas have changed the NHL for better or worse which makes comparing Phoenix and Winnipeg in different decades very complicated
however, when I look at the Minnesota Wild's attendance in comparison to the North Stars', I figure Winnipeg's attendance in today's NHL would be similar to Edmonton's. Winnipeg certainly deserves a team, hopefully though it won't be at Phoenix or another city's expense this time.

There's no reason to argue against the fact that there are fewer NHL fans per capita in Phoenix than in Winnipeg (the # of rinks argument) but that doesn't mean there are fewer NHL fans in Phoenix in absolute numbers due to the size of the city.
So unless you're going to quantify scientifically how much those fans in Phoenix care about their team in comparison to Winnipeg Jets fans, I don't see how anyone can argue that Phoenix doesn't deserve a team based on the lack of hockey exposure in Arizona.

The best argument I can find right now against Phoenix is the lack of coverage be it TV or print that the Coyotes are enduring. However, the fact they attract 16000 fans despite that becomes even more impressive, so I guess there are different ways of being successful in the NHL depending on what your market is.



As a side note, Marcel Aubut did receive an offer from Jacques Parizeau and the PQ government but reports say he didn't want to allow the separatist governement to be the saviours of the team fearing they could use it as political leverage. Whether that's true or not...
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
I figure Winnipeg's attendance in today's NHL would be similar to Edmonton's.

There is no basis whatsoever to assume that, particularly through comparing the Wild's attendance to the North Star's attendance. That is the same market. Winnipeg is 800 miles - a 14 hour drive - from Edmonton.
 

jamiebez

Registered User
Apr 5, 2005
4,025
327
Ottawa
Winnipeg (and Hartford, I might add) are failed NHL markets. If people do not support the product with their dollars in a market, it is a failed market. That is a bitter pill to swallow, but that is what it is. Now one can argue whether circumstances are changed since those failures such as would warrant a diferent outcome, but the markets failed, and they have been moved to markets which are empirically demonstrated to contain more souls who will plunk down their money to attend the product.
I've underlined the part of your post that I think is relative to this ongoing, neverending debate.

Obviously the Phoenix market in 2007 (or even in 1997, for that matter) is a better market than Winnipeg was in 1996. No one can logically debate that, as you've stated - Winnipeg failed as a market in 1996. This is historical fact.

But it's the hypothetical argument that the Winnipeg NHL market in 2007 is better than the Phoenix NHL market in 2007 that keeps the debate going. And it probably always will, because despite the plethora of statistics in this thread on population, attendance, number of arenas, number of Fortune 500 companies, etc - it is a hypothetical argument. The potential of the Winnipeg NHL market in 2007 and beyond has yet to be evaluated in any fashion that will convince people on either side of the argument of its viability.

The viability of almost any market is far from a yes-or-no question, and it's that grey area that always keeps this debate alive. And honestly, passions seem to run deep enough on either side of this argument that I doubt it will be settled anytime soon.
 

razorsedge

Registered User
Oct 19, 2006
5,142
4,565
Winnipeg (and Hartford, I might add) are failed NHL markets. If people do not support the product with their dollars in a market, it is a failed market. That is a bitter pill to swallow, but that is what it is. Now one can argue whether circumstances are changed since those failures such as would warrant a diferent outcome, but the markets failed, and they have been moved to markets which are empirically demonstrated to contain more souls who will plunk down their money to attend the product.

.

:shakehead
Your right out to lunch buddy.

First of all no, he's not, and that's the point. New markets behave differently than older markets: they are attracted by the novelty, which boosts attendance short term but in the long run, when the team isn't winning, they're no better than the original market whence the team came from and perhaps even worse. All of a sudden you've got a market alienated by the departure of their team and a market that's criticized for not foaming at the mouth at the thought of hockey.

I dislike the argument that cities don't deserve their team for the main reason that in every NHL city there's a good group of fans that have bought into hockey 100% and they're no different in Phoenix than they are in Winnipeg.
The problem comes from the bitterness of fans in a market that lost their team seeing the new market perform marginally better.
IMO the true lesson to be learned from that is not that Phoenix doesn't deserve a team nor that Winnipeg didn't deserve theirs but that Phoenix didn't deserve Winnipeg's team.

