Bettman visiting Winnipeg to meet with corporate sponsors, host a fireside chat with fans amid declining season ticket sales

[Jets4Life]

You are mistaken. There is no $22 ticket. Once you factor in currency exchange (remember, we are in Canada and we earn and spend Canadian dollars) and Stubhub's service fees, the tickets become $44.50 Canadian each. I realize this is not an exorbitant price, but it's double what you thought it was. This is for a decidedly unsexy matchup against a pretty uninteresting opponent on an exceptionally cold and snowy Tuesday night... in other words, it's the bottom of the market. This is as cheap as it gets.

You can't get $22 tickets to watch the Manitoba Moose, let alone the Jets.

I recently checked numerous sites for available tickets to the Winnipeg vs Seattle Tuesday night game. The absolute lowest ticket I could find was $29 US. When all was said and done (taxes, exchange rate, etc), it came in at roughly $49 Canadian.

 

[KevFu]

We are?

I know there's a subset of mostly Toronto fans that wish they could just spend without limit - but I think that's a small minority.

And that's not happening regardless. The two choices are "owners pocket more cash because they CAN'T put it into the club" or "League is better off financially across the board."

The NHL's robin hood system creates animosity: "we're subsidizing..." (I've NEVER heard any NFL or MLB fan say their team was subsidizing someone else).

More revenue sharing isn't going to make teams who usually aren't competitive for the star players in free agency suddenly outbid Toronto, Chicago, NY Rangers, Philly, Boston, etc, etc.

It doesn't even change the cap. But it DOES allow the teams who have to tighten their belts and run smaller organizations to fund marketing and promotion to get people in seats, which now that money gets shared by everyone, so it's better for everyone.

So I do understand what you're saying about contracting Toronto, not Arizona.

But when it comes to Winnipeg, first of all there's no evidence necessarily that they are struggling financially.

Yeah, this is just a good time to talk about revenue sharing though, because the focus is on a team that very few fan bases have anything against, and most people have positive nostalgia feelings for.

The RS system has been the only real flaw of the CBA since 2006. (Using average instead of median is a problem, but only because they don't share enough revenue).

 

[Yukon Joe]

And that's not happening regardless. The two choices are "owners pocket more cash because they CAN'T put it into the club" or "League is better off financially across the board."

The NHL's robin hood system creates animosity: "we're subsidizing..." (I've NEVER heard any NFL or MLB fan say their team was subsidizing someone else).

More revenue sharing isn't going to make teams who usually aren't competitive for the star players in free agency suddenly outbid Toronto, Chicago, NY Rangers, Philly, Boston, etc, etc.

It doesn't even change the cap. But it DOES allow the teams who have to tighten their belts and run smaller organizations to fund marketing and promotion to get people in seats, which now that money gets shared by everyone, so it's better for everyone.



Yeah, this is just a good time to talk about revenue sharing though, because the focus is on a team that very few fan bases have anything against, and most people have positive nostalgia feelings for.

The RS system has been the only real flaw of the CBA since 2006. (Using average instead of median is a problem, but only because they don't share enough revenue).

So I mean there is a risk in revenue sharing, and I think you identified it in MLB. The risk being that if revenue sharing (or, in MLB's case, luxury tax) is too large, it can become possible for a bottom team to just minimize expenses, not even care about actually selling tickets, and just rely on revenue sharing to make money.

I think that's certainly not happening in the NHL, but can be a concern if they dramatically increased revenue sharing. You could certainly imagine it in Arizona - "nah we're good here at Mullett - we're making money no matter what!"

The NHL tries to avoid that trap with the salary floor - but when teams take on "dead cap" just to avoid the floor there are work-arounds as well.

Don't get me wrong - I'm a big proponent of salary cap / revenue sharing. But every system can potentially be gamed.

I recently checked numerous sites for available tickets to the Winnipeg vs Seattle Tuesday night game. The absolute lowest ticket I could find was $29 US. When all was said and done (taxes, exchange rate, etc), it came in at roughly $49 Canadian.

