NHL's return to Winnipeg certain says analyst

[mr gib]

50 suites is not a lot.

the pres was on the radio with his plan - spoke to a wack of people that live there - it could really work - the income streams all line up - ( revenue sharing )

gotta go GAME ON !

 

[RedSoxNation]

50 suites is not a lot.

50 is more then enough if you can sell the 50. What good are the suites in Raleigh if they can't sell those suites. BTW there are I think 78 suites in Raleigh, and I'll bet most are never sold for hockey games

 

[RedSoxNation]

If Portland isnt big enough, why on earth would you move to a market that has a metro area that is barely 40% as large as Portland, has the Canadian currency problem and has an arena that can only fit 4000 fewer people?

- first the currency issue is no longer much of an issue. Secondly if an NHL team was in Winnipeg it would be the only game in town. No NBA, no NCAA football, nothing else to fight for the sports dollar

You have not offered a single reason why Kansas City and Houston are poor choices. "They have too many teams" means nothing given a majority of the NHL's existing teams have at least as many franhises as these two markets.

- well forgive me for suggesting a market (K.C.) where hockey failed once can now make a go of it. Before you suggest hockey is failed in Winnipeg, I'm not that well versed into what happened but if I recall the team moved because of a bad arena not poor fan support. And Houston as a hockey town, are you kidding

Las Vegas: Also, no valid reason offered. "Stupid choice" is a meaningless statement. What the mayor thinks is irrelevent. If they have or will build an arena, and someone wants a team there, the mayor will welcome it with open arms.

- well sorry if you believe Vegas is a good choice. It is a totally stupid choice. Doesn't matter anyway since the city doesn't want a hockey team but if you believe Vegas is a hockey town all power to you

The only one you have a concrete reason against is Seattle, because of arena problems. Seattle builds a new arena and that problem is resolved.

- well Seattle isn't going to build an arena so its a moot point

Emotionally, Winnipeg is the best choice. Buisness is not run on emotion though. It all comes down to dollars and cents, and from that perspective, Winnipeg is well down the list.

- Being from and living in New England I could care less about any emotional choices. Again I read the column and yea I agree when compared to the other cities, Winnipeg is at or near the top of that list.

 

[kdb209]

50 is more then enough if you can sell the 50. What good are the suites in Raleigh if they can't sell those suites. BTW there are I think 78 suites in Raleigh, and I'll bet most are never sold for hockey games

Unfortunately, the argument isn't is Winnipeg better than Raleigh - it is Winnipeg better than Raleigh and all other potential relocation markets.

The Canes either stay where they are (a distict possibility at least for the near to mid term), Karmanos moves the team to the city that offers him the best deal or where he thinks he can make the most money, or he sells the team to the ownership group that offers him the most money. The question, then is who would be willing to pay more - an ownership group in Portland or Houston or Vegas or KC or an ownership group in Winnipeg. That's all it really comes down - dollars and cents.

 

[mr gib]

If Portland isnt big enough, why on earth would you move to a market that has a metro area that is barely 40% as large as Portland, has the Canadian currency problem and has an arena that can only fit 4000 fewer people?

- first the currency issue is no longer much of an issue. Secondly if an NHL team was in Winnipeg it would be the only game in town. No NBA, no NCAA football, nothing else to fight for the sports dollar

You have not offered a single reason why Kansas City and Houston are poor choices. "They have too many teams" means nothing given a majority of the NHL's existing teams have at least as many franhises as these two markets.

- well forgive me for suggesting a market (K.C.) where hockey failed once can now make a go of it. Before you suggest hockey is failed in Winnipeg, I'm not that well versed into what happened but if I recall the team moved because of a bad arena not poor fan support. And Houston as a hockey town, are you kidding

Las Vegas: Also, no valid reason offered. "Stupid choice" is a meaningless statement. What the mayor thinks is irrelevent. If they have or will build an arena, and someone wants a team there, the mayor will welcome it with open arms.

- well sorry if you believe Vegas is a good choice. It is a totally stupid choice. Doesn't matter anyway since the city doesn't want a hockey team but if you believe Vegas is a hockey town all power to you

The only one you have a concrete reason against is Seattle, because of arena problems. Seattle builds a new arena and that problem is resolved.

