NHL move to Winnipeg 'a step back'

[RandR]

Long term I have my doubts about the viability of Winnipeg as an NHL city though, but it's still an improvement in the short to medium term at least. There will now be stable and committed ownership with a track record of successful hockey operations, and there will certainly be a lot of enthusiasm with this team playing in a growing city where hockey is the undoubted king in sports.

 

[peter sullivan]

who has ever said that the weather will affect how many peggers attend the games? I don't think there has been a large number of people saying that.
.

i was referring to ashe...and several other remarks here and in the media recently.

when your option is to earn $3m a year and be a rockstar in the cold, or sell real estate somewhere warm...most players will choose playing in winnipeg.

the few thrashers players interviews i have listened to in the past couple of days seems to indicate that the players might be excited to come to a hockey market and a place where they will be treated like Gods....Little said that in his 4 years in atlanta he has only been recognized once on the street....and that was in a group of players.

you spend your whole life working toward the goal of being an NHL player, i think some would like the spoils of fame that can go along with that....some will like anonymity, but some wont.

im sure they have as many UFAs not signing in phoenix and atlanta because of its disinterested fan base as edmonton and winnipeg will have because of the cold.

 

[Mantha Poodoo]

I think this has been said so many times but it isn't how many fans you bring in but how much they're willing to pay. For example I'm just throwing out some numbers, say the average ticket price in Phoenix is $35 and the average ticket price in Winnipeg will be $65. Who is making more money?

Hell, lets just say Phoenix has a freaky season where they sell out consistently and yet they still bring in only around $600,000 per game whereas Winnipeg brings in around $975,000. Of course, there are other factors but this is a basic idea.

It's still a frigging small arena, though. I know the ability to pay is important. But so is the ability to have a large amount of people paying.

So say an average of 14,500 at your listed ticket prices is enough for Winnipeg to, if nothing else, break even (which is way better than Phoenix is doing). Gravy, right? Not really. The issue is that such a small arena makes it harder to make an average attendance of that number.

The problem lies in that people assume that if the average needs to be 14,500, the max doesn't need to be much higher. The reality is that many, many teams, and Winnipeg would be among these, see their attendances change dramatically depending on the opponent. Sure, the Peg might sell out regardless the first year due to exuberance. But then you start seeing years where maybe they'd sell 17,500 against the Nucks, 17,000 against the Wings, 12,500 against the Avs, 9,000 against the Jackets... but then you have to scrape 2k+ in attendance off of all those top end numbers because the capacity is only about 15,000. You end up with an average of maybe 12,500 instead of 14,500 because you're not getting the attendance hits from the big draws that you could. Even with decent priced tickets, that's going to equal problems.

For the first couple years, I'm sure the MTS will be fine. But within a handful of years they need to start looking towards a new arena. On the plus side, the MTS would still be very viable for an AHL team, or at least to its good sound quality, other events.

 

[KevFu]

I think the step back is losing ATL. I think a successful Atlanta team would be very good for the NHL. Moreso than a successful Phoenix team, or successful FLA team.

To me, the problem with this move isn't Winnipeg (they need an NHL team, as does Quebec), the problem is they're getting one from ATL and no from Phoenix/Miami or expansion.

 

[macavoy]

when your option is to earn $3m a year and be a rockstar in the cold, or sell real estate somewhere warm...most players will choose playing in winnipeg.

the few thrashers players interviews i have listened to in the past couple of days seems to indicate that the players might be excited to come to a hockey market and a place where they will be treated like Gods.

I think you are proving my point.

Lets compare apples to apples. A big US market like Phoenix and a big US market like Atlanta. They are both relatively the same but almost everrybody from Phoenix said they didn't want to leave. Whereas everyone from Atlanta was happy to leave.

That says alot, its not about just temperature. It was because the management sucked in atlanta which led to fan problems, that wasn't the case in Phoenix.

Do you really think Phoenix is more appealing to NHL'ers than Atlanta from purely a city / climate / entertainment perspective.

Also the $3m comment is way off base and I hate it when people bring in non relevant arguements, I mean who would the Jets offer $3m to that would sign there vs who would sign the same contract in Glendale?

If you compare apples to apples, nobody would but if you compare $0.5m in Atlanta to $3m in the peg, of course a plugger in the bottom 6 would choose $3m.

 

[Doc Scurlock]

It's still a frigging small arena, though. I know the ability to pay is important. But so is the ability to have a large amount of people paying.

