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

[Hawker14]

there is no question that TNSE wanted the arena to be larger

The past proves differently.

Their plan was a 12,000 seat arena across from the Convention Centre. It was Gary Doer and Glen Murray, desiring a larger facility in exchange for public funds, who brought Chipman et al. together with Osmington (Thomson) to dialogue on a larger arena at the Eaton's site on Portage Ave. The talks ultimately resulted in the 15,015 seat arena... and Thomson's original $10 dollar acquistion of the Eaton's Building turning into $10 million of equity in TNSE.

 

[pucka lucka]

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.

Have you or have you not, made similar posts dozens of times on this exact subject? So as a rational person, I am not allowed to consider your posting history as a whole? Maybe I don't understand your rules, I am not to consider anything else you have posted on this topic?

Others have disputed your numbers and logic. So I ask, what has changed since the last time? Some of us have been here for a while. Just because a new member engages you doesn't change the numbers. I think a blog post is a great idea.

I am not trying to belittle you, btw. So, please don't try and play a victim. I am quite sure my questions and comments are reasonable.

 

[AllByDesign]

Ohhhhhh Jeffrey. Over here.

You made a statement about Winnipeg not being wealthy. What source our you basing your data on?

 

[PHYS251]

lol you're acting like 2.2 and dropping as if he won't be able to afford to throw 500M at the NHL within 3 years

within 5-10 years, there'd be enough interest to build a new arena

toronto can support another team and make it more profitable than a team in winnipeg or quebec city

I do wonder why Toronto hasn't been at least considered for a second team. Hell, Los Angeles essentially has two teams; why not Toronto? They're by far the largest metro area in Canada--a couple more than Montreal, who's second on the list.

15,000 is probably the sweet spot for an NHL rink in Winnipeg. The truth is that Winnipeg would never be able to sell out an 18,000 seat arena on a consistent basis. I think people forget how horrible Winnipeg Jets attendance was. In their entire NHL history they never once averaged more than 13,500 people per game. (http://www.curtiswalker.com/jets/attendance.aspx).

We should also remember that Maple Leaf Gardens only held around 15,500 and that didn't hurt the Leafs any, did it? MTS Centre is the perfect size for Winnipeg. More NHL arenas should be around 15,000 or 16,000. There's way too much ticket inventory in some cities.

I have a question. Was MTS built in part to attract the NHL? Because if so, wouldn't Hamilton or maybe even Quebec City put up 17,000+?

Furthermore, who's to say that an additional 3,000 seats are necessarily "cheap seats"? If those seats average $30 a piece, then a market that could fill them most nights could earn up to $90,000 a night, or $3.6 million a year, not including revenue from concessions and other sales.

That's not to say that the NHL couldn't work in Winnipeg's new arena. It theoretically could. But when a city such as Kansas City builds a 17.7k-seat arena, and Hamilton could provide a temporary home with more than 17,000 seats, I can't see why Winnipeg can assume that they're at the front of the line for an NHL team.

 

[Big McLargehuge]

Kansas City would never fill the Sprint Center. Its already one of the most over-saturated sports markets in the country, has a falling population (less than Pittsburgh), is one of the poorer big population centers in the country, and has no history of supporting the sport whatsoever. I do not buy Kansas City as a viable market. It may well happen, but I will laugh like hell the day they'd inevitably fail. Houston is a better option and I hold that market to about as high of a regard as a hangnail.

Hamilton doesn't have a 'temporary home' unless they're going to build an entirely new arena, because its awfully hard to play in a building getting $200 million worth of renovations. I fail to see how that cost is a better option than losing $3.6 million/year because of the smaller seating capacity in Winnipeg...especially with ultra-billionaire David Thomson heading things.

As Charles Foster Kane so elequently said in Citizen Kane..."You're right, I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars next year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I'll have to close this place in...60 years."

Of course David Thomson would have to continue at that pace for longer than the Sun has years left to burn for him to run out of money.

 

[Hawker14]

I do wonder why Toronto hasn't been at least considered for a second team.

