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

[nhlfan79]

I get the overarching point you're making but this is somewhat disingenuous without considering average ticket price + TV ratings.

It's not disingenuous if you also factor in the team's record and on ice performance. Winnipeg isn't showing up for a Cup contender, while Atlanta in the final three seasons saw all of their stars traded away for garbage. We were icing an AHL roster the final year.

I am 100% certain if the Atlanta team had the Jets current record, it'd be the hottest ticket in town.

 

[Reaser]

As always, thread devolves into an ATL v. WPG argument on relatively minuscule attendance #'s and arguing the difference between 1-5k. Small numbers. Regional broadcast viewership is the better measurement and larger numbers. The Thrashers had horrible, and horrible is putting it politely, local/regional average viewership when they existed. But that was then, of course. The Jets when they have a bad # regionally it's still well, well over 100k (over 5-to-10x the typical Thrashers RSN viewership) and when the Jets get good regional viewership, it's over 300k.

The hockey fanbases are not the same. That's a more honest assessment than arguing about comparatively smaller attendance #'s, the minuscule differences between and any future hypothetical attendance #'s.

Viewership is why the Jets get paid for their regional/local broadcast rights. And they also don't have to worry about the RSN landscape that exists in the U.S.. Atlanta would/will get next-to-nothing for their local/regional broadcast rights if/when the time comes. They'd be better off putting it OTA essentially for free, for the reach and accessability.

A major (MAJOR) difference in corporate support, or at least the (likely, imo) potential for. That is a more than fair argument for ATL, but any claims of bigger/better or even a comparable fanbase or comparable fan support is a losing battle. Extremely underestimating how many people watch hockey in Canada as well as how truly few watched the Thrashers. And it's not likely to be all that much different for a future franchise.

Best case is similar to Nashville, Carolina, Florida, no one watches locally (relative, compared to say the Bruins, Pens, Rangers, all 7 Canadian teams, etc..) but the small passionate fanbase(s) they DO have fill the arena(s) and keep them as healthy enough, functioning franchises. None contributate anything nationally, in terms of viewership, and hockey is so NOT watched locally/regionally that in Miami the local ABC affiliate has chosen multiple times to air local programming nonsense instead of airing the national NHL on ABC broadcast. And so few would be watching anyway that instead of any major backlash we generally hear from the same 1-2 people pointing out that they're not getting the NHL on ABC game in their market. Now imagine the response from any major (or even small) Canadian market if HNIC was just not shown in their city/region. Different fanbases.

 

[CaptainUgly]

Good to know that a top NHL team is beating out the worst team in the league and a team playing in a college facility. Way to set the bar Winnipeg.

BTW Winnipeg's attendance the last 3 seasons is worse than the last 3 in Atlanta.

Snyder, what are the ticket prices between the two? 18,000 doesn't always translate to more in profit than 15,000.

 

[Reaser]

Snyder, what are the ticket prices between the two? 18,000 doesn't always translate to more in profit than 15,000.

For a larger picture/overall look at revenue can use Forbes most recent NHL report (4 months ago):

Winnipeg ranked 26th of 32 in revenue.

26. Winnipeg 162m
27. Florida 161m
28. Buffalo 159m
29. San Jose 158m
30. Columbus 151m
31. Ottawa 128m
32. Arizona 120m

If you're wanting ATL comp, the last season the Thrashers existed/last Forbes report for them:

They were listed with the "six biggest money losers": Phoenix, Florida, Washington, Atlanta, Buffalo and Tampa Bay. Obviously Washington & Tampa Bay fixed their situations.

Atlanta's numbers were explained by the obvious (and why I always push the broadcast portion that everyone else largely ignores on BoH): "profit can almost always be explained by local television rights and arena economics."

Atlanta had less than $10 million from their local/regional broadcast deal -- which projects to be even worse if/when Atlanta returns to the NHL.

