Who here loved the Winnipeg Jets?

Status
Not open for further replies.

arnie

Registered User
Dec 20, 2004
520
0
slats432 said:
And I thought it was my torch only to bear. ;) Winnipeg is a hockey town.

BUT....Winnipeg doesn't have the population or economic climate to have an NHL team.

I lived in Winnipeg, grew up in Kenora and think that as a place to live, Winnipeg is AWESOME.(Aside from what Mac would tell ya.... :D ,)

From a hockey standpoint, they are just not NHL material.

Winnipeg is both small and economically depressed. Further, Winnipeg would would also be a drag on the league as a whole. Smaller Canadian cities, Calgary, Edmonton and even Vancouver are very poor draws in the US. They bring down ticket sales and cost other teams money. Winnipeg would be even worse than these other cities.

The notion of putting an NHL is team is ludicrous. I've been to Winnipeg and it's an OK place. But so is Sudbury, and you wouldn't put an NHL team there either.
 

quartermaster29

Registered User
Oct 15, 2004
487
0
USA
Being an outside observer, I can honestly say both sides (a team can survive in Winnipeg vs. a team can't) have compelling arguments and both sides can search the internet to prove their points. I am not about to say one way or the other which side makes the most compelling argument.

On my own I have called people I know in Winnipeg and surrounding areas and asked them for their opinion on whether or not a team will be there, whether a team can be there (can the area support it), and whether they care either way. This was back when the rumor that a "southern" team had called the mayor of Winnipeg to ask about moving their team there.

1) Everyone I asked would love to have an NHL team there. They loved all levels of hockey and would go to watch the NHL in Winnipeg (provided they could afford tickets - the cry of every fan, I think)

2) They all agreed that the area was not financially sound to support an NHL team. Their example of why included the lack of corporate sponsorship. Sorry, Jets nostalgists, my contacts said that it was not possible in today's (please note that word...) NHL.

3) None of them felt a team would ever be back.

I think that if the owners get their way in the CBA, that Winnipeg could get a team. Not right away, but could. Especially if a newer arean were built that did not have obstructed seating.

My last thought is a question: why, whenever talk about a Winnipeg NHL team is mentioned, does it involve the moving of another team? Why does it have to be about "taking" some other city's team? I think it shows incredible poor taste on the part of people (Winnipeggers only? no... but mostly) to want so badly for Carolina, Tampa, Florida, Nashville, and even Pittsburgh to lose their teams. But that's just my opinion, I suppose.
 

Hockeyfan02

Registered User
Oct 10, 2002
14,755
0
Pistivity
Visit site
quartermaster29 said:
My last thought is a question: why, whenever talk about a Winnipeg NHL team is mentioned, does it involve the moving of another team? Why does it have to be about "taking" some other city's team? I think it shows incredible poor taste on the part of people (Winnipeggers only? no... but mostly) to want so badly for Carolina, Tampa, Florida, Nashville, and even Pittsburgh to lose their teams. But that's just my opinion, I suppose.

I wonder that too. I feel bad for Winnepeg people who truly loved the team to have it taken away, but I don't feel sorry for those who felt the heartbreak that want to take a hockey team from another city.
 

LadyJet26

LETS GO BLUE!!!!!
Sep 6, 2004
8,855
740
Winnipeg, MB
quartermaster29 said:
I think that if the owners get their way in the CBA, that Winnipeg could get a team. Not right away, but could. Especially if a newer arean were built that did not have obstructed seating.

We do have a new arena, and it has no obstructed seating. As well for those that keep on insisting that our arena isn't large enough, it is. The designers and Moose management made sure during the designing of the MTS Centre that it would be in line with what is regulation size for an NHL arena. IT IS!

My last thought is a question: why, whenever talk about a Winnipeg NHL team is mentioned, does it involve the moving of another team? Why does it have to be about "taking" some other city's team? I think it shows incredible poor taste on the part of people (Winnipeggers only? no... but mostly) to want so badly for Carolina, Tampa, Florida, Nashville, and even Pittsburgh to lose their teams. But that's just my opinion, I suppose.

