Winnipeg in talks to acquire Thrashers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'Fuego

So I've heard.

---

I'm generalizing here, but, it's odd to see how a lot of Canadians seem to view the sport. I've spent all 31 of my years in So Cal, and have been a die-hard hockey fan for 23 of those (when we first had Prime Ticket). I love the sport with a passion, and I LOVE to see the sport spread to new areas and teams placed in new places all over the continent.

I'm sure it may be a vocal minority, but I don't get that impression from a lot of Canadians at all. It is 'their' sport, it should be played in 'their' cities, and I sometimes get the feeling that if most of the league folded, and was comprised of 8 Canadian teams, New York, Boston, Detroit and Chicago, they wouldn't be bothered in the least. Just seems awfully short-sighted to me.

why all the uproar? I think it's better for the league and the players that they now have a city that will support them properly. Atlanta is not a bad team, but their attendance numbers would reflect that they are well...Edmonton. I feel terrible for the Atlanta fanbase...but their beef should not be with the league..it should be with the Atlanta Spirit group, who has made it abundantly clear time and time again that they care very little about a hockey franchise in that city in comparison to their precious Atlanta Hawks.

I say, Good luck Thrashers/Jets/Moose you will be taken care of more accordingly and much better in Manitoba.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Naysay

Problem is... Canada only has 34 Million people and they've already got teams in all the "major cities".

---

Boom. And the issue with that is, that you have to rely on a smaller population to drive you through the tough times...and that's where trouble happens. For example LA, aside from the hardcores which exist in every city, there's always enough people (despite how much we loath the FB checking, ultra dressed up have no clue about hockey fill ins in the 100s) the casual fan do in fact help make teams sustainable long term. I realize the Canadian dollar is doing well, and Winnipeg is in an era of particular growth and prosperity, but you have to see Winnipeg for what it is. A lower tier city that's doing well at the moment.

What happens when a recession inevitably hits? Has Winnipeg and its hockey buying populace come far enough and grown enough to sustain, not support, but sustain a team past 15 years? We'll see, but I doubt it.

Just look at past example of other Canadian teams being on the ropes during recession times, be it bad owners or whatever, it ALL comes into play during rough times. Hell the dynastic Oilers with the son of christ himself on the team almost folded and/or moved to Toronto at one point....a situation that landed said prodigal ultra uber god favorite child on your very own Kings. Or how many times the Maples were almost no more.

In fact the TML are a perfect example of what I mean, that team has been **** for years and years and while they obviously have a plentitude of hardcore fans, they have enough of a population to fill in the gaps, because if that team was in Halifax, Hamilton, St. John, Winnipeg....they'd be in deep deep ****.

Attendance is more often than not tied directly to what piece of gold or crap is on the ice.

2006-2007 NHL Attendance - National Hockey League - ESPN

Check it out over last seasons as they correlate to one ice records, random scandals, negative media and so forth. I found this year particularly interesting for a couple reasons:

This was the year Atlanta won the SE division.

They had a higher average attendance than the following:

STL
CHI
WAS
NYI
WAS
NJ
And sadly my own Boston Bruins.

These are across the board considered traditional hockey markets no? By any stretch of the imagination would the Thrashers be considered to have a stronger or more dedicated fanbase? Hell no. But the thing these teams had in common was....they all sucked or had all just previously gone through a stretch of suck.

Chicago in particular went through a 5 or 6 year stretch where they were close to the bottom in attendance. Now they've led the league 3 years in a row. Wierd.

So if you win people care, if you don't they don't. Its human nature, people want to be associated with success. Then think about how much those extra games tie into extra income, exposure and so forth for the franchise?

Look at how close Sidney Crosby came to coming into our consciousness in a different uniform albeit for the same franchise? Pretty damn close. Cause they weren't winning, and no one cared. Now they're considered this model franchise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'Fuego

Boom. And the issue with that is, that you have to rely on a smaller population to drive you through the tough times...and that's where trouble happens. For example LA, aside from the hardcores which exist in every city, there's always enough people (despite how much we loath the FB checking, ultra dressed up have no clue about hockey fill ins in the 100s) the casual fan do in fact help make teams sustainable long term. I realize the Canadian dollar is doing well, and Winnipeg is in an era of particular growth and prosperity, but you have to see Winnipeg for what it is. A lower tier city that's doing well at the moment.

What happens when a recession inevitably hits? Has Winnipeg and its hockey buying populace come far enough and grown enough to sustain, not support, but sustain a team past 15 years? We'll see, but I doubt it.

Just look at past example of other Canadian teams being on the ropes during recession times, be it bad owners or whatever, it ALL comes into play during rough times. Hell the dynastic Oilers with the son of christ himself on the team almost folded and/or moved to Toronto at one point....a situation that landed said prodigal ultra uber god favorite child on your very own Kings. Or how many times the Maples were almost no more.

---

Probably not, but hell the NHL made $60 million in 'relocation fees' so it's a win win for Bettman & bunch. So, hockey fails in Winnipeg again(hurm irony alert there) and someone else buys/relocates the team...that's at least another cool $60 million son! Ca Ching!!!!

