Manitoba Moose / MTS Centre group talking to NHL

[Fourier]

You know, this thread is supposed to be about True North, Mark Chipman along with David Thomson (ownership Group) looking at bringing a team to Winnipeg. Not debating MTSC and Winnipeg's size and capability of hosting an NHL team. A certain person here continues to debate MTSC and Winnipeg not being good enough. IF and when an ownership group brings a team to Winnipeg the ownership group will have done their due-diligence...
People continue to think people (Rich smart people) are idiots for doing this... Well, if you naysayers think Chipman and Thomson are idiots for looking to bring NHL to Winnipeg then just say so.. Because by debating everything else that is basically what you are doing... calling those two people dumb... They are the ones doing this whether you agree or not...

I am sorry to say this but by this logic it would be inappropriate to question the viability of any market that either has a team, including Phoenix for example, or that has a perspective owner who wants one, since in both cases due-diligence insures success.

The point being, the fact that these guys believe the market is viable is significant, but does not in itself make it so. Nor does it mean that people on here should not be able to discuss questions about the wisdom of a team in Winnipeg in the big picture of the business of hockey.

 

[Jesus Christ Horburn]

I think if David Thomson really is the one interested in owning a team in Winnipeg, it instantly puts Winnipeg ahead of cities like Kansas City (Reinsdorf), Hamilton (Balsillie), Quebec City, Toronto #2, etc. as potential relocation destinations.

At the end of the day, money talks, and David Thomson has the most of it. Plus he and Mark Chipman have gone about their relocation plan in the proper manner (ie. the anti-Balsillie approach).

 

[htpwn]

I think if David Thomson really is the one interested in owning a team in Winnipeg, it instantly puts Winnipeg ahead of cities like Kansas City (Reinsdorf), Hamilton (Balsillie), Quebec City, Toronto #2, etc. as potential relocation destinations.
At the end of the day, money talks, and David Thomson has the most of it. Plus he and Mark Chipman have gone about their relocation plan in the proper manner (ie. the anti-Balsillie approach).

How so?

 

[Magnus Fulgur]

Atlanta Spirit is sitting on top of a gold mine that they've squandered. Huge market, great arena, solid bookings, and land to develop potentially if you wanted to work things out with the city.

I think Thomson wants the Thrashers, but he's playing it very smart and quietly, and all of his options are good:

1.) Keep the Thrashers in Atlanta. This might work to his advantage in trying to develop his Reuters TV Network. Being right on top of the CNN building would be a good move for recruiting talent, etc. Also, if he does it right he could make a killing in Atlanta with a great profitable arena, a solid basketball team, and a hockey team with really great young talent.

2.) If that doesn't work for the league, move the team to North York or another GTA place.

3.) If that doesn't work, move the team to Winnipeg.

4.) If none of this happens, then he has his foot in the water to snag Phoenix if it becomes available.

He's a smart guy.

 

[King_Stannis]

2.) If that doesn't work for the league, move the team to North York or another GTA place...

I don't know many things in this world, but I do know one thing - the above will never happen.

 

[edog37]

I don't know many things in this world, but I do know one thing - the above will never happen.

a relocation to S. Ontario won't occur, but an expansion will at some point....

 

[Jeffrey93]

How is the MTS Centre an AHL building? It houses an AHL team, but how does that fact alone make it an AHL building? It contains a rink with the required size, has luxury boxes & can generate sufficient revenue.

It can? Says who?

It is smaller in seat size, but 15K in Winnipeg still beats 10K in Miami.

Factor in the exchange rate and taxes...and it probably doesn't. Either way...this is like picking between death by electric chair or lethal injection...at the end of the day...you're still dead. Panthers are averaging 15,127 this year....that's pretty awful attendance by NHL standards but is 124 more people than MTS Centre's capacity.

The NHL has had games there in the preseason & most have come away impressed.

Who is "most"?

 

[GSC2k2*]

The acquiring company usually needs to have this done legally in the province of where it is happening... original sig and witnessed in the place of acquisition. Same may need to happen in place of Sale.. Not in New York

Not the case.