Is this a serious question ?

 

[PHYS251]

Kansas City would never fill the Sprint Center. Its already one of the most over-saturated sports markets in the country, has a falling population (less than Pittsburgh), is one of the poorer big population centers in the country, and has no history of supporting the sport whatsoever. I do not buy Kansas City as a viable market. It may well happen, but I will laugh like hell the day they'd inevitably fail. Houston is a better option and I hold that market to about as high of a regard as a hangnail.

You would actively root for the failure of other franchises? Wow.

FYI I brought up KC simply as a hypothetical. They could get a team, but I don't think the odds are very good.

Hamilton doesn't have a 'temporary home' unless they're going to build an entirely new arena, because its awfully hard to play in a building getting $200 million worth of renovations. I fail to see how that cost is a better option than losing $3.6 million/year because of the smaller seating capacity in Winnipeg...especially with ultra-billionaire David Thomson heading things.

Their current arena was built in the 80s, so they'd just build a new one. In the meantime, the old arena could serve as a temporary home. The problem in Winnipeg is that their current arena is only a few years old.

As Charles Foster Kane so elequently said in Citizen Kane..."You're right, I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars next year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I'll have to close this place in...60 years."

Of course David Thomson would have to continue at that pace for longer than the Sun has years left to burn for him to run out of money.

Not sure what the relevance here is...

 

[PHYS251]

Is this a serious question ?

Um, yes. AFAIK the idea has been tossed around but hasn't gathered much traction in recent years. Honestly, if New York can somewhat support three teams and LA can comfortably support two (remember, I'm referring to the entire metro areas and not just the cities), surely Toronto could take on another team. Or do you think they couldn't?

 

[Big McLargehuge]

You would actively root for the failure of other franchises? Wow.

I actively root for the failure of about half of the teams in the Eastern Conference. Its nothing personal, I'm just a spiteful *******.

 

[Hawker14]

Um, yes. AFAIK the idea has been tossed around but hasn't gathered much traction in recent years. Honestly, if New York can somewhat support three teams and LA can comfortably support two (remember, I'm referring to the entire metro areas and not just the cities), surely Toronto could take on another team. Or do you think they couldn't?

LOL. Contact the Maple Leafs.

Welcome to the Business of Hockey.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Ohhhhhh Jeffrey. Over here.

You made a statement about Winnipeg not being wealthy. What source our you basing your data on?

City-data.com's median earnings which uses StatsCan numbers.

What would you like me to use?

I'm not saying Winnipeg is full of broke people....but it given the size of the market and of the arena...a disproportionate amount of wealth would have to be present to compensate. No?

This is what I mean by the arena being smaller not being THE factor that determines the success or failure of a franchise....but coupled with other factors it becomes more important.

Now I will wait as I'm sure you have some stat or projection that makes Winnipeg look like Boomtown where the plans to pave the streets with gold are currently being drawn up.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Have you or have you not, made similar posts dozens of times on this exact subject? So as a rational person, I am not allowed to consider your posting history as a whole? Maybe I don't understand your rules, I am not to consider anything else you have posted on this topic?

Others have disputed your numbers and logic. So I ask, what has changed since the last time? Some of us have been here for a while. Just because a new member engages you doesn't change the numbers. I think a blog post is a great idea.

I am not trying to belittle you, btw. So, please don't try and play a victim. I am quite sure my questions and comments are reasonable.

Much like the TNSE threads....all these posts are similar to posts that have been made before. There are several threads going on right now that fall into the same category.

Other have disputed my numbers and logic...and yet they re-post their same numbers and logic that they have re-posted countless times before in countless threads. I guess they get a pass though right?

You notice my posts more because they aren't inline with the group of pro-Winnipeg folks that are present on these boards, mine stick out because they are different.

If you continually make threads and posts about how the sky is green...I will continue to reply saying it isn't. I'm not sure why I wouldn't. We COULD discuss why I think it isn't green and why you think it is blue.....but instead we will do what we always do....and focus on the person that said it isn't green. I swear...it never gets old.