Because we went through that heartbreak of our team being moved. Why don't we just take back the team that was rightfully Winnipeg's? Phoenix. That'd work out well, considering they were in about the same financial trouble as Winnipeg was before Gretzky became part owner.
 

Sotnos

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
10,885
1
Not here
www.boltprospects.com
Hockeyfan02 said:
I wonder that too. I feel bad for Winnepeg people who truly loved the team to have it taken away, but I don't feel sorry for those who felt the heartbreak that want to take a hockey team from another city.
Agreed, and like quartermaster I've often wondered what the deal is with people who want other cities to lose their teams. We're told that we MUST have empathy for Winnipeg fans or we're not "real hockey fans", but it's perfectly OK for them to have no empathy for us. Screwy
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
Originally Posted by Hockeyfan02
I wonder that too. I feel bad for Winnepeg people who truly loved the team to have it taken away, but I don't feel sorry for those who felt the heartbreak that want to take a hockey team from another city.

i don't think any winnipeg fan wants to see others go through the loss of a franchise.

the whole premise of a team relocating to winnipeg is that it would be preferable to a franchise folding.
 

LadyJet26

LETS GO BLUE!!!!!
Sep 6, 2004
8,855
740
Winnipeg, MB
Sotnos said:
Agreed, and like quartermaster I've often wondered what the deal is with people who want other cities to lose their teams. We're told that we MUST have empathy for Winnipeg fans or we're not "real hockey fans", but it's perfectly OK for them to have no empathy for us. Screwy

I think most of us are envious because the state of Florida has 2 NHL teams when you can fit the entire state into the province of Manitoba. It's not fair. I don't see why Florida gets two NHL teams while Winnipeg and Quebec get the shaft. Yes they have more people, but where the hell has the fan base been for either team until that team went to the finals? And look at the freaking American eastern coastline... 3 teams in NY, 2 in Penn, 1 in NJ, 1 in Carolina, 1 in Tennesee, and those states don't even make up a third of the land mass of Canada.
 

Papa Smurf

Registered User
Jun 9, 2004
1,335
0
Oshawa, Ontario
arnie said:
Winnipeg is both small and economically depressed. Further, Winnipeg would would also be a drag on the league as a whole. Smaller Canadian cities, Calgary, Edmonton and even Vancouver are very poor draws in the US. They bring down ticket sales and cost other teams money. Winnipeg would be even worse than these other cities.

The notion of putting an NHL is team is ludicrous. I've been to Winnipeg and it's an OK place. But so is Sudbury, and you wouldn't put an NHL team there either.

A: Vancouver is NOT a small Canadian city. How the hell did think that!?

B: Vancouver was the most exiting team to watch in the NHL last season next to Detriot. And thats a fact, not an oppinion.
 

Buffaloed

webmaster
Feb 27, 2002
43,324
23,585
Niagara Falls
MooseHunter said:
I think most of us are envious because the state of Florida has 2 NHL teams when you can fit the entire state into the province of Manitoba. It's not fair. I don't see why Florida gets two NHL teams while Winnipeg and Quebec get the shaft.

The Florida teams' attendance figures are comparable to Quebec and Winnipeg.
http://www.hockeyresearch.com/mfoster/business/nhl_attn.html. More importantly, they were willing to build new arenas with luxury suites and had the corporate sponsors to fill those suites. Quebec and Winnipeg wouldn't build new arenas and were unable to remain financially competitive as a result. I don't know the details of Winnipeg's failure to build an NHL arena, but I did know someone in the Nordiques front office in the early 1990's. It was explained to me that the situation was hopeless, because even if the Nords managed to build a new arena, the corporate support wasn't there to buy the suites.
 

LadyJet26

LETS GO BLUE!!!!!
Sep 6, 2004
8,855
740
Winnipeg, MB
Hockeyfan02 said:
It's an opinion.

it's a fact

Vancouver was one of the more tuned in teams in the league last year... I don't know where someone got the idea that they're ones of the ones that are least drawn.
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
arnie said:
Winnipeg is both small and economically depressed. Further, Winnipeg would would also be a drag on the league as a whole. Smaller Canadian cities, Calgary, Edmonton and even Vancouver are very poor draws in the US. They bring down ticket sales and cost other teams money. Winnipeg would be even worse than these other cities.