 

[leer2006]

It can? Says who?
Factor in the exchange rate and taxes...and it probably doesn't. Either way...this is like picking between death by electric chair or lethal injection...at the end of the day...you're still dead. Panthers are averaging 15,127 this year....that's pretty awful attendance by NHL standards but is 124 more people than MTS Centre's capacity.
Who is "most"?

Of that average attendance how many people are actually in the stands? How many of those fans paid full price for those tickets? The NHL is and always will be primarily a gate driven league. The Canadian dollar is currently at $.96 American. So if Winnipeg has a theoretical $65 average ticket price with no additional seatting to the MTS Centre they would pull in aprox. $975195 CAN. or $938319.09 U.S. .
Not to shabby if I might say.
That $38,471,082.69 Per season american with the current exchange.
The Panthers Average ticket price was $52 in the 08/09 season. Thats $746604 per game and $32,250,764 per season. But their reported gate revenue in the 08/09 season was just over $24m. or just under $600000 per game.
Winnipeg would be more then fine with their small arena the way it is.

 

[Pegger5]

Not the case.

The closing of M&A's are usually done this way in person to avoid possible litigation in the future.

You don't want electronic signatures, fax, pdf copies of a deal. There can be too many risks... even though those are accepted in many cases it can open you up to future litigation.. In a closing like this it would be in person... and usually is in any M&A...

provide a better reason than "Not the case"

 

[bodybreak]

How so?

David Thomson is "worth" about $24.41 billion (according to Wikipedia's list of Canadian billionaires), with more than three times the money of anyone else on the list. Jim Balsillie is 4th at $5.6 billion.

The NHL tends not to care about profit/loss of its individual clubs, as long as the owners of said club has deep enough pockets that he doesn't care if he's losing tens of millions of dollars every year.

Not saying they will deliberately put teams in fail markets on purpose, nor do I think Winnipeg would be a failure... but coming in to the game with a padded wallet only helps your cause, because it helps create certainty that your team will stay in its market for a long time, regardless of any other market conditions or risks.

 

[Brodie]

How so?

David Thomson could buy every team in the NHL and still be a billionaire. If he wants to be part of your league, you say yessir.

 

[MAROONSRoad]

Having spent a good part of my life in Rexall and having had a tour of the MTS I would say that your point above does ring true in many ways. (Though Rexall is not really in a "suburban" location.)

Thanks. And by "suburban" what I meant is the arena is not located downtown, connected to all the office buildings as MTS Centre is.

GHOST

 

[htpwn]

David Thomson is "worth" about $24.41 billion (according to Wikipedia's list of Canadian billionaires), with more than three times the money of anyone else on the list. Jim Balsillie is 4th at $5.6 billion.

The NHL tends not to care about profit/loss of its individual clubs, as long as the owners of said club has deep enough pockets that he doesn't care if he's losing tens of millions of dollars every year.

Not saying they will deliberately put teams in fail markets on purpose, nor do I think Winnipeg would be a failure... but coming in to the game with a padded wallet only helps your cause, because it helps create certainty that your team will stay in its market for a long time, regardless of any other market conditions or risks.

David Thomson could buy every team in the NHL and still be a billionaire. If he wants to be part of your league, you say yessir.

While Tompson's wealth no doubt helps the situation, I don't necessarily agree it would automatically place Winnipeg ahead of other possible relocation destinations. It helps but its not the end all of end all.

 

[pondnorth]

If Daly and Bettman both know that this rumor is 100% bogus why would they even bother commenting on it? You would think after denying that there were problems in Phoenix and it blowing up it their faces that they would have just said nothing at all.Plenty of rumors are always going around,why publicly respond to this particular one?

 

[GSC2k2*]

The closing of M&A's are usually done this way in person to avoid possible litigation in the future.

You don't want electronic signatures, fax, pdf copies of a deal. There can be too many risks... even though those are accepted in many cases it can open you up to future litigation.. In a closing like this it would be in person... and usually is in any M&A...

provide a better reason than "Not the case"

Closing procedures are not done face to face due to mitigation of risk or to foreclose future litigation.

Execution by counterparts is a perfectly normal means of execution of documents. It is done all the time. I have done it innumerable times in large dollar transactions.

Please make your mind up as to whether it was a closing or execution of a letter of intent, as you previously stated.