And they got under $15 million from premium seating -- which corporate support can take care of this time around, at least hopefully for them if/when they return. This is also a weak point for Winnipeg in the now, while they have local/regional broadcast deal covered and will be able to continue to renew the deal with little issue for the foreseeable future, because ... people watch/they get good viewership numbers on TSN3, their regional network.

 

[BMN]

Atlanta will be back and their franchise value will be higher day 1 than Winnipeg will ever be.

That may well be. But "the last three years..." point you were making did nothing to dis/prove that idea one way or the other.

It's not disingenuous if you also factor in the team's record and on ice performance.

Sure it's disingenuous. But probably *still* disingenuous if you don't also include the factors you mentioned, so fair cop on that one.

But honestly, as @Reaser pointed out, comparing the two at all carries some disingenousness in the first place. The two markets are so absurdly different. It's reiterated 100,000 times in 100,000 threads but you're dealing with different ceilings (the Atlanta market clearly being higher) and different floors (Atlanta's also probably being lower although I'm not as certain on that).

Let's *assume* the average dollar-per-ticket of the Thrashers in their last three years was $49 (an approximation of their highest quoted amount I'm aware of), and then let's inflate that for 2024 USD from 2008 (giving it the highest value possible). That's $68.03 2024 USD per ticket buyer. I was as overly generous as I could be to the Atlanta Thrashers in this scenario. That's 945,663 2024 US dollars per game over three years. The chances are *99.%* it was less that that.

In order for the Jets to have not at least matched that in your comparison point, they would have had to average less than $70.64 USD per consumer. If they averaged less than that, I've got some 100% hassle free sports real estate in Arizona I'd like to interest you in...

So even considering the disparate on-ice performances of the two teams, a straight "we had 500ish people more a year the last three years of our existence vs. the Jets last years after the Jets sold the place out eight years straight at greater prices in a far far smaller market which still outranked us in pure numbers in TV ratings" is ................. an interesting attempt at a flex.

 

[joelef]

As always, thread devolves into an ATL v. WPG argument on relatively minuscule attendance #'s and arguing the difference between 1-5k. Small numbers. Regional broadcast viewership is the better measurement and larger numbers. The Thrashers had horrible, and horrible is putting it politely, local/regional average viewership when they existed. But that was then, of course. The Jets when they have a bad # regionally it's still well, well over 100k (over 5-to-10x the typical Thrashers RSN viewership) and when the Jets get good regional viewership, it's over 300k.

The hockey fanbases are not the same. That's a more honest assessment than arguing about comparatively smaller attendance #'s, the minuscule differences between and any future hypothetical attendance #'s.

Viewership is why the Jets get paid for their regional/local broadcast rights. And they also don't have to worry about the RSN landscape that exists in the U.S.. Atlanta would/will get next-to-nothing for their local/regional broadcast rights if/when the time comes. They'd be better off putting it OTA essentially for free, for the reach and accessability.

A major (MAJOR) difference in corporate support, or at least the (likely, imo) potential for. That is a more than fair argument for ATL, but any claims of bigger/better or even a comparable fanbase or comparable fan support is a losing battle. Extremely underestimating how many people watch hockey in Canada as well as how truly few watched the Thrashers. And it's not likely to be all that much different for a future franchise.

Best case is similar to Nashville, Carolina, Florida, no one watches locally (relative, compared to say the Bruins, Pens, Rangers, all 7 Canadian teams, etc..) but the small passionate fanbase(s) they DO have fill the arena(s) and keep them as healthy enough, functioning franchises. None contributate anything nationally, in terms of viewership, and hockey is so NOT watched locally/regionally that in Miami the local ABC affiliate has chosen multiple times to air local programming nonsense instead of airing the national NHL on ABC broadcast. And so few would be watching anyway that instead of any major backlash we generally hear from the same 1-2 people pointing out that they're not getting the NHL on ABC game in their market. Now imagine the response from any major (or even small) Canadian market if HNIC was just not shown in their city/region. Different fanbases.

The hypocrisy is absolutely stunning. Shen Canadian teams struggle the goalpost massive change.

