MTS Center Arena Capacity

[ThisYearsModel]

It will be interesting to see where the Winnipeg club ends up versus the salary cap.

 

[GKJ]

Interesting to see some threads 4-5 years later.

The league is willing to take the chance because they need Winnipeg more than the other way around when they left. With the struggling American economy, they couldn't take the chance on starting from scratch somewhere else, and Winnipeg is the only place that was ready and willing. Now, the steps need to be taken by the city and owners to ensure they don't lost the team again.

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

It will be interesting to see where the Winnipeg club ends up versus the salary cap.

I was watching on TSN before the news conference started and I think it was Bob McKenzie who said they won't spend up to the cap but they'll be about $10 million off.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Check your facts:

Anschutz - Forbes ranks him the 34th richest person in the U.S. with an estimated net worth of $7 billion.

David Thomson - Forbes ranks him the 17th richest person in the world with an estimated net worth of $23 billion.

Check your facts. The Thomson FAMILY (which includes two Thomson brothers and a Thomson sister) owns the net worth ascribed to them in Forbes.

I always check facts, guy.

 

[pucka lucka]

Check your facts. The Thomson FAMILY (which includes two Thomson brothers and a Thomson sister) owns the net worth ascribed to them in Forbes.

I always check facts, guy.

Uhuh. You like to say that a lot.

 

[aj8000]

My problem with Winnipeg is what happens when the CAD drops to .75 or .80 against the USD. They will be paying USD$1.25 or $1.20 in player salaries on attendance and sponsorships that are paid with a weak Canadian dollar. Sure, right now, around parity the finances look okay with a 15k full building, not great. Back in the days of the Jets, most players who signed with Canadian teams were signed in Canadian Dollars, now all salaries are paid in US dollars. That's also not mentioning that Winnipeg isn't exactly the most affluent of Canadian cities. When the Canadian Dollar is struggling, smaller cities like Winnipeg get hit the hardest.

What happens if it is the USD that drops to .75 to .80?

 

[aj8000]

I was watching on TSN before the news conference started and I think it was Bob McKenzie who said they won't spend up to the cap but they'll be about $10 million off.

I believe it was Chipman that stated during an interview that they would be a middle of the pack team in respect to salaries a year or so ago. Do not know if he repeated it again today. However, he also stated that they would spend to the cap if the right circumstances arrived.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Either way, I expect that you will agree that the ticket revenue based on the projected arena capacity and the now publicly confirmed ticket prices would be more than enough to place Winnipeg in the upper half of ticket revenue in the NHL. If you would like to argue that the MTS Centre is too small, then you must also be prepared to argue that tickets in many other markets are too cheap.

Sure, but you see, my point is that, much like most numbers around here, misstated numbers tend to stretch and stretch and stretch until they take on a life of its own. Not just numbers, either. Alleged "facts" get stated and restated until, in the minds of some, they become "facts".

If you have gleaned anything from my posts, you should have gleaned that I am pretty keen on establishing actual empirical data.

Did you manage to see the news conference today with Chipman and Thomson and the principals in this deal from the Manitoba side? If so, then I am quite sure that their professional approach, demeanor and commitment was on full display, as was the respect that they were accorded by Bettman. Are you really intent on questioning them as a bona fide ownership group after defending first Ice Edge Holdings and then Matthew Hulsizer? Does it really gall you so much that Winnipeg evidently has such a good ownership group? Seriously, someone needs to gently remove that thorn from your paw...

For about the hundredth time, you yet again ascribe motives and feelings to me that you would have no way of knowing and which are, in fact, completely wrong.

Did you somehow form the opinion that I thought the two gentlemen were drooling idiots? I point out the empirical fact that, unlike the impression of others who expressly state things like "these guys didn't get rich by falling off the turnip truck" (a clear indication of someone's impression that they made their own wealth), these two guys were both of wealthy (Chipman) and insanely wealthy (THomson) families and made their wealth through inheritance, and you translate that as me attacking them?

Their approach and demeanour was nothing different from any other sports owner that I have listened to on a podium.

GSC... and Anschutz was a "pauper to riches" story?