Corporate sponsorship and new arenas have changed the NHL for better or worse which makes comparing Phoenix and Winnipeg in different decades very complicated
however, when I look at the Minnesota Wild's attendance in comparison to the North Stars', I figure Winnipeg's attendance in today's NHL would be similar to Edmonton's. Winnipeg certainly deserves a team, hopefully though it won't be at Phoenix or another city's expense this time.

There's no reason to argue against the fact that there are fewer NHL fans per capita in Phoenix than in Winnipeg (the # of rinks argument) but that doesn't mean there are fewer NHL fans in Phoenix in absolute numbers due to the size of the city.
So unless you're going to quantify scientifically how much those fans in Phoenix care about their team in comparison to Winnipeg Jets fans, I don't see how anyone can argue that Phoenix doesn't deserve a team based on the lack of hockey exposure in Arizona.

The best argument I can find right now against Phoenix is the lack of coverage be it TV or print that the Coyotes are enduring. However, the fact they attract 16000 fans despite that becomes even more impressive, so I guess there are different ways of being successful in the NHL depending on what your market is.



As a side note, Marcel Aubut did receive an offer from Jacques Parizeau and the PQ government but reports say he didn't want to allow the separatist governement to be the saviours of the team fearing they could use it as political leverage. Whether that's true or not...

Very intelligent and very neutral. All bitterness aside, I have to agree with outlook.

Alot of bitterness for myself is where the team was located to. The American Desert? Where the fan base has been mediocre, is a slap in the face. If the team had been moved to say Minnesota, I think it would have made more sense.

Winnipeg wasn't a failed market. 13,000 fans? yes thats lousy. The team needed a new arena. If a new arena was built (something around 17,000), Attendance would have shot up a few thousand easy. Unfortunately I have no hard proof of this of course, but living in Winnipeg during that time, that was pretty much how everybody felt, even the casual fan that never bought a ticket.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
:shakehead
Your right out to lunch buddy.

Nice.

Winnipeg wasn't a failed market. 13,000 fans? yes thats lousy. The team needed a new arena. If a new arena was built (something around 17,000), Attendance would have shot up a few thousand easy. Unfortunately I have no hard proof of this of course, but living in Winnipeg during that time, that was pretty much how everybody felt, even the casual fan that never bought a ticket.

How "everyone" felt. Uh huh.

Your position would have at least an air of reality if the Jets sold out consistently. If they could not sell out a 14,000 seat arena, why in God's name would they sell more seats? I know, I know, the Jets arena was terrible, etc, etc. Apparently Jets fans had to be in a state of the art arena in order to show up in numbers (and hypothetically at that, mind you). Yet they get labeled as fantastic fans who "live and breathe hockey". I am sure that was true for the 12-14k who showed up consistently, that's for sure, same as for the 15-16k who show up nightly for the Coyotes. Beyond that, anyone who suggests otherwise is talking out of their hat. I am sick of my own countrymen giving free passes to markets like Winnipeg just because they are in Canada and therefore must be hockey-mad.

If the Jets had built an arena where everyone sat on comfy couches and were fed grapes by Playboy bunnies, they probably would have drawn 17k a night, who knows. Speculation like that is no more or less valid than the speculation in which you engaged.
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
How "everyone" felt. Uh huh.

Your position would have at least an air of reality if the Jets sold out consistently. If they could not sell out a 14,000 seat arena, why in God's name would they sell more seats? I know, I know, the Jets arena was terrible, etc, etc. Apparently Jets fans had to be in a state of the art arena in order to show up in numbers (and hypothetically at that, mind you). Yet they get labeled as fantastic fans who "live and breathe hockey". I am sure that was true for the 12-14k who showed up consistently, that's for sure, same as for the 15-16k who show up nightly for the Coyotes. Beyond that, anyone who suggests otherwise is talking out of their hat. I am sick of my own countrymen giving free passes to markets like Winnipeg just because they are in Canada and therefore must be hockey-mad.

If the Jets had built an arena where everyone sat on comfy couches and were fed grapes by Playboy bunnies, they probably would have drawn 17k a night, who knows. Speculation like that is no more or less valid than the speculation in which you engaged.

We have something in common. I am sick of my own countrymen giving free passes to markets like Phoenix just because they are in the United States and have large populations so they therefore must/will be financially viable.