So say an average of 14,500 at your listed ticket prices is enough for Winnipeg to, if nothing else, break even (which is way better than Phoenix is doing). Gravy, right? Not really. The issue is that such a small arena makes it harder to make an average attendance of that number.

The problem lies in that people assume that if the average needs to be 14,500, the max doesn't need to be much higher. The reality is that many, many teams, and Winnipeg would be among these, see their attendances change dramatically depending on the opponent. Sure, the Peg might sell out regardless the first year due to exuberance. But then you start seeing years where maybe they'd sell 17,500 against the Nucks, 17,000 against the Wings, 12,500 against the Avs, 9,000 against the Jackets... but then you have to scrape 2k+ in attendance off of all those top end numbers because the capacity is only about 15,000. You end up with an average of maybe 12,500 instead of 14,500 because you're not getting the attendance hits from the big draws that you could. Even with decent priced tickets, that's going to equal problems.

For the first couple years, I'm sure the MTS will be fine. But within a handful of years they need to start looking towards a new arena. On the plus side, the MTS would still be very viable for an AHL team, or at least to its good sound quality, other events.

This is the thing though, if you see the attendance for all the Canadian teams you can see that they're all well over 15000 and usually selling out larger arenas. I see no reason why Winnipeg can't follow suit as the demand is there. Selling tickets won't be a problem because I'll bet you anything that they will have a waiting list for season tickets. Then you also have to factor in that for some people getting their hands on tickets will be a treat even when the Florida Panthers roll into town because once again you have a high demand for tickets and a low capacity.

Bottomline, if you can't fine 15000 people to fill the MTS Centre every game then we have a big problem on our hands. Remember this is Canada not Atlanta, Phoenix, etc.

 

[Whileee]

It's still a frigging small arena, though. I know the ability to pay is important. But so is the ability to have a large amount of people paying.

So say an average of 14,500 at your listed ticket prices is enough for Winnipeg to, if nothing else, break even (which is way better than Phoenix is doing). Gravy, right? Not really. The issue is that such a small arena makes it harder to make an average attendance of that number.

The problem lies in that people assume that if the average needs to be 14,500, the max doesn't need to be much higher. The reality is that many, many teams, and Winnipeg would be among these, see their attendances change dramatically depending on the opponent. Sure, the Peg might sell out regardless the first year due to exuberance. But then you start seeing years where maybe they'd sell 17,500 against the Nucks, 17,000 against the Wings, 12,500 against the Avs, 9,000 against the Jackets... but then you have to scrape 2k+ in attendance off of all those top end numbers because the capacity is only about 15,000. You end up with an average of maybe 12,500 instead of 14,500 because you're not getting the attendance hits from the big draws that you could. Even with decent priced tickets, that's going to equal problems.

For the first couple years, I'm sure the MTS will be fine. But within a handful of years they need to start looking towards a new arena. On the plus side, the MTS would still be very viable for an AHL team, or at least to its good sound quality, other events.

Actually, I think the small arena means that the increased demand will mean that ticket prices can be maintained at a higher level, and I doubt that you would fall much below the 15,000 often. We have been over this before, but remember that the extra 2000-2500 tickets would all be at the cheapest prices, not the average ticket price. So, for example, if the average ticket price of the first 15,000 seats is about $75, but the average price for the next 2,000 is $45, then ticket revenue is $1.125 million for the first 15,000 and $90,000 for the next 2000, which would represent only an 8% increase in ticket revenues, assuming that they were sold out continuously. If you only consistently sell 1,000 of those cheapest seats, you add only about $45,000 per game in revenues. But more importantly, if you have a bunch of cheaper seats, then for games that don't sell out you have the problem of filling the cheap seats before the expensive seats, which actually decreases your revenue. That is why some arenas actually eliminate (tarp over) cheap seat sections (see Florida).

 

[Duckhole]

I think the step back is losing ATL. I think a successful Atlanta team would be very good for the NHL. Moreso than a successful Phoenix team, or successful FLA team.

To me, the problem with this move isn't Winnipeg (they need an NHL team, as does Quebec), the problem is they're getting one from ATL and no from Phoenix/Miami or expansion.

Why does everyone see atlanta as a better market than phoenix? Population is hardly a reason.

 

[bluesfan94]

I think in the long run, the NHL would be better served to keep the team in Atlanta. Although Winnipeg will immediately pay dividends for the NHL in terms of total revenue, I think that spreading the game into the underdeveloped parts of USA hockey wise would enlarge the total market size.