What on earth does that have to do with anything? Does that somehow make it that Chipman and Thomson DIDN'T inherit their money? Does that somehow mean that David Thomson is NOT approximately as wealthy as Anschutz (which was the point)?

Well, how about this? They have very successfully managed a sports and entertainment complex (MTS Centre) and a professional hockey team in the market wherein their new NHL franchise will be situated. Might that be relevant experience for their upcoming venture?

Really? How successful are they? Have you seen their financials? I know it is received wisdom in some parts, but the lack of empirical evidence is shocking. As i noted above, I don't think much of conventional wisdom.

Or would you prefer a hedge fund manager from a distant city, or perhaps a group of buddies with stock market experience.

GSC, have you really decided to stop pretending that you have lost an objective perspective about the re-entry of Winnipeg to the NHL?

"Stock market experience"? Yeah, right. You rmeinded me that you somehow seem to have declared vistory on Ice Edge. In declaring victory, it helps if your notions of their impecuniosity are, well, proven.

My perspective on WPG is the same as it has always been. Curiously enough, if you read posts from a few years ago, you would find a shocking degree of similarity between my words of several years ago and those of many talking (and writing) heads today: after a few years, then what? Where does the revenue growth come from? Show me the business case.

It might surprise you to know that, before I started in on this, the conventional wisdom was that WPG would be a glorious success. You know where all this GSC-as-WPG-hater came from? It came from me having the temerity to merely question that and say "show it to me". That was all. Show me the numbers or projected numbers. don't tell me "hey, WPG's in Canada, the hotbed of hockey!" Show me a business case that holds some water, and then we can discuss it. No one ever could. I still haven't seen one to this day (and yes, I have looked at the laughable ones published on the internet).

Even at that, after asking and asking and asking, we now thankfully have a situation on the Board where thoughtful posters will at least say that WPG is at best a mid-tier market. Even at that, I say "Maybe, maybe not, but show me the numbers. And then, after that, show me how WPG can sustain itself by starting out with already-highly-priced tickets perilously close to the top price that one can muster in the market. Show me where the growth will come to support an ever increasing salary cap."

What you refer to as a less than objective perspective is really IMO a shot at what is in fact the prototypical objective perspective. I have been saying it for years: show me the numbers, for now and in the future. What is more objective than a demand for empiricism?

Here is a little one to start you off:

1. TNSE has confirmed that their season ticket price for their 13,000 season ticket holders will not escalate by more than 3% per year during their particular term.

2. The NHL salary cap has a built-in automatic escalator of 5%, which will likely increase even more as soon as the new NHL TV deal kicks in (which in and of itself will increase NHL revenues by >4% per year in the first year).

3. Assuming TNSE's salary expenditures merely stay in line with the NHL cap on a relative basis, they will be losing ground at the rate of 2% per year on a critical component of their revenue streams for each of the first 3-5 years of their franchise.

Discuss the impact.

 

[pucka lucka]

Sure, but you see, my point is that, much like most numbers around here, misstated numbers tend to stretch and stretch and stretch until they take on a life of its own. Not just numbers, either. Alleged "facts" get stated and restated until, in the minds of some, they become "facts".

If you have gleaned anything from my posts, you should have gleaned that I am pretty keen on establishing actual empirical data.



For about the hundredth time, you yet again ascribe motives and feelings to me that you would have no way of knowing and which are, in fact, completely wrong.

Did you somehow form the opinion that I thought the two gentlemen were drooling idiots? I point out the empirical fact that, unlike the impression of others who expressly state things like "these guys didn't get rich by falling off the turnip truck" (a clear indication of someone's impression that they made their own wealth), these two guys were both of wealthy (Chipman) and insanely wealthy (THomson) families and made their wealth through inheritance, and you translate that as me attacking them?

Their approach and demeanour was nothing different from any other sports owner that I have listened to on a podium.



What on earth does that have to do with anything? Does that somehow make it that Chipman and Thomson DIDN'T inherit their money? Does that somehow mean that David Thomson is NOT approximately as wealthy as Anschutz (which was the point)?



Really? How successful are they? Have you seen their financials? I know it is received wisdom in some parts, but the lack of empirical evidence is shocking. As i noted above, I don't think much of conventional wisdom.



