Why did Winnipeg build the MTS Centre to only 15,015 seats?

[Big McLargehuge]

I think that day is coming. With construction costs the way they are, and with political climate leaning against public funds for arenas, you'll see smaller arenas pop up within the next couple of decades once the current arenas start to reach the end of their useful lives, since ~19,000-seat arenas, at the current cost of construction, are too expensive for a lot of private investors.

We saw this with baseball stadiums. In the 60s and 70s the old stadiums were deemed too small, with their capacities hovering around 30,000 on average, and they were replaced with stadiums that were 50,000+. Those stadiums aged horribly and were replaced in the 90s and 00s with, generally, much smaller nouveau retro designs.

Pittsburgh
Forbes Field (1909-70) - 35,000
Three Rivers Stadium (1970-01) - ~59k (47,952 listed at close, much of the seats being tarped off)
PNC Park (2002-) - 38,496

Cincinnati
Crosley Field (1912-72) - 29,603
Riverfront Stadium (1970-02) - 52,952
Great American Ball Park - 42,271

New York Mets
Shea Stadium 57,333
Citi Field 41,800

St. Louis
Sportsman's Park (1902-66) 30,500
Busch Stadium (1966-05) 57,676
Busch Stadium (2006-) 43,975

There are more examples. I think we're going to see this sort of re-adjustment in hockey. In fact, we already are. The two newest arenas in the NHL both represent increases in size from the buildings they replace, but are both under 18,100 in seats. The Prudential Center at 17,625 seats is the 7th smallest arena in the league. Consol Energy Center at 18,087 is the 10th smallest (having only a handful more seats than arenas in San Jose and Denver).


The smallest arena in the Southeast seats 18,398...which is bigger than every arena in the Pacific division aside from Dallas. Maybe that's part of the issue.

 

[GSC2k2*]

We saw this with baseball stadiums. In the 60s and 70s the old stadiums were deemed too small, with their capacities hovering around 30,000 on average, and they were replaced with stadiums that were 50,000+. Those stadiums aged horribly and were replaced in the 90s and 00s with, generally, much smaller nouveau retro designs.

Pittsburgh
Forbes Field (1909-70) - 35,000
Three Rivers Stadium (1970-01) - ~59k (47,952 listed at close, much of the seats being tarped off)
PNC Park (2002-) - 38,496

Cincinnati
Crosley Field (1912-72) - 29,603
Riverfront Stadium (1970-02) - 52,952
Great American Ball Park - 42,271

New York Mets
Shea Stadium 57,333
Citi Field 41,800

St. Louis
Sportsman's Park (1902-66) 30,500
Busch Stadium (1966-05) 57,676
Busch Stadium (2006-) 43,975

There are more examples. I think we're going to see this sort of re-adjustment in hockey. In fact, we already are. The two newest arenas in the NHL both represent increases in size from the buildings they replace, but are both under 18,100 in seats. The Prudential Center at 17,625 seats is the 7th smallest arena in the league. Consol Energy Center at 18,087 is the 10th smallest (having only a handful more seats than arenas in San Jose and Denver).


The smallest arena in the Southeast seats 18,398...which is bigger than every arena in the Pacific division aside from Dallas. Maybe that's part of the issue.

Part of that IMO is because sports teams realized that their focus needed to be on the high-margin, high-value customers - not just the suite holders, but club seat holders as well. Accordingly, they have focused on increasing those types of seats at the expense of more "normal" seats.

 

[Jeffrey93]

And needs $200 million in renovations to bring it up to NHL standards.

Another huge misconception/myth. The Consol Energy Center cost $290M to build from scratch. Suggesting a renovation to Copps Coliseum would cost $200M is absurd. That might have been what Balsillie planned...but it certainly isn't needed to bring it up to standard, I think he was planning a pretty lavish renovation....those renderings certainly support that.