Minnesota sure seemed to get better fan attendance with the new Xcel Center for the Wild, so a new arena does make a difference when a team is in a hockey market.and when winnipeg is selling out world junior exhibition games and selling out crappy nhl exhibition games, yeah ... i'd say it's pretty hockey mad .
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
We have something in common. I am sick of my own countrymen giving free passes to markets like Phoenix just because they are in the United States and have large populations so they therefore must/will be financially viable.

Minnesota sure seemed to get better fan attendance with the new Xcel Center for the Wild, so a new arena does make a difference when a team is in a hockey market.and when winnipeg is selling out world junior exhibition games and selling out crappy nhl exhibition games, yeah ... i'd say it's pretty hockey mad .
Your one-note-ponydom is noted.

Suffice to say it is one thing to attend relatively inexpensive junior hockey games (where national pride is at stake) or NHL exhibitions (where it is one game only and you know it is your only chance) and another thing entirely to support a team 41 times a year, which includes coming out for a nothing game against a last-place team in mid-January.
 

EpochLink

Canucks and Jets fan
Aug 1, 2006
59,493
15,327
Vancouver, BC
As I recall, a couple of business people downtown wanted to build a new arena at the forks site in Winnipeg when the debate was brought up in 1989. As for me, I used to live in Winnipeg but now I reside in Calgary...anyways, that plan fizzled and city hall decided not to grant the peoples wishes for a new arena...instead they built some god awful shopping complex downtown called Portage Place to this day is the BIGGEST WASTE OF 80 MILLION DOLLARS of tax money...

IMO, the city of Winnipeg and the fans took advantage of the Jets claiming they wont leave the city and will be there forever, well when the Jets were up for sale in 1995 people started to show up and yell out "Save the Jets" at Portage and Main...its sad to see a city come up at the last minute to save the franchise..they had time to build one and lots of time between the timeline of mid 1980's and 1995 to come up with a viable plan for the team but Winnipeg was in a total hole in the 1990's...

Now some idiot built a website and praying for a team to move there..like that guy could do anything, all he does it ***** and complain and he makes me feel embarrassed that I was ever a Winnipeger :shakehead
 

hexrae

Registered User
Jun 29, 2006
1,602
11
Peg City
Now some idiot built a website and praying for a team to move there..like that guy could do anything, all he does it ***** and complain and he makes me feel embarrassed that I was ever a Winnipeger :shakehead

I agree that this city is Pejorative Slured at times but I don't get your apparent hatred for this guy and his website. Someone needs to be at one end of the spectrum since there's more than enough naysayers at the other end.

I question I have for everyone. Putting relocation/expansion issues aside, what is your problem with hockey in Winnipeg? We've all heard the corporate support, arena size and population arguments already, anything else?
 

razorsedge

Registered User
Oct 19, 2006
5,142
4,565
As I recall, a couple of business people downtown wanted to build a new arena at the forks site in Winnipeg when the debate was brought up in 1989. As for me, I used to live in Winnipeg but now I reside in Calgary...anyways, that plan fizzled and city hall decided not to grant the peoples wishes for a new arena...instead they built some god awful shopping complex downtown called Portage Place to this day is the BIGGEST WASTE OF 80 MILLION DOLLARS of tax money...

I agree with this 100%, my only regret is I wasn't old enough to understand what was going on.

IMO, the city of Winnipeg and the fans took advantage of the Jets claiming they wont leave the city and will be there forever, well when the Jets were up for sale in 1995 people started to show up and yell out "Save the Jets" at Portage and Main...its sad to see a city come up at the last minute to save the franchise..they had time to build one and lots of time between the timeline of mid 1980's and 1995 to come up with a viable plan for the team but Winnipeg was in a total hole in the 1990's...

Yep, I honestly believed the Jets would never leave. Again I wasn't old enough to know any better or understand the business side of the NHL. Yep, Winnipeg did seem to be going through a depression like state during the 90's.

Now some idiot built a website and praying for a team to move there..like that guy could do anything, all he does it ***** and complain and he makes me feel embarrassed that I was ever a Winnipeger :shakehead

Thats a little harsh. I'm a regular and a supporter of that website. What Darren (website owner) says is all true from a Canadian/Winnipeger hockey fan side of things. There's nothing wrong with having hope for an NHL return, especially now when it's possible.
 

razorsedge

Registered User
Oct 19, 2006
5,142
4,565
I agree that this city is Pejorative Slured at times but I don't get your apparent hatred for this guy and his website. Someone needs to be at one end of the spectrum since there's more than enough naysayers at the other end.