The notion of putting an NHL is team is ludicrous. I've been to Winnipeg and it's an OK place. But so is Sudbury, and you wouldn't put an NHL team there either.

actually, calgary was the #5 draw on the road, vancouver #7 and edmonton #15, according to 2004 nhl attendance figures.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2004

i have no problem with people posting their view that winnipeg cannot support an nhl team. however, at least get the facts straight, especially if they'll be part of your reasoning.
 

LadyJet26

LETS GO BLUE!!!!!
Sep 6, 2004
8,855
740
Winnipeg, MB
Buffaloed said:
The Florida teams' attendance figures are comparable to Quebec and Winnipeg.
http://www.hockeyresearch.com/mfoster/business/nhl_attn.html. More importantly, they were willing to build new arenas with luxury suites and had the corporate sponsors to fill those suites. Quebec and Winnipeg wouldn't build new arenas and were unable to remain financially competitive as a result. I don't know the details of Winnipeg's failure to build an NHL arena, but I did know someone in the Nordiques front office in the early 1990's. It was explained to me that the situation was hopeless, because even if the Nords managed to build a new arena, the corporate support wasn't there to buy the suites.

I'm not referring to the business aspect. I'm referring to the fact that it's Florida where hockey isn't exactly a top 3 sport. I'm referring to the fact that Florida was never a hockey state and probably will never be a hockey state. Why does it have two teams when Canada only has two thirds more then one fking state? It's not fair. Who cares what the business is or what the population is. It shouldn't matter when hockey is Canada's game. It belongs in Canada and the northern US, not the south.
 

gr8haluschak

Registered User
Jul 25, 2004
3,269
113
arnie said:
Winnipeg is both small and economically depressed. Further, Winnipeg would would also be a drag on the league as a whole. Smaller Canadian cities, Calgary, Edmonton and even Vancouver are very poor draws in the US. They bring down ticket sales and cost other teams money. Winnipeg would be even worse than these other cities.

The notion of putting an NHL is team is ludicrous. I've been to Winnipeg and it's an OK place. But so is Sudbury, and you wouldn't put an NHL team there either.


Hahaha this is a good one, how about the flip side of your argument, when teams like The Blues go to Calgary and there are only 13000 fans there, or when the Hurricanes come to Edmonton and only 13000 fans show up ? Oh yeah I forgot that when the 'Yotes and Ducks come to town tpeople are breaking down the doors to see them play. Hmmmm seems like there there are more teams based in the US that bring down attendance when they come to town than the Flames Nucks and Oilers so I would not spout off any garbage about Canadian teams bringing down attendance.
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
another point often raised by critics of the NHL returning to Winnipeg is a lack of corporate support.

however, the MTS Centre has all of it's luxury boxes (46) sold at an average price of $ 45,000 for AHL hockey. i think this speaks to the type of corporate support an NHL team could expect to receive at $ 125,000/suite.
 

Papa Smurf

Registered User
Jun 9, 2004
1,335
0
Oshawa, Ontario
Buffaloed said:
exiting? Is that a playoff reference? :lol

Mmmmkay. So you deny what I have to say by mocking a minor grammar mistake I made? Good job buddy, good job indeed. :rolleyes:

Uh oh, you started that sentance without capitalizing "exiting". Therefore Vancouver WAS the second most exciting team to watch last year.
 

NorthStar

Registered User
Dec 24, 2004
338
33
Winnipeg, MB
Who knows if the NHL would eventally return to Winnipeg?? What will the CBA look like if that was possible for some small cities like Winnipeg, Quebec City and Hamilton to get back in the NHL via relocated teams?? I do know that Hamilton has the Copps Coliseum....that could be workable unless otherwise..>Quebec City would need to replace Le Colisee (whatever name the Colisee has gone under for the time being....) and Winnipeg does have the new MTS Center (which I have yet to go there, but hoping in the near future to go!!)... And what other northern US cities would be perfect for the NHL?? Seattle?? Portland?? Milwaukee?? Cleveland?? And there is Houston as well....any comments?
 