- well Seattle isn't going to build an arena so its a moot point

Emotionally, Winnipeg is the best choice. Buisness is not run on emotion though. It all comes down to dollars and cents, and from that perspective, Winnipeg is well down the list.

- Being from and living in New England I could care less about any emotional choices. Again I read the column and yea I agree when compared to the other cities, Winnipeg is at or near the top of that list.

portland can't even think of a team till they fix the basketball side

 

[Hasbro]

NHL's return to Winnipeg certain says analyst

Is he a therapist too?

 

[Resolute]

- first the currency issue is no longer much of an issue. Secondly if an NHL team was in Winnipeg it would be the only game in town. No NBA, no NCAA football, nothing else to fight for the sports dollar

Currency is not as much of an issue, but it is still most definitely an issue. A major issue. An 85 cent loonie is much better than a 63 cent loonie, but it still puts Winnipeg at a considerable disadvantage. One that is compounded by the ridiculously small arena.

Other teams are irrelevent. What is relevent is whether an owner believes there are enough hockey fans to make a team work. As I said, there are a great many markets with multiple other teams that are doing fine.

- well forgive me for suggesting a market (K.C.) where hockey failed once can now make a go of it. Before you suggest hockey is failed in Winnipeg, I'm not that well versed into what happened but if I recall the team moved because of a bad arena not poor fan support. And Houston as a hockey town, are you kidding

Winnipeg died because it was losing >$10 million a year and the city decided to stop subsiziding the team. And yes, support was a problem. The Jets final year they only averaged 11,000 per game.

People laughed at Dallas, San Jose, Columbus, Tampa, etc. You can laugh off Houston as "not a hockey market" but once again, your opinion is not what buisness people will make a buisness decision over.

- well sorry if you believe Vegas is a good choice. It is a totally stupid choice. Doesn't matter anyway since the city doesn't want a hockey team but if you believe Vegas is a hockey town all power to you

I never said that Las Vegas was a good choice. I said you failed to offer a single reason why it is a bad choice. And there are some pretty obvious reasons out there.

- well Seattle isn't going to build an arena so its a moot point

How are you so sure?

- Being from and living in New England I could care less about any emotional choices. Again I read the column and yea I agree when compared to the other cities, Winnipeg is at or near the top of that list.

Where you are from is irrelevent, and certantly does not prove that you could "Care less about any emotional choices." So far, the only argument you have managed to support Winnipeg is your personal disdain for the other markets often considered as relocation sites.

 

[kdb209]

portland can't even think of a team till they fix the basketball side

What do the Blazers have to do with it. They are now just a sh*tty NBA team playing in a nice Arena with a really sh*tty lease.

Paul Allen != Portland.

Paul Allen is not interested in Hockey, but Paul Allen no longer has any control over the Rose Garden - he gave up all interest and control though bankrupcy court. The new owners and arena management company are actively looking to fill the Rose Garden with more booked dates.

And the new Management Company just happens to have interesting NHL connections - It is owned by Comcast (you know that company that owns the Flyers and OLN) and operates the arena where the Flyers and 76ers play.

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=28173

The newest game in town? It’s the competition between Global Spectrum, the new operator of the Rose Garden, and the Portland Trail Blazers.

Global Spectrum began managing the arena Jan. 1 for Portland Arena Management, a Delaware-based limited liability company formed as a new entity by the 12 investment companies that are the bondholders of the Rose Garden. Oregon Arena Corp., owned by Trail Blazer owner Paul Allen, lost the building after it declared bankruptcy.

...

Global Spectrum bills itself as “the fastest-growing firm in the public assembly management field.†Its parent company, Comcast-Spectacor, owns the Philadelphia 76ers. Global Spectrum manages such facilities as Philadelphia’s Wachovia Center, where the 76ers play, the 28,000-seat FargoDome in North Dakota and several minor-league ballparks, along with the Arizona Cardinals’ new stadium in Phoenix.
Scanlon said the company will attempt to increase the number of dates in which the Rose Garden is used.
“To put 150 event days in, aside from Blazer and Winter Hawk games, is an achievable number,†he said. “Having 40-some-odd buildings throughout the country gives us the connections we need to get more things put together.â€

 

[mr gib]

What do the Blazers have to do with it. They are now just a sh*tty NBA team playing in a nice Arena with a really sh*tty lease.

