Winnipeg Jets: 11,226 Attendance tonight, cause for concern? What's going on in the 'Peg?

[hockeyguy0022]

I don’t think Americans realize how much financially worse off Canadians are now. The average person in Winnipeg cannot afford to go to all the games and the corporate types that line the arena in Toronto don’t exist in Winnipeg nearly to the same degree.

They absolutely do not, Americans live in Lala land largely.

Same job/company, it's a 5X better living in the USA for the same money, Housing, food, booze, gas is dirt cheap in the USA.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Canadian teams that share the same economy are all doing great.

They don't "share the same economy". What a silly statement to make for a very large landmass. There was a lot of potential for Winnipeg around the time the Jets came back and they were trying to build up the downtown. Bunch of debt, bunch of inflation later and the area stinks economically and it's abundantly clear they don't have the population or corporate base to support an NHL franchise. Unless Big Daddy Thompson wants to punt away a portion of his wealth into a hockey team he is a partial owner of, the Jets will likely be looking to relocate at some point.

 

[Look Up]

Winnipeg, or for that matter any other NHL team, is not moving.

Owners are addicted to expansion fees, it's better for them to have a franchise not performing optimally than to lose out on their cut of the new franchise fee.

 

[tarheelhockey]

What's your point? They aren't losing money. They are making slightly less in the grand scheme of things.

My point, if you read the full context leading into the snippet you responded to, is that I agree with the original comment that the Jets are ultimately safe as long as they have a well-capitalized owner, but that reliance on one person to underwrite the franchise doesn’t really speak to the strength of the market itself. It was a response to someone saying that their long-term picture is fine because they’re bankrolled by a billionaire, as opposed to being fine because Winnipeg is a viable NHL market even in a worst case scenario.

We’ve seen the downside of that scenario play out before. If Jim Balsillie had been successful in getting a team to Hamilton, he would have had to sell it almost immediately as his corporate empire collapsed, and who knows what that would have looked like. Marcel Aubut was an adequate owner for the Nords until the league got richer, and suddenly there wasn’t anyone in Quebec willing and able to buy the team. More local to me, Jim Rutherford was rich until he wasn’t. When he got older and the kids came looking for their share of the estate, it turned out they wanted the cash instead of being saddled with their dad’s struggling sports venture. The main thing that saved the Hurricanes from relocation wasn’t simply finding another rich-guy owner, it was the public/private arena deal that attracted outside investment. If Dundon goes bankrupt tomorrow, that arena deal will ensure another wannabe sports owner picks up the investment — otherwise they’d be at risk again, because present-day Raleigh (much like Winnipeg) isn’t a place with a bunch of Tom Dundons running around waiting for an NHL team to hit the market.

For now, the Jets are fine with the setup they have. I feel confident they’ll still be around 5, 10 years from now. The question is what happens if things go sideways. We haven’t even seen the market’s reaction to the Jets being bad bad. For all the talk about the need to drop ticket prices, they’re in a tiny arena where cheap tickets aren’t really an option. Bettman was uncharacteristically explicit about the danger of ticket shortfalls in this market. The media landscape is changing… the Rogers deal ends in 2026, and the streaming landscape is in flux, so who knows what media revenue looks like 5, 10 years down the line. “It’s fine, we have a rich owner” helps answer those questions as long as that rich owner is ready and willing, but there’s no guarantee of that. It’s a vulnerability, not as severe as Calgary’s arena situation a couple of years ago, but enough to introduce the question of what the plan would be if the moneybags underwriter was no longer there to make it all make sense.

 

[Viqsi]

I don’t think Americans realize how much financially worse off Canadians are now. The average person in Winnipeg cannot afford to go to all the games and the corporate types that line the arena in Toronto don’t exist in Winnipeg nearly to the same degree.

That's kind of what we were referring to when we talked about Winnipeg being too small - there's not enough wiggle room to cope when things go bad (because they will inevitably go bad for anyone and everyone at some point or another).

 

[IamNotADancer]

Nashville looks empty as hell.

The yellow seats don't help.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

"the Jets are in trouble" but the NHL is fine with the coyotes playing in a junior A rink. What a joke.

To be fair NHL didn't say Jets were in trouble, its just HFBoard speculation.

