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

[AtlantaWhaler]

I've seen a bunch of posts saying that there are too many things to do in places like Miami, Atlanta, Phoenix, etc for people to go to the hockey games if the team isn't a contender.

The Canadian small markets are where a lot of players come from. Participation has decreased in youth hockey in the QC area in the almost 30 years since the Nords left. That hasn't been offset by southern markets. You can site Auston Matthews all you want. It's one guy.

Well, it doesn't seem to be an issue now, so those posts appear to be wrong.

And the total number of registered ice hockey players all across Canada has decreased over the last several years while in America, it's increased (minus the COVID years). All that to say, I don't think QC leaving 30 years ago is having a mass affect on hockey.

 

[WarriorofTime]

The Canadian small markets are where a lot of players come from. Participation has decreased in youth hockey in the QC area in the almost 30 years since the Nords left. That hasn't been offset by southern markets. You can site Auston Matthews all you want. It's one guy.

Hasn't been offset? The American share of NHL players has grown from 18 % to 28 % in thirty years. That's not just one guy.

So about David Thomson. You'll often see his net worth listed as $63 billion. But that's not his personal wealth - that's the family wealth. It's all held in trusts. Because David Thomson is not some techbro new money guy - as I've mentioned before he's the Third Baron of Fleet, and the fortune was started with his grandfather. So there's not going to be some big need to sell assets when Thomson passes on.

I don't think there's any reason to think the team is losing money annually - between revenue sharing and the various subsidies the team has (tax abatements, VLTs). The team is after all spending right to the salary cap. Being businessmen I have no doubt that Chipman/Thomson duo would like to make more money, which explains the whole Bettman show last night, but I struggle to see them as a relocation candidate - at least in the short to medium term.


Edit: it's never been disclosed what % of the team each of Chipman and Thomson have. I suspect Thomson is the majority partner while Chipman is just the working face of the organization, but that's just a hunch.

I think Thomson's people control one more board seat.

 

[Yukon Joe]

I think Thomson's people control one more board seat.

If you have a source I'd love to see it - because I've followed the team since relocation and again - I don't think the precise relationship between Thomson and TNSE has ever been disclosed. It's something I've always been curious about, because Thomson is such a mysterious figure.

 

[WarriorofTime]

If you have a source I'd love to see it - because I've followed the team since relocation and again - I don't think the precise relationship between Thomson and TNSE has ever been disclosed. It's something I've always been curious about, because Thomson is such a mysterious figure.

https://www.tnse.com/our-company/board-of-directors/

Osmington is Thomson's company, Megill-Stephenson is Chipman's. I think the other guy is Independent as I think Thomson and Chipman's groups collectively own 100 % of TNSE.

 

[Yukon Joe]

https://www.tnse.com/our-company/board-of-directors/

Osmington is Thomson's company, Megill-Stephenson is Chipman's. I think the other guy is Independent as I think Thomson and Chipman's groups collectively own 100 % of TNSE.

Interesting - thanks.

So I mean who gets to appoint what directors is ultimately going to be set out in the Shareholders Agreement, and as such that doesn't necessarily mean that Thomson/Osmington controls 60% of the shares compared to Chipman/Megill-Stephenson's 40%, but yes it does suggest that Thomson is the majority partner.

 

[tucker3434]

I've seen a bunch of posts saying that there are too many things to do in places like Miami, Atlanta, Phoenix, etc for people to go to the hockey games if the team isn't a contender.

The Canadian small markets are where a lot of players come from. Participation has decreased in youth hockey in the QC area in the almost 30 years since the Nords left. That hasn't been offset by southern markets. You can site Auston Matthews all you want. It's one guy.

This is the opposite of the Canadian expansion argument. Canada is supposed to be the one with the high floor due to NHL-ready fanbases. If youth hockey is in decline in QC that is NOT a selling point for the NHL to move there.

 

[Voight]

Interesting - thanks.

So I mean who gets to appoint what directors is ultimately going to be set out in the Shareholders Agreement, and as such that doesn't necessarily mean that Thomson/Osmington controls 60% of the shares compared to Chipman/Megill-Stephenson's 40%, but yes it does suggest that Thomson is the majority partner.

I always had the feeling Thomson is majority owner/put up most of the cash, and wanted Chipman to be the face of the team (since hes notoriously reclusive).

