NHL's return to Winnipeg certain says analyst

[jamiebez]

It is not the NHL's fault that absolutely nobody stepped forward to purchase the team ten years ago.

Not entirely true... a local ownership group called the "Spirit of Manitoba" did step forward, but couldn't get the capital together.

Bear in mind they were trying to raise enough money to buy the team, build a new arena AND put together a pool to cover the team's losses for the 3 additional years they would be playing in Winnipeg Arena while the new arena was being built. I believe this was all to the tune of something over $200M, IIRC.

 

[Golden Ducky]

Winnipeg is like the Greenbay Packers in terms of faithfull fan support. There is talk the arena can be expanded to about 16 000. I am sure they can add a few more corporate suites/sky suites. To top it all off Winnipeg is a lucrative market because one huge media conglomerate Canwest global will be owning the team and televise every Jets (or whatever name it will be) and broadcast to every viewer in canada much like ted turner does for his Atlanta Braves.

 

[Leaf Lander]

i hope they get a team



asl mong as halifax never gets ateam ill be happy



i would never see my leafs if halifax had a team

 

[Resolute]

i ask you this then - would you like to see another team in canada? - and - where would it go?

to buy in ten years ago would've been financial suicide - ask mark cuban - who kinda wants in now

I would love to see more teams in Canada, and I would love to see Winnipeg get a team back. I miss the old Jets vs Flames days.

What I want, and what makes sense economically are two different things though. We are talking about franchise failures and relocations on a massive scale before Winnipeg gets another chance, and I do not believe people like Howard Bloom are helping things much when they continue to sell Winnipeggers on the idea that the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow actually can be reached.

 

[Resolute]

Not entirely true... a local ownership group called the "Spirit of Manitoba" did step forward, but couldn't get the capital together.

Bear in mind they were trying to raise enough money to buy the team, build a new arena AND put together a pool to cover the team's losses for the 3 additional years they would be playing in Winnipeg Arena while the new arena was being built. I believe this was all to the tune of something over $200M, IIRC.

The idea of essentially taking the Jets public was noble, but only underscores that nobody with any financial capacity to own and operate the team stepped up.

Certantly that group tried, and failed miserably as I recall. I still fail to see, however, where the NHL owes Winnipeg anything.

 

[berney fkaj]

I would love to see Winnipeg get a team, Quebec too, but I don't want to see the league expand anymore. So Im not sure if this is going to happen, I guess we will have to wait for a few years.

 

[Golden Ducky]

Winnipeg is like the Greenbay Packers in terms of faithfull fan support. There is talk the arena can be expanded to about 16 000. I am sure they can add a few more corporate suites/sky suites. To top it all off Winnipeg is a lucrative market because one huge media conglomerate Canwest global will be owning the team and televise every Jets (or whatever name it will be) and broadcast to every viewer in canada much like ted turner does for his Atlanta Braves.

what u guys you not commenting on what I said.

 

[Resolute]

I suppose nobody wanted to tell you that Winnipeg is NOT the Green Bay of hockey in terms of Fan support?

Winnipeg never came close to selling out Winnipeg Arena for the Jets. Hell, the MTS Centre is actually a little smaller than Winnipeg Arena was in terms of capacity.

Also, regardless of the sentimentalism surrounding Winnipeg, the comparison to Green Bay is not valid. Green Bay exists in large part because of the $2 billion TV deals the NFL has. Player costs for all NFL teams are covered before a single ticket is sold, or a single beer poured. This is not the case in the NHL, and likely never will be.

And no, MTS Centre is not expandable.

As for the idea that Canwest Global would sell Jets games to all of Canada, you are delusional. There is no Canadian superstation (ala TBS), and Canwest Global would not be permitted to force all of it's affiliate stations to air Jets games, as that would violate Sportsnet's regional and TSN's national deals, both of which contain exclusivity clauses.

 

[NYRFANinJersey]

although im sure that a team in winnipeg would have a lot of fan support i dont think the NHL would pass up an opportunity like Houston...the 4th largest city in the US would be too tempting, and their 1 year old arena, which was designed to support both basketball and hockey, could easily be a money-maker..as for the idea of Houston not being a hockey market, just look at the teams in places like Dallas, Phoenix, and Tampa Bay, which get plenty of support despite the fact they are not traditional markets..while it might be considered a risk compared to a traditional Canadian market, i think in the end it would be the best decision the league could make

 

[jamiebez]

The idea of essentially taking the Jets public was noble, but only underscores that nobody with any financial capacity to own and operate the team stepped up.

