MTS Center Arena Capacity

[Mungman]

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.



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.

Meh, the facts are flexible around here, we're all working from in incomplete (at best) picture of what's going on (good examples: the Sportsnet regional contract, the illegality of ASG even whispering to anyone about selling during the court case, MTSC being paid off) so basically everyone here is guilty of this offence. It's not generally intentional, just the nature of this part of the interwebs. You can make it your personal crusade for empiricism, but you'll just end up tilting at windmills till the end of time.

As for the part of your post I deleted from the quote, pretty chippy play, keep the elbows down.

As for the business plan, as a standalone business there are issues, but that's why the Jets left in the first place (one of many reasons). They WERE a standalone hockey business without control of the arena revenues, this is a different situation entirely. The closest model in the NHL would be San Jose with the diversified revenue streams to support the operation, TNSE already has much of this is place and is continuing to expand the investments in the area of the arena to support the organization. In the long run the model they are building should be sustainable.

The Winnipeg of today is not the Winnipeg of yesterday, and the Winnipeg of tomorrow will be better than today with many of the developments going on around the province.

But now I must go and retrieve my patio set before it flys away in the wind.... nuts man just nuts.

 

[Mungman]

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.

ANNNNND this ends our conversation RIGHT NOW. You are now officially dealing in purely theoretical terms, the model TNSE is building bears no similarity to the "model" Winnipeg franchise (now referred to as Gepinniw since we don't want to confuse the model from reality).

Gepinniw is doomed, doomed I say with the restrictions put on it by the model builder. Winnipeg on the other hand since the business plan is much more flexible and adaptive than the theoretical place.

Isn't the theoretical world usually where one would try being adventurous to see is things work rather than as restrictive as possible to confirm that the Gepinniw model would fail?

 

[GSC2k2*]

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.

That is an interesting take, to be sure. "To what end?" would be the obvious question, particularly since Bettman strikes most everyone as someone who doesn't give a damn about what things "appear" to be and since he didn't make a pretense of "appearing" to save the ATL market (as he could have easily done if he was concerned about appearances), and since he had multiple opportunities to avoid significant financial risk and expenditures of valuable management time and political capital with the BOG. i seriously would be fascinated in knowing more about that theory.

GSC.

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

More math.

$23B divided by three siblings.

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.

Thanks, KS. I would not say anything today is a comeuppance. As I said, I am always open to be convinced, but come up with a good argument. Some have done so on various issues over the years, and I like to think that I acknowledge one when I see one. On WPG, I will continue to await a solid set of numbers that indicates to me that WPG can survive on a longterm basis.

REgarding ATL, it is not like i invented the concept of synergy among sports teams and arenas. As you can see, it has become the template for sports ownership in the non-NFL sports. i don't recall opining on ATL specifically, since I am an NBA fan as well and am acquainted with the dismal attendance of the ATL Hawks (you want to see empty seats, turn into one of their broadcasts). Bill Daly was interviewed recently, and stated that, in the early years, the Thrashers propped up the Hawks (hardly surprising, considering the ineptitude of the Hawks for many years), rather than the other way around. The arena propped them both up.

There was synergy there. You want a good reason why the Thrashers are gone? here is one for you: the arena entity's profits went down from ~$19M/year (with contributions from both teams) to $11M a few years ago to probably far less than that now. The synergy dissipated on all fronts. Inept, distracted management will do that to any business.

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.

Yes, quite high. that is both a blessing and a curse. A blessing, for obvious reasons; a curse, because after the initial push, then what? Ticket prices generally rise higher than inflation (as noted above, they are going to have to rise to keep pace with the cap). If one starts off with comparatively hihg prices, how high must they go before the fanbase screams? No one knows that, but it is a certainty that one is closer to the point if you start off with preemptively high prices.

 

[peter sullivan]

More math? GSC. You are smarter than that....I hope.

 

[GuelphMadHatter]

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.

I am no economist, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. Actually a low Canadian dollar can be more beneficial to the Canadian economy because more people (namely Americans) are more likely to invest here. A high dollar drives away alot of that. Canada will probably raise interest rates pretty soon if the dollar doesn't go down. 85-90 cents is probably a level that can satisfy everyone and still support NHL hockey. That's where it was at the time of the lockout.

 

[Fugu]

We've gone from discussing the MTS Centre capacity to:

1. GSC and what keeps him awake at night,
and
2. Winnipeg viability, which oddly enough seems like the kind of thing one would discuss in the thread about Winnipeg and a certain ticket drive.


I'll leave the posts here so you guys can refer back to them seeing how much effort was expended, but let's stick to the business topics and not discussing each other. Thanks.