Hey ABD! Didja notice somebody brought up Hamilton in reference to me personally? I swear...I'm getting to the point where I can almost predict the post number in the thread where that will happen!

 

[RR]

I guess I'm confused (easy to do, BTW). If Winnipeg is a middle market in the big picture, than ~$50 is a comparable average ticket price in the NHL.

What is the average Arena size in the NHL? If it's 18,000, then the average ticket in WPG would need to be priced at ~$60 because MTS holds a bit more than 15,000. That's assuming all things being equal that corporate sponsorships and suite sales would equal those in other markets.

At $60 a ticket that would put WPG prices at ~#6 overall, but those costs could be reduced with a lower players' payroll, organizational and development, and overhead budgets, could they not?

Placing average ticket prices for the everyday fan back into the middling range of ~$50, (which, BTW, means we're only talking about ~$7M in less ticket revenue from the "common" fan), could allow WPG to ice a decent team, yes?

Or, can the market support ~$60 as the average price of a ticket? (Again, assuming corporate sponsorship/suite sales can hit NHL average)?

Doesn't seem that much of a stretch for me when others question the size of an arena that holds only >15,000 and <16,000.

 

[GoJetsGo55]

Much like the TNSE threads....all these posts are similar to posts that have been made before. There are several threads going on right now that fall into the same category.

Other have disputed my numbers and logic...and yet they re-post their same numbers and logic that they have re-posted countless times before in countless threads. I guess they get a pass though right?

You notice my posts more because they aren't inline with the group of pro-Winnipeg folks that are present on these boards, mine stick out because they are different.

If you continually make threads and posts about how the sky is green...I will continue to reply saying it isn't. I'm not sure why I wouldn't. We COULD discuss why I think it isn't green and why you think it is blue.....but instead we will do what we always do....and focus on the person that said it isn't green. I swear...it never gets old.

Hey ABD! Didja notice somebody brought up Hamilton in reference to me personally? I swear...I'm getting to the point where I can almost predict the post number in the thread where that will happen!

LOL. This goes back well over a year at this point. During that time, I have seen you take almost every opportunity to put down Winnipeg. It's not always direct but there's always a little something that says "**** you Winnipeg."

I am sure that other will agree that your MO this whole time has been to put down Winnipeg while singing the praises of the holy land known as Hamilton. Don't play the victim once you finally get called out.

 

[PHYS251]

LOL. Contact the Maple Leafs.

Welcome to the Business of Hockey.

Duh, the Leafs would have something to say about this. But that wasn't what I said. Toronto has plenty of people to support two teams. In fact, I argue that it makes no sense to have only one team there. Just look at the metro area populations of Canada's biggest cities: Toronto has nearly as many people as Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary, and Edmonton *combined*--and each of them has their own team. Hell, by that logic, Toronto could support *four* NHL teams. So going for just two seems reasonable to me.

I guess I'm confused (easy to do, BTW). If Winnipeg is a middle market in the big picture, than ~$50 is a comparable average ticket price in the NHL.

What is the average Arena size in the NHL? If it's 18,000, then the average ticket in WPG would need to be priced at ~$60 because MTS holds a bit more than 15,000. That's assuming all things being equal that corporate sponsorships and suite sales would equal those in other markets.

At $60 a ticket that would put WPG prices at ~#6 overall, but those costs could be reduced with a lower players' payroll, organizational and development, and overhead budgets, could they not?

Placing average ticket prices for the everyday fan back into the middling range of ~$50, (which, BTW, means we're only talking about ~$7M in less ticket revenue from the "common" fan), could allow WPG to ice a decent team, yes?

Or, can the market support ~$60 as the average price of a ticket? (Again, assuming corporate sponsorship/suite sales can hit NHL average)?

Doesn't seem that much of a stretch for me when others question the size of an arena that holds only >15,000 and <16,000.

It's really going to depend on the long-term economy and whether fans basically sell the place out every single night. I have no doubt that the desire and willpower are there, but the question will be, will that carry them through several decades of highs and lows on and off the ice?