Certantly that group tried, and failed miserably as I recall. I still fail to see, however, where the NHL owes Winnipeg anything.

I agree... the NHL doesn't owe anyone anything. If Winnipeg is to get an NHL club once again, they have to prove that they are an economically feasible market.

However, I disagree with your comment that "no one stepped up" to save the team. The Spirit group was NOT a public ownership group - it was a local group of businessmen, who would own the team privately, much like Calgary's present situation. I outlined the reason why they failed to do so in my previous post - they needed to come up with the money to build the new arena (covering the shortfall in government funding), the money to fund the losses for the team for three years while the rink was built, and the purchase price for the team itself. It's also worth noting that Barry Shenkarow jerked them around quite a bit in negotiations, changing the terms of the deal at the last minute and insisting on part-ownership. So, no, the money could not be found locally.

But compare this Burke and Gluckstern, who were essentially handed an arena in Phoenix, and only had to cover losses for one season (the "lame duck" 1995/96 season where no fans showed up because they had announced in the summer of 1995 that the team was moving at season's end). Oh, and they also gave Shenkarow a "consultant's salary" which he continued to recieve until the Ellman/Gretzky group bought the team.

While I'm giving history lessons, it's important to note that Winnipeg's attendance was never the problem - it was the fact that they were unable to generate sufficient revenue at Winnipeg Arena. The city-run Winnipeg Enterprises owned the building, and the Jets were kept from realizing any advertising revenue, and received only a portion of concession and parking revenue. Add to this that the building had virtually no luxury suites (the only "suites" were essentially akin to press boxes), something like 30% of the seats were obstructed-view and the building had very limited access for the handicapped and elderly (end zone seats that went up 50+ rows without a handrail!). It was a building built in the 1950s and then expanded to 15k when they joined the NHL.

Shenkarow's problem dating as far back as 1983 was that he couldn't get enough money out of the building. Attendance was never a problem. Ignoring the afore-mentioned "lame duck" 95/96 season that all the detractors love to point out, the Jets averaged about 13,000 during the 80s and 90s. League average was around 14,500 during that same period, which is not terribly out of line.

I believe that if you consider the changes to the NHL since 1995/96 it is economically feasible for Winnipeg to support a team in the MTS Centre.

First of all, the building is expandible - there is room for another set of luxury suites opposite the press boxes. This would bring your capacity up to 15,500, with about 100 suites.

Secondly, a lease deal must exist whereby ALL concession and advertising revenue from the building goes to the team. A brand-new, state-of-the art arena provides for much more advertising revenue (a scoreboard that wasn't built in the 1960's, the "power ring" around the upper deck) than existed before, as well as improved concessions, an in-arena restaurant and souvenir store that also never existed previously.

Thirdly, there are television revenue opportunites that didn't exist in 1996. Global TV has grown much larger, and Rogers Sportsnet didn't exist. There are two potential local TV contracts right there. As well, Vancouver and Edmonton have claimed over 30,000 buys for 10-game pay-per-view packages (that's about $4M in gross revenue for those keeping score at home)

It's also worth noting that the Government of Manitoba gives the revenue from all the video lotto terminals in the MTS Centre to the Moose/True North presently. That's another $2.5M that wasn't around in 1996.

Add up the revenue numbers and it CAN work. The REAL question we all need to ask is: does it work better in Winnipeg than Houston, Kansas City or Portland and exactly how many opportunities for expansion/relocation will we see in the coming years?

 

[Hawker14]

I agree... the NHL doesn't owe anyone anything. If Winnipeg is to get an NHL club once again, they have to prove that they are an economically feasible market.

However, I disagree with your comment that "no one stepped up" to save the team. The Spirit group was NOT a public ownership group - it was a local group of businessmen, who would own the team privately, much like Calgary's present situation. I outlined the reason why they failed to do so in my previous post - they needed to come up with the money to build the new arena (covering the shortfall in government funding), the money to fund the losses for the team for three years while the rink was built, and the purchase price for the team itself. It's also worth noting that Barry Shenkarow jerked them around quite a bit in negotiations, changing the terms of the deal at the last minute and insisting on part-ownership. So, no, the money could not be found locally.

But compare this Burke and Gluckstern, who were essentially handed an arena in Phoenix, and only had to cover losses for one season (the "lame duck" 1995/96 season where no fans showed up because they had announced in the summer of 1995 that the team was moving at season's end). Oh, and they also gave Shenkarow a "consultant's salary" which he continued to recieve until the Ellman/Gretzky group bought the team.

