|
Post by Jari on Jan 20, 2009 0:21:00 GMT -5
The History of NHL Expansion to Canada No. 4: What Winnipeg Told the NHL by Steve Thompson (Contributor) Editorial January 18, 2009 Author's Note: This article introduces a topic that has implications far beyond expansion to Canada. It hints at a subject that threatens all fans and the future of all professional sports around the world. It is a subject that is a dirty word in professional sports and is seldom discussed by the media. Maybe one day I'll get around to writing a series of articles about it. In 1988, the movie Eight Men Out, the story of the Chicago "Black Sox" of 1919 was released. In a minor scene at the start of the movie, two young boys are seen rushing towards the stadium because one of them, merely by selling a few newspapers is able to raise enough money for him and his friend to afford two bleacher seats. This scene pops into my mind when I think of the current situation in Winnipeg. And when pondered on, this minor scene has vast meaning not only for the NHL but also for all professional sports. On Nov. 16, 2004, Winnipeg opened a new arena. If the goal was to get back into the NHL, it was a stupid thing to do, comparable to Toronto's building of the Skydome in 1989. In the latter case, before the Skydome was built, there was talk of building a stadium to stage the Olympics and to lure an NFL franchise. For the Olympics, a grand stadium seating at least 70,000 was required and the NFL's policy openly stated that a 60,000 seat stadium was the minimum capacity for a new franchise. Thus it was strange to discover that the city had accepted a design that seated only 54,000, including restaurant seating. Author Poll Results Did Wiinnipeg make the right choice when building its arena? Yes 0.0%No 100.0%Total votes: 3 In Winnipeg's case, the new arena only seats 15,015. Ever since Quebec and Winnipeg lost their franchises in the mid-1990s, there has been hope that the NHL would return or expand to another Canadian city. By then, John Ziegler had been replaced by Gary Bettman, and the NHL commenced on shifting franchises and expanding to the American south, ignoring Canada and even the Northern United States. In today's sports world, there is one acid test to determine if a city is serious about having a major-league franchise for the long term that can compete for a championship and that is to have a proper professional-size facility to play in. In 1980, when Winnipeg joined the NHL, the median for an arena was 16,000. Today, it is 18,000. If Winnipeg wanted to impress the NHL by building a new arena in order to compete with future American applicants, it shot its arrow backwards into itself. If anything, a smaller market needs a bigger arena to compensate for a smaller base population. It will take lots of money to renovate the new arena to bring it up to NHL competitive capacity. For all I know it may be impossible to do and another arena would have to built. So Winnipeg's action was utter folly. That is if the goal was to get back into the NHL. But Winnipeg's choice is commendable if the goal is something else. What Winnipeg told the NHL was that we don't want you and all you symbolize and stand for. We don't want to try and apply for a franchise in a league where American applicants are more likely to get a more favourable hearing. Even if we built the arena with the proper size, you are more likely to favour an American city with a larger market. Witness the fate of Hamilton. So we're building an arena that suits are own needs. We're not even going to bother to compete with the Americans. We don't want to take the chance on fickle owners who may jump ship and move the team elsewhere if we don't give into their blackmail. We've seen what happened to the Montreal Expos and the NFL teams in Oakland, Baltimore, Houston, St. Louis, and Cleveland. We don't want an arena and a level of hockey where ticket prices are so expensive that only rich people and corporations can afford them. We'll settle for the finest arena in minor hockey, but one where more people can afford it. We don't relate to owners and players whose salaries are beyond the beyond. We don't care for slick marketing with products that cost more simply because they have a team logo on it. We don't care for leagues where more and more games are shown on pay or cable/ satellite tv that a lot of people cannot afford. See what happened to the Grey Cup last year. I guess you'll have to regard us as being old-fashioned and out of touch. But we're content to stew in our innocence for a little while longer. Something like those two boys in Eight Men Out. POLL Author Poll Results Did Wiinnipeg make the right choice when building its arena? Yes 0.0%No 100.0%Total votes: 3 bleacherreport.com/articles/112441-the-history-of-nhl-expansion-to-canada-no-4-what-winnipeg-told-the-nhl/poll_results
|
|
|
Post by WHA on Jan 20, 2009 20:25:52 GMT -5
The MTSC was built to save the Crocus Fund! Size did not matter in this equation! It was all about the money! If you don't believe this follow the money trail and it will make it loud and clear! We got screwed big time in more ways than one. Mark Chipman was on HNIC and stated that the MTSC was not built with the NHL in mind! Now when the NHL needs us we are having to make excuses about this and that! If and when the NHL returns it won't be because of the MTSC's size, it will be because the NHL has no other choice but to get back into hockey markets. The MTSC is not so new any more!