Hockeyfan02

Registered User
Oct 10, 2002
14,755
0
Pistivity
Visit site
MooseHunter said:
it's a fact

When you say one team is more exciting than the others thats an opinion. I can think of a few teams that were just as exciting. I can say the Lightning were more exciting than the Canucks but thats my opinion and I saw the Lightning more in person so I have bias. I wasnt referenceing to anything else, just that someone called the Cauncks the 2nd most exciting and stated it as a fact when its clearly an opinion.
 

Papa Smurf

Registered User
Jun 9, 2004
1,335
0
Oshawa, Ontario
Hockeyfan02 said:
When you say one team is more exciting than the others thats an opinion. I can think of a few teams that were just as exciting. I can say the Lightning were more exciting than the Canucks but thats my opinion and I saw the Lightning more in person so I have bias. I wasnt referenceing to anything else, just that someone called the Cauncks the 2nd most exciting and stated it as a fact when its clearly an opinion.

I dont mean "exciting" in terms of general excitement. I mean in terms of tickets sales by their oppsong teams fans whenever Vancouver came into town.

Detroit was #1 and Vancouver was #2. It is a fact. End of story.
 

Hockeyfan02

Registered User
Oct 10, 2002
14,755
0
Pistivity
Visit site
Papa Smurf said:
I dont mean "exciting" in terms of general excitement. I mean in terms of tickets sales by their oppsong teams fans whenever Vancouver came into town.

Detroit was #1 and Vancouver was #2. It is a fact. End of story.

Point taken. Would like to see your attendance figures though because I looked them up at ESPN.com (whose stats are pretty reliable) and Detroit was #1 in the terms of average attendance but not capacity %. Vancouver was not #2 in any of the two categories. Not trying to dimiss your facts, just looking for a source of reference I could use in terms of ticket sales. Seems to be Toronto would draw more on the roadsince Toronto is more popular in Canada and in the States than Vancouver.
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
Papa Smurf said:
I dont mean "exciting" in terms of general excitement. I mean in terms of tickets sales by their oppsong teams fans whenever Vancouver came into town.

Detroit was #1 and Vancouver was #2. It is a fact. End of story.

detroit's the nhl's top road draw. vancouver is #7. sry, these are the facts.

see above espn link for the figures
 

Buffaloed

webmaster
Feb 27, 2002
43,324
23,585
Niagara Falls
Papa Smurf said:
Mmmmkay. So you deny what I have to say by mocking a minor grammar mistake I made? Good job buddy, good job indeed. :rolleyes:

Uh oh, you started that sentance without capitalizing "exiting". Therefore Vancouver WAS the second most exciting team to watch last year.

I thought that was nicer than giving you a warning for trying to hijack the thread. Whether the Canucks are exciting or exiting isn't germaine to the topic of this thread, or to this forum. Got it buddy?
 

(lone)Yashinfan#79

Guest
i totally loved watching the Jets...growing up on the east coast, those 10:30pm Smythe division games were kickass...
back in the Sega days, i used to roll the Thomas Steen era Jets when everyone else wanted to be Pens and Kings.
as short-lived and disappointing as most of it was, the Tkachuk era (even after Selanne was dealt) was still a fun underdog to root for...Zhamnov could have been an elite centre, and is still a very good one IMO, but seemed to always be banged up back then.

Golden Ducky said:
Who here loved the Winnipeg Jets?

Here is a website all about the Winnipeg Jets
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

  • Gold Coast Suns @ Brisbane Lions
    Gold Coast Suns @ Brisbane Lions
    Wagers: 3
    Staked: $36,790.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Cagliari vs Lecce
    Cagliari vs Lecce
    Wagers: 2
    Staked: $25.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Osasuna vs Real Betis
    Osasuna vs Real Betis
    Wagers: 2
    Staked: $85.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Empoli vs Frosinone
    Empoli vs Frosinone
    Wagers: 1
    Staked: $10.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Hellas Verona vs Fiorentina
    Hellas Verona vs Fiorentina
    Wagers: 1
    Staked: $10.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:

Ad

Ad