 

[RECCE]

It's really going to depend on the long-term economy and whether fans basically sell the place out every single night. I have no doubt that the desire and willpower are there, but the question will be, will that carry them through several decades of highs and lows on and off the ice?

The honeymoon will end I have no doubt, when, I have no idea...

 

[Puckschmuck*]

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

People are sick of you dumping all over Winnipeg, Jeffrey. We know you are bitter about Hamilton not getting a team in the near future. I know it's true, you know it's true, this whole board knows it's true. You come to the Winnipeg threads to cause trouble, and you know it. We bring up Hamilton for the same reasons you bring up Edmonton in this thread. Don't understand what I mean, then perhaps figure it out and you'll understand why we don't like having you dump all over our threads.

 

[Grumpz]

Not sure if anyone has posted this, but Chipman has been quoted as saying they have the ability to sub-divide suites. So maximizing revenues by increasing their most expensive seats is still an option.

Contrary to uneducated popular belief, Winnipeg has a long history of supporting it's team. A team that was middle of the road, and played in a garbage facility.

It will thrive next season and for many yrs to come.

 

[cbcwpg]

I guess I'm confused (easy to do, BTW). If Winnipeg is a middle market in the big picture, than ~$50 is a comparable average ticket price in the NHL.

What is the average Arena size in the NHL? If it's 18,000, then the average ticket in WPG would need to be priced at ~$60 because MTS holds a bit more than 15,000. That's assuming all things being equal that corporate sponsorships and suite sales would equal those in other markets.

At $60 a ticket that would put WPG prices at ~#6 overall, but those costs could be reduced with a lower players' payroll, organizational and development, and overhead budgets, could they not?

Placing average ticket prices for the everyday fan back into the middling range of ~$50, (which, BTW, means we're only talking about ~$7M in less ticket revenue from the "common" fan), could allow WPG to ice a decent team, yes?

Or, can the market support ~$60 as the average price of a ticket? (Again, assuming corporate sponsorship/suite sales can hit NHL average)?

Doesn't seem that much of a stretch for me when others question the size of an arena that holds only >15,000 and <16,000.

The best guess from those in the know suggest an average ticket price of $75. The cheapest will be in the $40 area and the most expensive will be in the $120 area. This is based on what they were charging for the NHL preseason games.

As far as the private boxes go, 75% of the current box owners were asked if they would renew if the price of the box went from $50,000 per year to $150,000 per year. Most of them said they would, and for those that said no, they also said they would look more at sharing a box with another company.

Private boxes : $7,000,000 per season
Tickets : $1,050,000 per game (14,000 X $75 assuming they don't sell out every game )

Total: $50M per season on just gate revenue

 

[htpwn]

Their current arena was built in the 80s, so they'd just build a new one. In the meantime, the old arena could serve as a temporary home. The problem in Winnipeg is that their current arena is only a few years old.

Question: If one comes to the conclusion that it is better to build a new arena rather then renovate Copps, why would you build that new arena in Hamilton?

 

[Bryan574]

Question: If one comes to the conclusion that it is better to build a new arena rather then renovate Copps, why would you build that new arena in Hamilton?

why build new when the architecture is already in place and unlike most buildings of the time it was built so the roof could be raised for press boxes, suites and other future amenities. Not only is your work half done with copps but you most likely would have MLSE on your side as i guarantee they rather have a team play out of an existing building in the region then introduce a brand new sports/entertainment complex in the market. These are the reasons why you see the big players like Balsillie , Katz ,AEG, and Gaglardi only sniffing around Hamilton.

 

[Jeffrey93]

LOL. This goes back well over a year at this point. During that time, I have seen you take almost every opportunity to put down Winnipeg. It's not always direct but there's always a little something that says "**** you Winnipeg."

I am sure that other will agree that your MO this whole time has been to put down Winnipeg while singing the praises of the holy land known as Hamilton. Don't play the victim once you finally get called out.

Search my posts.....tell me the last time I brought up Hamilton. I bet it was a very long time ago. I steer clear of it now because of silly replies like this one.