|
|
|
Post by jhendrix70 on Jan 20, 2009 20:45:21 GMT -5
Quite disapointed in your views WHA......The MTSC Was NOT Built for the NHL at the time. ( and why should it have been. When construction began, there wasn't much brewing in the NHL Expansion / Relocation Pool so, why would Chipman insist it was built strickly for the NHL? )
It was built for Concerts and AHL Hockey at that time BUT: Was built big enough for NHL Standards. We would have been screwed if the city didn't help out and we were stuck with a 8-10,000 seater but, 'we're not. NOW: NHL has shown interest in Winnipeg & Winnipeg has shown interest in the NHL & The MTSC is ready to go for the NHL when the opportunity arises.
I don't see how anyone can say "we got screwed" by this Building....without it we wouldn't even be talking about the NHL & where do you get this "the MTSC is not so new any more" from? It's 4 1/2 frickin' years old. That's pretty damn new still!
** I should add; I don't mean to come off as extremely rude however, as other posters here have all expressed, it's quite frustrating and annoying that for some reason; our NEW Building seems to be some sort of obstacle. It's NOT! And as a valued member ( and others that might share the view our building is a problem ) I don't know how much more info can be provided to you that will clear this off the impediment list……… **
|
|
|
Post by Dcmac on Jan 20, 2009 22:53:06 GMT -5
Quite disapointed in your views WHA......The MTSC Was NOT Built for the NHL at the time. ( and why should it have been. When construction began, there wasn't much brewing in the NHL Expansion / Relocation Pool so, why would Chipman insist it was built strickly for the NHL? ) It was built for Concerts and AHL Hockey at that time BUT: Was built big enough for NHL Standards. We would have been screwed if the city didn't help out and we were stuck with a 8-10,000 seater but, 'we're not. NOW: NHL has shown interest in Winnipeg & Winnipeg has shown interest in the NHL & The MTSC is ready to go for the NHL when the opportunity arises. I don't see how anyone can say "we got screwed" by this Building....without it we wouldn't even be talking about the NHL & where do you get this "the MTSC is not so new any more" from? It's 4 1/2 frickin' years old. That's pretty damn new still! ** I should add; I don't mean to come off as extremely rude however, as other posters here have all expressed, it's quite frustrating and annoying that for some reason; our NEW Building seems to be some sort of obstacle. It's NOT! And as a valued member ( and others that might share the view our building is a problem ) I don't know how much more info can be provided to you that will clear this off the impediment list……… ** Way to go, I myself am extremely tired of hearing this from FELLOW Winnipeggers.
|
|
|
Post by WHA on Jan 20, 2009 23:06:32 GMT -5
We got screwed because we did not build with vision! We had 30 years to think about it and built to satisfy all the wrong reasons. That is the reality of it! I am on this site because I want the NHL to return but we can not ignore why we have a 15000 seat building!
|
|
|
Post by WPGISNHL on Jan 20, 2009 23:45:31 GMT -5
We got screwed because we did not build with vision! We had 30 years to think about it and built to satisfy all the wrong reasons. That is the reality of it! I am on this site because I want the NHL to return but we can not ignore why we have a 15000 seat building! There would not be a single thing different today if this building was built with 17000 seats....get over it. Can the building generate the necessary revenues to house an NHL franchise here in Wpg? The answer is obviously yes...otherwise you would not be hearing True North/Chipman saying the things we have heard him say. THE BUILDING CAN OBVIOUSLY GENERATE THE REVENUES NECESSARY...WHY IS THIS HARD TO UNDERSTAND?
|
|
|
Post by Dcmac on Jan 21, 2009 0:27:56 GMT -5
We got screwed because we did not build with vision! We had 30 years to think about it and built to satisfy all the wrong reasons. That is the reality of it! I am on this site because I want the NHL to return but we can not ignore why we have a 15000 seat building! Check out the thread describing ways to upgrade the MTS Centre, it can be done if it's a must (which it's not ) Those 17,000 - 18,000 seat arenas are mainly for NBA not the NHL. We don't have an NBA team so we don't have a massive arena.
|
|
|
Post by allthisgold on Jan 21, 2009 13:33:56 GMT -5
Adding a few thousand more seats to the arena could have increased cost by up to $20 to $80 million (just my guess but it is true that the additional seats are the most expensive to build due to the increased size of the arena as a whole that is required). Assuming that no public money would be available for the arena, True North saved a lot of money by not increasing the size.