I have often questioned the 15,015 capacity of the MTS Centre, especially with no design ability to expand it to 18,000. To me it was built to do exactly what it is doing now...and nothing more. The attempt might be made to have it be an NHL venue...but I think the reduced size will be one more issue an NHL team in Winnipeg would face.

It certainly makes an NHL franchise in Winnipeg's chances of success smaller.

 

[schulzte]

It seems like some luxury suites could be squeezed under the roof of the MTS Centre like the Press Box already has been. If they could get 20-30 more luxury suites in that building, I think it would help their prospects. There are only 46 suites in the building now. That is about the only seating expansion that might be available

 

[roccerfeller]

Another huge misconception/myth. The Consol Energy Center cost $290M to build from scratch. Suggesting a renovation to Copps Coliseum would cost $200M is absurd. That might have been what Balsillie planned...but it certainly isn't needed to bring it up to standard, I think he was planning a pretty lavish renovation....those renderings certainly support that.

I have often questioned the 15,015 capacity of the MTS Centre, especially with no design ability to expand it to 18,000. To me it was built to do exactly what it is doing now...and nothing more. The attempt might be made to have it be an NHL venue...but I think the reduced size will be one more issue an NHL team in Winnipeg would face.

It certainly makes an NHL franchise in Winnipeg's chances of success smaller.

In your eyes J93, are those extra 3k seats imperative to a Winnipeg franchise's success?

 

[Puckschmuck*]

In your eyes J93, are those extra 3k seats imperative to a Winnipeg franchise's success?

I would think that he has already answered (in his opinion only, of course) your question in the post that you quoted.

 

[GoJetsGo55]

Another huge misconception/myth. The Consol Energy Center cost $290M to build from scratch. Suggesting a renovation to Copps Coliseum would cost $200M is absurd. That might have been what Balsillie planned...but it certainly isn't needed to bring it up to standard, I think he was planning a pretty lavish renovation....those renderings certainly support that.

I have often questioned the 15,015 capacity of the MTS Centre, especially with no design ability to expand it to 18,000. To me it was built to do exactly what it is doing now...and nothing more. The attempt might be made to have it be an NHL venue...but I think the reduced size will be one more issue an NHL team in Winnipeg would face.

It certainly makes an NHL franchise in Winnipeg's chances of success smaller.

Assuming 2 things....1)They added 2000 seats 2) They charged an average of $40 per seat

You come up with 3.28 Million in extra revenue per year. I am not sure how much it would cost to add those extra seats but I believe that it would take a long long time to pay that off.

What TNSE is doing it working on creating the SHED district in Winnipeg. That SHED district should bring in any shortfall in revenue they lose from not having those 2000 seats. TNSE is not just investing in a hockey team, they are investing in downtown Winnipeg. I pray that it works out for them. I am already in line screaming "TAKE MY MONEY!!!"

You still sticking to your "1% chance that if a team moves, it will be to Winnipeg"?

 

[Hawker14]

Why did they build it at 15,015 ? (and now 15,003)

Pretty simple.... Upfront cost, and ongoing supply and demand for the market.

 

[hockey diva]

Bridgestone Arena in Nashville seats 17,110 not 18K. I'm sure that the ownership group in Winnipeg has looked at the numbers and felt they could make it work with only 15K.

Even though the Preds are a small market team, and I should support Phoenix, I have come around to the idea that perhaps the Yotes should be moved back. The Yotes are not drawing despite having a good product on the ice.

And OT, while I admire y'all who can tolerate the cold temps in Winnipeg, I know I couldn't physically handle it. I would be in constant pain from my Raynaud's syndrome. I love the heat of summer here in Nashville and handle it pretty well. So, kudos being tough and hardy but don't look down on those of us who are tough and hardy in a different climate.

 

[Jeffrey93]

In your eyes J93, are those extra 3k seats imperative to a Winnipeg franchise's success?

Not on their own...no. But, coupled with a very small market and not exactly one of the wealthiest areas of the country might make it imperative to success.

A Winnipeg franchise would have several things not going its way, a smaller arena just adds to that and makes some of these other things worse in my opinion.