So when did you check?

I have noticed here in Edmonton - if you're willing to take your chances you can absolutely get a steal of a ticket right at the last minute when the ticket holder realizes "oh crap - I can't go! Let's see if I can unload this ticket for any price".

Or you might not. That's the chance you take.

 

[Stumbledore]

You have been here since 2018 and don’t know what was said during the original relocation of the Thrashers.

I have been here since 2008. I have been reissued names during various updates of the software. Yet one more thing you are wrong about.

Okay, I'm done wasting my time with you. Make up whatever shit you want and live in your own pathetic little world.

 

[Jets4Life]

So when did you check?

I have noticed here in Edmonton - if you're willing to take your chances you can absolutely get a steal of a ticket right at the last minute when the ticket holder realizes "oh crap - I can't go! Let's see if I can unload this ticket for any price".

Or you might not. That's the chance you take.

Tuesday early afternoon.

I went to fansfirst. Is there a better way of finding cheap tickets?

 

[BMN]

Do I blame any of the regular folks in the hockey blogs on the AJC site for venting their frustrations? Can't say I do.

This. THIS is the part I hate.

"Well, when we did it, it was OK."

(I typed a whole bunch of other nonsense but figured "what's the point?" and deleted it before "Send" EDIT: And re-reading your post again, you're probably halfway agreeing with me on this point anyway so I won't delete the post to run away from it but otherwise forget I brought it up......).

 

[dj4aces]

This. THIS is the part I hate.

"Well, when we did it, it was OK."

(I typed a whole bunch of other nonsense but figured "what's the point?" and deleted it before "Send").

I never said it was okay. I said I didn't blame them for reacting the way they did. The market just lost its team, something the Winnipeg market knows all too well, I'd say. If I was arsed enough, I'm sure I could go find old IRC logs and NNTP newsgroup posts full of Winnipeg folks griping about losing the Jets to a city in the desert.

So you can HATE my take on posts made on a local newspaper's blogs by local fans all you want, but you absolutely cannot fault them for feeling hurt, no matter how wrong about Winnipeg they were.

 

[BMN]

I never said it was okay. I said I didn't blame them for reacting the way they did. The market just lost its team, something the Winnipeg market knows all too well, I'd say. If I was arsed enough, I'm sure I could go find old IRC logs and NNTP newsgroup posts full of Winnipeg folks griping about losing the Jets to a city in the desert.

So you can HATE my take on posts made on a local newspaper's blogs by local fans all you want, but you absolutely cannot fault them for feeling hurt, no matter how wrong about Winnipeg they were.

Yeah, as I stated in my edit, I didn't read your post as thoroughly as I should have.

Funnily enough, one time when I tried to do an old newsgroup search re: 1996,, all I found was one solitary post of a Phoenix fan saying (not in an entirely mean-spirited but mildly passive aggressive way) "i think the NHL was right to do this because Winnipeg is too small." This is indicative of nothing other than how lousy my newsgroup searching skills were at the time.

But to your "hurt people" remark, you do have to remember that until the NHL fully returned, the Winnipeg "invaders" were.....well, kinda still hurt people. Hurt people displacing their feelings onto a market that had nothing to do with it, mind you, but still. People like @Gnashville ranting about their internet opponents from 5-15 years ago is still trying to salve his hurt from people talking crap about their market even though the team never even left. (EDIT: I realize I'm mixing up "Gnashville" wearing their "Thrashers fandom" hat vs. their "Preds fandom" hat so my apologies there). If they're still bitter about that, how do you think Winnipegers only 15 years removed from the Jets actually leaving were going to be? If Atlanta 3.0 materializes, it's not like all of the wounds of Thrashers leaving will have gone away when you interact with people on the subject.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

But then why don't you inform us - what was said (with quotes and links, please and thank you) during the original relocation of the Thrashers.

A lot of gloating was done, but most of it was not from WInnipeg fans.