While I'm giving history lessons, it's important to note that Winnipeg's attendance was never the problem - it was the fact that they were unable to generate sufficient revenue at Winnipeg Arena. The city-run Winnipeg Enterprises owned the building, and the Jets were kept from realizing any advertising revenue, and received only a portion of concession and parking revenue. Add to this that the building had virtually no luxury suites (the only "suites" were essentially akin to press boxes), something like 30% of the seats were obstructed-view and the building had very limited access for the handicapped and elderly (end zone seats that went up 50+ rows without a handrail!). It was a building built in the 1950s and then expanded to 15k when they joined the NHL.

Shenkarow's problem dating as far back as 1983 was that he couldn't get enough money out of the building. Attendance was never a problem. Ignoring the afore-mentioned "lame duck" 95/96 season that all the detractors love to point out, the Jets averaged about 13,000 during the 80s and 90s. League average was around 14,500 during that same period, which is not terribly out of line.

I believe that if you consider the changes to the NHL since 1995/96 it is economically feasible for Winnipeg to support a team in the MTS Centre.

First of all, the building is expandible - there is room for another set of luxury suites opposite the press boxes. This would bring your capacity up to 15,500, with about 100 suites.

Secondly, a lease deal must exist whereby ALL concession and advertising revenue from the building goes to the team. A brand-new, state-of-the art arena provides for much more advertising revenue (a scoreboard that wasn't built in the 1960's, the "power ring" around the upper deck) than existed before, as well as improved concessions, an in-arena restaurant and souvenir store that also never existed previously.

Thirdly, there are television revenue opportunites that didn't exist in 1996. Global TV has grown much larger, and Rogers Sportsnet didn't exist. There are two potential local TV contracts right there. As well, Vancouver and Edmonton have claimed over 30,000 buys for 10-game pay-per-view packages (that's about $4M in gross revenue for those keeping score at home)

It's also worth noting that the Government of Manitoba gives the revenue from all the video lotto terminals in the MTS Centre to the Moose/True North presently. That's another $2.5M that wasn't around in 1996.

Add up the revenue numbers and it CAN work. The REAL question we all need to ask is: does it work better in Winnipeg than Houston, Kansas City or Portland and exactly how many opportunities for expansion/relocation will we see in the coming years?

the taxpayers picked up the losses for the '95-'96 season. burke and gluckstern's only contribution was $ 3 million to cover half of tkachuk's salary that season.

 

[bsenskmolson]

Brooklyn Islanders

Why couldn't they just keep the name New York Islanders, I mean after all they would still be in New York...

 

[Willis]

I would have to see a link on that before I believed it.

15,015 is over 1800 seats smaller than Rexall Place, which is one of the smallest arenas currently in the NHL. It also has fewer suites than Rexall.

TO me Edmonton is a good example for why a revived Jets would have a very tough time if they ever do come back.

Rexall has 67 suites and a capacity of 16,838 I believe. That is too little according to the owners of the Oilers which are now talking about a new arena. Rexall which will produce higher revenue than a team in Winnipeg (as the Oilers have a waiting list on the suites of over 70 corporations thus always sold) all 15,000 season tickets sold with a waiting list (Oilers limit it to 14,000 and 1,000 equivilent from the ticket packs so that there is tickets available for fans) and they are not exactly on top of the league in Revenue. Thus with more suites which will be sold for more money, more expensive tickets all sold and the Oilers even with the revamped NHL are in he middle of the pack (they don't qualify for the money from revenue sharing as they are not bottom 10). Where do you think Winnipeg would be. Probably getting money from the rest of the league in the best of times. Thus I don't think it would work.

By the way I should mention that the Oilers are now talking about a new arena with slightly more capacity and significantly more suites. Thus allowing them to generate more revenue. If the league revenues go up, then so does the cap. THus even within a few years Winnipeg will fall off again.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by kdb209
Brooklyn Islanders

Why couldn't they just keep the name New York Islanders, I mean after all they would still be in New York...

They likely would. I was just pointing out that the Brooklyn Islanders would be ALOT more appealing to NYI fans than the Portland or Houston or (to make some releveance to the original thread) the Winnipeg Islanders.

Somewhat OT - has anyone heard what teh Nets plan to do when they move to Brooklyn - New York Nets (back to the past), Brooklyn Nets, New Jersey Nets (why not, the "New York" Giants and Jets play in Jersey).

 

[Pure West]

If Winnipeg were to receive a team, I'm sure that if they sell out every game, and max out all other revenue streams theyd be able to limp to the payroll floor or slightly above and survive just fine.