The major thing a Winnipeg franchise would have going for it is TNSE as ownership. But, this is also a drawback (although a slight one) since a franchise in Winnipeg would be worth peanuts to anybody other than TNSE.

So again...on their own the 3,000 fewer seats shouldn't make or break a franchise...but coupled with other factors the smaller capacity becomes a much bigger factor.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Bridgestone Arena in Nashville seats 17,110 not 18K. I'm sure that the ownership group in Winnipeg has looked at the numbers and felt they could make it work with only 15K.

I'm sure Ownership in Phoenix looked at the projected numbers before purchasing the Jets and thought they could make it work too. Same goes with every failed/failing franchise.

Nobody goes into a business that they believe will, without a doubt, fail. That doesn't mean businesses stop failing because the Owner 'felt they could make it work'.

 

[GoJetsGo55]

Not on their own...no. But, coupled with a very small market and not exactly one of the wealthiest areas of the country might make it imperative to success.

A Winnipeg franchise would have several things not going its way, a smaller arena just adds to that and makes some of these other things worse in my opinion.

The major thing a Winnipeg franchise would have going for it is TNSE as ownership. But, this is also a drawback (although a slight one) since a franchise in Winnipeg would be worth peanuts to anybody other than TNSE.

So again...on their own the 3,000 fewer seats shouldn't make or break a franchise...but coupled with other factors the smaller capacity becomes a much bigger factor.

$75 per ticket X 15000 = 1.125 Million/game


http://www.rodneyfort.com/PHSportsEcon/Common/OtherData/NHLIncomeExpense/NHLTicketRevTorStar.com5-30-08.pdf

I understand it's an old list but you can see that with an average ticket price of $75, Winnipeg would be in the top 3rd of the league.

Those extra seats would only generate an extra $60,000 per game.

 

[Jeffrey93]

I looked into the league's buildings and their capacities. I found that if you rank buildings by their capacity and then look at their attendance rank...the two numbers (ranks) are similar. Meaning....places have seemed to construct buildings that are able to accomodate the number of fans they can draw.

A prime example is Montreal...having a capacity of 21,273 in some markets would be foolish...but not in Montreal.

There are a few exceptions where the team's rank in attendance differed substantially from their rank in building capacity. Florida, Tampa Bay, Atlanta & Edmonton being the major ones. Edmonton being in the reverse direction though (being higher on the attendance list and lower on the capacity list) where the others were high on capacity and low on attendance. Which confirms why Katz in Edmonton wants an 18,000+ seat arena built to replace Rexall Place.

The league average in difference between attendance rank and capacity rank is 0. So buildings fit the demand for their tenant more often than not.

In Winnipeg the opposite would occur. There is a high demand for hockey and a small building. This building would be more appropriate in Miami, Atlanta, Phoenix, etc. than it would be in Winnipeg. Because of this prices will have to be higher...which is also, in my opinion, the opposite of what a Winnipeg market needs.

Just FYI...
Average current capacity: 18,453
Average previous capacity: 16,605

Winnipeg's building is smaller than 4 buildings that were built in the 1920's.

So current buildings and the last generation of buildings were all bigger than the MTS Centre with the exception of the Boston Garden and the Met Centre (North Stars).

Think about that.....1 building of current NHL franchises has been built that had a capacity lower than the MTS Centre in the last 87 years. To find buildings that were NHL homes that were smaller than the MTSC you have to start looking at the Mount Royal Arena in Montreal (1919-1926), Mutual Street Arena in Toronto (1917-1931), Border Cities Arena in Windsor (1926-1927)....aside from that and temporary homes of expansion/relocated franchises....that is it.

All permanent NHL homes aside from those 5 in the last almost 100 years have been larger than the MTSC. I have to believe these buildings have been built in the last century with the capacities they have for a reason. Don't you?

 

[dkehler]

This debate is a little bit pointless, I think. The only way we will settle it is if and when it is put to the test. Hopefully, that will be happening soon.