"Stock market experience"? Yeah, right. You rmeinded me that you somehow seem to have declared vistory on Ice Edge. In declaring victory, it helps if your notions of their impecuniosity are, well, proven.

My perspective on WPG is the same as it has always been. Curiously enough, if you read posts from a few years ago, you would find a shocking degree of similarity between my words of several years ago and those of many talking (and writing) heads today: after a few years, then what? Where does the revenue growth come from? Show me the business case.

It might surprise you to know that, before I started in on this, the conventional wisdom was that WPG would be a glorious success. You know where all this GSC-as-WPG-hater came from? It came from me having the temerity to merely question that and say "show it to me". That was all. Show me the numbers or projected numbers. don't tell me "hey, WPG's in Canada, the hotbed of hockey!" Show me a business case that holds some water, and then we can discuss it. No one ever could. I still haven't seen one to this day (and yes, I have looked at the laughable ones published on the internet).

Even at that, after asking and asking and asking, we now thankfully have a situation on the Board where thoughtful posters will at least say that WPG is at best a mid-tier market. Even at that, I say "Maybe, maybe not, but show me the numbers. And then, after that, show me how WPG can sustain itself by starting out with already-highly-priced tickets perilously close to the top price that one can muster in the market. Show me where the growth will come to support an ever increasing salary cap."

What you refer to as a less than objective perspective is really IMO a shot at what is in fact the prototypical objective perspective. I have been saying it for years: show me the numbers, for now and in the future. What is more objective than a demand for empiricism?

Here is a little one to start you off:

1. TNSE has confirmed that their season ticket price for their 13,000 season ticket holders will not escalate by more than 3% per year during their particular term.

2. The NHL salary cap has a built-in automatic escalator of 5%, which will likely increase even more as soon as the new NHL TV deal kicks in (which in and of itself will increase NHL revenues by >4% per year in the first year).

3. Assuming TNSE's salary expenditures merely stay in line with the NHL cap on a relative basis, they will be losing ground at the rate of 2% per year on a critical component of their revenue streams for each of the first 3-5 years of their franchise.

Discuss the impact.

Without taking into account all revenues and how those might increase or decrease over the first X years, your analysis is completely useless. Did you overlook that?

 

[GoJetsGo55]

Without taking into account all revenues and how those might increase or decrease over the first X years, your analysis is completely useless. Did you overlook that?

Shhhhh let him have is "unbiased" fun

 

[Whileee]

Sure, but you see, my point is that, much like most numbers around here, misstated numbers tend to stretch and stretch and stretch until they take on a life of its own. Not just numbers, either. Alleged "facts" get stated and restated until, in the minds of some, they become "facts".

If you have gleaned anything from my posts, you should have gleaned that I am pretty keen on establishing actual empirical data.



For about the hundredth time, you yet again ascribe motives and feelings to me that you would have no way of knowing and which are, in fact, completely wrong.

Did you somehow form the opinion that I thought the two gentlemen were drooling idiots? I point out the empirical fact that, unlike the impression of others who expressly state things like "these guys didn't get rich by falling off the turnip truck" (a clear indication of someone's impression that they made their own wealth), these two guys were both of wealthy (Chipman) and insanely wealthy (THomson) families and made their wealth through inheritance, and you translate that as me attacking them?

Their approach and demeanour was nothing different from any other sports owner that I have listened to on a podium.



What on earth does that have to do with anything? Does that somehow make it that Chipman and Thomson DIDN'T inherit their money? Does that somehow mean that David Thomson is NOT approximately as wealthy as Anschutz (which was the point)?



Really? How successful are they? Have you seen their financials? I know it is received wisdom in some parts, but the lack of empirical evidence is shocking. As i noted above, I don't think much of conventional wisdom.



"Stock market experience"? Yeah, right. You rmeinded me that you somehow seem to have declared vistory on Ice Edge. In declaring victory, it helps if your notions of their impecuniosity are, well, proven.

My perspective on WPG is the same as it has always been. Curiously enough, if you read posts from a few years ago, you would find a shocking degree of similarity between my words of several years ago and those of many talking (and writing) heads today: after a few years, then what? Where does the revenue growth come from? Show me the business case.