 

[Reaser]

The hypocrisy is absolutely stunning. Shen Canadian teams struggle the goalpost massive change.

What hypocrisy?

You may be under the mistaken impression that I'm Canadian. I'm American and only been to Canada (which was B.C.) for one day in my life.

I'm just a neutral party, and this is the BoH section. So instead of delusional, inane, and naturally bias fan arguments, I prefer providing and discussing tangible facts and figures.

I'm not much into U.S. v. Canada nonsense, all part of the same league.

 

[Bixby Snyder]

Winnipeg ranked 26th of 32 in revenue.

26. Winnipeg 162m
27. Florida 161m
28. Buffalo 159m
29. San Jose 158m
30. Columbus 151m
31. Ottawa 128m
32. Arizona 120m

So Winnipeg along with Ottawa are bringing in about the same amount of revenue as bottom feeding Southern/non-traditional market teams? This kind of dispels the notion that placing a team in Canada is a license to print money, if they are getting way better TV ratings or selling tickets for higher prices it certainly isn't translating to much more in revenues.

Snyder, what are the ticket prices between the two? 18,000 doesn't always translate to more in profit than 15,000.

see post #283

 

[BMN]

This kind of dispels the notion that placing a team in Canada is a license to print money, if they are getting way better TV ratings or selling tickets for higher prices it certainly isn't translating to much more in revenues.

It's a license to print Canadian money, which isn't worth as much as American money, which is why Canadian small markets are challenging. Anyone saying "Quebec City (or market like it) is a license to print money" is making the wrong argument. "The floor won't be low" is the argument they should be making.

With the exception being a second team in GTA. If done right, THAT would be a license to print money...

 

[Reaser]

hockey is so NOT watched locally/regionally that in Miami the local ABC affiliate has chosen multiple times to air local programming nonsense instead of airing the national NHL on ABC broadcast. And so few would be watching anyway that instead of any major backlash we generally hear from the same 1-2 people pointing out that they're not getting the NHL on ABC game in their market. Now imagine the response from any major (or even small) Canadian market if HNIC was just not shown in their city/region. Different fanbases.

I made my post before this happened today, again. And flew under the radar until people outside FL started sharing it.

 

[jetsmooseice]

Hilarious to see the haters still BIG MAD because Winnipeg landed a NHL team when it wasn't supposed to.

Whatever. Six game winning streak, playoffs on deck, sellout crowd impending for Tuesday, the richest man in Canada still owns the team and he keeps on investing in more projects next to the arena downtown. Life is good, baby

 

[joelef]

Hilarious to see the haters still BIG MAD because Winnipeg landed a NHL team when it wasn't supposed to.

Whatever. Six game winning streak, playoffs on deck, sellout crowd impending for Tuesday, the richest man in Canada still owns the team and he keeps on investing in more projects next to the arena downtown. Life is good, baby

No one is mad because Winnipeg got a team people are mad because many of the “ move every southern team to Canada” are being hypocrites

 

[Brodie]

I really think it’s a mistake for them to have the AHL team in Winnipeg. They are undercutting their own product with a cheaper ticket.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

I get the overarching point you're making but this is somewhat disingenuous without considering average ticket price + TV ratings.

I am not saying Atlanta would have had better ratings, but I think its disingenuous to compare them when Atlanta never had playoff product except one season, while Jets had multiple.

 

[tucker3434]

As always, thread devolves into an ATL v. WPG argument on relatively minuscule attendance #'s and arguing the difference between 1-5k. Small numbers. Regional broadcast viewership is the better measurement and larger numbers. The Thrashers had horrible, and horrible is putting it politely, local/regional average viewership when they existed. But that was then, of course. The Jets when they have a bad # regionally it's still well, well over 100k (over 5-to-10x the typical Thrashers RSN viewership) and when the Jets get good regional viewership, it's over 300k.

The hockey fanbases are not the same. That's a more honest assessment than arguing about comparatively smaller attendance #'s, the minuscule differences between and any future hypothetical attendance #'s.