 

[BMN]

This is the opposite of the Canadian expansion argument. Canada is supposed to be the one with the high floor due to NHL-ready fanbases. If youth hockey is in decline in QC that is NOT a selling point for the NHL to move there.

This is why I think Canadian expansionists need to tweak their arguments. Not all southern backers use this argument but a *lot* use the "we need to 'grow the game' by going to somewhere where no one plays the game, make the sport popular (or more popular, anyway) and get them playing to expand the talent pool." Canadian fans (esp. over the age of 55) throw out the "we already have the talent, reward our love of the game...." rather than pointing out the "wait.....we're starting to decline and we need to stem that."

 

[BMN]

Hasn't been offset? The American share of NHL players has grown from 18 % to 28 % in thirty years. That's not just one guy.


I think Thomson's people control one more board seat.

I think the original poster was talking more specifically about Arizona than the States writ large. Americans are better qualified than me to break down how the regions account for the American increase on the professional level. I too get tired of the "Auston Matthews counts for a billion players" argument but I've already had my wrist slapped for that so I won't revisit it.

Also, I lost which post it was but I'm not even a Baby Boomer (Gen X) and I too have memories of "TFC" (no cable) as a Canadian hahahaha

 

[dj4aces]

I've seen a bunch of posts saying that there are too many things to do in places like Miami, Atlanta, Phoenix, etc for people to go to the hockey games if the team isn't a contender.

I've seen a lot of posts made by people against expansion to Atlanta claim there's "too many things to do", or "too many sports", or any number of reasons why the league shouldn't return here.

I haven't seen any posts made by people in Atlanta make such claims. But I also haven't scoured the boards to find any.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I think the original poster was talking more specifically about Arizona than the States writ large. Americans are better qualified than me to break down how the regions account for the American increase on the professional level. I too get tired of the "Auston Matthews counts for a billion players" argument but I've already had my wrist slapped for that so I won't revisit it.

Also, I lost which post it was but I'm not even a Baby Boomer (Gen X) and I too have memories of "TFC" (no cable) as a Canadian hahahaha

Well what's tricky is birth state doesn't always tell the right story, Auston Matthews was born in California, the Tkachuk brothers were born in Arizona. But Matthews is an Arizona product, and the Tkachuk brothers aren't (that's just where the family was located while Keith was playing there). I know that Matthew Knies is also an Arizona product, having played for the Arizona Jr. Coyotes before going to the USHL.

 

[KevFu]

Your post reminded me of another topic I was part of little over a year ago. I don’t believe it was on her I think it was else where. But… All sports are going hurt in the downsize that inevitable over the next 15-20 years. As the baby boomers go into elderly ages and/or pass on. There exists no demographic their size ever in history to replace them.

My point with this will be a smart owner will build some sort of super experience venue that seats minimal allowable seating. Because all these massive sports venues are going to become more and more empty as the baby boomers go off into the sunset.

I've been saying for the last few years that investment in women's sports is a very smart move as they are growing massively in exposure and "acceptance" even if "popularity" isn't there yet; And the NHL really needs to be IN on women's hockey (I said hire Dani Rylan, but now I think merge with the PWHL).

Because you're not wrong in what you said about the shrinking number of children by each generation after the Boomers, but just as important is the economic reality for Gen X and younger. Gen X and younger have just lower amounts of wealth, period, compared to the Boomers. That "Empty Nester can now get season tickets because his all the money that went to feeding, clothing, educating his dependents is now disposable income" just doesn't exist to that degree for Gen X.

The NHL faces a very real danger of pricing the average fan out of being a customer. So don't run one league, run two. The additional cost of running a women's team is FAR LOWER for the NHL than the PWHL, because they have control of arenas and practice facilities, they have staffing and equipment. You just need to grow each department by an extra employee or two to cover two teams instead of one.

But between the synergy of bundling two teams into sponsorships and suite leases, etc; and selling a cheaper option to NHL hockey with WNHL hockey, you can offset that.

I think the OWNERS will be fine, because lots of them have more "Sports empires" than are "single team owners."

 

[WarriorofTime]

I've been saying for the last few years that investment in women's sports is a very smart move as they are growing massively in exposure and "acceptance" even if "popularity" isn't there yet; And the NHL really needs to be IN on women's hockey (I said hire Dani Rylan, but now I think merge with the PWHL).

