|
Post by hatrick007 on Jan 20, 2006 11:52:11 GMT -5
This is the dumbest logic ever. These teams all suck financially...so we can have a team that sucks financially too! Yeah, that is pretty dumb logic for you to think that we will suck financially.
|
|
|
Post by dreamcatcher on Jan 20, 2006 12:00:19 GMT -5
lol.....Jeffrey93......listen up..I'll help you....what we are saying, is there are many cities in the NHL that are much larger than Winnipeg, AND have higher prices, AND still sellout, AND their revenue sources and corporate sponsors pay huge coin to be mentioned in the same breath as their team....all WE need to worry about, is that we make a profit here in Winnipeg....whether we are ranked 24th or 30th in revenue, if we are sellout our arena, and making a little money, we will be considered a successful franchise and a solid, if not small market.....
|
|
|
Post by jeffrey93 on Jan 20, 2006 16:14:54 GMT -5
Dreamcatcher....I get that. But what is being said is "Look...all these other teams draw 15,000 or less! If we sellout we'd be the same!"
Well...that's no accomplishment. Saying that you can outdraw the New York Islanders isn't saying much. Remember...all these low attendance teams don't have the taxes to pay that we do and they don't have the currency exchange to deal with. You need to do more than just match their pitiful attendance. I hate to sound like a broken record....but with the MTS Center...that can't be done. Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Columbus, Buffalo, Florida and Phoenix all draw terrible crowds. But all of them are averaging more than the MTS Center even holds. That is the big point that I can't get past to buy into the theory that Winnipeg has a strong chance of landing a team.
|
|
|
Post by wagner3 on Jan 20, 2006 16:55:57 GMT -5
Check the definitions of "announced attendance" vs "paid attendance" and you may understand the theory. True, MTS is very marginal in size, but we are only missing the cheap seats...Also, hate to bring this up, but it's not impossible to expand an arena some time down the road if the economics warrant it...even in its current configuration some speculate with skyboxes and minor adjustment 16,000 paying customers could be squeezed in there (not so farfetched in my view).
|
|
|
Post by jeffrey93 on Jan 20, 2006 17:08:37 GMT -5
Reported Attendance vs. Paid Attendance
I'm well aware.
Still doesn't really mean much.
|
|
|
Post by bleedingwhite on Jan 20, 2006 17:48:49 GMT -5
Reported Attendance vs. Paid Attendance I'm well aware. Still doesn't really mean much. Making money vs. not making money Yeah that means nothing? Still waiting for you to state some intelligence on this board... I won't be surprised when you get banned from here. Starting to see why it has already happened twice at Sportsnet. Oh well I'm sure the Mods will do what is just soon enough.
|
|
|
Post by jeffrey93 on Jan 20, 2006 17:50:09 GMT -5
Read the posts.
If anybody should be banned.....
You just compiled and entire post that adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.
Good on ya!
I'll break this down for you.
X is tickets sold/paid attendance Z is revenue generated by tickets
So X=Z. With me?
Y is the amount of giveway tickets.
So X+Y = reported attendance
Guess what? X+Y=Z....and X=Z So it doesn't matter. The teams are still making the same amount regardless of what they claim their attednance was.
The Isle could claim to draw 39,000 a game for all I care. It doesn't matter. We'll know at the end of the year how much money they made or lost just the same
|
|
|
Post by bleedingwhite on Jan 20, 2006 18:54:31 GMT -5
Read the posts. If anybody should be banned..... You just compiled and entire post that adds absolutely nothing to the conversation. Like you have been doing all day... oops I'm sorry!
|
|
|
Post by AO8/EM71 on Jan 20, 2006 19:00:57 GMT -5
you're all noobs. jeffery93 is right tho. good on you son.
|
|
|
Post by bleedingwhite on Jan 20, 2006 21:17:32 GMT -5
you're all noobs. jeffery93 is right tho. good on you son. 1. noob Shortened form of "newbie," the most hilarious insult ever invented, in which a person who uses a computer game too much is ridiculing one who does not, for being "new" at the game, which of course they once were. Generally speaking, the speaker of this "insult" is one who should be on the receiving end of most insults. Commonly found in allegiance with "1337$1'331<," or "leetspeak," the accepted language of computer gaming geeks which takes a ludicrous amount of time to type. (A good deal of this definition is opinionated, given. But the definition still resides within.)
|
|
|
Post by AO8/EM71 on Jan 21, 2006 0:09:45 GMT -5
you're all noobs. jeffery93 is right tho. good on you son. 1. noob Shortened form of "newbie," the most hilarious insult ever invented, in which a person who uses a computer game too much is ridiculing one who does not, for being "new" at the game, which of course they once were. Generally speaking, the speaker of this "insult" is one who should be on the receiving end of most insults. Commonly found in allegiance with "1337$1'331<," or "leetspeak," the accepted language of computer gaming geeks which takes a ludicrous amount of time to type. (A good deal of this definition is opinionated, given. But the definition still resides within.) All I gotta say is PWNED! You're still a noob tho. Besh!
|
|
|
Post by Hardcoresuperstar on Jan 21, 2006 12:30:06 GMT -5
you're all noobs. jeffery93 is right tho. good on you son. Did you actually just call someone a noob? Yikes...and I used to think you were a cool guy. It is funny that you are calling bleedingwhite a noob when he has been registered longer than you have here. Lets get back to the topic at hand people.
|
|
|
Post by garydare on Jan 22, 2006 3:39:54 GMT -5
That's the thing ... the number of NHL teams that actually need more than 15,000+ seats can be counted on one hand!
|
|
|
Post by AO8/EM71 on Jan 22, 2006 11:59:52 GMT -5
I actually signed up in 2004 but I got a new account, this topic is like beating a dead horse now, along with all of BT's other ranting posts.
|
|