 

[gojetsgo]

 

[TS Quint]

My point, if you read the full context leading into the snippet you responded to, is that I agree with the original comment that the Jets are ultimately safe as long as they have a well-capitalized owner, but that reliance on one person to underwrite the franchise doesn’t really speak to the strength of the market itself. It was a response to someone saying that their long-term picture is fine because they’re bankrolled by a billionaire, as opposed to being fine because Winnipeg is a viable NHL market even in a worst case scenario.

We’ve seen the downside of that scenario play out before. If Jim Balsillie had been successful in getting a team to Hamilton, he would have had to sell it almost immediately as his corporate empire collapsed, and who knows what that would have looked like. Marcel Aubut was an adequate owner for the Nords until the league got richer, and suddenly there wasn’t anyone in Quebec willing and able to buy the team. More local to me, Jim Rutherford was rich until he wasn’t. When he got older and the kids came looking for their share of the estate, it turned out they wanted the cash instead of being saddled with their dad’s struggling sports venture. The main thing that saved the Hurricanes from relocation wasn’t simply finding another rich-guy owner, it was the public/private arena deal that attracted outside investment. If Dundon goes bankrupt tomorrow, that arena deal will ensure another wannabe sports owner picks up the investment — otherwise they’d be at risk again, because present-day Raleigh (much like Winnipeg) isn’t a place with a bunch of Tom Dundons running around waiting for an NHL team to hit the market.

For now, the Jets are fine with the setup they have. I feel confident they’ll still be around 5, 10 years from now. The question is what happens if things go sideways. We haven’t even seen the market’s reaction to the Jets being bad bad. For all the talk about the need to drop ticket prices, they’re in a tiny arena where cheap tickets aren’t really an option. Bettman was uncharacteristically explicit about the danger of ticket shortfalls in this market. The media landscape is changing… the Rogers deal ends in 2026, and the streaming landscape is in flux, so who knows what media revenue looks like 5, 10 years down the line. “It’s fine, we have a rich owner” helps answer those questions as long as that rich owner is ready and willing, but there’s no guarantee of that. It’s a vulnerability, not as severe as Calgary’s arena situation a couple of years ago, but enough to introduce the question of what the plan would be if the moneybags underwriter was no longer there to make it all make sense.

*Karmanos.

What a bunch of Chicken Little talk. Don't worry about the Jets. They're fine. It's OK for them to make slightly less money for a while.

Everyone has been worried about the "poor, small market, no money Jets" since they got back into the NHL. It used to be all the talk of them not being able to spend money on players, then they did have have been a cap team for quite a while now. Now we are supposed to be worried about the cap going down because you don't know how the next Canadian TV deal will go? Or you don't know what they will do about streaming? It will be ok. The NHL will figure it out. They will continue to figure out new streams of revenue. TNSE has plenty of diversity in their business and always more to untap. It's a far more complex business than just selling hockey tickets.

 

[Brookbank]

oh please cry me a river canadians are always talking all sorts of shit everywhere about southern teams , now a small village in canada can't fill up a barn and the fans are crying for poverty and homelessness , stop it.

There's no comparison. The Jets have way more consistent attendance than the southern teams. Plus they make more on merchandise and sponsors than have-not southern teams.

 

[tarheelhockey]

*Karmanos.

Lmao, of course. Mixing up those names was 15 years of trauma talking.

What a bunch of Chicken Little talk. Don't worry about the Jets. They're fine. It's OK for them to make slightly less money for a while.

Chicken Little would be panicking about the immediate situation. I’m not. Like I said in the first place, I’m fairly sure the Jets will be just fine. I’m just pointing out that the “wealthy benefactor” model of ownership has its limitations, and those will be more and more pronounced in the future. That’s a trend which has nothing specifically to do with the Jets, other than that it came up in reference to Thomson.

 

[WarriorofTime]

There's no comparison. The Jets have way more consistent attendance than the southern teams. Plus they make more on merchandise and sponsors than have-not southern teams.

Well now you’re just lying.

 

[Smirnov2Chistov]

relocate them and place a second team in arizona

just to piss off the hockey faithful

 

[Bixby Snyder]

I believe there's s quote of David Thompson saying something to the effect of that he wasn't in it to lose money, if that's true I would not expect that the Jets would still be in Winnipeg at the end of this decade.

 

[Saitama]

I know it's to be expected on public forums, but it's still crazy how many people are fully confident stating stuff as fact that they do not in fact have any clue about.