Over the past 4 - 5 years the extra seats would only have been used a handful of times for events therefore they would not have generated much additional revenue.
Assuming an average ticket price of $35 for the cheap seats, that there were an additional 2,000 seats and that these seats sold out 40 times a year this just represents additional revenue of $2.8 per year. This amount likely won't make or break an NHL team here. I agree that it would help and that extra people would represent more other revenue such as concessions, however the extra seats would substantially increase the cost to operate the building (see heat, insurance, etc...). The extra seats would also increase the supply of tickets which would mean that for the original 15,000 seats the ticket price might go down due to the additional seats. Overall, in Winnipeg, the extra seats would not generate a lot of extra revenue per year.
In addition, and this is the most important thing, if it is true that the MTS Centre is paid off (I would love to see something official on this) this represents two things. 1. the arena is very profitable and profits from concerts, other events, renting space to Moxies, Tavern and Tims and advertising can be used to offset hockey losses (if any -only anticipate any if the dollar is really bad). 2. The ownership group of True North owns the arena outright and is making a lot of money from it. This will enable this group to easily come up with the money necessary to purchase a team. The fact that we have an ownership group that is debt free (at least in terms of the builiding) improves our chances. This may not have happened if we built a larger building just to appease some media types and some Winnipegers who won't look at the facts.
The building is fine. A few more seats can be added without major renovations and this is enough.
|
|
|
Post by WPGISNHL on Jan 21, 2009 14:06:18 GMT -5
Adding a few thousand more seats to the arena could have increased cost by up to $20 to $80 million (just my guess but it is true that the additional seats are the most expensive to build due to the increased size of the arena as a whole that is required). Assuming that no public money would be available for the arena, True North saved a lot of money by not increasing the size. Over the past 4 - 5 years the extra seats would only have been used a handful of times for events therefore they would not have generated much additional revenue. Assuming an average ticket price of $35 for the cheap seats, that there were an additional 2,000 seats and that these seats sold out 40 times a year this just represents additional revenue of $2.8 per year. This amount likely won't make or break an NHL team here. I agree that it would help and that extra people would represent more other revenue such as concessions, however the extra seats would substantially increase the cost to operate the building (see heat, insurance, etc...). The extra seats would also increase the supply of tickets which would mean that for the original 15,000 seats the ticket price might go down due to the additional seats. Overall, in Winnipeg, the extra seats would not generate a lot of extra revenue per year. In addition, and this is the most important thing, if it is true that the MTS Centre is paid off (I would love to see something official on this) this represents two things. 1. the arena is very profitable and profits from concerts, other events, renting space to Moxies, Tavern and Tims and advertising can be used to offset hockey losses (if any -only anticipate any if the dollar is really bad). 2. The ownership group of True North owns the arena outright and is making a lot of money from it. This will enable this group to easily come up with the money necessary to purchase a team. The fact that we have an ownership group that is debt free (at least in terms of the builiding) improves our chances. This may not have happened if we built a larger building just to appease some media types and some Winnipegers who won't look at the facts. The building is fine. A few more seats can be added without major renovations and this is enough. Every debate and argument related to the size of MTSC should be addressed with these points! It is so common sense! It is as obvious as the nose on everyone's face...yet we engage and encourage the naysayers by endlessly debating how to get capacity up to 16500-17500! The building is fine. A few more seats can be added without major renovations and this is enough.
|
|
|
Post by subwayscoundrel on Jan 21, 2009 15:12:47 GMT -5
We got screwed because we did not build with vision! We had 30 years to think about it and built to satisfy all the wrong reasons. That is the reality of it! I am on this site because I want the NHL to return but we can not ignore why we have a 15000 seat building! Check out the thread describing ways to upgrade the MTS Centre, it can be done if it's a must (which it's not ) Those 17,000 - 18,000 seat arenas are mainly for NBA not the NHL. We don't have an NBA team so we don't have a massive arena. True, it can be done but at what cost and where does the money come from? Not guesses or 1999 costs. Where does the $100M come from to raise the roof ?
