|
Post by Pitbull on Aug 3, 2005 3:56:23 GMT -5
Winnipeg is now on the NHL's radar once again but how big is the blip?
I would like to hear from the NHL themselves on which teams are having problems and what potential relocation sites are. Bettman did finally comment on Winnipeg during the lockout and said that Winnipeg is a prime reason why this new CBA needed to be done. Now, was that meant as a way to show that Winnipeg can now have a team?
I know that we have a lot of hockey fans but we have a small arena with no real chance of expansion. It's a tiny place. There could never be a permit given to add on another 5,000 seats which is what the NHL would want.
I drive by that MTS Centre a few times a month and notice just how small it is. Everyone comments on that too.
I want the Jets back but I need questions answered so I can sway the naysayers.
Pittsburgh will never move here because Mario hates Winnipeg. Pheonix won't move here because that would make Bettman look too silly. Florida and Carolina seem like the only places that could move at the moment. The rest of the league will probably stay in the black with this new CBA.
Also, if there was news that the Penguins could move, a Save the Penguins campaign would start and it would be huge.
What teams in Canada were affected the most by the old CBA? Calgary? Edmonton? Montreal?
Is there any possible way to make that arena bigger? Just a lousy spot for that place.
|
|
|
Post by hawker14 on Aug 3, 2005 14:35:40 GMT -5
i see the arena size as a bonus. sell outs of 15,000 are basically a given, and with demand for tickets strong, pay per view revenues will be substantial.
in any event, this cba works for every franchise if they attract 15,000 fans per game.
|
|
|
Post by WPGISNHL on Aug 3, 2005 17:28:57 GMT -5
I know that we have a lot of hockey fans but we have a small arena with no real chance of expansion. It's a tiny place. There could never be a permit given to add on another 5,000 seats which is what the NHL would want. I drive by that MTS Centre a few times a month and notice just how small it is. Everyone comments on that too. I want the Jets back but I need questions answered so I can sway the naysayers. Is there any possible way to make that arena bigger? Just a lousy spot for that place. www.andrewsstarspage.com/CBA/11-14-04cba.htmLooking at the forbes report, which at the very least is somewhat accurate, I see the following: Edmonton, Ottawa, Nashville, Anaheim, Atlanta, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Carolina, Florida, NYI and Phoenix all had ticket sale revenue between 16 million and 29 million (U.S. dollars.) (note: Calgary was at 33 million because they made it to the finals with maximum number of home playoff dates...otherwise they are in this group as well.) Could Winnipeg generate approx. 25 million (U.S. dollars) in ticket sale revenue in the MTS Center? Without even making the playoffs, if you take away the approx. 1000 seats included from the luxury boxes....we have 14000 seats for sale over 41 regular season dates to accomplish this. We would hit 25 million with an average ticket cost of $44 U.S. or $55Cdn. Hypothetically, if there were an additional 1500 seats in the MTS center...they would be the cheapest seats in the building at say $20U.S. This would increase ticket sale revenue (assuming they were completely sold for all 41 regular season games) a mere 1.25 million (U.S.) dollars. The MTS building capacity is NOT an issue at its present size. The far more important fact is how much "other" revenue does a franchise in Winnipeg need to generate to keep up with the present markets? The same teams that I listed above had "other" revenue in the range of 26 million to 42 million (U.S. dollars.) with EDMONTON being the lowest! Florida, Atlanta, Nashville, Carolina, Phoenix were at or above 34 million. The relationship between ticket sales and "other" revenue is the what we are about to witness in the upcoming seasons. Some of these markets will experience continued decreasing ticket sales and thus "other" revenue will decrease too. That bodes well for markets such as ours! How much "other" revenue does Winnipeg need to generate? We can argue and speculate all we want but $20-25 million (U.S.) seems to be the magic number. The comparable city to us is Edmonton and they hit a high of 26 million (U.S.) with approx. 1500 more people in their building buying concession items.... but not 6 million dollars (U.S.) Again, the MTS Center building capacity is NOT an issue at its present size. The simple fact is this: The bulk portion of "other" revenue is corporate money! WILL or CAN Winnipeg's corporate community support an NHL franchise here to the extent that is needed? We all agree the average fan will do their part but what we don't know FOR CERTAIN is whether we have the corporate community support. Again, the MTS Center building capacity is NOT an issue at its present size.
|
|
|
Post by jamiebez on Aug 4, 2005 12:48:03 GMT -5
Excellent post, WPGISNHL! Your numbers are pretty much bang-on - we need to generate $20-25 in "other" revenues if we want the average ticket price around $55 Cdn.
It's been beaten to death on other forums, but the "other" revenue includes such things as: - advertising - concessions/parking - local TV/radio deals - share of national TV deals - share of merchandising pie ... plus several other things I can't remember right now. Ticket revenue includes luxury suites/club seats.