It might surprise you to know that, before I started in on this, the conventional wisdom was that WPG would be a glorious success. You know where all this GSC-as-WPG-hater came from? It came from me having the temerity to merely question that and say "show it to me". That was all. Show me the numbers or projected numbers. don't tell me "hey, WPG's in Canada, the hotbed of hockey!" Show me a business case that holds some water, and then we can discuss it. No one ever could. I still haven't seen one to this day (and yes, I have looked at the laughable ones published on the internet).

Even at that, after asking and asking and asking, we now thankfully have a situation on the Board where thoughtful posters will at least say that WPG is at best a mid-tier market. Even at that, I say "Maybe, maybe not, but show me the numbers. And then, after that, show me how WPG can sustain itself by starting out with already-highly-priced tickets perilously close to the top price that one can muster in the market. Show me where the growth will come to support an ever increasing salary cap."

What you refer to as a less than objective perspective is really IMO a shot at what is in fact the prototypical objective perspective. I have been saying it for years: show me the numbers, for now and in the future. What is more objective than a demand for empiricism?

Here is a little one to start you off:

1. TNSE has confirmed that their season ticket price for their 13,000 season ticket holders will not escalate by more than 3% per year during their particular term.

2. The NHL salary cap has a built-in automatic escalator of 5%, which will likely increase even more as soon as the new NHL TV deal kicks in (which in and of itself will increase NHL revenues by >4% per year in the first year).

3. Assuming TNSE's salary expenditures merely stay in line with the NHL cap on a relative basis, they will be losing ground at the rate of 2% per year on a critical component of their revenue streams for each of the first 3-5 years of their franchise.

Discuss the impact.

I haven't had the pleasure of years of your posting. But I have followed your contributions to discussions about the Phoenix situation and the potential for relocation to Winnipeg rather closely. Suffice to say, if you have been sticking as assiduously to the "facts" and "empiricism" as you claim, you wouldn't have come to many of the conclusions that you have reached.

What I find rather curious is how rapidly you have jumped in to demand evidence regarding the business case and "bona fides" of the TNSE ownership group, while evidently falling hook, line and sinker for IEH as a legitimate ownership group and raising nary a question about the goofy "back of the envelope" business plan for the Coyotes offered by our favourite (now defunct) Tweeter (Daryl Jones, aka "IceEdgeDJ").

I think it is perfectly acceptable to request facts and demand empirical analysis, but to do so as selectively as you have done naturally raises questions as to your objectivity.

Notwithstanding my own hopes for the success of the Winnipeg franchise, I happen to think that there is enough evidence that the TNSE group are legitimate, serious and professional. I would point out that those are obviously the sentiments of Bettman, since he has specifically cited the credibility of the ownership group as a key reason for the return of the NHL to Winnipeg. Can we agree that Bettman has more facts and a better understanding of the business plan at his disposal to adjudicate this than you or I? Or do you think that Bettman has just been swayed by all this "make it 7" emotional appeal?

 

[GSC2k2*]

Without taking into account all revenues and how those might increase or decrease over the first X years, your analysis is completely useless. Did you overlook that?

Not exactly a very substantive start to any discussion.

Most, if not all, of the team's revenues will be fixed - suites, sponsorships, ad revenues, local TV contracts - are based on multi-year fixed-price contracts. Ticket revenue for such a market and building will reflect a high percentage (~ or > 50%, IMO) of overall revenue. It was taken into account.

It might equalize a bit when the NHL CDN TV contract is renegotiated in a few years, but that will similarly affect the cap as well, so that does not mitigate the lost edge. Either way, TNSE is losing 5% (one half of 2% x 5 years) in competitive edge by limiting their ticket price increases in the manner they have done.

As always, it's about the math.

 

[pucka lucka]

Not exactly a very substantive start to any discussion.

Most, if not all, of the team's revenues will be fixed - suites, sponsorships, ad revenues, local TV contracts - are based on multi-year fixed-price contracts. Ticket revenue for such a market and building will reflect a high percentage (~ or > 50%, IMO) of overall revenue. It was taken into account.

It might equalize a bit when the NHL CDN TV contract is renegotiated in a few years, but that will similarly affect the cap as well, so that does not mitigate the lost edge. Either way, TNSE is losing 5% (one half of 2% x 5 years) in competitive edge by limiting their ticket price increases in the manner they have done.