As for a "better reason", the reason is that the law does not in any way require that parties be in the same place to execute a transaction, nor is it even "preferable". It simply is a non-issue. That is all there is to it.

 

[Pegger5]

Closing procedures are not done face to face due to mitigation of risk or to foreclose future litigation.

Execution by counterparts is a perfectly normal means of execution of documents. It is done all the time. I have done it innumerable times in large dollar transactions.

Please make your mind up as to whether it was a closing or execution of a letter of intent, as you previously stated.

As for a "better reason", the reason is that the law does not in any way require that parties be in the same place to execute a transaction, nor is it even "preferable". It simply is a non-issue. That is all there is to it.

Unless closing is done in "escrow" or "close on trust conditions" I will correct myself and I agree the law does not require it. I am saying it is preferred for the actual closing of a deal not an LOI.. This is preferable to avoid litigation in the future of certain shareholders. Very rare but possible. Maybe out here in Calgary(Alberta) it is more a common practice to close deals this way.. It usually expedites deals when parties have the cheque in hand and are all there to sign..
Just so we are clear, I am not saying the parties from the companies have to be face to face.

This was my intent really about all the denials:
Any terms of a deal (and the deal itself) has to always be kept confidential by all parties working on it.. assuming there is an NDA, which there would be in a high profile deal like this. As a lawyer, you know this would not be leaked by a lawyer without risk to their license.. Also another reason no one on the outside will no for sure about this until this deal is announced except the people working on it. Thus expect further denials from all parties.. Nothing will be announced till the cheque is in the hand of the seller!
My mistake for not being clear earlier.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Of that average attendance how many people are actually in the stands? How many of those fans paid full price for those tickets? The NHL is and always will be primarily a gate driven league. The Canadian dollar is currently at $.96 American. So if Winnipeg has a theoretical $65 average ticket price with no additional seatting to the MTS Centre they would pull in aprox. $975195 CAN. or $938319.09 U.S. .
Not to shabby if I might say.
That $38,471,082.69 Per season american with the current exchange.
The Panthers Average ticket price was $52 in the 08/09 season. Thats $746604 per game and $32,250,764 per season. But their reported gate revenue in the 08/09 season was just over $24m. or just under $600000 per game.
Winnipeg would be more then fine with their small arena the way it is.

Flawed logic....taking the average ticket price of $65 and multiplying it by the capacity gives you a higher number in gate revenue than you would ever see realistically.
There are more cheap seats than there are high priced ones, just looking at the configuration of every arena would tell you this. Count the number of seats around the glass...then the number of seats in the last row. If there are more around the glass or even remotely close to the same...well...I'll swallow my keyboard whole.
Even the Jetsowner weirdo has ticket prices listed that would make the average ticket price be $77/game. 8,000 seats at or about $80...most very much more than that.
You can plug whatever numbers in you want to arrive at a decent per game gate revenue.....people have to actually pay it though. And every possible gate revenue scenario I have seen for Winnipeg depends on 100% capacity for every single game.
I get that hockey is popular in Winnipeg....but at those prices...and requiring 100% capacity 100% of the time....it makes me wonder if people forget we're talking about Winnipeg and not Toronto.

 

[edog37]

Flawed logic....taking the average ticket price of $65 and multiplying it by the capacity gives you a higher number in gate revenue than you would ever see realistically.
There are more cheap seats than there are high priced ones, just looking at the configuration of every arena would tell you this. Count the number of seats around the glass...then the number of seats in the last row. If there are more around the glass or even remotely close to the same...well...I'll swallow my keyboard whole.
Even the Jetsowner weirdo has ticket prices listed that would make the average ticket price be $77/game. 8,000 seats at or about $80...most very much more than that.
You can plug whatever numbers in you want to arrive at a decent per game gate revenue.....people have to actually pay it though. And every possible gate revenue scenario I have seen for Winnipeg depends on 100% capacity for every single game.
I get that hockey is popular in Winnipeg....but at those prices...and requiring 100% capacity 100% of the time....it makes me wonder if people forget we're talking about Winnipeg and not Toronto.

if they have an owner willing to absord losses, it won't matter the ticket prices. That's really the key here. Every team that has moved has done so because the owner didn't want to absorb losses anymore.