Because you're not wrong in what you said about the shrinking number of children by each generation after the Boomers, but just as important is the economic reality for Gen X and younger. Gen X and younger have just lower amounts of wealth, period, compared to the Boomers. That "Empty Nester can now get season tickets because his all the money that went to feeding, clothing, educating his dependents is now disposable income" just doesn't exist to that degree for Gen X.

The NHL faces a very real danger of pricing the average fan out of being a customer. So don't run one league, run two. The additional cost of running a women's team is FAR LOWER for the NHL than the PWHL, because they have control of arenas and practice facilities, they have staffing and equipment. You just need to grow each department by an extra employee or two to cover two teams instead of one.

But between the synergy of bundling two teams into sponsorships and suite leases, etc; and selling a cheaper option to NHL hockey with WNHL hockey, you can offset that.

I think the OWNERS will be fine, because lots of them have more "Sports empires" than are "single team owners."

Doesn't the WNBA being a consistent money loser that is carried financially on the backs of the NBA kind of disprove this?

 

[NotASheep]

if you win they will come. Jets need to win

 

[AZDesertKnight]

if you win they will come. Jets need to win

I was told that if the team just existed it would sell out FOREVER.

 

[BMN]

Well what's tricky is birth state doesn't always tell the right story, Auston Matthews was born in California, the Tkachuk brothers were born in Arizona. But Matthews is an Arizona product, and the Tkachuk brothers aren't (that's just where the family was located while Keith was playing there). I know that Matthew Knies is also an Arizona product, having played for the Arizona Jr. Coyotes before going to the USHL.

Right. That's a very good point. With no sarcasm, I sure hope Auston Matthews will eventually become more of a rule than an exception as an honest-to-goodness Arizona product, notwithstanding his birthplace. An expanded talent pool (even beyond North America for that matter) is why I don't fret about expansion like many others do.

I've seen a lot of posts made by people against expansion to Atlanta claim there's "too many things to do", or "too many sports", or any number of reasons why the league shouldn't return here.
I haven't seen any posts made by people in Atlanta make such claims. But I also haven't scoured the boards to find any.

That's just the natural consequence of southern metro areas for any new sports franchise. It often gets broken down into a "they don't like hockey" simplification. And there certainly is something to be said for the popularity of hockey vs. other sports in any market but that's never the whole picture.

But in a city like Atlanta, it's not so much the "too many things to do," etc. but rather "an expansion team will be the newest 'too many things to do thing'" which generally works for a year or two ("Ooooh! New! Shiny!") and then starts to quickly lose its appeal against the city's "old money" products if the team isn't sold right or isn't any good ("oh, that new hockey thingy they brought around?"). Atlanta United capitalized on three things IMO: 1--- it was a product naturally built for transplants (I've hashed that to death in other threads) and 2--- it was a "hip" sport for younger, usually-not-sports-fans to tie into, and 3--- they were IMMEDIATELY competitive.

I was told that if the team just existed it would sell out FOREVER.

Whoever you're arguing with, that person is not here. Finish your drink, and go to another bar where that person you want to have the argument with is residing.

 

[KevFu]

I'm not following why the NHL "needs" small Canadian markets to survive. I'm not implying that all 7 teams haven't and won't do well, but large markets with multiple professional teams are churning out huge revenue just fine despite other entertainment options.

Defenders of underperforming southern markets often site the "other entertainment options" as a reason why their teams aren't doing well. Also, "small Canadian markets" have other entertainment options as well. They may not have other professional sports teams but there are things to do?

There's no need for this to devolve into Canada vs American South.

Losing customers is bad, and gaining customers is good. Having a league structure where "being #5 to a larger group of people" is FAR MORE lucrative than "being #1 to a small group of people" is simply bad for business, period. Because it can turn people in places like Winnipeg and Quebec from "people who watch the NHL" to people who don't. And because we get money from National TV deals, that's bad.

Growing the popularity in big markets with a lot of potential new customers is also good. We need to get more popular and you do the by giving them a reason to like the NHL: a local team.

It's in the NHL's best interest to ensure that places like Winnipeg and Quebec can be healthy members of the league, because of the role that passion plays in the environment of games. You want your product to SEEM REALLY FUN. Rowdy crowds help that. Sponsors and TV partners see how much fans like your product. That makes people want to go to games. And due to the competitive nature of fans, fans see good OPPOSING crowds and want to top them. Nashville fans throwing Catfish. Where'd they learn that?