 

[peter sullivan]

there is no question that TNSE wanted the arena to be larger....to me 16000 would have been more appropriate, but you add a ring of sky suites and you get there...my money is on them doing that after the first few years.

arguing about it is pointless....it seems that at some time in the future we will be able to witness it in reality instead of endlessly speculating on it....why don't we all agree to reconvene here in 5 years and see what the answer was.

 

[Jeffrey93]

$75 per ticket X 15000 = 1.125 Million/game


http://www.rodneyfort.com/PHSportsEcon/Common/OtherData/NHLIncomeExpense/NHLTicketRevTorStar.com5-30-08.pdf

I understand it's an old list but you can see that with an average ticket price of $75, Winnipeg would be in the top 3rd of the league.

Those extra seats would only generate an extra $60,000 per game.

Stating the average price of $75 per ticket (which is about $25 higher than the league average and $5 more than the Canadian teams...$17 more than Canadian teams excluding Toronto & Montreal) is a little too convenient.

In theory the less seats means the more tickets at higher price points and less at lower price points. BUT, the market will demand how high those price points can be and how many seats can be in each price point.

You can make the argument that the 3,000 'cheap seats' of a typical arena are simply removed at the MTSC. I can make the argument using similar logic that those 'cheap seats' remain. Where in a typical arena they would be from 15,000 to 18,000...in Winnipeg they will be from 12,000 to 15,000.

Your theory:
Price point 1 - 0 to 3,000
Price point 2 - 3,000 to 6,000
Price point 3 - 6,000 to 9,000
Price point 4 - 9,000 to 12,000
Price point 5 - 12,000 to 15,000
Price point 6 - N/A

My Theory:
Price point 1 - 0 to 3,000
Price point 2 - 3,000 to 6,000
Price point 3 - N/A
Price point 4 - 6,000 to 9,000
Price point 5 - 9,000 to 12,000
Price point 6 - 12,000 to 15,000

So what is missing are the 3,000 seats from a middle price point. Which would be worth a little more than $60,000 per game.

And by the way...$60,000 per game is nothing to sneeze at. That is $2.46M a year....plus the additional parking, concessions, etc. those 3,000 fans would also generate.

 

[GoJetsGo55]

I looked into the league's buildings and their capacities. I found that if you rank buildings by their capacity and then look at their attendance rank...the two numbers (ranks) are similar. Meaning....places have seemed to construct buildings that are able to accomodate the number of fans they can draw.

A prime example is Montreal...having a capacity of 21,273 in some markets would be foolish...but not in Montreal.

There are a few exceptions where the team's rank in attendance differed substantially from their rank in building capacity. Florida, Tampa Bay, Atlanta & Edmonton being the major ones. Edmonton being in the reverse direction though (being higher on the attendance list and lower on the capacity list) where the others were high on capacity and low on attendance. Which confirms why Katz in Edmonton wants an 18,000+ seat arena built to replace Rexall Place.

The league average in difference between attendance rank and capacity rank is 0. So buildings fit the demand for their tenant more often than not.

In Winnipeg the opposite would occur. There is a high demand for hockey and a small building. This building would be more appropriate in Miami, Atlanta, Phoenix, etc. than it would be in Winnipeg. Because of this prices will have to be higher...which is also, in my opinion, the opposite of what a Winnipeg market needs.

Just FYI...
Average current capacity: 18,453
Average previous capacity: 16,605

Winnipeg's building is smaller than 4 buildings that were built in the 1920's.

So current buildings and the last generation of buildings were all bigger than the MTS Centre with the exception of the Boston Garden and the Met Centre (North Stars).

Think about that.....1 building of current NHL franchises has been built that had a capacity lower than the MTS Centre in the last 87 years. To find buildings that were NHL homes that were smaller than the MTSC you have to start looking at the Mount Royal Arena in Montreal (1919-1926), Mutual Street Arena in Toronto (1917-1931), Border Cities Arena in Windsor (1926-1927)....aside from that and temporary homes of expansion/relocated franchises....that is it.