 

[Jeffrey93]

if they have an owner willing to absord losses, it won't matter the ticket prices. That's really the key here. Every team that has moved has done so because the owner didn't want to absorb losses anymore.

True. That's the case anywhere though. If there is an Owner and he is willing to take the losses a team could "survive" in any city.
An Owner willing to constantly absorb the losses might not go over too well with the league....because if that Owner ever wants out, he needs to find a buyer that is also willing to take losses or the team needs to move....again.
But, I agree...it is totally up to ownership on most of these issues. Which is why I cringe when I see people saying how the "league" should go to [insert city here] and move a team from [insert city here]. It's not really up to the league, if I could prove beyond any doubt that Atlanta is absolutely the worst NHL market and has zero potential....that still doesn't prove the team will relocate, if there is an owner that wants to keep them there...then they stay, regardless of attendnace, corporate support, etc. At the same time...if the owner wants to sell and the only offers are coming from people that don't want to keep the team there...the team will move. The league won't stop it and basically handcuff the current owners to the franchise and to the market against their will.

 

[TML13]

It can? Says who?
Factor in the exchange rate and taxes...and it probably doesn't. Either way...this is like picking between death by electric chair or lethal injection...at the end of the day...you're still dead. Panthers are averaging 15,127 this year....that's pretty awful attendance by NHL standards but is 124 more people than MTS Centre's capacity.
Who is "most"?

but those 15,000 tickets are being sold at redicoulously low prices to even be able to achieve that # of attendance. where as in Winnipeg those same 15,000 tickets would be sold at or above league average ticket prices. which in some cases would be a $50 differance per ticket(if the reports are true about Florida selling tickets for around $10)

im no business expert or expert on this subject itself but that is a big and obvious difference in circumstances. just looking at attendance/capacity numbers alone means nothing without taking into account other factors.

 

[Jeffrey93]

but those 15,000 tickets are being sold at redicoulously low prices to even be able to achieve that # of attendance. where as in Winnipeg those same 15,000 tickets would be sold at or above league average ticket prices. which in some cases would be a $50 differance per ticket(if the reports are true about Florida selling tickets for around $10)

im no business expert or expert on this subject itself but that is a big and obvious difference in circumstances. just looking at attendance/capacity numbers alone means nothing without taking into account other factors.

Yeah, I get that. I'm not saying a team in Winnipeg couldn't do better than the Panthers....because that really isn't saying much of anything.
What bothers me is the massive assumptions being made, I'm not sure there is a market in North America (even including Toronto) where as part of a business plan for an NHL franchise you could assume every home game will be sold out.

Could the team do better than the Panthers in Gate revenue? Probably...but is that really the goal? To be better than the Panthers?!? It's pretty shocking that anyone hopeful of the NHL coming back to Winnipeg would even want to make that comparison. I don't really care if a team in Winnipeg can outdo the Panthers in gate revenue.....can they compete with teams that have 18,000 seat arenas and sellout?

Once Pittsburgh has their new arena....the only building even remotely close to the MTSC in capacity is Edmonton, and they are pushing for a new 18,000 rink. So let's say they get it. Now the smallest building in the NHL would be what? Nashville with 17,133? That is 2,100 seats more than MTSC. So let's now say that the NHL starts to thrive...it really starts to take hold in the US. It will never happen but say every franchise is playing to like 95% capacity or more. How can Winnipeg compete when their rink is 2,100 seats smaller than the next smallest NHL venue? Ticket prices would have to rise to compensate for the lack of seating...and continue to rise as the cap does.

Winnipeg just doesn't wreak of the riches it would take to continue to compete long term like that. Can they compete financially with the way the NHL is now? Probably...but the league better not "grow the game" too much, or it will push Winnipeg right back out again.

 

[TML13]

im not really saying the NHL back in Winnipeg would or would not work. i simply dont know enough about the details of these kind of things to act like i know what im talking about(not a jab at anyone just speaking for myself) i just felt that one point in particular needed to be addressed.

i would LOVE for the NHL to come back to Winnipeg but in the end it doesnt really matter to me because i probably wouldnt even be around to enjoy it(joining the ARMY) and i'd still be a Leafs fan anyways just like i was before the Jets left.