Viewership is why the Jets get paid for their regional/local broadcast rights. And they also don't have to worry about the RSN landscape that exists in the U.S.. Atlanta would/will get next-to-nothing for their local/regional broadcast rights if/when the time comes. They'd be better off putting it OTA essentially for free, for the reach and accessability.

A major (MAJOR) difference in corporate support, or at least the (likely, imo) potential for. That is a more than fair argument for ATL, but any claims of bigger/better or even a comparable fanbase or comparable fan support is a losing battle. Extremely underestimating how many people watch hockey in Canada as well as how truly few watched the Thrashers. And it's not likely to be all that much different for a future franchise.

Best case is similar to Nashville, Carolina, Florida, no one watches locally (relative, compared to say the Bruins, Pens, Rangers, all 7 Canadian teams, etc..) but the small passionate fanbase(s) they DO have fill the arena(s) and keep them as healthy enough, functioning franchises. None contributate anything nationally, in terms of viewership, and hockey is so NOT watched locally/regionally that in Miami the local ABC affiliate has chosen multiple times to air local programming nonsense instead of airing the national NHL on ABC broadcast. And so few would be watching anyway that instead of any major backlash we generally hear from the same 1-2 people pointing out that they're not getting the NHL on ABC game in their market. Now imagine the response from any major (or even small) Canadian market if HNIC was just not shown in their city/region. Different fanbases.

There's no argument that Atlanta has more hockey fans than Winnipeg. The question is whether there are more people that are willing to spend their money on it. Winnipeg having 300k people that only tune in on tv, doesn't do a whole lot for them because there just isn't all that much money in it. And until the economics of the NHL shift, southern markets with 17k butts in seats but only <10k tv sets will perform better financially than a Winnipeg with 13k in the seats and 300k tv sets.

 

[joelef]

There's no argument that Atlanta has more hockey fans than Winnipeg. The question is whether there are more people that are willing to spend their money on it. Winnipeg having 300k people that only tune in on tv, doesn't do a whole lot for them because there just isn't all that much money in it. And until the economics of the NHL shift, southern markets with 17k butts in seats but only <10k tv sets will perform better financially than a Winnipeg with 13k in the seats and 300k tv sets.

If that’s the glasses then there wouldn’t be a meeting with Bettman

 

[BigT2002]

As always, thread devolves into an ATL v. WPG argument on relatively minuscule attendance #'s and arguing the difference between 1-5k. Small numbers. Regional broadcast viewership is the better measurement and larger numbers. The Thrashers had horrible, and horrible is putting it politely, local/regional average viewership when they existed. But that was then, of course. The Jets when they have a bad # regionally it's still well, well over 100k (over 5-to-10x the typical Thrashers RSN viewership) and when the Jets get good regional viewership, it's over 300k.

The hockey fanbases are not the same. That's a more honest assessment than arguing about comparatively smaller attendance #'s, the minuscule differences between and any future hypothetical attendance #'s.

Viewership is why the Jets get paid for their regional/local broadcast rights. And they also don't have to worry about the RSN landscape that exists in the U.S.. Atlanta would/will get next-to-nothing for their local/regional broadcast rights if/when the time comes. They'd be better off putting it OTA essentially for free, for the reach and accessability.

A major (MAJOR) difference in corporate support, or at least the (likely, imo) potential for. That is a more than fair argument for ATL, but any claims of bigger/better or even a comparable fanbase or comparable fan support is a losing battle. Extremely underestimating how many people watch hockey in Canada as well as how truly few watched the Thrashers. And it's not likely to be all that much different for a future franchise.

