Brookbank
Registered User
- Nov 15, 2022
- 2,337
- 2,183
That's garbage. In 2012 when they had Yakupov instead of McDavid, the team was ahead in revenue of 14 other US NHL teams. Teams like the Avalanche and Lightning. Not just bottom feeders.
Winnipeg Jets: 11,226 Attendance tonight, cause for concern? What's going on in the 'Peg?
- Thread starter DRAGO 18
- Start date
- Status
Teams that pull in less revenue than WPG
- Florida (probably note anymore), but as soon as they start stinking again WPG will pass them.
- Buffalo
- Columbus
- Arizona
So before WPG is moved all the above teams should be moved first.
- Florida (probably note anymore), but as soon as they start stinking again WPG will pass them.
- Buffalo
- Columbus
- Arizona
So before WPG is moved all the above teams should be moved first.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
This is in fact, completely the opposite of what actually happens.
Hockeyholic
Registered User
Buffalo has not made the postseason in 13 years. They get a pass.
Also a better hockey city than Winnipeg imo.
ORRFForever
Registered User
- Oct 29, 2018
- 19,853
- 11,100
I think one of the problems the Jets have relative to say the Oilers or even Flames is losing the team lost them basically an entire generation of fans.
Like the thing with the Oilers and Flames is being able to stay in Edmonton and Calgary uninterrupted for 40 years now is you have multiple waves of fan base.
You have people who grew up with Gretzky and Co. in Edmonton and the 80s Flames (89 team) in Calgary.
But that was just one wave. Then in the 90s, you have a second wave of fans brought in by Doug Weight/Ryan Smyth-era in Edmonton, and to a lesser extent the 90s was a lean time for the Flames but they still had Fleury for a time there and then the beginning of the Iginla era.
But for both teams I think the 2004 Finals run in Calgary and the 2006 Finals run in Edmonton created a huge boom of new fans for both teams that they benefit from to this day.
And then past that obviously Edmonton has had a boom in fans today with McDavid/Draisaitl and Calgary had Gaudreau there for a bit.
The Jets not having anything in the 90s after they left and missing out on the 2000s and not having a Final run like Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton all had in the 2000s hurts them I think.
Then on top of that add in that Winnipeg has a lower population + less corporate support.
Like the thing with the Oilers and Flames is being able to stay in Edmonton and Calgary uninterrupted for 40 years now is you have multiple waves of fan base.
You have people who grew up with Gretzky and Co. in Edmonton and the 80s Flames (89 team) in Calgary.
But that was just one wave. Then in the 90s, you have a second wave of fans brought in by Doug Weight/Ryan Smyth-era in Edmonton, and to a lesser extent the 90s was a lean time for the Flames but they still had Fleury for a time there and then the beginning of the Iginla era.
But for both teams I think the 2004 Finals run in Calgary and the 2006 Finals run in Edmonton created a huge boom of new fans for both teams that they benefit from to this day.
And then past that obviously Edmonton has had a boom in fans today with McDavid/Draisaitl and Calgary had Gaudreau there for a bit.
The Jets not having anything in the 90s after they left and missing out on the 2000s and not having a Final run like Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton all had in the 2000s hurts them I think.
Then on top of that add in that Winnipeg has a lower population + less corporate support.
dj4aces
An Intricate Piece of Infinity
The last time Buffalo made the playoffs, the Jets were called the Atlanta Thrashers. While both Columbus and Arizona have made the playoffs more recently, they didn't experience much in the line of success on that front either. Just in case people thought arguing for teams to be moved (which isn't necessarily a league decision, but an ownership decision) and picking the least successful among them was somehow a slam dunk argument.
Winnipeg will only be moved if TNSE decides to move the team, not because some dude on the internet writes a post on a hockey forum arguing such. Same goes for any of the other 31 teams out there.
Any sports franchise requires a solid corporate base to anchor base annual revenues. Winnipeg is light in this area amongst other issues. Ask non sports fans and they will give you more of an unbiased opinion, and the response would be surprising to 95% on this board. A lot of fan interest is driven by playoff runs. Winnipeg has had ONE since returning. Why wouldn't there be problems?????
Umingmak
Registered User
This will not be a popular opinion, but Winnipeg never should have gotten another team. The city is simply too small, and there isn't enough money in the local economy. When the Thrashers moved, they were a team on the upswing, with some solid young players (Enstrom, Little, Kane) and that had just made some major moves (Byfuglien, Wheeler, Ladd). Now their core is aging/has aged out, and they're in the decline. The Bombers have also been really good for a number of years now. The attention of the city has turned to their winning team, and away from their mediocre team.
It will only get worse as the Jets decline further.
It will only get worse as the Jets decline further.
Umingmak
Registered User
How many of the American teams play in cities that have such minuscule metro populations, and a tiny local economy?
None. The smallest American market is Buffalo, and even Buffalo has a metro population that's about 500,000 people higher than Winnipeg's.
dj4aces
An Intricate Piece of Infinity
While I agree with your take on the Thrashers (they absolutely were on the upswing), I see a team in Winnipeg a bit differently.
From strictly a business standpoint, The Jets have the benefit of a stable ownership, which looks good to the league. Even if the team is doing poorly, or the economy blows, or attendance continues to dwindle, the team is fine so long as TNSE wants to continue with sustained losses during a rebuild -- whether that be the team, the economy, or both.
The issues with Atlanta were great, and covered at length across several different BoH threads and news articles published over the last 12 years. If saving the face of the league meant a team had to move to Winnipeg, the league was fine with that, but it's clear the league couldn't own and operate two NHL teams at the same time.
