coyoteshockeyfan
Registered User
Ok, since you want to talk about economy, that can be done. The Canadian Taxpayer Federation had this to say about the Manitoba economy: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.![]()
"There is little question that Manitoba’s economy has been underperforming for many years. Though not the worst economy in the country, Manitoba ranks 8th among the provinces, when measuring average economic growth between 1993 and projected 2005. In that same time frame, the national average for Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth was 5.21 per cent, while Manitoba showed a meager 4.48 per cent annual growth rate....In every case, Manitoba is set to grow slower than the rest of the country. In 2004 the national average for expected real GDP growth is 3.3 per cent, employment is 1.5 per cent and retail sales is 4.5 per cent. Despite low inflation and an unemployment rate that is the lowest in the country, (5.0 per cent in 2003) neither have contributed toward greater buoyancy in Manitoba’s economy. That is a worrisome trend when one considers the fiscal pressures that will be exerted on the province over the next ten to fifteen years."
Underperforming, meager, slow growth, and worrisome? Ouch. Well, let's continue. The Canadian Taxpayer Federation also noted the deficiencies of the economy in Manitoba in a May 6th, 2005 article titled "Digging deeper into debt," stating that "Manitoba lingers in the have-not column of provinces" and that certain aspects "keep Manitoba back."
And lastly, stating that lower cost of living correlates to more disposable income is a trainwreck in logic. Lower cost of living does not allow for more disposable income if one's income is lower to begin with. According to Statistics Canada, the median total income in Manitoba is $4000 less than the Canadian average, more than $8000 less than in Ontario, and over $12,000 less than in Alberta.
So, how does that phrase about not knowing what one is talking about go?
http://www.taxpayer.com/pdf/Prebudget_Submission_(Feb_12_2004).pdf
http://www.taxpayer.com/main/news.php?news_id=2289
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil108a.htm?sdi=income