Best case is similar to Nashville, Carolina, Florida, no one watches locally (relative, compared to say the Bruins, Pens, Rangers, all 7 Canadian teams, etc..) but the small passionate fanbase(s) they DO have fill the arena(s) and keep them as healthy enough, functioning franchises. None contributate anything nationally, in terms of viewership, and hockey is so NOT watched locally/regionally that in Miami the local ABC affiliate has chosen multiple times to air local programming nonsense instead of airing the national NHL on ABC broadcast. And so few would be watching anyway that instead of any major backlash we generally hear from the same 1-2 people pointing out that they're not getting the NHL on ABC game in their market. Now imagine the response from any major (or even small) Canadian market if HNIC was just not shown in their city/region. Different fanbases.

I lived down in SC when Atlanta was fielding a pretty solid team. The biggest issue was getting it on a regional broadcast, as you mentioned. Down in the Southeast, college sports typically reign supreme outside of the transplant locations (Charlotte, Atlanta, Nashville). So getting the Thrashers on TV back then was almost impossible. Not to mention that was VS/Outdoor Channel time, and that was NOT a channel that you got down there with basic cable. So no one even knew what hockey was.

Manitoba is a completely different spectrum than the Southeast purely because the sport is played by the fanbase and casual viewers. The fact they can't sell out games should be an indictment on whatever they are not doing up there....because when the Jets play the Wild there is most definitely a large passionate fanbase at the Xcel.

 

[tucker3434]

If that’s the glasses then there wouldn’t be a meeting with Bettman

Bettman is there specifically because a Southern market with <10k tv’s tuned in is outperforming a Winnipeg that averages 100k (I think that’s right). It’s good that there are that many passionate fans. They’ve got to find a way to make some money off of them.

 

[Reaser]

Winnipeg having 300k people that only tune in on tv, doesn't do a whole lot for them because there just isn't all that much money in it.

Have to ask if you're familiar with professional sports and the correlation between how many people consume a product and broadcast rights deals?

And until the economics of the NHL shift, southern markets with 17k butts in seats but only <10k tv sets will perform better financially than a Winnipeg with 13k in the seats and 300k tv sets.

Florida (a southern market) has done better in attendance than Winnipeg the previous two seasons as well as this season, obviously.

Florida also got a boost ($) from a run to the SCF.

Winnipeg still beat Florida in revenue (close enough can say similar if one wants, which is the point about different markets/different paths to their business #s.)

How does Winnipeg have more revenue than Florida if attendance is the be-all/end-all to "perform[ing] better financially" and there "isn't all that much money" in broadcast deals?

I'm just a guy on a forum, so I'll again quote Forbes on the primary cause of difference for NHL teams revenue generated/profits/etc.: "profit can almost always be explained by local television rights and arena economics."

Or put a simpler way, what area do you think Winnipeg outperforms Florida in to make-up the difference between Florida having better attendance & four rounds of Stanley Cup playoffs, to where Winnipeg still generated more revenue. Broadcast deals? Merchandise? Or are things just being said in the want to continue some asinine lowest common denominator Southern markets v. Canada back-and-forth?

 

[tucker3434]

Have to ask if you're familiar with professional sports and the correlation between how many people consume a product and broadcast rights deals?



Florida (a southern market) has done better in attendance than Winnipeg the previous two seasons as well as this season, obviously.

Florida also got a boost ($) from a run to the SCF.

Winnipeg still beat Florida in revenue (close enough can say similar if one wants, which is the point about different markets/different paths to their business #s.)

How does Winnipeg have more revenue than Florida if attendance is the be-all/end-all to "perform[ing] better financially" and there "isn't all that much money" in broadcast deals?

I'm just a guy on a forum, so I'll again quote Forbes on the primary cause of difference for NHL teams revenue generated/profits/etc.: "profit can almost always be explained by local television rights and arena economics."

Or put a simpler way, what area do you think Winnipeg outperforms Florida in to make-up the difference between Florida having better attendance & four rounds of Stanley Cup playoffs, to where Winnipeg still generated more revenue. Broadcast deals? Merchandise? Or are things just being said in the want to continue some asinine lowest common denominator Southern markets v. Canada back-and-forth?