I'm not putting Winnipeg down...I am looking at stats....facts....and using those to formulate an opinion on the topic.

But you're doing a bang up job too...lets keep this focused on me even longer, shall we?

 

[htpwn]

why build new when the architecture is already in place and unlike most buildings of the time it was built so the roof could be raised for press boxes, suites and other future amenities. Not only is your work half done with copps but you most likely would have MLSE on your side as i guarantee they rather have a team play out of an existing building in the region then introduce a brand new sports/entertainment complex in the market. These are the reasons why you see the big players like Balsillie , Katz ,AEG, and Gaglardi only sniffing around Hamilton.

You seem to have misinterpreted my post slightly:

Question: If one comes to the conclusion that it is better to build a new arena rather then renovate Copps, why would you build that new arena in Hamilton?

That was worded in a way to avoid debate about Copps. I've been down that road before and I am not going down it again. I don't believe it is worth it to renovate Copps Coliseum, most people from Hamilton on this board believe differently.

The question itself was rather simple. If you needed to build a new venue, why build it in Hamilton?

 

[Jeffrey93]

People are sick of you dumping all over Winnipeg, Jeffrey. We know you are bitter about Hamilton not getting a team in the near future. I know it's true, you know it's true, this whole board knows it's true. You come to the Winnipeg threads to cause trouble, and you know it. We bring up Hamilton for the same reasons you bring up Edmonton in this thread. Don't understand what I mean, then perhaps figure it out and you'll understand why we don't like having you dump all over our threads.

Where have I 'dumped all over Winnipeg'?

It isn't my fault the arena is small...it isn't my fault the market is small...it isn't my fault the median income in Manitoba/Winnipeg is less than that in other places.

I take all that into account and formulate an opinion...that isn't 'dumping' on Winnipeg...it is facing reality.

Could you please enlighten me on the part of your post that I bolded....who is 'we'...and what makes these your threads? This basically proves my point exactly. Because I don't agree I get noticed and people get all miffed at me and begin to talk about me personally. Just read my posts and ignore my username. There is no 'we' or 'our'....there is no ownership to threads that I am aware of.
But...it seems you subscribe to the opinion that unless I am in agreement with people regarding Winnipeg and the size of the MTS Centre....I am somehow 'dumping on the thread'.
It's really too bad that the folks in Phoenix don't get the same ownership of threads....or the folks in Atlanta. It seems plenty of Winnipegers go to those threads and don't agree with them about their franchise, market, etc. But that is perfectly alright. I don't agree with people about Winnipeg related topics and for some reason that is wrong.

I notice the responses to my actual posts stating facts are few and far between....I guess it is way easier for people to respond how they have instead of actually addressing facts.

1 NHL team has built an arena smaller than the MTS Centre in the last 87 years. Fact.

That FACT doesn't really make me think that the MTS Centre's size is what most agree on as a suitable size for an NHL arena.

Winnipeg would be the smallest market in the NHL. Fact.

That FACT compounds the issues that a smaller venue will create. In my opinion a smaller arena would have a better chance of success in a large market where there is more wealth and more specifically more people with slightly more wealth. Meaning...with higher ticket prices there are enough people to still easily command those prices and keep demand high.

Hopefully this gets things back on track as I do find this arena issue to be interesting, because I don't agree with those in Winnipeg shouldn't pose a problem I wouldn't think. If everyone agreed on a topic it would be a pretty boring discussion wouldn't it?

 

[Jeffrey93]

That was worded in a way to avoid debate about Copps. I've been down that road before and I am not going down it again. I don't believe it is worth it to renovate Copps Coliseum, most people from Hamilton on this board believe differently.

The question itself was rather simple. If you needed to build a new venue, why build it in Hamilton?

Most people believe differently because the designs lead them to believe that. But...we will avoid the debate as you wanted.

Where would you suggest building it? Hamilton is perfectly situated in the Golden Horseshoe to draw from the most amount of population without being in MLSE's backyard.

I have to ask.....why are we talking about Hamilton anyway?