As always, it's about the math.

Ahh but you of course overlook why things may have been done that way. They are getting 4-5 years of guaranteed ticket revenue on their most lucrative seats. The trade off they made was capping increases at 3%. Most businesses are quite willing to give up a little in potential for guaranteed revenue.

 

[aj8000]

Not exactly a very substantive start to any discussion.

Most, if not all, of the team's revenues will be fixed - suites, sponsorships, ad revenues, local TV contracts - are based on multi-year fixed-price contracts. Ticket revenue for such a market and building will reflect a high percentage (~ or > 50%, IMO) of overall revenue. It was taken into account.

It might equalize a bit when the NHL CDN TV contract is renegotiated in a few years, but that will similarly affect the cap as well, so that does not mitigate the lost edge. Either way, TNSE is losing 5% (one half of 2% x 5 years) in competitive edge by limiting their ticket price increases in the manner they have done.

As always, it's about the math.

Actually they are not fixed. Sure ticket prices will be stable; however, they have other sources of income within the "shed" not to mention the VLT revenue component. TNSE did not just throw this together in 4 weeks, they have been working on this for more than a year. You can argue all you want; however, There will be many more franchises not keeping pace with the cap increases who do not have other sources of income like TNSE.

Considering you and I do not have all the "facts" (and likely never will) regarding the business plan, you are breaking your own forum rule that you always post facts.

I always check facts, guy.

 

[Dado]

I was watching on TSN before the news conference started and I think it was Bob McKenzie who said they won't spend up to the cap but they'll be about $10 million off.

$10M below cap is only $6M above the cap floor.

 

[RandV]

My problem with Winnipeg is what happens when the CAD drops to .75 or .80 against the USD. They will be paying USD$1.25 or $1.20 in player salaries on attendance and sponsorships that are paid with a weak Canadian dollar. Sure, right now, around parity the finances look okay with a 15k full building, not great. Back in the days of the Jets, most players who signed with Canadian teams were signed in Canadian Dollars, now all salaries are paid in US dollars. That's also not mentioning that Winnipeg isn't exactly the most affluent of Canadian cities. When the Canadian Dollar is struggling, smaller cities like Winnipeg get hit the hardest.

Well that's when revenue sharing kicks in isn't it? And considering how much revenue the Canadian teams kick in when we have dollar parity, there shouldn't be any problem propping some of them up for a while if it drops.

 

[GSC2k2*]

I haven't had the pleasure of years of your posting. But I have followed your contributions to discussions about the Phoenix situation and the potential for relocation to Winnipeg rather closely. Suffice to say, if you have been sticking as assiduously to the "facts" and "empiricism" as you claim, you wouldn't have come to many of the conclusions that you have reached.

Well, that is simply another unsupported assertion. The empirical facts were present there to a greater degree than any other file we have discussed here. Any time i used them, though, in opposition to the conventional wisdom, the more frequent response from otherwise articulate people i discuss this stuff with ... crickets. And that's okay, but if you are going to try to say that the facts indicate otherwise, a bald assertion will never do.

What I find rather curious is how rapidly you have jumped in to demand evidence regarding the business case and "bona fides" of the TNSE ownership group, while evidently falling hook, line and sinker for IEH as a legitimate ownership group and raising nary a question about the goofy "back of the envelope" business plan for the Coyotes offered by our favourite (now defunct) Tweeter (Daryl Jones, aka "IceEdgeDJ").

I didn't "fall" for anything. Again and again, you fall into this trap of inferring things from my post that are simply not there. What's more, you try to bolster an argument by using highly charged language like "hook, line and sinker" and "goofy" as if somehow it bolsters your argument. i didn't need to challenge them; there were plenty of WPG supporters only too happy to do so, while jumping to the conclusion that they were "clowns" who didn't have two nickels to rub together. As I expressed repeatedly in the threads, I required evidence of those assertions, since they were clearly offered by people who had no such evidence.

BTW, Daryl Jones is still on Twitter. Hardly defunct.

I think it is perfectly acceptable to request facts and demand empirical analysis, but to do so as selectively as you have done naturally raises questions as to your objectivity.