All permanent NHL homes aside from those 5 in the last almost 100 years have been larger than the MTSC. I have to believe these buildings have been built in the last century with the capacities they have for a reason. Don't you?

All that matters is that paying customers are in the seats. That is literally ALL...THAT.....MATTERS when you are talking about capacity. If you could build an arena that sits 1 person....and find someone who is willing to spend over $1,000,000/game....then that is fine.

It's really getting tiring that you are hung up on this notion that the MTS center is a joke to the NHL.

 

[GoJetsGo55]

Stating the average price of $75 per ticket (which is about $25 higher than the league average and $5 more than the Canadian teams...$17 more than Canadian teams excluding Toronto & Montreal) is a little too convenient.

In theory the less seats means the more tickets at higher price points and less at lower price points. BUT, the market will demand how high those price points can be and how many seats can be in each price point.

You can make the argument that the 3,000 'cheap seats' of a typical arena are simply removed at the MTSC. I can make the argument using similar logic that those 'cheap seats' remain. Where in a typical arena they would be from 15,000 to 18,000...in Winnipeg they will be from 12,000 to 15,000.

Your theory:
Price point 1 - 0 to 3,000
Price point 2 - 3,000 to 6,000
Price point 3 - 6,000 to 9,000
Price point 4 - 9,000 to 12,000
Price point 5 - 12,000 to 15,000
Price point 6 - N/A

My Theory:
Price point 1 - 0 to 3,000
Price point 2 - 3,000 to 6,000
Price point 3 - N/A
Price point 4 - 6,000 to 9,000
Price point 5 - 9,000 to 12,000
Price point 6 - 12,000 to 15,000

So what is missing are the 3,000 seats from a middle price point. Which would be worth a little more than $60,000 per game.

And by the way...$60,000 per game is nothing to sneeze at. That is $2.46M a year....plus the additional parking, concessions, etc. those 3,000 fans would also generate.

This has to be the stupidest, most frustrating post I have seen in regards to this. You really think they would price tickets so that they skip tier 3? You are really REALLY reaching on this and it's getting pathetic. I hope you find someone to **** all over your market when relocation to Hamilton is a hot topic (assuming it ever happens).

"So what is missing are the 3,000 seats from a middle price point. Which would be worth a little more than $60,000 per game."

Please ship me some of whatever your are smoking.

 

[Big McLargehuge]

You can make the argument that the 3,000 'cheap seats' of a typical arena are simply removed at the MTSC. I can make the argument using similar logic that those 'cheap seats' remain. Where in a typical arena they would be from 15,000 to 18,000...in Winnipeg they will be from 12,000 to 15,000.

Your theory:
Price point 1 - 0 to 3,000
Price point 2 - 3,000 to 6,000
Price point 3 - 6,000 to 9,000
Price point 4 - 9,000 to 12,000
Price point 5 - 12,000 to 15,000
Price point 6 - N/A

My Theory:
Price point 1 - 0 to 3,000
Price point 2 - 3,000 to 6,000
Price point 3 - N/A
Price point 4 - 6,000 to 9,000
Price point 5 - 9,000 to 12,000
Price point 6 - 12,000 to 15,000

Why is it Price Point 3 that is missing? If 3,000 seats were to be added would they not be located above the seats that are there presently? Why on Earth would those tickets be 'Price Point 3'?

And 3,000 is jumping things too much. Anything more than 17,000 would be overkill, and it would cost more to add those seats than they'd ever make from them anyway.


When the Penguins expanded Civic Arena a couple times do you know what price point those new seats became? The cheapest in the arena. They were awkwardly placed, inconvenient, and high as hell (though the sight-lines were phenomenal). Those last 3,000 seats that the D/E, and F balconies added were Price Range 6 and 7.


I really wish like all hell Winnipeg had made that arena sitting around 16,000 instead of 15,000...but that's a minor issue in my eyes. As long as they can fill that building then they'd be golden in my eyes. It would literally be impossible for them to do worse than Phoenix is doing.