So, even the corporate support in Winnipeg boils down to advertising, club seats/luxury suites and the local TV/radio deals (CJOB, are you listening?). That's why I have no doubt it can work here!
|
|
|
Post by jamiebez on Aug 4, 2005 12:59:45 GMT -5
Pitbull, I want to address your points, also.
I've voiced similar concerns about the arena as well, but what WPGISNHL points out very well is that its not the size, its the money you can generate from it that matters. If we squeeze in a few hundred seats up in the rafters, our attendance numbers will look better, but it wouldn't make all that much of a difference to the bottom line. I am still in favor of doing this, but its not a make-or-break thing by any means.
Pittsburgh will move if they don't get a new arena. They have applied for a slots license, but even if they don't get it, I have heard that whoever does win the license will likely build a new arena for the team anyway. With Crosby going there, that's all the more incentive for them to stay.
Florida and Carolina are the trouble spots, but don't be so sure about Phoenix. They have continued ownership issues (Gretzky may be out of the picture) and development has not been what they hoped for in the Glendale area around the arena (according to the Hockey News). Their attendance was in steady decline before the new building, so they may not be able to sustain a fan base in the long run. We'll see.
Plus, I actually think the NHL will expand by another 2 teams in the next 3-5 years. The owners will want to get back the money they lost in the lockout, and more teams means more jobs for the players. This would take care of Houston and Kansas City (the only other serious contenders for teams, as DC pointed out the other day).
The thing to remember is that it will take time for anything to happen. I have no doubt the NHL would be profitable in Winnipeg with the new arena and the new CBA. It just may take longer than we hoped.
|
|
|
Post by WPGISNHL on Aug 4, 2005 15:12:41 GMT -5
Excellent post, WPGISNHL! It's been beaten to death on other forums, but the "other" revenue includes such things as: - advertising - concessions/parking - local TV/radio deals - share of national TV deals - share of merchandising pie ... plus several other things I can't remember right now. Ticket revenue includes luxury suites/club seats. Thanks. One correction on your post is that the luxury suite sales would not be in ticket sales. They would be an "other" revenue amount due to the fact that when you own a luxury suite you have it for all events at the facility....not just hockey. Club seats are part of ticket sale revenue and will simply be the highest priced seats (be they season tickets, mini packs or single game seats.) If luxury suites generate approx. 5 million (U.S.....and this can and will happen without question ) then all the rest of the things you listed must generate an additional 12-15 million (U.S.) minimum. THAT is the tough one in a city and market such as Winnipeg and this is why there is always so much talk about market size. It is this additional 12-15 million in "corporate support" that people worry about. The money is here....but getting those who hold that money to let go of some of it can be a problem. If the corporate community will sustain this revenue amount and you add in the "revenue sharing" amount....the numbers work...but the revenue sharing cannot be the crutch that continually holds up the franchise....and that is very important!
|
|
|
Post by Jordan on Aug 4, 2005 16:09:01 GMT -5
it's not the size but more the way u use it
|
|
|
Post by Steenager on Sept 3, 2005 17:59:34 GMT -5
When you guys add up hypothetical stats from ticket sales you always forget that included in the ticket price are such things as entertainment taxes and stuff. 100% of the tickets value does not go right to the hockey team.
|
|
|
Post by HartfordWhalers on Sept 6, 2005 7:39:20 GMT -5
Good point
|
|
|
Post by warpigs2380 on Sept 7, 2005 12:38:32 GMT -5
One thing that really needs to be worked is the National TV deal. They are getting $65 mil this year from OLN, which works out to just over $2 mil a team. Thats peanuts.
How do you increase the TV contract? Make the game more appealing (which I believe they have with the new rules and CBA) which will demand more viewers. More viewers means bigger contracts which means bigger dollars for the individual teams.
What exactly am I saying? The TV deal WILL keep getting bigger in my opinion. Which means that while people may think the Jets wont have enough revenue streams now, this stream WILL continue to grow as long as the game stays exciting.
The network deal that the NFL has is why the Green Bay Packers can survive in a league where the payroll approaches $100 mil.
|
|
|
Post by USApegger on Sept 7, 2005 12:53:50 GMT -5
The old ABC/ESPN deal gave each team about $4 million per year, each NFL team gets close to $90 million a year from TV revenue. The whole purpose of the failed Southern expansion was for the additional TV revenue. One the NHL needs to do in the States is market the American NHL players. Americans love to watch sports that Americans are participating in (with the exception of baseball). Hopefully the new rule changes will make the game more exciting, plus the olympics always give a spike in NHL ratings when they are over. Of course, by increasing the TV revenue means that some teams may be able to survive where they are, so maybe they shouldn't do anything until the Jets are back
|
|