I question I have for everyone. Putting relocation/expansion issues aside, what is your problem with hockey in Winnipeg? We've all heard the corporate support, arena size and population arguments already, anything else?


Thats what I wonder, why is everybody so quick to say NHL won't work in Winnipeg and that kind of crap? blah blah bah hockey failed in Winnipeg blah blah blah. It's been 10 years alot has changed since. Why not support a possible return of NHL to Winnipeg.

I know one guys problem is he's from Hamilton. Probably just bitter cause Winnipeg is consider in the Media to a way better possibilty than steel town. I support a return of the NHL back to all of Canada, not just Winnipeg.
 

EpochLink

Canucks and Jets fan
Aug 1, 2006
59,493
15,327
Vancouver, BC
I am all for a franchise to start up again in Winnipeg but I'm just upset and a little disappointed that no business owner from Winnipeg or a buyer for that matter has stepped up to the plate to do anything..sure they all talk about it but come on, step up for once and yell out your voice to say "yes we want to be potential buyers"..not post up words on a website..

My friends from Winnipeg are against the campaign for your information and are not in support of it, Winnipeg has other problems to deal with either than a hockey team going there...currently the mayor is wondering why some young people are migrating to British Columbia and Alberta for more opportunity
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
I know one guys problem is he's from Hamilton. Probably just bitter cause Winnipeg is consider in the Media to a way better possibilty than steel town. I support a return of the NHL back to all of Canada, not just Winnipeg.

Check my post history, sport. You will discover that I am no less adamant that anyone who suggests that Hamilton is a viable location is even more ill-informed than all of the pro-Winnipeg boosters. Hamilton as a potential NHL site is an absolute joke. My position is pretty well-established on this board and has been consistently held throughout.

There is no viable Canadian location for further NHL franchises. End of story.

I appreciate that you might not have the wherewithal to check my posting history to confirm your silly assumptions, particularly since you apparently buy all the usual standard "wisdom" that so many of my fellow Canadians subscribe to when it comes to discussing the business of hockey. However, I can advise you that my posting history conclusively shows you to be full of it when it comes to your assumptions.

Yet another instance of you talking out of your hat, sir.
 

razorsedge

Registered User
Oct 19, 2006
5,142
4,565
Check my post history, sport. You will discover that I am no less adamant that anyone who suggests that Hamilton is a viable location is even more ill-informed than all of the pro-Winnipeg boosters. Hamilton as a potential NHL site is an absolute joke. My position is pretty well-established on this board and has been consistently held throughout.

There is no viable Canadian location for further NHL franchises. End of story.

I appreciate that you might not have the wherewithal to check my posting history to confirm your silly assumptions, particularly since you apparently buy all the usual standard "wisdom" that so many of my fellow Canadians subscribe to when it comes to discussing the business of hockey. However, I can advise you that my posting history conclusively shows you to be full of it when it comes to your assumptions.

Yet another instance of you talking out of your hat, sir.


:biglaugh: Tiger Cats suck!!!
 

razorsedge

Registered User
Oct 19, 2006
5,142
4,565
My friends from Winnipeg are against the campaign for your information and are not in support of it, Winnipeg has other problems to deal with either than a hockey team going there...currently the mayor is wondering why some young people are migrating to British Columbia and Alberta for more opportunity

The campaign has nothing to do with the mayor or the government at all. It's about increasing support of an NHL return. It's not for Mayor Katz to buy a team with tax money. I'm sure there probably is a website in support of increased bicycle paths in Winnipeg campaign. I'm against that, I'd prefer he increase the budget from public money to further advertise "spirited energy". :D
 

EpochLink

Canucks and Jets fan
Aug 1, 2006
59,493
15,327
Vancouver, BC
Yuck, what a god awful slogan for Manitoba.."Spirited Energy", they can't be called "Friendly Manitoba" anymore since Winnipeg has been "murder capital of Canada" for how many years....:shakehead

2 MILLION DOLLARS FOR THAT SLOGAN....:biglaugh:
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
http://www.iihf.com/hockey/x/9899/u20poola/J2099/poola/attendance.htm



http://www.hockeyforums.com/showthread.php?t=582

Am I missing something? I know the Oilers sold out this past September, but that is one out of four.


yeah, i'd say you're missing something. you quote figures from the demolished winnipeg arena.

the mts centre sold out the '05 junior exhibitions and '06 nhl exhibition.

when any other non-nhl city shows that kind of support, then i'd gladly shush it.
 