 

[Gnashville]

Yeah, as I stated in my edit, I didn't read your post as thoroughly as I should have.

Funnily enough, one time when I tried to do an old newsgroup search re: 1996,, all I found was one solitary post of a Phoenix fan saying (not in an entirely mean-spirited but mildly passive aggressive way) "i think the NHL was right to do this because Winnipeg is too small." This is indicative of nothing other than how lousy my newsgroup searching skills were at the time.

But to your "hurt people" remark, you do have to remember that until the NHL fully returned, the Winnipeg "invaders" were.....well, kinda still hurt people. Hurt people displacing their feelings onto a market that had nothing to do with it, mind you, but still. People like @Gnashville ranting about their internet opponents from 5-15 years ago is still trying to salve his hurt from people talking crap about their market even though the team never even left. (EDIT: I realize I'm mixing up "Gnashville" wearing their "Thrashers fandom" hat vs. their "Preds fandom" hat so my apologies there). If they're still bitter about that, how do you think Winnipegers only 15 years removed from the Jets actually leaving were going to be? If Atlanta 3.0 materializes, it's not like all of the wounds of Thrashers leaving will have gone away when you interact with people on the subject.

Dude I have always been a Preds fan since day one!! But the way Thrashers fans were treated was disgusting. I can’t imagine the pain of losing a team and then to be laughed at by media zealots afterwards.

 

[dj4aces]

Yeah, as I stated in my edit, I didn't read your post as thoroughly as I should have.

Funnily enough, one time when I tried to do an old newsgroup search re: 1996,, all I found was one solitary post of a Phoenix fan saying (not in an entirely mean-spirited but mildly passive aggressive way) "i think the NHL was right to do this because Winnipeg is too small." This is indicative of nothing other than how lousy my newsgroup searching skills were at the time.

But to your "hurt people" remark, you do have to remember that until the NHL fully returned, the Winnipeg "invaders" were.....well, kinda still hurt people. Hurt people displacing their feelings onto a market that had nothing to do with it, mind you, but still. People like @Gnashville ranting about their internet opponents from 5-15 years ago is still trying to salve his hurt from people talking crap about their market even though the team never even left. (EDIT: I realize I'm mixing up "Gnashville" wearing their "Thrashers fandom" hat vs. their "Preds fandom" hat so my apologies there). If they're still bitter about that, how do you think Winnipegers only 15 years removed from the Jets actually leaving were going to be? If Atlanta 3.0 materializes, it's not like all of the wounds of Thrashers leaving will have gone away when you interact with people on the subject.

To be fair, the "edit" wasn't there when I hit reply! I would've just let it be had it been there.

It's safe to say there were a lot of hurt feelings all around, but you wouldn't be surprised to learn that many folks here are still pretty hurt about the team moving,

And yeah... I do somewhat agree. I just didn't like the idea that one would take out their anger on the people who're already hurting. It's just not a healthy way to respond, no matter how wrong they are. That was my only point there, because I remember reading all those comments almost 13 years ago.

I can only speak for myself in this, as I dare not speak for anyone else, but these days, that pain is largely gone (as should be indicated based on my previous comments on the Jets as of late). If we spend all our time looking back, how can we hope to move forward?

 

[Gnashville]

I have been here since 2008. I have been reissued names during various updates of the software. Yet one more thing you are wrong about.

Okay, I'm done wasting my time with you. Make up whatever shit you want and live in your own pathetic little world.

Look you are taking my complaints about the Media’s treatment of Southern Hockey fans as some hatred of Winnipeg which is not true. I am simply pointing out the double standards when it’s a Canadian market struggling. My comments are about the Media NOT Winnipeg in General. So let’s be honest here if this was Nashville or Carolina they would be demanding the team relocate and not looking for solutions.

