Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

NHL 'Closely Monitoring' Winnipeg Ticket Sales as They Continue to Drop


Recommended Posts

Just 13 years after moving back to Winnipeg, the Jets are again back to having issues. Bettman is going to Winnipeg to visit with corporate sponsors and to talk to the fans. They’ve seen a 30% drop in season tickets.

 

I get this is an issue. I do.

 

But Gary, we also have a team playing inside of a fucking shoebox in Arizona with no concrete plans for a new arena yet in place…

Edited by RichieNextel305
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three points out of first place with four games at hand.  What happens to season ticket sales when they have a few losing seasons?  I don't get it.  When they lost the team in 1996, it was exchange rates; no fan support.  When they didn't have a team, they used to have mass bus trips to St. Paul, 420 miles away, to see NHL games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arizona also being an issue doesn't negate the fact that anyone with a basic understanding in business could see this coming. The move to Winnipeg was a nostalgic one, not one rooted in sound business strategy. At the time it was announced, there were countless articles and talking heads warning about how they have the smallest arena in the NHL (at the time), and how the corporate footprint was incredibly small. That matters. The NHL is a business. This is the same reason Quebec, no matter how loud the lamenting for the Noridques jerseys is, will also never get a team again. Not when there are significantly more viable markets in America with massive corporate dollars available. Houston and, yes, even Atlanta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Phil said:

Arizona also being an issue doesn't negate the fact that anyone with a basic understanding in business could see this coming. The move to Winnipeg was a nostalgic one, not one rooted in sound business strategy. At the time it was announced, there were countless articles and talking heads warning about how they have the smallest arena in the NHL (at the time), and how the corporate footprint was incredibly small. That matters. The NHL is a business. This is the same reason Quebec, no matter how loud the lamenting for the Noridques jerseys is, will also never get a team again. Not when there are significantly more viable markets in America with massive corporate dollars available. Houston and, yes, even Atlanta.

 

Tried to beat you to it, boss!  Failed!  LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jsm7302 said:

I'm surprised Wisconsin can't support a team.

 

Who said they can't? If the corp footprint/dollars are there + stable ownership, there's no reason almost any market can't work. That doesn't mean endless expansion is something the league should look to (they shouldn't), but the problem markets are the ones that fail in one or both of these fields.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really can't underestimate how gross, and poor Manitoba is. Imagine Alberta and Sask had no natural resources, and that's what Manitoba is. I really have no idea what they were thinking bringing a team back to Winnipeg, other than thinking the Thompsons would just float it indefinitely.

 

Canada is full of dirty, poor, depressing, brutalist soviet style locales, it's actually mostly this, but Manitoba is the undisputed king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dunny said:

Canada is full of dirty, poor, depressing, brutalist soviet style locales, it's actually mostly this, but Manitoba is the undisputed king.

True patriot love in all of us command

  • LOL 1
  • 'Merica! 1
  • Applause 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NHL probably has 24 teams that are on sound footing and making decent money. That's already 8 franchises out there that can't hold their own.

 

Arizona, Ottawa, Columbus, San Jose, Buffalo, Winnipeg, Anaheim, Florida, maybe Nashville, maybe Carolina.  The first two teams operate on about 60% of the revenue of the average team in the league.

 

The NHL is in need of contraction at this point not expansion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Br4d said:

The NHL probably has 24 teams that are on sound footing and making decent money. That's already 8 franchises out there that can't hold their own.

 

Arizona, Ottawa, Columbus, San Jose, Buffalo, Winnipeg, Anaheim, Florida, maybe Nashville, maybe Carolina.  The first two teams operate on about 60% of the revenue of the average team in the league.

 

The NHL is in need of contraction at this point not expansion.

What does contraction mean? A team of  48 players? I don't think this exists. Dissolution is more likely for those struggling mightily: Arizona, Winnipeg then relocate the two next candidates. 30 teams should be the max.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jsm7302 said:

What does contraction mean? A team of  48 players? I don't think this exists. Dissolution is more likely for those struggling mightily: Arizona, Winnipeg then relocate the two next candidates. 30 teams should be the max.

Contraction means dissolving teams and a dispersal draft. Some players will be without jobs. That's why it won't happen. PA will never agree to it. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next best option is regional teams that play in a wider area with two or more metros sharing the team.  Build smaller less expensive facilities in each of the host cities, providing venues for other attractions in those cities and split much of the infrastructure cost in the process.  The only thing not easily shareable is the cost of the personnel to man those facilities and 95% of those jobs are cheap labor jobs of the type that is in short supply at the moment.

 

Win-win.  Several small cities get relatively inexpensive facilities and jobs of the type they desperately need to support the people in the bottom 20%.  The NHL gets games that are more in demand because the number of seats is lower and the availability of games is lesser making each ticket more of a premium sale.  Taylor Swift (more likely Britney Spears and other B-list attractions) gets more venues to play in and the local economy perks up a bit as people travel in regionally for those performances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...