There's no need to discuss which is "better" between American southern big markets vs small passionate Canadian markets. One being better is actually bad. We want both.


We need a revenue sharing system where the big southern markets can afford to market and promote to grow their popularity and move up from 5th in popularity, and smaller markets where hockey is #1 can afford to give their fans competitive seasons.

 

[KevFu]

Doesn't the WNBA being a consistent money loser that is carried financially on the backs of the NBA kind of disprove this?

Not really, because the WNBA isn't really doing that. They started that way, but society wasn't ready for it, so they kinda turned it over to predominantly independent ownership.

And basketball doesn't really have the savings benefit of two teams / one organization to the degree hockey would. The people, yeah, but the facilities and equipment is really where it makes sense for the NHL.

But by being on TV for 27 seasons, younger generations have grown up just knowing that's a thing. They don't actively HATE the WNBA for existing like people our age and up.

And I bet you if you looked at WNBA ticket prices, you'd be shocked at "how expensive" they are. Like, "What the hell are they doing selling tickets for THAT MUCH! That's why no one goes!"

They've been paying the price for women's sports legitimacy, like pioneer franchises dying of dysentery. "Paved the way" is cliche, but kinda accurate. You can see how to do it based on where they made mistakes.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Losing customers is bad, and gaining customers is good. Having a league structure where "being #5 to a larger group of people" is FAR MORE lucrative than "being #1 to a small group of people" is simply bad for business, period. Because it can turn people in places like Winnipeg and Quebec from "people who watch the NHL" to people who don't. And because we get money from National TV deals, that's bad.

Growing the popularity in big markets with a lot of potential new customers is also good. We need to get more popular and you do the by giving them a reason to like the NHL: a local team.

It's in the NHL's best interest to ensure that places like Winnipeg and Quebec can be healthy members of the league, because of the role that passion plays in the environment of games. You want your product to SEEM REALLY FUN. Rowdy crowds help that. Sponsors and TV partners see how much fans like your product. That makes people want to go to games. And due to the competitive nature of fans, fans see good OPPOSING crowds and want to top them. Nashville fans throwing Catfish. Where'd they learn that?


There's no need to discuss which is "better" between American southern big markets vs small passionate Canadian markets. One being better is actually bad. We want both.

It's just a reality that if we call greater Winnipeg around 800,000 people and greater Houston around 7,200,000 people, you need about 9X more "passion" from the average Winnipeg resident in whatever form that materializes in. I'm not sure how much we can measure "passion", is your typical Ottawa fan some multiple louder in the stadium than the typical Dallas fan? I think passion is a hard thing in this context, this isn't European Soccer where people stand around singing songs or whatever all game. "Passion" often materializes in angry people griping around about the team with genuine, earnest love of team only coming to fruition when they are making a serious run at it.

The STH lists across teams probably aren't so drastically different in terms of "passion" across market, and then the casual "event night" fans are the bread and butter for sales, while the TV deals have depended historically a lot on how many have the local broadcast bundled into their cable packages they pay for.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

There's no need for this to devolve into Canada vs American South.

Think you got the wrong message, here. I was replying to a poster that mentioned the NHL needs small markets to survive. I'm just wondering why he/she believes that. Is it talent pipeline, some sort of revenue, something with TV ratings....just wondering.

 

[KevFu]

Think you got the wrong message, here. I was replying to a poster that mentioned the NHL needs small markets to survive. I'm just wondering why he/she believes that. Is it talent pipeline, some sort of revenue, something with TV ratings....just wondering.

I quoted you because I was reading the posts I missed and probably wanted to reply to something you said, but then scrolling through a page and a half, my post turned into "people people let's be reasonable" and I just forgot to actually reply to you. My bad.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Not really, because the WNBA isn't really doing that. They started that way, but society wasn't ready for it, so they kinda turned it over to predominantly independent ownership.

And basketball doesn't really have the savings benefit of two teams / one organization to the degree hockey would. The people, yeah, but the facilities and equipment is really where it makes sense for the NHL.

But by being on TV for 27 seasons, younger generations have grown up just knowing that's a thing. They don't actively HATE the WNBA for existing like people our age and up.

And I bet you if you looked at WNBA ticket prices, you'd be shocked at "how expensive" they are. Like, "What the hell are they doing selling tickets for THAT MUCH! That's why no one goes!"