Paul Allen != Portland.

Paul Allen is not interested in Hockey, but Paul Allen no longer has any control over the Rose Garden - he gave up all interest and control though bankrupcy court. The new owners and arena management company are actively looking to fill the Rose Garden with more booked dates.

And the new Management Company just happens to have interesting NHL connections - It is owned by Comcast (you know that company that owns the Flyers and OLN) and operates the arena where the Flyers and 76ers play.

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=28173

up here there was a discussion about where the nhl might go - arthur griffiths and an oln producer went into some detail as to what was wrong with the portland bball operation and the why's of how that needed to be fixed before entertaining any hockey franchise - i will try and research this topic and post again - thanks

 

[kdb209]

up here there was a discussion about where the nhl might go - arthur griffiths and an oln producer went into some detail as to what was wrong with the portland bball operation and the why's of how that needed to be fixed before entertaining any hockey franchise - i will try and research this topic and post again - thanks

The Trailblazers operation should have zero to do with a new NHL team. The Blazers problems now (along with the on court bad play and off court criminal records) is that they no longer have any control or get any of the revenue streams from their arena. Paul Allen (and the Blazers) gave up that revenue when he gave up control of the Rose Garden to get out from under the significant bond debt he was paying. The Blazers now just get ticket revenue for their games and thats it - no parking, no concessions, no luxury suites, etc.

Any new NHL team in Portland would not be owned by Paul Allen and would not be affected by the Blazers. They would negotiate their own arena deal with Global Spectrum and would certainly be in a much better financial position than the Blazers.

 

[Kitsune]

I dont see the NHL ever going back to Seattle. They've already had one horrible experience in Seattle (awarded them a franchise, and the last second it was pulled cause of the city never came thru on the Arena, and the franchise was put into Denver....). Winnipeg may not be first on the relocation list, but they are on it, and sometimes thats all that counts, how else do you think Carolina got a franchise before Houston, Portland, Minnesota etc....

 

[Bixby Snyder]

I dont see the NHL ever going back to Seattle. They've already had one horrible experience in Seattle (awarded them a franchise, and the last second it was pulled cause of the city never came thru on the Arena, and the franchise was put into Denver....).

Huh? When was Seattle ever awarded an NHL franchise? The Rockies were the KC Scouts before moving to Denver.

 

[mr gib]

The Trailblazers operation should have zero to do with a new NHL team. The Blazers problems now (along with the on court bad play and off court criminal records) is that they no longer have any control or get any of the revenue streams from their arena. Paul Allen (and the Blazers) gave up that revenue when he gave up control of the Rose Garden to get out from under the significant bond debt he was paying. The Blazers now just get ticket revenue for their games and thats it - no parking, no concessions, no luxury suites, etc.

Any new NHL team in Portland would not be owned by Paul Allen and would not be affected by the Blazers. They would negotiate their own arena deal with Global Spectrum and would certainly be in a much better financial position than the Blazers.

" -The Blazers now just get ticket revenue for their games and thats it - no parking, no concessions, no luxury suites, etc. - "

there it is right there - thanks

 

[kdb209]

" -The Blazers now just get ticket revenue for their games and thats it - no parking, no concessions, no luxury suites, etc. - "

there it is right there - thanks

Yup. The worst lease in professional sports.

Lousy lease

No one needs to convince Patterson, who became Blazers president in June 2003, that the Blazers’ lease with Oregon Arena is unusual.
“The Blazers have, by far and away, the worst lease in all of professional sports,†he said, citing the revenue that the lease diverted away from the Allen-owned Trail Blazers to the formerly Allen-owned Oregon Arena. “It’s the least favorable lease to a professional sports team in all of professional sports.â€

 

[Kitsune]

Huh? When was Seattle ever awarded an NHL franchise? The Rockies were the KC Scouts before moving to Denver.

Its what allowed the Scouts to move to Denver in the first place. Seattle was awarded a franchise in the mid 70s. Its one of the topics that the NHL has choosen to bury and leave in its pass. It was a real mess....