However,

Why would a struggling franchise want to relocate to a market that will also be struggling for survival?

I would think the NHL would want to relocate to a city where they think the NHL would thrive economically, not just survive. Calgary and Edmonton (bigger and much wealthier cities with bigger arenas) already need assistance to keep ensure their long term health, imagine Winnipeg? And think why would the big market owners want to finance another weak link when relocation to much bigger, wealthier cities is an option?

Winnipeg is not coming back unless the NHL just completely falls off the map in the US.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

They likely would. I was just pointing out that the Brooklyn Islanders would be ALOT more appealing to NYI fans than the Portland or Houston or (to make some releveance to the original thread) the Winnipeg Islanders.

Somewhat OT - has anyone heard what teh Nets plan to do when they move to Brooklyn - New York Nets (back to the past), Brooklyn Nets, New Jersey Nets (why not, the "New York" Giants and Jets play in Jersey).

No, kdb, why do the Giants have their name on the stadium that the Jets play in w/ the Devils on the way to Newark as well.

Didn't the Jets fail to get a stadium on the Westside approved as well?

The only difference between the Rangers and Islanders is the Rangers are downtown, and the Islanders on on an Island, hence why the Islanders are on LI.

Anybody ready to tell the Mets their stadium is obsolete not to mention aren't the Nets in conjunction with the Yankees marketing wise.

 

[jamiebez]

TO me Edmonton is a good example for why a revived Jets would have a very tough time if they ever do come back.

Rexall has 67 suites and a capacity of 16,838 I believe. That is too little according to the owners of the Oilers which are now talking about a new arena. Rexall which will produce higher revenue than a team in Winnipeg (as the Oilers have a waiting list on the suites of over 70 corporations thus always sold) all 15,000 season tickets sold with a waiting list (Oilers limit it to 14,000 and 1,000 equivilent from the ticket packs so that there is tickets available for fans) and they are not exactly on top of the league in Revenue. Thus with more suites which will be sold for more money, more expensive tickets all sold and the Oilers even with the revamped NHL are in he middle of the pack (they don't qualify for the money from revenue sharing as they are not bottom 10). Where do you think Winnipeg would be. Probably getting money from the rest of the league in the best of times. Thus I don't think it would work.

By the way I should mention that the Oilers are now talking about a new arena with slightly more capacity and significantly more suites. Thus allowing them to generate more revenue. If the league revenues go up, then so does the cap. THus even within a few years Winnipeg will fall off again.

Actually, the Oilers are an excellent example of why it will work in Winnipeg...

If you look at the Forbes numbers, the Oilers made a $3M in 2003/04, despite having a $37M payroll, and missing the playoffs. Of course, the NHL denied these numbers up and down, and I certainly can't claim that they're accurate, but the Oilers are a profitable enterprise in Edmonton: that we can be sure of. The problem that the Oilers had (pre-lockout) was that they couldn't compete with $70M payrolls. Profits have never been a problem for the Oilers.

If you assume that Winnipeg can only realize 80% of Edmonton's revenue (not unreasonable), they are still looking at a break-even payroll of $32M, assuming no playoffs or revenue sharing. Granted, all this stuff changes under the new CBA, but my point is: if a new CBA works for Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, and even Buffalo, it can work for Winnipeg. If it doesn't work for Edmonton, Calgary, etc, why were they so excited about this deal, and willing to lose a year's worth of revenue for it?

As far as the Oilers building a new arena, it's not because there is an urgent need for one in terms of more money, or an immediate need for higher capacity. They're talking about a 10-year plan for the rink, and its largely because Rexall is one of the oldest rinks in the league, and in need of upgrades. They're not really looking at a significantly larger capacity, either - I believe they're talking about the 17-80,000 range.

 

[Resolute]

Actually, the NHL never once denied the Oilers profit last year. The Oilers owners themselves even came out and stated they turned a profit.

The Oilers received that $3 million currency equalization cheque, a program that no longer exists.

Lacking that, the Oilers effectively broke even. And only then because of the Heritage Classic. They also averaged about 98% capacity (going off memory) on a 17,000 seat arena.

A new Jets would not have a Heritage Classic. They would have 1800 fewer seats, which at 98% capacity would equal 72,000 fewer fans over the course of a season. Presuming that the new Jets would have to charge at least as much for tickets as Edmonton, and presuming that these 1800 seats are all in the cheapest section, ~$30, and on a conservative estimate that fans spend $7.50 on concessions on average, the new Jets are looking at $2.7 million in lost revenue from those missing seats.