 

[Jeffrey93]

This has to be the stupidest, most frustrating post I have seen in regards to this. You really think they would price tickets so that they skip tier 3? You are really REALLY reaching on this and it's getting pathetic. I hope you find someone to **** all over your market when relocation to Hamilton is a hot topic (assuming it ever happens).

I'm not reaching at all. The market will determine the price points...you can guess and assume all you want what the Winnipeg market can tolerate, so can I.
It's a small market that isn't exactly uber-wealthy.
So if you can claim the average ticket price in Winnipeg will be $75...I can assume it won't be.
I guess I should just drink the kool-aid and believe that an arena smaller than any other (except one) in the last 87 years is 'just dandy' and won't cause any potential problems.
I wasn't being literal that they would simply skip a price point....but the distribution of the price points would be such that you would be skimming off each of them...not just removing the lowest one.

"So what is missing are the 3,000 seats from a middle price point. Which would be worth a little more than $60,000 per game."

Please ship me some of whatever your are smoking.

You're really missing the overall point. The point is that you aren't simply getting rid of the cheap seats and charging the higher price points because the building is 15,000....it's a balance.

Oh...and what I am smoking? You don't smoke it...but it is a drug. I'd give you some but...it's not available, because if you try it once, you will die and your children will weep over your exploded body. Too much?


Oh...and for the millionth time....why do you mention Hamilton? What does that have to do with the MTS Centre and its capacity?

 

[pucka lucka]

I'm not reaching at all. The market will determine the price points...you can guess and assume all you want what the Winnipeg market can tolerate, so can I.
It's a small market that isn't exactly uber-wealthy.
So if you can claim the average ticket price in Winnipeg will be $75...I can assume it won't be.
I guess I should just drink the kool-aid and believe that an arena smaller than any other (except one) in the last 87 years is 'just dandy' and won't cause any potential problems.
I wasn't being literal that they would simply skip a price point....but the distribution of the price points would be such that you would be skimming off each of them...not just removing the lowest one.

You're really missing the overall point. The point is that you aren't simply getting rid of the cheap seats and charging the higher price points because the building is 15,000....it's a balance.

Oh...and what I am smoking? You don't smoke it...but it is a drug. I'd give you some but...it's not available, because if you try it once, you will die and your children will weep over your exploded body. Too much?


Oh...and for the millionth time....why do you mention Hamilton? What does that have to do with the MTS Centre and its capacity?

What exactly do you think has changed since the previous 30 times you dragged people into this conversation? Nothing has changed. Your arguments haven't changed. You just make up your own numbers and ignore everyone else's. It might be easier to just create a blog entry with your numbers.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Why is it Price Point 3 that is missing? If 3,000 seats were to be added would they not be located above the seats that are there presently? Why on Earth would those tickets be 'Price Point 3'?

And 3,000 is jumping things too much. Anything more than 17,000 would be overkill, and it would cost more to add those seats than they'd ever make from them anyway.


When the Penguins expanded Civic Arena a couple times do you know what price point those new seats became? The cheapest in the arena. They were awkwardly placed, inconvenient, and high as hell (though the sight-lines were phenomenal). Those last 3,000 seats that the D/E, and F balconies added were Price Range 6 and 7.


I really wish like all hell Winnipeg had made that arena sitting around 16,000 instead of 15,000...but that's a minor issue in my eyes. As long as they can fill that building then they'd be golden in my eyes. It would literally be impossible for them to do worse than Phoenix is doing.

Again....the price points would be determined by the market and if I can't remove a middle one than people can't remove the last one either. It would be a mix....each price point would have less seats than in a typical NHL-size venue. Which means you aren't simply getting rid of the 'cheap seats'.

The additional seats wouldn't cost more to build than they would generate...because those seats allow you to charge more for the ones that are a little better. They allow you to have a larger number of seats in each price point. The cheapest seats have an impact on the pricing of all the seats.