 

[Mantha Poodoo]

Why does everyone see atlanta as a better market than phoenix? Population is hardly a reason.

Larger metro population, larger TV market, better attendance (even while having an overall worse product), better ticket revenues.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Before I X out this thread so I don't have to have my browser polluted by more anti-Winnipeg TRASH I will say my piece.

Moving to Winnipeg is far from a step back. Having a market with a beloved fan base for the sport, team and league is NOT a step back.

Having a team that can be self supporting is NOT a step back.

For me the mistake was that this should have been the Coyotes moving, a market that will NEVER EVER WORK. Atlanta if it was run even half assedly well could have been a real feather in the NHL's cap and I hope it returns.

Phoenix, or Florida are 2 teams that need to move or be contracted out. It would be amazing if one went to ATL and the other to QC.

this is the crux of why so many people have more then likely put me on ignore over the past 48 hours

I have yet to have someone show me the numbers where the team will be 100% self supportive with ZERO hand outs from anyone

the day they built the new arena and announced it was 15'5k sitter--I said it was two small for a gate driven revenue league and i stand by that statement

The best case scenerio is if the peg can pull of what the Green bay packers do in the NFL--but the biggest problem is that the Packers get to draw on a huge TV deal and that is something that the NHL does not have

If the team ends up being self supportive I will put up my hand and say I am wrong--but until we ge the reality of it--I see a problem in the basic business plan that has been set forth

 

[AugustBurnsRed*]

It's still a frigging small arena, though. I know the ability to pay is important. But so is the ability to have a large amount of people paying.

So say an average of 14,500 at your listed ticket prices is enough for Winnipeg to, if nothing else, break even (which is way better than Phoenix is doing). Gravy, right? Not really. The issue is that such a small arena makes it harder to make an average attendance of that number.

The problem lies in that people assume that if the average needs to be 14,500, the max doesn't need to be much higher. The reality is that many, many teams, and Winnipeg would be among these, see their attendances change dramatically depending on the opponent. Sure, the Peg might sell out regardless the first year due to exuberance. But then you start seeing years where maybe they'd sell 17,500 against the Nucks, 17,000 against the Wings, 12,500 against the Avs, 9,000 against the Jackets... but then you have to scrape 2k+ in attendance off of all those top end numbers because the capacity is only about 15,000. You end up with an average of maybe 12,500 instead of 14,500 because you're not getting the attendance hits from the big draws that you could. Even with decent priced tickets, that's going to equal problems.

For the first couple years, I'm sure the MTS will be fine. But within a handful of years they need to start looking towards a new arena. On the plus side, the MTS would still be very viable for an AHL team, or at least to its good sound quality, other events.

It will be expanded before they get a new arena.

 

[Jumptheshark]

http://winnipegjets.org/winnipeg-jets-attendance

just thought I would add those figures into the debate

what happens in 5 years if the New jets are still a non playoff team and getting the ass handed to them on a nightly basis?

Do fans still pay top buck to see a losing team?

 

[Duckhole]

Larger metro population, larger TV market, better attendance (even while having an overall worse product), better ticket revenues.

In the past couple years our for the past ten? The population difference is about a million it doesn't seem like that much when they are both around 5 million people.

 

[RandR]

Actually, I think the small arena means that the increased demand will mean that ticket prices can be maintained at a higher level, and I doubt that you would fall much below the 15,000 often. We have been over this before, but remember that the extra 2000-2500 tickets would all be at the cheapest prices, not the average ticket price. So, for example, if the average ticket price of the first 15,000 seats is about $75, but the average price for the next 2,000 is $45, then ticket revenue is $1.125 million for the first 15,000 and $90,000 for the next 2000, which would represent only an 8% increase in ticket revenues, assuming that they were sold out continuously. If you only consistently sell 1,000 of those cheapest seats, you add only about $45,000 per game in revenues. But more importantly, if you have a bunch of cheaper seats, then for games that don't sell out you have the problem of filling the cheap seats before the expensive seats, which actually decreases your revenue. That is why some arenas actually eliminate (tarp over) cheap seat sections (see Florida).

Good point and well-explained. In addition, when tickets are hard to come by, fans are more likely to buy them in advance instead of waiting until the last minute, when they sometimes change their minds and decide not to bother going at all.