Last edited:

GSC2k2*

Guest
yeah, i'd say you're missing something. you quote figures from the demolished winnipeg arena.

the mts centre sold out the '05 junior exhibitions and '06 nhl exhibition.

when any other non-nhl city shows that kind of support, then i'd gladly shush it.
Firstly, Hawker, no one is trying to "shush" you. At least speaking for myself, I am not. You don't need me or anyone to tell you that you have freedom of speech (within the parameters of the HF Board rules of course). That being said, where you are cherrypicking facts or putting forth an intellectually dishonest argument (as you consositently are doing), prepare to have your position scrutinized heavily. That is far from telling someone to "shush"; rather it is saying "come up with a better rationale for your position".

Now, as for your point, the point that I have always disputed is the nature of the Winnipeg market. The arena is a red herring. In theory, if a market could sell its seats nightly for a million dollars a ticket, I am sure that the NHL would find an arena of 15,000 more than adequate - heck, even smaller would be fine. That is exaggeration for effect, but you see my point. A more realistic argument would be if Winnipeg could sell its boxes for $400k and its tickets for an average of, say $125 (I realize that is not the breakeven point, but I am illustrating a point).

My questioning has always been about the true viability of the Winnipeg market - that is, the ability to find 15,000 citizens and 70 or so corporate entities who will plunk down high prices (and higher and higher prices going forward) to watch NHL hockey 41 times a year (I do not include the playoffs, because if they will do it for the first 41 times, they will surely do it for the playoffs). If there are, they have to be willing to do so in every circumstance - good arena or bad, good team or bad, it should not matter. If those things DO matter, then they are no better or worse than a few of the existing franchises that you and others take such delight (yes, delight) in denigrating and harassing.

So ...

Since that is the question, I do not accept the fact that it was a former arena (which was presumably not so good) and not the MTS Centre as an excuse. Winnipeg is hockey-mad, you and others say, but not so hockey-mad that they will not be turned off by a less-than-perfect arena. {Note: please do not pick nits by saying "less than perfect?? It was horrible!!!" As I have said, it does not matter, since we are addressing how deep is the market's desire for hockey.} You say Winnipeg's desire for hockey is bottomless; I say the previous evidence says it is not.

For that matter, junior hockey support is an exceedingly poor proxy for NHL support, since it is a different product with a hugely different price point. Hamburger and filet mignon are both beef, but they are not the same product.

Given the way that Winnipeg performed when it did have a franchise, the only way that it can prove its viability is for 15,000 fans to pony up, say, five years worth of season tickets at NHL prices (and I mean enough to match 17-18k of seats elsewhere), 75 companies (or however many corporate boxes the rink has) to cough up five years of NHL-caliber revenue for boxes, and I would cut them a break on the advertising (with the eyeballs guaranteed, the ad dollars would follow). Why be so hard? Alternatively, if you could show something that has changed so dramatically about the Winnipeg market since the mid-nineties that you can show that Winnipeg is a sure thing, that might do the trick. "Showing" that other markets suck and that Winnipeg might suck less is the method that you and others of your cause have chosen instead. Surely you can see how such a position is grossly deficient.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
I especially liked the strippers donating their tips. Now THAT'S grassroots support!
That I will agree with. For all my ranting about the viability of the Winnipeg market, I will definitively concede that the support for NHL hockey among adult entertainers in Winnipeg exceeds that of adult entertainers in Nashville, Carolina, Florida and, heck, any other city by miles and miles.
 

vivianmb

Registered User
Jan 10, 2007
2,891
2
winnipeg
www.whocares.ca
Firstly, Hawker, no one is trying to "shush" you. At least speaking for myself, I am not. You don't need me or anyone to tell you that you have freedom of speech (within the parameters of the HF Board rules of course). That being said, where you are cherrypicking facts or putting forth an intellectually dishonest argument (as you consositently are doing), prepare to have your position scrutinized heavily. That is far from telling someone to "shush"; rather it is saying "come up with a better rationale for your position".