 

[Roke]

15,500 people or whatever the MTS Centre holds is not enough period. It's too big for an AHL team (except for the playoffs) but not big enough for the NHL, even with the suites and concessions. And any ownership group would have to include the Chipmans as they own the arena and I don't think they have enough money to support an NHL franchise.

 

[Magnus Fulgur]

We need more northern teams where the population already knows hockey.

Population shouldn't be what should be looked at primarily.

Plus Charlotte couldn't even keep its NBA team so ...

Sentence A: Okay, so which nothern teams should get hockey? Hamilton? Halifax? Milwaukee? Rochester? Lansing? Portland and Seattle have good but not great hockey knowledge. BTW, so many former "northerners" like me are ditching the great north for the now equally great south. I play rec leage in Atlanta with Canadians, Yanks, and Southerners. The future of hockey interest growth is actually in the south, not in the north. Do you want to preach to the choir, or do you want to spread the good word???

Sentence B: Carolina's team is in the metro area which is obiviously the second tier metro of its state. That is a problem, especially since the #1 metro is also one of the top banking citadels of the US. Or let's just put a team in Winnipeg or Quebec or Hartford, which are also SMALLER than Charlotte. Brilliant.

Sentence C: Charlotte's fan base basically boycotted the corrupt owership of the Charlotte Hornets. It's one of the most unusual happenings in all of sports history. As soon as the Hornets left for New Orleans (a match made in heaven) Charlotte had the financing and backing for a NEW stadium and a fan base for a new team. No questions asked. It was a done deal with a speed unheard of - imagine if Quebec, KC, COL, OAK, CLE, Hartford, or Winnipeg got a new team back in less than five years. Of course not. It couldn't happen. But it could happen in the growing and dynamic city of Charlotte. Ottawa couldn't keep the Sens, Montreal couldn't keep the Maroons, and even Brooklyn lost a team... so the point is moot.

BTW, I'm from Atlanta, so if anything I don't want to see Charlotte succeed!

 

[polarslam]

I think it all depends on what happens in the NHl over the next 3-5 years. If Atlanta, Nashville, Carolina, Miami etc can fill up there building with paying customers and not just the corporate give away and inflated fan totals that too many NHL teams and the leauge have been trying to sell off as legitmate numbers....than the leauge will prosper. The NHL is a gate driven leauge, it is always going to be a fringe major sport in the vast American market and thus will never command huge TV and other deals but if fans go to the games and the local communites support the teams than I see no reason why any of the current teams will have to move. Would and Asper family member be interested in paying expansion fee's in an healthy NHL down the line? Maybe? And no doubt it will cost a pretty penny, but I bet some renovations could be done to the MTS Centre to add another 2500 seats somewhere, if that is all that is stoping it.

 

[Emerald City Bruin]

[How are you so sure?

There's no guarantee but it seems the people of Seattle are against all funding for any new stadiums. The 2 built for the Seahawks and Mariners were built against voter opposition and in the past fall elections, a bill to renovate Key Arena had to go back to the drawing board because it spent too much. There are way more pressing issues than a basketball/hockey arena especially when the hockey team we currently have fails to draw large numbers.

 

[Firefighter Havok]

I'd love to see carolina move up there... but something tells me it isn't happening.

I think that the Hurricanes would have a better chance of moving back to Hartford...

Who comes up with this crap???

I have to say, Pittsburgh's name shouldn't even be on the list considering a) Crosby is there, and with all of the PR attached to him and the franchise, it wouldn't make sense. B) Mario won't allow it, he will find a way to get the arena, because he owns a house in "da burgh", and he's not going to uproot his family when the Lemieux family has roots in Pittsburgh. And finally C) Bettman worked too hard on making Pittsburgh a viable market, because I'm sure the new CBA was driven by teams like the Pens. It would look extremely horrible for the NHL to leave Pittsburgh when there is a very loyal following here.

 

[bottleCAPS]

I imagine they could renovate and add seats to the building.

though it makes you wonder why they didn't just put in 18-20,000 seats in the new arena when they said while building it, that is was in the hopes that one day they'd get an NHL team to play there.