They've been paying the price for women's sports legitimacy, like pioneer franchises dying of dysentery. "Paved the way" is cliche, but kinda accurate. You can see how to do it based on where they made mistakes.

This is getting a little too political for my liking, but I'll just say I can purchase Chicago Sky Full Season Tickets, Section 224 near center court, first row for $358.40. That breaks out to a little under $18 per game. I'd have to look at how that compares to Chicago Wolves (AHL) prices but I would reckon it's pretty comparable. Now also factor in basketball being a more popular/accessible sport in the area than hockey and any expanded/tied to NHL women's hockey league would almost certainly include a larger market like Chicago.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Think you got the wrong message, here. I was replying to a poster that mentioned the NHL needs small markets to survive. I'm just wondering why he/she believes that. Is it talent pipeline, some sort of revenue, something with TV ratings....just wondering.

So I don't really want to touch the "needs to survive" part - but what do small markets like Winnipeg bring to the NHL?

Passion and enthusiasm.

Fans in other markets see the passion of those small dedicated hockey markets. It makes the whole sport look a little more exciting and desirable. Enthusiasm can be infectious like that.

That's what Green Bay brings to the NFL. It's what Duke brings to college basketball.

So like I said I wouldn't phrase it as "needs to survive", but small Canadian markets (and places like Buffalo) do bring a certain something to the league that would otherwise be missed.

 

[KevFu]

It's just a reality that if we call greater Winnipeg around 800,000 people and greater Houston around 7,200,000 people, you need about 9X more "passion" from the average Winnipeg resident in whatever form that materializes in. I'm not sure how much we can measure "passion", is your typical Ottawa fan some multiple louder in the stadium than the typical Dallas fan? I think passion is a hard thing in this context, this isn't European Soccer where people stand around singing songs or whatever all game. "Passion" often materializes in angry people griping around about the team with genuine, earnest love of team only coming to fruition when they are making a serious run at it.

The STH lists across teams probably aren't so drastically different in terms of "passion" across market, and then the casual "event night" fans are the bread and butter for sales, while the TV deals have depended historically a lot on how many have the local broadcast bundled into their cable packages they pay for.

I think your point on "this isn't European soccer" kind of fuels my point: Why wouldn't the NHL WANT THAT? You want an engaged crowd so you don't lose fans to sports that have more fun crowds to be in. We've seen an uptrend in arena's playing more sing-along songs during breaks. (The Islanders fans had the Josh Bailey song until this year). Die hards are more likely to be engaged and like that than casuals.


I've made that argument on market size plenty of times. I get it that "you can understand why" part of it for why a franchise moves from Winnipeg and Quebec to Phoenix and Denver.

But losing teams costs you fans. You have to win a higher number in the new city, and that city has other sports teams they already like, probably more. "Losing 800,000 to gain 7,200,000" only "works" when you actually gain more than 800,000 in the new market.... and it's just stupid when you don't have to LOSE ANYONE.

Just GAIN. We don't want to move Winnipeg to Salt Lake and Phoenix to Houston to trade 7 million for 9 million. We want to keep the 7 million and ADD the 9 million.

This is getting a little too political for my liking, but I'll just say I can purchase Chicago Sky Full Season Tickets, Section 224 near center court, first row for $358.40. That breaks out to a little under $18 per game. I'd have to look at how that compares to Chicago Wolves (AHL) prices but I would reckon it's pretty comparable. Now also factor in basketball being a more popular/accessible sport in the area than hockey and any expanded/tied to NHL women's hockey league would almost certainly include a larger market like Chicago.

Oh, I was going off PHX from when I lived there and was like "$50? Really? I thought it would be like $18."

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

So I don't really want to touch the "needs to survive" part - but what do small markets like Winnipeg bring to the NHL?

Passion and enthusiasm.

Fans in other markets see the passion of those small dedicated hockey markets. It makes the whole sport look a little more exciting and desirable. Enthusiasm can be infectious like that.

That's what Green Bay brings to the NFL. It's what Duke brings to college basketball.

So like I said I wouldn't phrase it as "needs to survive", but small Canadian markets (and places like Buffalo) do bring a certain something to the league that would otherwise be missed.

Totally agree. I absolutely miss my days growing up at Whaler games.

I was definitely honed in on the "needs to survive" part (along with the "period, end of story" part), but I absolutely agree with your post.