It is ironic to be lectured on objectivity by people who are so obviously compromised by their desire to have a local team to root for. I don't take issue with that bias - it is perfectly understandable - but responding to others that they are biased simply because they do not support your preferred outcome (that "everyone knows" is the right answer) is a poor answer. IMO.

notwithstanding my own hopes for the success of the Winnipeg franchise, I happen to think that there is enough evidence that the TNSE group are legitimate, serious and professional. I would point out that those are obviously the sentiments of Bettman, since he has specifically cited the credibility of the ownership group as a key reason for the return of the NHL to Winnipeg. Can we agree that Bettman has more facts and a better understanding of the business plan at his disposal to adjudicate this than you or I? Or do you think that Bettman has just been swayed by all this "make it 7" emotional appeal?

I would stipulate that Bettman has more facts in front of him on these issues than anyone on the planet. It is strange indeed that you (and others) would not grant him the same degree of leeway on the PHO transaction.

Now THAT i find interesting.

As an aside, i have been thinking about Bettman's position, and how rather un-Bettman-like he has been in dealing with ASG. The Bettman of a decade ago would have roasted ASG over an open fire, just to hear the popping sounds. I have not discounted the possibility that he is starting to look toward his legacy.

 

[RandV]

$10M below cap is only $6M above the cap floor.

Shouldn't be anything wrong with that. They were $17M below last year, so you're looking at a payroll increase either way. And considering they're a young up and coming team you may as well let the young players earn the bigger bucks and expand the payroll that way, rather than immediately going out maxing your cap out on UFA's in a single off season.

I'd imagine they'll make the $10 million below the standard operating cost, and increase it according as/if the team starts making the playoffs.

 

[pucka lucka]

Well, that is simply another unsupported assertion. The empirical facts were present there to a greater degree than any other file we have discussed here. Any time i used them, though, in opposition to the conventional wisdom, the more frequent response from otherwise articulate people i discuss this stuff with ... crickets. And that's okay, but if you are going to try to say that the facts indicate otherwise, a bald assertion will never do.



I didn't "fall" for anything. Again and again, you fall into this trap of inferring things from my post that are simply not there. What's more, you try to bolster an argument by using highly charged language like "hook, line and sinker" and "goofy" as if somehow it bolsters your argument. i didn't need to challenge them; there were plenty of WPG supporters only too happy to do so, while jumping to the conclusion that they were "clowns" who didn't have two nickels to rub together. As I expressed repeatedly in the threads, I required evidence of those assertions, since they were clearly offered by people who had no such evidence.

BTW, Daryl Jones is still on Twitter. Hardly defunct.



It is ironic to be lectured on objectivity by people who are so obviously compromised by their desire to have a local team to root for. I don't take issue with that bias - it is perfectly understandable - but responding to others that they are biased simply because they do not support your preferred outcome (that "everyone knows" is the right answer) is a poor answer. IMO.



I would stipulate that Bettman has more facts in front of him on these issues than anyone on the planet. It is strange indeed that you (and others) would not grant him the same degree of leeway on the PHO transaction.

Now THAT i find interesting.

As an aside, i have been thinking about Bettman's position, and how rather un-Bettman-like he has been in dealing with ASG. The Bettman of a decade ago would have roasted ASG over an open fire, just to hear the popping sounds. I have not discounted the possibility that he is starting to look toward his legacy.

Depends on what conclusions you think Bettman is drawing from those facts in Glendale. I think he's done a brilliant job making it appear he is trying to save the Phoenix market.

 

[peter sullivan]

GSC.

Please explain how you have arrived at your division of the Thomson family wealth as it pertains to David's share.

 

[King_Stannis]

If you have gleaned anything from my posts, you should have gleaned that I am pretty keen on establishing actual empirical data...

Your facts are usually pretty solid, and your legal information is spot-on. During the whole Phoenix fiasco you were the guy whose posts I sought out.

Having said that, your opinions are not always necessarily right. I think I brought it up before, but you once talked glowingly of the "synergy" the Thrashers had with the Hawks in Phillips Arena, and that they would feed off each other. That they'd both be successful because of it. It turns out the Thrashers have been an albatross around the necks of ASG since the start. There is and never was any "synergy". There was only a gigantic failure. Atlanta isn't a big enough hockey market to support the NHL. Period.


