Does a move to Winnipeg mean success for the NHL or did they move to the wrong city?

[Retail1LO*]

My take on it is this:

Did they move to the right city? First of all, in this situation, there isn't a right city. The fact that they're moving at all, is bad. They're leaving one, potentially two, huge markets. And it's not like they're moving to another large market, or even a mid-sized one. They're moving into what is one of the smallest markets imaginable.
Second of all, it's the only city. The NHL doesn't have options. To make a move possible, they need an ownership group, and an NHL caliber, ready facility. Winnipeg has at least one of the two, and the second is debatable.

I think there are too many teams in the league. It's simply my opinion. I think the league is in a situation where more moves are going to be likely in the future. There just aren't 30 cities in North America that can consistently support the NHL product. In its current iteration, the league is always going to have teams with some sort of trouble. It's always going ot be a welfare league where the rich pay for the poor.

 

[knorthern knight]

$15 million for sponsorship AND TV rights? That seems a little low, I'd expect the cut of the HNIC pie to be in that range on its own, then you get the Sportsnet deal for local/cable rights and PPV games. Hard to believe they'd only haul $15 mil for media rights, let alone sponsorship.

The CBC and NBC deals are with the league, and each team gets 1/30th. Ditto for stuff sold by the league. If you buy a jersey at the MTS Centre, I believe all the revenue goes to the team. Teams also keep 100% for their own regional TV deals.

 

[Master Shake*]

Atlanta should not relocate. What it needs is new owners. But that said they should move to KC if anywhere.

But you know why Bettman is letting this happen right? So after Winnipeg fails, and it will , again, people will shut up and get off his back finally.

Believe me the league does not want a team in Winnipeg. But sometimes the best way to discipline a child is to give them what they think they want.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Atlanta should not relocate. What it needs is new owners. But that said they should move to KC if anywhere.

But you know why Bettman is letting this happen right? So after Winnipeg fails, and it will , again, people will shut up and get off his back finally.

Believe me the league does not want a team in Winnipeg. But sometimes the best way to discipline a child is to give them what they think they want.

A little inflammatory? And what team are you a fan of?

 

[AugustBurnsRed*]

Atlanta should not relocate. What it needs is new owners. But that said they should move to KC if anywhere.

But you know why Bettman is letting this happen right? So after Winnipeg fails, and it will , again, people will shut up and get off his back finally.

Believe me the league does not want a team in Winnipeg. But sometimes the best way to discipline a child is to give them what they think they want.

Makes sense.

 

[not a trapdoor]

My 2c.. There are two broad opinon camps here.

The first (including me) is that the NHL should be happy to have franchises in sustainable markets & avoid losing money in markets that aren't working (for whatever reason). Tied into this is the whole pro-Canadian aspect - that Canadian cities don't need to have a team making deep playoff runs/winning the cup regularly to survive. Basically, cities where there's a genuine & fairly broad interest in hockey. You can throw quite a few US based franchises in this basket of course (Boston, Rangers, Detroit, Buffalo, Minnesota for example). This group of locations isn't a closed club - San Jose has done awfully well in the last 20 years building a solid hockey fanbase, for example.

The second is that the NHL should be looking to grow interest in the game, and that a team in Atlanta has the potential to draw far more support than a smaller Canadian/northern US (think Hartford) city. They're looking at the longer term picture, seeing larger towns as potential longer term goldmines for the NHL's business model.

There's no correct opinion of course - everyone will have a different take. The NHL would be thoroughly unsustainable if it had franchises only in larger non-traditional markets like Phoenix, Miami, San Diego, Houston etc. Plenty of room for growth but few die hards. On the other hand if it only had teams in smaller Canadian cities such as Winnipeg, Halifax, Regina, Moncton, Yellowknife etc it'd also be unsustainable. Every town mad about hockey, but no hope of growth to entice TV contracts. The fact is we're somewhere between those two extremes - the league needs the rusted on fans in places like Toronto, Edmonton and even Winnipeg, but it also seeks to grow new markets, which can work (as in San Jose).

I do think the rush into the "sunbelt" was perhaps a little too fast - in a 30 team league there's always 14 teams missing the playoffs and to have 8 or so new/newish teams relying on on-ice success to build a fanbase is risky. It's hard to nurture the fragile markets when there's so many to tend to. It's not about Atlanta being the wrong place, but with poor ownership in Atlanta & Phoenix during a downturn in the US economy, the NHL simply had too much on it's plate (and may yet lose PHX).

In that context, Winnipeg makes sense - the franchise should be self-sustaining (assuming TNSE's sums are correct). Perhaps in 5-10 years if Columbus is a perennial playoff team, the Panthers have taken all of LeBron's thunder to be the hot ticket in Miami & the Nords (ex PHX) are playing in front of sellouts every game, the league can get back into Atlanta & properly focus on building in Atlanta properly (finding the right ownership, being far more selective than they have been), maybe even with revenue sharing from Winnipeg, Quebec & Columbus helping to nurture the new Atlanta team while it rebuilds the shattered landscape ASG have left behind.