 

[Brominator]

Yeah, I get that. I'm not saying a team in Winnipeg couldn't do better than the Panthers....because that really isn't saying much of anything.
What bothers me is the massive assumptions being made, I'm not sure there is a market in North America (even including Toronto) where as part of a business plan for an NHL franchise you could assume every home game will be sold out.

Could the team do better than the Panthers in Gate revenue? Probably...but is that really the goal? To be better than the Panthers?!? It's pretty shocking that anyone hopeful of the NHL coming back to Winnipeg would even want to make that comparison. I don't really care if a team in Winnipeg can outdo the Panthers in gate revenue.....can they compete with teams that have 18,000 seat arenas and sellout?

Once Pittsburgh has their new arena....the only building even remotely close to the MTSC in capacity is Edmonton, and they are pushing for a new 18,000 rink. So let's say they get it. Now the smallest building in the NHL would be what? Nashville with 17,133? That is 2,100 seats more than MTSC. So let's now say that the NHL starts to thrive...it really starts to take hold in the US. It will never happen but say every franchise is playing to like 95% capacity or more. How can Winnipeg compete when their rink is 2,100 seats smaller than the next smallest NHL venue? Ticket prices would have to rise to compensate for the lack of seating...and continue to rise as the cap does.

Winnipeg just doesn't wreak of the riches it would take to continue to compete long term like that. Can they compete financially with the way the NHL is now? Probably...but the league better not "grow the game" too much, or it will push Winnipeg right back out again.

Median gate revenue per game is about 900,000 USD per game (07/08 numbers I believe, based on the Globe & Mail "leaked NHL data."

With an arena capacity of 15,000, and a 90 cent dollar, the average ticket price would have to be $67 CAD. Assuming sellouts, this would put a Winnipeg team in the middle of the pack in terms of gate revenue, not merely just beating the Panthers.

Also keep in mind that the Coyotes reported gate revenue was 450,000 USD per game. A Winnipeg team would likely far exceed this in revenue (which of course would be necessary to avoid Coyotes-like losses).

Would a team do better in Hamilton? Probably. But the league has made it pretty clear that any relocation will not be going to Hamilton. In my humble (but admittedly biased) opinion, Winnipeg makes a lot of sense as a destination for the next relocation, especially if it's the Coyotes.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Median gate revenue per game is about 900,000 USD per game (07/08 numbers I believe, based on the Globe & Mail "leaked NHL data."

With an arena capacity of 15,000, and a 90 cent dollar, the average ticket price would have to be $67 CAD. Assuming sellouts, this would put a Winnipeg team in the middle of the pack in terms of gate revenue, not merely just beating the Panthers.

Also keep in mind that the Coyotes reported gate revenue was 450,000 USD per game. A Winnipeg team would likely far exceed this in revenue (which of course would be necessary to avoid Coyotes-like losses).

Would a team do better in Hamilton? Probably. But the league has made it pretty clear that any relocation will not be going to Hamilton. In my humble (but admittedly biased) opinion, Winnipeg makes a lot of sense as a destination for the next relocation, especially if it's the Coyotes.

I'm not disagreeing about the gate revenue....but please stop comparing the theoretical dreamt up results in Winnipeg to that of the weakest teams in the NHL.
The point isn't to move a team so it's in a better situation...it is to move a team so it's in a good situation. I just worry that if league revenues continue to increase (just by moving a team north this would happen) and the cap goes up...that it won't be very long before a Winnipeg team has to charge more for tickets than the market will take. Heck...an average ticket price of $67 might be more than the market can take already.
If teams get their finances in order and we don't have these teams like Phoenix, Miami, Nashville, Carolina, Long Island, etc that aren't where they should be as far as gate revenues go.....Winnipeg's gate revenue will quickly fall lower in the league from that median you provided.
That's the median gate revenue of the league with about 8 teams that all should/could be doing better or should/could be moved and then doing a lot better.
I'd say take a look at Edmonton...can Winnipeg pull in what they do. Also note that a small market Canadian team with an arena bigger than the MTSC is wanting an arena that is even bigger yet, kind of makes me scratch my head when that "less is more" argument is used to defend the MTSC. If less is more, why do the Oilers want a bigger arena?