 

[Devils 3silverones]

So this thread is still going on?
Ya all got get over it.
Jets aren't leaving.
This is a long drawn out post (thread) of opinions.
Just move on HF.. Why are various team fans' even typing about various teams' fans.?
There were MANY threads closed off actual content, many times prior.
This has run it's course.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

I have noticed here in Edmonton - if you're willing to take your chances you can absolutely get a steal of a ticket right at the last minute when the ticket holder realizes "oh crap - I can't go! Let's see if I can unload this ticket for any price".

Or you might not. That's the chance you take.

Tuesday early afternoon.

I went to fansfirst. Is there a better way of finding cheap tickets?

I'm not sure what's available in Canada, but outside of the known broker sites, I'll also use Vivid. The concept is that it acts as a middleman between seller and buyer. So, if someone is trying to get rid of tickets for say $40, Vivid collects the junk fees (and probably some fee from the seller).

That's a good one to check on the day of the game. It gives you a "last minute" glimpse at prices while also giving the seller ample time to OK the sale.

 

[WarriorofTime]

NFL is kind of funny though because lets face it - you could put a team almost anywhere and it would be successful. The NFL is just that popular (and it helps games are only once per week). People will travel to see a team. Birmingham isn't all that big, but they'd draw fans from all over Alabama. That's how Green Bay works - the team is in Green Bay for historical reasons, but they're basically the Milwaukee Packers.

The Wisconsin Packers. They draw from the entire state. One game a week, with the vast majority on Sunday, 8 games a season, it's not too hard. The season ticket waitlist for the Packers is insane. There are even a lot of Packer fans in Chicago, much more so (or at least much more enthusiastic/visible) than the other Wisconsin-based pro teams.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Look you are taking my complaints about the Media’s treatment of Southern Hockey fans as some hatred of Winnipeg which is not true. I am simply pointing out the double standards when it’s a Canadian market struggling. My comments are about the Media NOT Winnipeg in General. So let’s be honest here if this was Nashville or Carolina they would be demanding the team relocate and not looking for solutions.

I don't know if it's a "southern" market (I mean, it is by latitude, but maybe not tradition) but absolutely no one is demanding that the San Jose Sharks be relocated despite atrocious attendance.

Florida's attendance is actually pretty good the past two years, but attendance was notoriously terrible for many years. I think media said they were a relocation possibility, but nobody was "demanding the team relocate".

"The media" is actually a lot more circumspect then what you're portraying. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were just remembering "what some internet randos" were saying during the Thrashers relocation. But if you're now saying it was the media - you're just wrong.

And actually what I remember from the Atlanta relocation (coming from the Winnipeg side of things) is that absolutely nobody saw it coming until just a few weeks earlier. Everyone was focused on Phoenix, and when Atlanta started to get mentioned it was "wait - Atlanta might be in play?!?". Absolutely nobody was "demanding" it be moved. From the outside it seemed stable enough - ownership owned the arena and the NBA team, attendance was okayish. It was only afterwards when we learned about the divisions within ASG that the move was explained.

 

[TheLegend]

I don't know if it's a "southern" market (I mean, it is by latitude, but maybe not tradition) but absolutely no one is demanding that the San Jose Sharks be relocated despite atrocious attendance.

Florida's attendance is actually pretty good the past two years, but attendance was notoriously terrible for many years. I think media said they were a relocation possibility, but nobody was "demanding the team relocate".

"The media" is actually a lot more circumspect then what you're portraying. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were just remembering "what some internet randos" were saying during the Thrashers relocation. But if you're now saying it was the media - you're just wrong.

And actually what I remember from the Atlanta relocation (coming from the Winnipeg side of things) is that absolutely nobody saw it coming until just a few weeks earlier. Everyone was focused on Phoenix, and when Atlanta started to get mentioned it was "wait - Atlanta might be in play?!?". Absolutely nobody was "demanding" it be moved. From the outside it seemed stable enough - ownership owned the arena and the NBA team, attendance was okayish. It was only afterwards when we learned about the divisions within ASG that the move was explained.

Same feeling on the Arizona side (from my POV anyway).