 

[Bixby Snyder]

If the excuse is that Winnipeg can't afford to support the Jets then the Jets shouldn't be in Winnipeg.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

I believe there's s quote of David Thompson saying something to the effect of that he wasn't in it to lose money, if that's true I would not expect that the Jets would still be in Winnipeg at the end of this decade.

And I'm sure you can't wait.

 

[abax44]

I believe there's s quote of David Thompson saying something to the effect of that he wasn't in it to lose money, if that's true I would not expect that the Jets would still be in Winnipeg at the end of this decade.

True North Sports and Entertainment is making plenty of money.

 

[pictman]

What a ridiculous thread. The Jets are down a bit in attendance. So frigging what ? Did the Panthers move when they had crap attendance? When has Arizona last drawn any kind of a crowd ? Did the California teams move ? Otttawa ? I could go on. It's as if no other team has ever had a slump in attendance. It happens to lots of teams. Like I said, so frigging what ? Gotta love the internet, so many people with so many opinions with so little knowledge .

 

[MrHeiskanen]

What a ridiculous thread. The Jets are down a bit in attendance. So frigging what ? Did the Panthers move when they had crap attendance? When has Arizona last drawn any kind of a crowd ? Did the California teams move ? Otttawa ? I could go on. It's as if no other team has ever had a slump in attendance. It happens to lots of teams. Like I said, so frigging what ? Gotta love the internet, so many people with so many opinions with so little knowledge .

The thing is when a lot of teams had bad attendance they went from 18,000 to 14,000. But now the jets are going from 15,000 to 11,000. That seems to be a bigger problem. Most teams need around 15k to operate effectively and not lose money like crazy.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

They don't "share the same economy". What a silly statement to make for a very large landmass. There was a lot of potential for Winnipeg around the time the Jets came back and they were trying to build up the downtown. Bunch of debt, bunch of inflation later and the area stinks economically and it's abundantly clear they don't have the population or corporate base to support an NHL franchise. Unless Big Daddy Thompson wants to punt away a portion of his wealth into a hockey team he is a partial owner of, the Jets will likely be looking to relocate at some point.

Economic conditions are widely reported on a national level. Not silly at all. Silly is already discussing relocation while the owners are dedicated to the market and it's only been a couple seasons of low support.

You did hit the point, though. Any market with under a million people (really, it's probably under 2) will have long periods of struggle with attendance purely based on low population and not enough corporate presence.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

To be fair NHL didn't say Jets were in trouble, its just HFBoard speculation.

Well, I guess it's how you define trouble, but the owner calling for financial help while the team struggles to put 12K in the seats is how I'd define trouble.

However, if the definition is "trouble of relocation", then you are correct. There is no trouble.

 

[pictman]

The thing is when a lot of teams had bad attendance they went from 18,000 to 14,000. But now the jets are going from 15,000 to 11,000. That seems to be a bigger problem. Most teams need around 15k to operate effectively and not lose money like crazy.

The thing is when a lot of teams had bad attendance they went from 18,000 to 14,000. But now the jets are going from 15,000 to 11,000. That seems to be a bigger problem. Most teams need around 15k to operate effectively and not lose money like crazy.

Your 2 examples are a comparison between a 27% reduction and a 23 % reduction. Yes ,worse but not not that much. And it's not an average of 11, 000 it's above that.
As well, lots of teams have suffered a far worse reduction and survived.
And it's very tough to compare profitability without bringing in all aspects of ownership. Yes attendance is a big factor but so is cost of living, cost of wages, additional "side business " that have grown out of ownership, taxes, .......
My point stands. Just because there has been a slump in attendance doesn't mean the team is moving. It's a pretty common occurrence around the league.

 

[pictman]

I believe there's s quote of David Thompson saying something to the effect of that he wasn't in it to lose money, if that's true I would not expect that the Jets would still be in Winnipeg at the end of this decade.

What makes you think True North is losing money ?

 

[blueandgoldguy]

The thing is when a lot of teams had bad attendance they went from 18,000 to 14,000. But now the jets are going from 15,000 to 11,000. That seems to be a bigger problem. Most teams need around 15k to operate effectively and not lose money like crazy.

I think the issue is gate revenue. Some of those teams that had attendance in 12 - 14,000 range and even above a few years ago, likely had far lower gate revenue than the current jets at 12,000 per game, given the ticket prices in those places, both for season tickets and individual games. ie. Florida and Arizona....even factoring in the lower Canadian dollar.