Did I mention the payroll tax that Alberta charged NHL players that went to the Flames and Oilers? Or the scratch ticket lottery that the Flames and Oilers had as well? Those have both now expired as well.

Now, the new Jets could make up a good deal of that via things like the VLTs that TrueNorth has, as well as the resteraunts. (I dont think Rexall has any. The Saddledome has at least three, but they arent open except on gamedays).

You are the first person who has mentioned the possibility for more luxury boxes. I've heard a lot of people who have said there is no room to expand though. Do you have a link mentioning the possibility of adding more luxury boxes? Trusting that there is room though, I can't see there being enough room to add 50 more luxury boxes opposite the press level. Though I havent been to that arena yet, so I could be wrong.

On the topic of television rights, Calgary and Edmonton do not have local TV deals. Costs too much for such small metro areas. I would doubt Winnipeg, who's metro is only 80% of Edmonton and 70% of Calgary would be likely to have a local deal. The problem with Sportsnet is that the west region is already split two ways by the Flames and the Oilers. For a new Jets' sake, I would hope they could get a regional deal on TSN instead, because there just arent enough available days to broadcast games on RSN as it is.

There is also the problem of Manitoba being one of the most oppressive tax jurisdictions in North America, and Alberta being one of the friendliest. Chances are extremely high that the new Jets would be paying much more tax than the Oilers do, and that Winnipeggers wont have as much disposable income as Edmontonians do.

There are a great many challenges facing Winnipeg in it's hopes of landing a team.

Of course, this argument of mine, which is way too long already is moot until the first, and greatest, challenge is surpassed: Winnipeg needs to find an owner with enough money to outbid any group looking to bring a team to Houston, KC, Portland, etc and who is willing to put up with the difficulties of playing in the NHL's smallest arena in the NHL's smallest market.

Not to mention that a team has to come onto the market. I've been told that, in the case of the Coyotes at least, that there are all kinds of guarantees in their lease that would all but prevent them from relocating because the arena was built with public money. Of course, if someone is willing to pay the penalties, any lease can be broken, but it is another problem to consider.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Actually, the NHL never once denied the Oilers profit last year. The Oilers owners themselves even came out and stated they turned a profit.

The Oilers received that $3 million currency equalization cheque, a program that no longer exists.

Lacking that, the Oilers effectively broke even. And only then because of the Heritage Classic. They also averaged about 98% capacity (going off memory) on a 17,000 seat arena.

A new Jets would not have a Heritage Classic. They would have 1800 fewer seats, which at 98% capacity would equal 72,000 fewer fans over the course of a season. Presuming that the new Jets would have to charge at least as much for tickets as Edmonton, and presuming that these 1800 seats are all in the cheapest section, ~$30, and on a conservative estimate that fans spend $7.50 on concessions on average, the new Jets are looking at $2.7 million in lost revenue from those missing seats.

Did I mention the payroll tax that Alberta charged NHL players that went to the Flames and Oilers? Or the scratch ticket lottery that the Flames and Oilers had as well? Those have both now expired as well.

Now, the new Jets could make up a good deal of that via things like the VLTs that TrueNorth has, as well as the resteraunts. (I dont think Rexall has any. The Saddledome has at least three, but they arent open except on gamedays).

You are the first person who has mentioned the possibility for more luxury boxes. I've heard a lot of people who have said there is no room to expand though. Do you have a link mentioning the possibility of adding more luxury boxes? Trusting that there is room though, I can't see there being enough room to add 50 more luxury boxes opposite the press level. Though I havent been to that arena yet, so I could be wrong.

On the topic of television rights, Calgary and Edmonton do not have local TV deals. Costs too much for such small metro areas. I would doubt Winnipeg, who's metro is only 80% of Edmonton and 70% of Calgary would be likely to have a local deal. The problem with Sportsnet is that the west region is already split two ways by the Flames and the Oilers. For a new Jets' sake, I would hope they could get a regional deal on TSN instead, because there just arent enough available days to broadcast games on RSN as it is.

There is also the problem of Manitoba being one of the most oppressive tax jurisdictions in North America, and Alberta being one of the friendliest. Chances are extremely high that the new Jets would be paying much more tax than the Oilers do, and that Winnipeggers wont have as much disposable income as Edmontonians do.

There are a great many challenges facing Winnipeg in it's hopes of landing a team.