Bettman said they can be the Jets if they want to. The NHL owns the name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'Fuego

Attendance is more often than not tied directly to what piece of gold or crap is on the ice.

2006-2007 NHL Attendance - National Hockey League - ESPN

Check it out over last seasons as they correlate to one ice records, random scandals, negative media and so forth. I found this year particularly interesting for a couple reasons:

This was the year Atlanta won the SE division.

They had a higher average attendance than the following:

STL
CHI
WAS
NYI
WAS
NJ
And sadly my own Boston Bruins.

These are across the board considered traditional hockey markets no? By any stretch of the imagination would the Thrashers be considered to have a stronger or more dedicated fanbase? Hell no. But the thing these teams had in common was....they all sucked or had all just previously gone through a stretch of suck.

Chicago in particular went through a 5 or 6 year stretch where they were close to the bottom in attendance. Now they've led the league 3 years in a row. Wierd.

So if you win people care, if you don't they don't. Its human nature, people want to be associated with success. Then think about how much those extra games tie into extra income, exposure and so forth for the franchise?

Look at how close Sidney Crosby came to coming into our consciousness in a different uniform albeit for the same franchise? Pretty damn close. Cause they weren't winning, and no one cared. Now they're considered this model franchise.

---

I think your oversight is this however....

within the top 15,

St. Louis
Toronto
Calgary
Ottawa
Minnesota

Last year those same teams were still in the top 15. What do they have in common? None of them made the playoffs (save Ottawa) and in 09 Only St. Louis made it.

It's not necessarily on ice product...because there are certain poor market teams that even if the team makes the playoffs...they still do VERY poorly in attendance...aka Anaheim, Phoenix, Atlanta, Nashville, Carolina, New Jersey (surprised me as well). In the last 5 years their were mutiple times where these franchises made the playoffs and their attendance was still bottom half of the league. Hell...the year the Ducks won the cup their league attendance rating was 20th. And when Carolina won in 06 they were 21st.

Then there are teams like the ones I listed, St. Louis, Toronto, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Ottawa, Minnesota, Montreal, Colorado (07 they missed and were top half.) Calgary, Tampa Bay actually has a consistent top 5 attendance number even when coming in JUST inside the playoff brackets or missing.


So yea you are right, there is a slight correlation to performance and attendance...but at the same time take THAT with an extreme grain of salt. Cause there are DYNAMITE teams out there that get zero support even in good years and vice versa.

AKA good markets for hockey, and bad markets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'Fuego

Attendance is more often than not tied directly to what piece of gold or crap is on the ice.

2006-2007 NHL Attendance - National Hockey League - ESPN

Check it out over last seasons as they correlate to one ice records, random scandals, negative media and so forth. I found this year particularly interesting for a couple reasons:

This was the year Atlanta won the SE division.

They had a higher average attendance than the following:

STL
CHI
WAS
NYI
WAS
NJ
And sadly my own Boston Bruins.

These are across the board considered traditional hockey markets no? By any stretch of the imagination would the Thrashers be considered to have a stronger or more dedicated fanbase? Hell no. But the thing these teams had in common was....they all sucked or had all just previously gone through a stretch of suck.

Chicago in particular went through a 5 or 6 year stretch where they were close to the bottom in attendance. Now they've led the league 3 years in a row. Wierd.

So if you win people care, if you don't they don't. Its human nature, people want to be associated with success. Then think about how much those extra games tie into extra income, exposure and so forth for the franchise?

Look at how close Sidney Crosby came to coming into our consciousness in a different uniform albeit for the same franchise? Pretty damn close. Cause they weren't winning, and no one cared. Now they're considered this model franchise.

---

All that is PRECISELY why I roll my eyes at fans who say that certain cities "didn't show up" for their teams or that they don't "deserve" a franchise.

Take a franchise with crummy ownership who putzes about over a new building or signing players and combine that with a few solid years of terrible on ice product and nothing to get excited about in development and almost any fan base will stop coming out to support a team.

Try suggesting that the Islanders should be moved and see how many mouthy Isles fans tell you that other franchise "deserve" to move first... despite the Islanders being last or second to last in attendance five out of the six seasons since the lockout (and third to last in the other season)

I get saddened when an American city loses an NHL team. I want the game to continue to spread throughout the country (though I wouldn't mind if the Ducks left Anaheim...hehe). That's why I always root for a non-traditional hockey market to win the SCF every year (except if it's the Ducks or the Sharks).

Also, does anyone know if MTS Centre's capacity is expandable? The current hockey capacity is only 15,000. Way too small by NHL standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UnderPressure

I get saddened when an American city loses an NHL team. I want the game to continue to spread throughout the country (though I wouldn't mind if the Ducks left Anaheim...hehe). That's why I always root for non-traditional hockey markets to win the SCF every year (except if it's the Ducks or the Sharks).

Also, does anyone know if MTS Centre's capacity is expandable? The current hockey capacity is only 15,000. Way too small by NHL standards.

---

yes, there is an article out there talking about how they are going to add 4,000 seats in the next 2 years