 

[New User Name]

Atlanta should not relocate. What it needs is new owners. But that said they should move to KC if anywhere.

But you know why Bettman is letting this happen right? So after Winnipeg fails, and it will , again, people will shut up and get off his back finally.

Believe me the league does not want a team in Winnipeg. But sometimes the best way to discipline a child is to give them what they think they want.

One of the richest guys in the world believes Winnipeg will work.

But a guy on the internet doesn't.

I wonder who has more credibility.

 

[peter sullivan]

It has a 690k metro area.

750k.

the goat is offended.

 

[Master Shake*]

This should be good...

List em

KC
Portland
Seattle
Omaha
OKC
Milwaukee
Las Vegas
Houston
San Antonio
Hartford
Mayberry
Throw a dart at a map of the US

 

[New User Name]

KC
Portland
Seattle
Omaha
OKC
Milwaukee
Las Vegas
Houston
San Antonio
Hartford
Mayberry
Throw a dart at a map of the US

Only if you're holding the map.

 

[Puckschmuck*]

KC
Portland
Seattle
Omaha
OKC
Milwaukee
Las Vegas
Houston
San Antonio
Hartford
Mayberry
Throw a dart at a map of the US

I'll give you Milwaukee and Hartford as suitable locations to put a team, perhaps even Portland, but any better then Winnipeg? Can't be proven unless they all have teams for comparative analysis.

As for the rest of your list? You are obviously just one of those people that believe all big cities make for better markets based on population. Look how well that turned out for Atlanta and Phoenix, eh? Honestly, you just sound like a really bitter Kasakstanian; a true hater with an axe to grind against Winnipeg. I think this is what is driving you to post.

 

[Master Shake*]

I'll give you Milwaukee and Hartford as suitable locations to put a team, perhaps even Portland, but any better then Winnipeg? Can't be proven unless they all have teams for comparative analysis.

Which grows the sport more. Put aside your personal preference to see hockey in Winnipeg. Which one will make the owners more money, give the sport more exposure. Do you think corporations would rather have their advertisements aired during a WInnipeg game or any single one of the cities I named. Be honest and if you do you will admit I am correct. Moving to Winnipeg does absolutely NOTHING to grow the league. Nothing.

 

[New User Name]

Which grows the sport more. Put aside your personal preference to see hockey in Winnipeg. Which one will make the owners more money, give the sport more exposure. Do you think corporations would rather have their advertisements aired during a WInnipeg game or any single one of the cities I named. Be honest and if you do you will admit I am correct. Moving to Winnipeg does absolutely NOTHING to grow the league. Nothing.

Why are so many bent on growing the game?

I'm happy with the way it is. As are many others.

 

[Jet]

Only if you're holding the map.

Bwahahahaha!

 

[Puckschmuck*]

Which grows the sport more. Put aside your personal preference to see hockey in Winnipeg. Which one will make the owners more money, give the sport more exposure. Do you think corporations would rather have their advertisements aired during a WInnipeg game or any single one of the cities I named. Be honest and if you do you will admit I am correct. Moving to Winnipeg does absolutely NOTHING to grow the league. Nothing.

How about growing the sport AND satisfying the hockey markets to the north? This can be done without denying anyone and go a long way to make most people happy, or is it an "all or nothing" kind of deal for you?

Oh, and if you are going to continue to "grow the sport", I suggest you do your research on "potential markets" and not just pick cities by throwing darts at maps. That is not doing your due diligence! *shakes finger really hard at the troll*

 

[Master Shake*]

Why are so many bent on growing the game?

I'm happy with the way it is. As are many others.

Because the owners are in it to make money. Thats why people buy a business. If they wanted to own a small business in a small town they would open a diner somewhere. These are men who are investing huge sums of money into a business. The idea of a business is growth. Winnipeg is not growth.

 

[New User Name]

Because the owners are in it to make money. Thats why people buy a business. If they wanted to own a small business in a small town they would open a diner somewhere. These are men who are investing huge sums of money into a business. The idea of a business is growth. Winnipeg is not growth.

Great business. What is it, 10 teams lost money this year even after receiving revenue sharing?

Somehow I think Winnipeg will make money, which should make other owners happy that it's one less team to bail out.

 

[karnige]

Atlanta should not relocate. What it needs is new owners. But that said they should move to KC if anywhere.

But you know why Bettman is letting this happen right? So after Winnipeg fails, and it will , again, people will shut up and get off his back finally.

Believe me the league does not want a team in Winnipeg. But sometimes the best way to discipline a child is to give them what they think they want.

winnipeg will average at least 15k even during the bad years. thrashers...well they didn't. hockey is life in canada. especially a small market like winnipeg. the canadian $ will never be as poor as it once once ever. that alone will make winnipeg profitable. atlanta failed twice now. they have no excuses.

 

[LeftCoast]

We're done here.