That tracks with story that Chipman left the NHL offices thinking he had the Coyotes until Glendale decided to go for the first of those two "insurance" policies. Other than we were pretty confident Glendale was going to do it based on the scuttlebut that was getting out locally.

The pivot to Atlanta was quick.

 

[nhlfan79]

Same feeling on the Arizona side (from my POV anyway).

That tracks with story that Chipman left the NHL offices thinking he had the Coyotes until Glendale decided to go for the first of those two "insurance" policies. Other than we were pretty confident Glendale was going to do it based on the scuttlebut that was getting out locally.

The pivot to Atlanta was quick.

Yep, from the Atlanta side, our expectation that spring was that the Coyotes were certainly toast, and once relocation back to Winnipeg was announced, the hope was that the league would then be able to finally turn its undivided attention to addressing ASG's malfeasance. When Glendale voted to approve the $25 million subsidy, my heart broke because it then was obvious that (1) ASG was going to get its way of evicting their redheaded stepchild, and (2) the league would prefer to just sacrifice us to rid itself of the massive headache of ASG. It was a virtual certainty that, had the league acted to thwart a relocation sale and forced the team to keep operating here, ASG would have sued the league into oblivion.

Oh, in response to another poster, ASG's deep divisions were well known well before the Thrashers relocated. They'd been suing each other literally for years. It was common knowledge that they only wanted the basketball team and were running the hockey team on the thinnest of budgets until they could be divested.

 

[jetsmooseice]

I don't know if it's a "southern" market (I mean, it is by latitude, but maybe not tradition) but absolutely no one is demanding that the San Jose Sharks be relocated despite atrocious attendance.

Funny you mention that, I caught a bit of the Islanders-Sharks game on TV last night before going to bed and I don't know what the official attendance was, but the crowd looked like a Manitoba Moose game. There was hardly anyone there. But IMO that's a perfectly reasonable fan reaction to the kind of season they've been having... if I lived in the Bay Area there's zero chance I would have been spending my own money to go to that game. I'd have considered going if someone had put free tickets in my palm, but that's it. I have no doubt that when the situation improves the fans will be back. There's no panic, just recognition that this is part of the up/down cycle of pro sports.

Contrast the calmness with San Jose with anytime a Canadian team fails to achieve 100% sellouts all the time and the panicky headlines that ensue. It's absurd.

 

[KevFu]

So I mean there is a risk in revenue sharing, and I think you identified it in MLB. The risk being that if revenue sharing (or, in MLB's case, luxury tax) is too large, it can become possible for a bottom team to just minimize expenses, not even care about actually selling tickets, and just rely on revenue sharing to make money.

I think that's certainly not happening in the NHL, but can be a concern if they dramatically increased revenue sharing.

The NHL tries to avoid that trap with the salary floor - but when teams take on "dead cap" just to avoid the floor there are work-arounds as well.

Don't get me wrong - I'm a big proponent of salary cap / revenue sharing. But every system can potentially be gamed.

I mean, you're totally right (well almost, not sure what you mean by "luxury tax," it's the RS structure, the luxury tax penalties... I don't even know where that goes).

But I think it's absolutely moot.

Like, the MLB owners are mad at ONE team for not investing in players, and profiting off their RS money. But that's a team that has needed a new stadium for 30+ years (which is just insane).

The closest hockey has to that is the Islanders, who stayed in NY because of TV $, not RS $. They were playing cap games to get to the floor; and they SUCKED. They won their their first playoff series in 22 years, and shortly after that: new arena deal!

"Separating" the business-side issues from the ability to field a competitive team probably makes it EASIER for franchises to solve their business issues, because fans being really into a good/winning team are going to give you political capital. Imagine the Coyotes' Tempe vote if the team had just won their second round series, and was about to host game 1 of the WCF in Mullett, with 20,000 fans not being able to get into that tiny building?