To a lesser degree, a packed building and fans feeling lucky they got a ticket both lend themselves to a more excited atmosphere for the game itself, which is always good for selling tickets to other games.

Conversely, the revenue for games does have to include concession and souvenir sales and some parking (fans buying the cheaper seats are probably more likely to take transit), but I still agree with your point.

I don't know if they can expand the MTS Centre to any degree, but it they can I would assume True North will do their homework and ensure they will likely maintain any existing percentage of attendance capacity. It can be a fine line to cross where they create a situation where people feel they can just decide to go to games at the last minute.

 

[Doc Scurlock]

http://winnipegjets.org/winnipeg-jets-attendance

just thought I would add those figures into the debate

what happens in 5 years if the New jets are still a non playoff team and getting the ass handed to them on a nightly basis?

Do fans still pay top buck to see a losing team?

None of that is relevant. That was a different time as the city that was then isn't the same one it is now economically. The league itself is different as well as if you compare attendance numbers for teams in those days then you'll see that selling out an arena consistently wasn't commonplace. I mean take a look at Pittsburgh when they won those two cups back-to-back, according to the place where you got your Winnipeg numbers, they didn't sell out both seasons. The Rangers didn't when they won their Cup neither did the Devils.

Oh, as for paying top buck to see a losing team, minus the crazy run in 2006, we in Edmonton have been doing that for the past 20 years.

 

[Jumptheshark]

None of that is relevant. That was a different time as the city that was then isn't the same one it is now economically. The league itself is different as well as if you compare attendance numbers for teams in those days then you'll see that selling out an arena consistently wasn't commonplace. I mean take a look at Pittsburgh when they won those two cups back-to-back, according to the place where you got your Winnipeg numbers, they didn't sell out both seasons. The Rangers didn't when they won their Cup neither did the Devils.

Oh, as for paying top buck to see a losing team, minus the crazy run in 2006, we in Edmonton have been doing that for the past 20 years.

I love how people say the attendance is not an issue--why?

because it hurts the pro-peg movement and therefore(like so much other stuff) something that hurts their arguement they say that it means nothing and down play it

edmonton has some of the highest tickets, have been screaming for a new arena for years and finally are building one that will be able to help them compete with other teams finacially---it will hold 18.5 or 3k more then the peg one

oiler fans are getting tired of losing and you will start to see it if they do not start playing better

 

[Doc Scurlock]

I love how people say the attendance is not an issue--why?

because it hurts the pro-peg movement and therefore(like so much other stuff) something that hurts their arguement they say that it means nothing and down play it

It's a different time period. If we go by your sound logic then technically we shouldn't have given Minnesota their team back because the North Stars attendance wasn't good either.

 

[kdb209]

Actually Revenue sharing is a zero sum game. Next year, Toronto and Montreal will be force to share just as much revenue as they were this year. The only difference is the $5m that went to Atlanta last year, $2m goes to team zzzz and $1m goes to team cccc and $0.5m goes to team qqqqq and $0.2 goes to team jjjjjjj.

The rules of revenue sharing mean they have to share the same amount every year, moving Atl to Peg only changes who gets what, but money still gets shared.

Actually, since the minimum Revenue Sharing is 4.5% of HRR, the total Revenue Sharing pie will increase (assuming that Winnipeg generates higher HRR than Atlanta), so Montreal and Toronto will likely pay even more into Revenue Sharing as a result.

 

[New User Name]

I love it. A bunch of people on a message board saying for XYZ(ed) reasons Winnipeg won't stand a chance.......YET some dude with billions of dollars thinks they will.

Who ya gonna listen to?

Oh and by the way. I'd take Winnipeg's weather over Phoenix or Atlanta any day of the week.

 

[macavoy]

A bunch of people on a message board saying for XYZ(ed) reasons Winnipeg won't stand a chance..

Who is saying winnipeg won't stand a chance? There isn't a single post on this page saying that. Nobody is denying winnipeg is a better market than Atlanta with no arena.

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

Oh and by the way. I'd take Winnipeg's weather over Phoenix or Atlanta any day of the week.

In the summer, sure. In the winter, you know when the NHL season takes place. No way.

 

[jamwires]

Right...cause Canadian cities and hockey...you know... they're a step back...

The NHL's soon-to-richest owner called...

 

[Shawa666]

Are you referring to the most lucrative television deal the NHL has ever signed in its history?

The combined Canadian deals are more lucrative.

 

[xerox]

So it is step back for the league because the players wives doesn't want go there?

What?