I know the attendance rankings and I know the revenue rankings. No, it is not difficult to figure out why they aren’t the same. It’s also very clear that this isn’t the NBA, where TV revenue can offset attendance issues, and that’s kinda the point here.

If it offends you that I mentioned southern markets, ignore it. It’s true of all teams. Southern markets just tend to have the opposite profile of a Winnipeg so they’re easiest to compare/contrast.

 

[Reaser]

Winnipeg that averages 100k

Would you mind sharing the source on this? Canadian AMA viewership #'s are hard to come by in recent years. Unlike what we have from the North Division season where we got to see that the Jets regional broadcasts averaged 306k. Or further back examples that were public like the first two months of 2014/15 that averaged 190k or first two months of 2015/16 that averaged 245k.

The ones I've seen (sourced) don't show any WPG TSN3 games under 100k (other than a preseason game last season that did 74k) which you would obviously need many games under 100k to end up averaging 100k.

The other numbers I've been privy too tell a similar story. I usually do a sweep to get any CAN #'s I can after the season so most recent I have are just a handful from the Top-5 releases from last season and all those #'s were between 130k-to-371k.

But if you have other sourced numbers, I'd love to see them.

 

[tucker3434]

Would you mind sharing the source on this? Canadian AMA viewership #'s are hard to come by in recent years. Unlike what we have from the North Division season where we got to see that the Jets regional broadcasts averaged 306k. Or further back examples that were public like the first two months of 2014/15 that averaged 190k or first two months of 2015/16 that averaged 245k.

The ones I've seen (sourced) don't show any WPG TSN3 games under 100k (other than a preseason game last season that did 74k) which you would obviously need many games under 100k to end up averaging 100k.

The other numbers I've been privy too tell a similar story. I usually do a sweep to get any CAN #'s I can after the season so most recent I have are just a handful from the Top-5 releases from last season and all those #'s were between 130k-to-371k.

But if you have other sourced numbers, I'd love to see them.

I thought I had read that 300k was the record and 100k was the average. I can't find a source for that now. Maybe it was old data. Maybe I'm misremembering. It's why I put the disclaimer in there. I'm sure you have better data on that than I do.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

Good to know that a top NHL team is beating out the worst team in the league and a team playing in a college facility. Way to set the bar Winnipeg.

BTW Winnipeg's attendance the last 3 seasons is worse than the last 3 in Atlanta.

Cool, now how about comparing the number of actual butts in the seats and the actual game day revenue those last 3 seasons between the 2 teams?

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

That’s… weird.

Though I guess Bettman being there to help get support for ticket sales should help kill off this “Bettman hates Canada” crap.

Garbage. He is there to try to scare fans into buying tickets.

 

[Daximus]

Have to ask if you're familiar with professional sports and the correlation between how many people consume a product and broadcast rights deals?



Florida (a southern market) has done better in attendance than Winnipeg the previous two seasons as well as this season, obviously.

Florida also got a boost ($) from a run to the SCF.

Winnipeg still beat Florida in revenue (close enough can say similar if one wants, which is the point about different markets/different paths to their business #s.)

How does Winnipeg have more revenue than Florida if attendance is the be-all/end-all to "perform[ing] better financially" and there "isn't all that much money" in broadcast deals?

I'm just a guy on a forum, so I'll again quote Forbes on the primary cause of difference for NHL teams revenue generated/profits/etc.: "profit can almost always be explained by local television rights and arena economics."

Or put a simpler way, what area do you think Winnipeg outperforms Florida in to make-up the difference between Florida having better attendance & four rounds of Stanley Cup playoffs, to where Winnipeg still generated more revenue. Broadcast deals? Merchandise? Or are things just being said in the want to continue some asinine lowest common denominator Southern markets v. Canada back-and-forth?

I could imagine that ticket prices and merchandise play a big role there. Just looking quick and Jets tickets sell for a bit more for similar seats. Although obviously its heavily reliant on who they are playing. Tickets for the game agains the Leafs in Florida are pretty nutty and are about on par for the Jets vs Canucks sets.