While attendance issues might continue to get worse, the question is whether ownership will do anything to get more fans to show up. Unlike what some of us heard from some fans, hockey doesn't sell itself, and certainly not to a fanbase that is disinterested either due to financial reasons or because the team just isn't all that good/exciting to watch.
Umingmak
Registered User
I agree generally. My thought was more that Winnipeg, in particular, was the wrong choice. Obviously they wanted the team to move West (allowing them to re-shuffle the Wings back to the East), but Seattle had already been talking about wanting a team, Houston was rumored to want a team, etc. If they hadn't been rushing because of the situation with ASG, I can't imagine they'd be in Winnipeg.
dj4aces
An Intricate Piece of Infinity
I would argue they were likely the only choice at the time. They had a NHL-ready venue and dedicated ownership. The league couldn't afford to wait for other owners to make an appearance, and Atlanta Spirit didn't want to own the team any longer than they had to.
All small market teams need to ramp up their preaching and condescension. Nothing puts butts in the seats more than alienating an already dwindling fan base.
The margin is around 3% give or take. Is that difference going to make or break ppl? Doubt it.
bert
Registered User
Winnipeg has 3 bad games for attendance and people want to move them. Meanwhile Arizona is the biggest joke of all time playing in a college rink and couldn't even sell out every game last year. Literally kept alive by teams like the jets for almost a decade.
bert
Registered User
Winnipeg has been a model franchise. But they have a bad 3 game stretch and you come in and start saying you always thought it was a bad choice? Lol the audacity is unbelievable. Hockey teams should be in hockey markets where people care about hockey. In Canada we have a horribly fiscally run country right now. This is temporary. The love for hockey is not.
Like Houston? No one cares about hockey there, you have no proof that it would be a good market. There's lots of people that live in Pheonix and Atlanta. Those cities have failed miserably.
Some of you need accounting classes.
Having negative opetational income while share value is increasing is actually more beneficial than the other way around...
Unless the Franchise is dropping in value (which I don't believe it's the case), the owners won't care as much
Having negative opetational income while share value is increasing is actually more beneficial than the other way around...
Unless the Franchise is dropping in value (which I don't believe it's the case), the owners won't care as much
Wouldn’t that be nice!
No need to give away any ticket here. But a discount in tickets at least for a period of time would go a long way with the fans here.
But again, we aren’t anywhere near that point.
Farmboy Patty
Senior Hockey Analyst
- Nov 2, 2017
- 1,758
- 2,878
I don’t know anything about any possible legal limitations for broadcasting deals in the US or Canada, but the impression that I have got from all the comments from fans of different teams on these boards tell me that there a is a huge problem with fans of the game that are restricted by blackouts and **** that only allow them to only watch games in certain areas.
That is a massive fail on the Bettman & Co. As a sports fan here in Europe, I am willing to pay a premium fee to not only being able to watch any NHL game, but also Premier League etc. The attendance at stadiums is of course a critical factor for a market to thrive, but the negoations on broadcasting rights in the US & Canada seem to be totally counterproductive for growing the sport.
Blackouts for watching games in a LEAGUE seem absurd to me, and I am astonished that the heads of the NHL haven’t wrapped their heads around that. If I would only be able to watch certain teams play in the PL there would be a 0% chance that I would be paying for that service. And that would trickle down to my whole interest in attending games or following the league at all.
I can’t wait for Bettman to retire and hopefully someone even a little more visionary takes the helm. Heck, that person wouldn’t even have to be visionary. All that new commissioner would need to do would be to copy the playbook of other successful sports/leagues. I love the NHL, but as an organization it is a dinosaur in this time and age. Hockey is a fantastic sport and my clear favorite, and it needs and deserves more competent people growing it.
That is a massive fail on the Bettman & Co. As a sports fan here in Europe, I am willing to pay a premium fee to not only being able to watch any NHL game, but also Premier League etc. The attendance at stadiums is of course a critical factor for a market to thrive, but the negoations on broadcasting rights in the US & Canada seem to be totally counterproductive for growing the sport.
Blackouts for watching games in a LEAGUE seem absurd to me, and I am astonished that the heads of the NHL haven’t wrapped their heads around that. If I would only be able to watch certain teams play in the PL there would be a 0% chance that I would be paying for that service. And that would trickle down to my whole interest in attending games or following the league at all.
I can’t wait for Bettman to retire and hopefully someone even a little more visionary takes the helm. Heck, that person wouldn’t even have to be visionary. All that new commissioner would need to do would be to copy the playbook of other successful sports/leagues. I love the NHL, but as an organization it is a dinosaur in this time and age. Hockey is a fantastic sport and my clear favorite, and it needs and deserves more competent people growing it.
dj4aces
An Intricate Piece of Infinity
Absolutely. The best part is, any market can be a hockey market. Whether that market includes small cities like Cheyenne, Wyoming or large ones like New Orleans, Louisiana, hockey markets are everywhere. I do realize this isn't what you intended, but you definitely left the door open to it.
I daresay the league disagrees with at least part of your statement.
Regarding Phoenix (that jury is still out), Houston (permanent ice plants are being added to the Toyota Center), Salt Lake (NHL met with Ryan Smith), Atlanta (a new arena development has been proposed north of town), and a whole host of other markets out there? It's all about the money. Specifically, long-term growth and potential of the market.
In terms of Atlanta, the league was tired of Atlanta Spirit's dysfunction, and Atlanta Spirit didn't want to own the team to begin with. This is all well-established fact, and the only people still arguing the market failed are the ones who disagree with reality and are trying to substitute their own. A lot of this has been hashed out ad nauseam over the years, and the most recent Atlanta thread linked above is no exception.
- Status