The "problem" of teams pocketing the RS check while playing games with the floor probably wouldn't be an issue. The NHL model has basically everyone spending if they can do so, unless they are rebuilding after a decade of success (CHI, DET, SJ), or because the first one didn't stick (OTT, BUF, ARZ). The fans of those last group are starved for some success, so owners are going to spend -- like Columbus did.


Every system can be gamed, sure. But if you're in Quebec, would you rather have the Nordiques and Expos complaining someone else is gaming the system, or have the Colorado Avalanche and Washington Nationals instead?

 

[KevFu]

Funny you mention that, I caught a bit of the Islanders-Sharks game on TV last night before going to bed and I don't know what the official attendance was, but the crowd looked like a Manitoba Moose game.

There's no panic, just recognition that this is part of the up/down cycle of pro sports.

Contrast the calmness with San Jose with anytime a Canadian team fails to achieve 100% sellouts all the time and the panicky headlines that ensue. It's absurd.

Well, the Sharks went 15 years straight with in the ballpark of over 99% spending to the cap, 98% tickets sold and 14 playoff trips.

The reason for the "contrast" with Winnipeg is because Winnipeg is small, and everyone knew that going in, and had a mild concern about that from day one.

Look, we can acknowledge a situation/culture exists on this site without delving into it yet again because it's stupid, can't we? Let's be honest: "I guess we have to move the Jets again!" is a direct response to "hurry up and move the Coyotes already!" which was a direct response to 1990s relocation and expansion. Who "deserves a team" is a silly/stupid topic we should all put to death; Just stop the cycle of saying stuff because they said stuff and then no one has to say stuff back.

My focus has been on "it doesn't matter WHO's having an issue. The league has chosen their markets based on the expectation that there's no reason for it not to work. If it's not working then the league has to ask ITSELF "What are we doing wrong?" And that answer is a bad/stupid revenue sharing system that Robin Hoods from some rich teams and subsidizes others, when you can virtually eliminate "severe market inequity" from being a problem with a "central fund we all chip into and split up"

And quite frankly, it's more fair: You're only half the product in your home games. If you don't have an opponent, there's nothing for fans to pay to watch, so why shouldn't a 50/50 RS split be the standard?

 

[hammer42]

The Winnipeg Jets have David Thompson as there owner which makes him the 6th richest owner of sports team in the world at $54 billion & the richest owner in the NHL. so as long he is owner Jets are not going anywhere .

 

[edog37]

I mean - he's entitled to not like the Jets. He's entitled to think, and say, they should be moved.

I just get annoyed at this kind of shadowboxing about "what everyone was saying".

People are fully accountable for what, themselves, have said (like I just did Gnashville). But I'm not going to hold him to account for what other southern fans have said - even if I could actually provide quotes.

Just make sure you call out your fellow Canadians for the same type of garbage. Passing judgement on other fan bases despite having continued issues up there.

 

[edog37]

And that's not happening regardless. The two choices are "owners pocket more cash because they CAN'T put it into the club" or "League is better off financially across the board."

The NHL's robin hood system creates animosity: "we're subsidizing..." (I've NEVER heard any NFL or MLB fan say their team was subsidizing someone else).

More revenue sharing isn't going to make teams who usually aren't competitive for the star players in free agency suddenly outbid Toronto, Chicago, NY Rangers, Philly, Boston, etc, etc.

It doesn't even change the cap. But it DOES allow the teams who have to tighten their belts and run smaller organizations to fund marketing and promotion to get people in seats, which now that money gets shared by everyone, so it's better for everyone.



Yeah, this is just a good time to talk about revenue sharing though, because the focus is on a team that very few fan bases have anything against, and most people have positive nostalgia feelings for.

The RS system has been the only real flaw of the CBA since 2006. (Using average instead of median is a problem, but only because they don't share enough revenue).

The NFL subsidizes teams all the time. See Jacksonville & Carolina.

MLB has ran a tiered system for decades because of no cap.

 

[Lions67]

more good news for the Jets

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/portage-place-wab-kinew-1.7164313