Of course, this argument of mine, which is way too long already is moot until the first, and greatest, challenge is surpassed: Winnipeg needs to find an owner with enough money to outbid any group looking to bring a team to Houston, KC, Portland, etc and who is willing to put up with the difficulties of playing in the NHL's smallest arena in the NHL's smallest market.

Not to mention that a team has to come onto the market. I've been told that, in the case of the Coyotes at least, that there are all kinds of guarantees in their lease that would all but prevent them from relocating because the arena was built with public money. Of course, if someone is willing to pay the penalties, any lease can be broken, but it is another problem to consider.

not to mention most of the Oilers' profit margin would've been worse had they not moved the currently suspended AHL Road Runners into Rexall last season, too, Resolute.

 

[Resolute]

Not really. That certantly helped the Oilers bottom line in 04-05, but not so much in 03-04, since they didnt own or operate the Roadrunners at that time.

 

[oilfaninvan]

If Winnipeg gets a team, would they be called the Jets? Would they use the same uniforms? Does anyone own the rights to the name still??

 

[Golden Ducky]

aren't sportnet and TSN deals negotiate every year or so. When those expire I am sure CANWEST Global would sign a local deal like sportsnet and air the Jets games across the nation. That equals to alot revenue potential and of course a creation of new Jets fans in Canada. This is exactly what Turner Broadcasting is doing.

Our Taxes are high thats for sure but in hindsight our cost of living in car insurance, housing prices, medicare, and hydro utilities are alot cheaper than Albertas. In other words a $12/hr job in alberta equals to $10/hr job in Manitoba.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

aren't sportnet and TSN deals negotiate every year or so. When those expire I am sure CANWEST Global would sign a local deal like sportsnet and air the Jets games across the nation. That equals to alot revenue potential and of course a creation of new Jets fans in Canada. This is exactly what Turner Broadcasting is doing.

Our Taxes are high thats for sure but in hindsight our cost of living in car insurance, housing prices, medicare, and hydro utilities are alot cheaper than Albertas. In other words a $12/hr job in alberta equals to $10/hr job in Manitoba.

what sports does Turner do anyway----they no longer control the Hawks or Thrashers portion, and the only sports entity they own is the Braves solely.

Isn't TSN=ESPN anyway?

 

[Resolute]

aren't sportnet and TSN deals negotiate every year or so. When those expire I am sure CANWEST Global would sign a local deal like sportsnet and air the Jets games across the nation. That equals to alot revenue potential and of course a creation of new Jets fans in Canada. This is exactly what Turner Broadcasting is doing.

In order to broadcast games nationally, Global would have to bid and win the national TV rights. Since they are not a cable channel, they cannot compete against TSN for national cable rights. They would be competing against CBC for national broadcast rights.

I can tell you right now that Global would not win, and would not have any interest in trying, because outside of Winnipeg, nobody would care all that much. As much as you may wish it were so, there is no national desire to see every Winnipeg game on TV.

Sportsnet cannot broadcast games across the nation. It can only broadcast games within it's region. The Canucks in the pacific region, the Flames and Oilers in the west region, The Sens in Ontario. TSN has the regional rights for the Leafs, and can only broadcast their games within Ontario, the rest of the nation gets blacked out. Not sure who has Montreal's english language rights.

If Global were to win the regional rights from any opposing bidder, they would likely only be able to broadcast into Manitoba. They could not broadcast across Canada.

Further, this argument assumes that Global would even have an interest in doing any of this. Just because it is based in Winnipeg does not mean it is going to automatically spend a ton of money on TV rights. It may purchase the local rights and air games within Winnipeg, but only if it feels the cost is justified. As I said, Calgary and Edmonton dont have local deals because the cost is not justified. I do not see how Winnipeg is different.

Our Taxes are high thats for sure but in hindsight our cost of living in car insurance, housing prices, medicare, and hydro utilities are alot cheaper than Albertas. In other words a $12/hr job in alberta equals to $10/hr job in Manitoba.

Assuming that were true, Alberta's "$10/hr" employee would be taking $8 home in net pay, while Manitoba's "$12/hr" employee would take home only $7, and lose another $1 on the PST.

Keep in mind that while your auto insurance (as an example) may seem cheaper on the surface, what you pay each month in premiums is not what you are paying overall. Your taxes are going to subsidize your insurance rate, so whatever you save in premiums gets eaten up by the tax man.

 

[Resolute]

Also, Canwest Global is a network, not unlike CBC, ABC, CTV, NBC, FOX.

TBS is a "superstation". One station, not a network of stations.

There is no Global superstation.