You're confident, and that sounds like arrogence to a lot of people. So when you do have a comuppance, as I'm sure today was to you at least a bit, people are bound to crow. You are apparently going to be the Doubting Thomas of the NHL in Winnipeg. That's fine, I wouldn't have expected anything else. People should be kept honest with good open debate. I look forward to it. I used to not like you because of what I perceived as your arrogence, but that was me being a bit immature. I think you always have something to add to the conversation, even if I disagree.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Ahh but you of course overlook why things may have been done that way. They are getting 4-5 years of guaranteed ticket revenue on their most lucrative seats. The trade off they made was capping increases at 3%. Most businesses are quite willing to give up a little in potential for guaranteed revenue.

No, i am quite aware of the trade-offs. They are getting guaranteed revenues off their cheaper seats too, in addition to the more expensive ones. I am sure that was the analysis; it is standard practice (it is why season tix are discounted to single game tix). Such a trade-off is acceptable in principle, but given the importance of their ticket revenue, I would question why they would not have capped increases at 5%, so as to keep in line with cap increases.

Would it have made a difference in ticket sales at this point to have built protection into their ticket price increases that aligns with automatic 5% cap increases? i doubt it; fan support will never be more feverish than it is now.

No matter how you slice it, they have a built-in financial disadvantage as a result. Unnecessarily so, says I.

 

[pucka lucka]

Your facts are usually pretty solid, and your legal information is spot-on. During the whole Phoenix fiasco you were the guy whose posts I sought out.

Having said that, your opinions are not always necessarily right. I think I brought it up before, but you once talked glowingly of the "synergy" the Thrashers had with the Hawks in Phillips Arena, and that they would feed off each other. That they'd both be successful because of it. It turns out the Thrashers have been an albatross around the necks of ASG since the start. There is and never was any "synergy". There was only a gigantic failure. Atlanta isn't a big enough hockey market to support the NHL. Period.


You're confident, and that sounds like arrogence to a lot of people. So when you do have a comuppance, as I'm sure today was to you at least a bit, people are bound to crow. You are apparently going to be the Doubting Thomas of the NHL in Winnipeg. That's fine, I wouldn't have expected anything else. People should be kept honest with good open debate. I look forward to it. I used to not like you because of what I perceived as your arrogence, but that was me being a bit immature. I think you always have something to add to the conversation, even if I disagree.

Many people are confident. Many of us here are professionals who are paid for our opinions in our fields. I am not sure I am confusing those 2 things you described.

 

[pucka lucka]

No, i am quite aware of the trade-offs. They are getting guaranteed revenues off their cheaper seats too, in addition to the more expensive ones. I am sure that was the analysis; it is standard practice (it is why season tix are discounted to single game tix). Such a trade-off is acceptable in principle, but given the importance of their ticket revenue, I would question why they would not have capped increases at 5%, so as to keep in line with cap increases.

Would it have made a difference in ticket sales at this point to have built protection into their ticket price increases that aligns with automatic 5% cap increases? i doubt it; fan support will never be more feverish than it is now.

No matter how you slice it, they have a built-in financial disadvantage as a result. Unnecessarily so, says I.

The ticket revenue based on the current pricing scheme will be quite high for the market size. If the tickets sell, I don't think TNSE will have the same concerns you do.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Actually they are not fixed. Sure ticket prices will be stable; however, they have other sources of income within the "shed" not to mention the VLT revenue component. TNSE did not just throw this together in 4 weeks, they have been working on this for more than a year. You can argue all you want; however, There will be many more franchises not keeping pace with the cap increases who do not have other sources of income like TNSE.

Considering you and I do not have all the "facts" (and likely never will) regarding the business plan, you are breaking your own forum rule that you always post facts.

You will note that I have never made any reference to any non-hockey revenues from a SHED. I do so since I have no frame of reference. Hence, I maintain my own self-imposed rules. I concern myself only with hockey revenues.

And yeah, knowing a little something about NHL sponsorship and suite deals, they are multi-year fixed deals, much along the same lines as what they are now requiring of their ST holders.