Here in Wpg, we're a little slow eh... Originally Marc Chipman (Moose GM) wanted to make it 8,000 seats but our mayor said it was gonna be atleast 15,000 or bust. Pretty sure that the compromise made was the reason it's so small. Super nice but I agree small. It would be cool to get the NHL back in town. I however am still rather skeptical and it's gonna take a lot still to get a team. Give it a few years and let it pan itself out.. I wouldn't be too heartbroken if it doesn't happen but something about watching the Vancouver Canucks farm team isn't all that appeasing to me.

 

[Sens Rule]

The Winnipeg MTS centre Arena actually outdrew a bunch of NHL Arena's in huge cities in revenue from concerts and events. Winnipeg could easily support an NHL team. Doesn't mean they will get one but they could definately support one in the new NHL with their current arena. And the Arena could be expanded a bit too. So they have a Metro of 800000. Having a Metro that size in Canada is like having a Metro of 2000000 in the Northern US and 4000000 in the Southern US.

That said if I am the NHL my first priority is Houston, then Winnipeg, then Portland and Vegas. These will eventually happen due to expansion not relocation. (though I could see Raliegh move to Houston).

 

[Hasbro]

its fine if you want to crap all over Winnipeg,

That'll get you some conventions.

For all the talk of KC having failed before, that was 30 years ago under wildly different circumstances and god knows what different demographics in KC.

That's a comperable and often longer wait time for a do over that other cities have had:

Quebec Bulldogs->Quebec Nordiques=60 Years

Ottawa Senators->Ottawa Senators=58 years

Pittsburgh Pirates->Pittsburgh Penquins=38 Years

Philadelphia Quakers->Philadelphia Flyers=37 Years

St. Louis Hawks->St. Louis Blues=33 Years

Atlanta Flames->Atlanta Thrashers=20 Years

California Seals->San Jose Sharks=15 Years

Colorado Rockies->Colorado Avalanche=14 Years

Minnesota North Stars->Minnesota Wild=8 Years

Portland is a decent sized city with very little sports compitition and some great corperate sponsors. Before the Blazers became a work release program Portland had the most rabid fans in basketball. Plenty of the disgruntled hoop heads would probably welcome a new team to root for.

 

[Saint Teemu]

I grew up watching the Jets, so, sure, I'd like to see an NHL team in Winnipeg again. Here are my thoughts.

I checked out this Howard Bloom guy's bio and it would appear that he should know what he's talking about. That said, maybe claiming that Winnipeg was a shoo-in would lead to some easy publicity, as a previous poster contends.

If Mark Chipman had the long-term goal of owning an NHL team in Winnipeg, I have no idea why he went for the 15,000 seat arena. As has been stated, it's too much for the AHL, not quite enough for the NHL. I think an NHL team in the MTS Centre (as it's currently configured) would have to have a hell of a deal (i.e. the share of revenue from tickets, concessions, parking...) to make it worthwhile.

As far as city sizes go, I really think it's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog. Put an NHL team in Mexico City and it's just not going to pull fans. As someone already mentioned, you do have to figure in the appetite for hockey in the city. If it's in a "non-traditional" market, you have to determine if your market is more like Dallas or more like Raleigh.

I think you do have to consider the entertainment options available. If your NHL team will be directly competing with other pro sports (most notably football and basketball), your fledgling team could be in trouble.

I don't know that you can consider previous team foldings/moves as "strikes against", unless you're talking about the same ownership group, the same economic situation, and the same situation with the fans. You can learn from history, but it doesn't determine the future.

As someone else posted, if in fact there are teams in trouble and looking to move, where else are you going to put them? I just don't think there are that many viable options - although I think that Oklahoma City might not be a bad choice, if the NBA doesn't stay there permanently. They're a good-sized city, they support minor pro hockey (the CHL Blazers have led the league in attendance for 13 years running), and they're hungry for a pro team (at least that's what their mayor said on Prime Time Sports a couple of weeks back).

All in all, I think a lot of things would have to fall perfectly in place for the Jets to return to Winnipeg.

 

[hwkn]

Milwaukee'd be a perfect city to add a NHL team to seeing as the Bradley center was originally built to lure an NHL team there[though it's pretty small for NHL standards....it could be expanded though].