The way people make this out to be is that 15,000 seats is so perfect that following the same logic 10,000 seats would be even better. Just jack the prices up, right? It gets to a point where there aren't enough people willing to pay the top price points....and with limited other options they simply don't go. So the prices have to be lowered or the high price point seats need to be reduced in number and a lower price point needs to be increased.

I really wish like all hell Winnipeg had made that arena sitting around 16,000 instead of 15,000...but that's a minor issue in my eyes. As long as they can fill that building then they'd be golden in my eyes. It would literally be impossible for them to do worse than Phoenix is doing.

Look at Edmonton's average ticket prices and the size of their venue....and they need a bigger one. Does anyone here really think Winnipeg is a better hockey market than Edmonton? THAT much better that they can charge $25/seat more and do just as well with less seats?

And the goal isn't to do better than Phoenix. If you're doing 'no worse than Phoenix' you can still be failing incredibly. People often use that as a justification for 15,000 seats in Winnipeg....that '15,000 tickets sold is better than what they are doing in some hockey markets', while this is true...as I have often said...being better than awful doesn't make you good.

I really think the venue size is going to play a more significant role than people think. Partially because of other factors involved (wealth in the market, size of the market, etc.). It certainly isn't a 'non-issue' as people like to think it is.

 

[Jeffrey93]

What exactly do you think has changed since the previous 30 times you dragged people into this conversation? Nothing has changed. Your arguments haven't changed. You just make up your own numbers and ignore everyone else's. It might be easier to just create a blog entry with your numbers.

If you notice...I didn't bring this stuff up...I replied to it. I didn't start this thread either.

If people can chirp about $75 average ticket prices and that type of stuff (for the 30th time) I think I can reply to it for the 30th time, no? I wasn't aware that I had to be in agreement with others in order to post in this thread. My apologies.

You're also confusing 'ignoring everyone else's' numbers with disagreeing with them. If I was ignoring them I wouldn't counter with my own...I would simply fail to acknowledge them. I looked at the numbers given and compared them to the other teams and other Canadian teams....how is that ignoring them???

Please, I ask of you...to reply to my posts...not to me. I am getting rather tired of discussions like this (which could be good) getting focused on me. So please, for the sake of the thread, please discontinue talking about me personally. Thank you.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Assuming 2 things....1)They added 2000 seats 2) They charged an average of $40 per seat

You come up with 3.28 Million in extra revenue per year. I am not sure how much it would cost to add those extra seats but I believe that it would take a long long time to pay that off.

What TNSE is doing it working on creating the SHED district in Winnipeg. That SHED district should bring in any shortfall in revenue they lose from not having those 2000 seats. TNSE is not just investing in a hockey team, they are investing in downtown Winnipeg. I pray that it works out for them. I am already in line screaming "TAKE MY MONEY!!!"

You still sticking to your "1% chance that if a team moves, it will be to Winnipeg"?

This is why I feel these 3,000 seats are only one factor of many. Making up that money by generating revenue in other business in the area makes this franchise almost worthless to anyone that doesn't own those other businesses. Also....with 3,000 less (or 2,000 whatever) people going to games that is less people supporting the SHED in Winnipeg, right?

1%? Compared to the views of others...yeah it would be about 1%. People think this is a lock and forget that 29 current owners are going to want to get as much of a return on this franchise as they can. If that means Winnipeg...so be it. If that means Las Vegas...so be it. If that means KC...so be it.

They aren't going to have a pre-determined buyer. I'm sure they have already checked the interest in several markets and know what route they are favouring....but there is no way for us to know that or know what they have found. For all we know some ultra-wealthy guy none of us have heard of has contacted the league about moving the team to KC for a ridiculous amount of money.

 

[Jeffrey93]

I would think that he has already answered (in his opinion only, of course) your question in the post that you quoted.

While I appreciate you answering for me and saving me some work...please refrain from doing that in the future. Many thanks.