|
|
|
Post by jhendrix70 on Jan 21, 2009 18:49:44 GMT -5
True, it can be done but at what cost and where does the money come from? Not guesses or 1999 costs. Where does the $100M come from to raise the roof ? What do you think the MTS Centre has been doing the last 4 years? Nothing? We are in the top 20 World Busiest Venues = $uce$$ful = alot of Income. + if the NHL gave us the NOD but said we needed a expansion; I know both sides of Government are on board. Both Katz & Doer said they would be there to help! Not saying ALL 100 Million would come from Government however; there would be a substantial chunk there + Private Investors.
|
|
|
Post by Darren Ford on Jan 21, 2009 20:06:10 GMT -5
I seriously think I may shoot myself tonight. Look in the Obits tomorrow. This guy is writing an editorial as if it's 2003 and arena capacities are an issue again. THEY ARE NOT! Revenue is. And we can generate the revenue. Please disregard this crap. Winnipeg most certainly did make sure 15,000 was adequate for the NHL. Anything else is simply untrue. maybe Mr. Thompson could explain why the NHL has entertained the thought of a Winnipeg team many times in the past 4 years, outwardly so. I will say this again, if our building was too small for the NHL, the NHL would have told us to take a hike the day it opened. In fact, there are owners in the league that wish their "inventory", as they refer to it, was less than they have. In other words, they wish their buildings were 16,700 instead of 19,200. That way they could fetch more money per ticket a keep demand high. It is marketing 101. Don't flood your market. If it's easy to find a seat, it's not easy to drive the value of that seat. Period. Most US arenas are the size they are for the NBA, not the NHL. But the building is shared, and some to their credit do in fact sell-out hockey alot of the time. Mr. Thompson's comment "If anything, a smaller market needs a bigger arena to compensate for a smaller base population" is laughable, if not down right silly. Mr. Thompson sounds like I did the day I heard of the final MTSC specs. But then I educated myself and talked to the key players of this return. Turns out we're fine. You think I'd still be doing this if all the while the arena was too small?!?!?! And believe me, if it was indeed considered too small and that indeed did hinder our chances at regaining a franchise, I would be the first to blow a gasket. But that is not the case at all. We have a realistic sized building for our smaller population base. But with that building we can generate PAID sellouts and scarce tickets. If we have to add 500-700 seats somehow, great. But we don't need a 19,000 seat building. if we did, chances are 3,000 seats would be empty many nights anyway, which de-values the filled seats. I am so tired of this endless MTSC debate. It never seems to end. Lets just sell out the seats we have and take it from there. The NHL is well aware of exactly how many seats are in MTSC. Yet they keep mentioning our name. This isn't by accident. A super-duper
|
|
|
Post by NewJets on Jan 22, 2009 9:27:39 GMT -5
Excellent post, Darren.
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Jan 22, 2009 11:04:02 GMT -5
"I'm not convinced the building here in Winnipeg is not the right size. To me, I'm always a proponent of scarcity over too many seats. Do you want to have an incentive to have a season ticket? I don't know that $40 million as a floor makes sense but it's a real good hockey market, there are many places in Canada that are, but Winnipeg is number one or two for sure." John Ferguson Jr. Taken from the MBMB recent audio posting. Check it out: CJOB Radio: During the 2nd intermission of the hockey game between the Manitoba Moose and the Hamilton Bulldogs, CJOB's Brian Munz interviews the San Jose Sharks' John Ferguson Jr. www.manitobamythbusters.com/m.
|
|
|
Post by jjmclean on Jan 23, 2009 8:27:37 GMT -5
We got screwed because we did not build with vision! We had 30 years to think about it and built to satisfy all the wrong reasons. That is the reality of it! I am on this site because I want the NHL to return but we can not ignore why we have a 15000 seat building! Check out the thread describing ways to upgrade the MTS Centre, it can be done if it's a must (which it's not ) Those 17,000 - 18,000 seat arenas are mainly for NBA not the NHL. We don't have an NBA team so we don't have a massive arena. The single different thing would be that we would NEVER hear this argument, and in my view one less obstacle is better.
|
|
|
Post by jhendrix70 on Jan 23, 2009 9:13:16 GMT -5
We wouldn't be hearing this argument if un-informed people kept bringing it up!
|
|
|
Post by selanne405 on Jan 27, 2009 0:45:13 GMT -5
Ummmmm not gonna lie, I couldnt diagree more with your whole we'll take the best minor league team over the NHL bit
|
|