Now, as for your point, the point that I have always disputed is the nature of the Winnipeg market. The arena is a red herring. In theory, if a market could sell its seats nightly for a million dollars a ticket, I am sure that the NHL would find an arena of 15,000 more than adequate - heck, even smaller would be fine. That is exaggeration for effect, but you see my point. A more realistic argument would be if Winnipeg could sell its boxes for $400k and its tickets for an average of, say $125 (I realize that is not the breakeven point, but I am illustrating a point).

My questioning has always been about the true viability of the Winnipeg market - that is, the ability to find 15,000 citizens and 70 or so corporate entities who will plunk down high prices (and higher and higher prices going forward) to watch NHL hockey 41 times a year (I do not include the playoffs, because if they will do it for the first 41 times, they will surely do it for the playoffs). If there are, they have to be willing to do so in every circumstance - good arena or bad, good team or bad, it should not matter. If those things DO matter, then they are no better or worse than a few of the existing franchises that you and others take such delight (yes, delight) in denigrating and harassing.

So ...

Since that is the question, I do not accept the fact that it was a former arena (which was presumably not so good) and not the MTS Centre as an excuse. Winnipeg is hockey-mad, you and others say, but not so hockey-mad that they will not be turned off by a less-than-perfect arena. {Note: please do not pick nits by saying "less than perfect?? It was horrible!!!" As I have said, it does not matter, since we are addressing how deep is the market's desire for hockey.} You say Winnipeg's desire for hockey is bottomless; I say the previous evidence says it is not.

For that matter, junior hockey support is an exceedingly poor proxy for NHL support, since it is a different product with a hugely different price point. Hamburger and filet mignon are both beef, but they are not the same product.

Given the way that Winnipeg performed when it did have a franchise, the only way that it can prove its viability is for 15,000 fans to pony up, say, five years worth of season tickets at NHL prices (and I mean enough to match 17-18k of seats elsewhere), 75 companies (or however many corporate boxes the rink has) to cough up five years of NHL-caliber revenue for boxes, and I would cut them a break on the advertising (with the eyeballs guaranteed, the ad dollars would follow). Why be so hard? Alternatively, if you could show something that has changed so dramatically about the Winnipeg market since the mid-nineties that you can show that Winnipeg is a sure thing, that might do the trick. "Showing" that other markets suck and that Winnipeg might suck less is the method that you and others of your cause have chosen instead. Surely you can see how such a position is grossly deficient.



so then how do you justify THAT position with nashville, washington, florida and phoenix? they are all "underdrawing"
and my argument is based on today's winnipeg, not the 80's or 90's.
for instance did you know that an electrician ( i field i KNOW about) makes more pay in winnipeg , than atlanta, houston, kansas city, phoenix, nashville, and is even with about 10 other nhl cities? and the cost of living in the peg is quite low, meaning more disposible income.so if that is true for most job descriptions,then why do you question the validity of fans paying for the nhl here, and not those other markets? i mean the tampa lightning were in talks with the city about relocating before they won the cup.so apparantly some in the nhl believe a wpg. team will work.
there is plenty of money in winnipeg. believe me. and it's obvious that the city has passion for hockey as they sell over 8000 tix per game for the AHL. and if i'm not mistaken , the lux boxes are all sold . so if a company pays for a box for 2nd rate hockey , then i think you could chalk em up for the nhl, no?
bottom line here is i think ( and so do a lot of others) that winnipeg deserves a second shot at nhl hockey.
lastly , the SOLE reason the jets left winnipeg, was the winnipeg arena.
the jets received NO revenue from the arena. and the upper seats were constantly half empty because you could not see the ice from them. (and yes , that does matter). if winnipeg got a newer arena, the jets might've never left. and even the dynasty isles during the cup years didnt sell out every game. in the 80-'s sellouts were not nerarly as common as they are today. heck even the leafs and wings had TERRIBLE attendence in the 80's. so winnipegs attendence was pretty much on par with the rest of the league, despite the old barn and it's obstructed views.
it seems to me that you are not as familiar with this particular topic as you pretend to be. and like they say ... if you dont know what you're talking about ...well you know the rest. :)
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->