Winnipeg Sun: Jets, Mark Chipman, call for help as attendance decreases

JeffreyLFC

Registered User
Sep 29, 2017
10,778
7,940
Cheapest tickets I see on Stubhub for the Jets and Panthers with fees included are very similarly priced and both have options for under $30
You sure about that?


Why nobody also talk about moving the Sabres, Panthers?
 

MMC

Global Moderator
May 11, 2014
51,191
43,210
Orange County, CA
You sure about that?


Why nobody also talk about moving the Sabres, Panthers?
Yeah I am

IMG_1439.png
IMG_1440.png
 

Stumbledore

Registered User
Jan 1, 2018
2,535
4,940
Canada
Worth $54 billion is a lot different than having $54 billion.
Perhaps that matters to you.

I do know that the 3rd Baron of Fleet owns more than 60 companies with a global reach (such as Reuters Thomson), has real estate holdings on 5 continents, and a private art collection second to none (after buying his latest Rubens for $78 million.) Whether he "has" $54 billion or is only "worth" $54 billion makes no difference to me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lions67

BKIslandersFan

F*** off
Sep 29, 2017
11,878
5,375
Brooklyn
Is it a joke or you truly need an explanation?

If you put the ticket price at Florida or Arizona level you would only have sellout games in Winnipeg with a huge re-sale market to boot. Ticket price in Canada are becoming ridiculous and not many fans can afford it. Bettman will never defend the Winnipeg market either, if he has one chance to move it out, he will execute it faster than you would believe. There is a double standard with smaller market team in the US and Canada.
Is it a joke to you or you truly need an explanation?

Winnipeg need to charge higher price than Florida or Arizona because they simply do not have enough corporate support that Arizona or Florida do.

The ENTIRE SELLING POINT of having teams in small Canadian market was the idea that they would sell out no matter what. Thats what we have been told for years. The rabid fans would sell out no matter what. So now that they don't yall just gonna walk it back huh?

GTFOH bro.

He did, indeed. Only after he realized it was hopeless, did he allow the team to move to Winnipeg.

The past is the past....

We'll see how Winnipeg is handled if/when things get tough.
At no point did league take over Thrashers or allow them to play in smaller arena. They could have, but they did not.
 

joelef

Registered User
Nov 22, 2011
2,093
881
Is it a joke to you or you truly need an explanation?

Winnipeg need to charge higher price than Florida or Arizona because they simply do not have enough corporate support that Arizona or Florida do.

The ENTIRE SELLING POINT of having teams in small Canadian market was the idea that they would sell out no matter what. Thats what we have been told for years. The rabid fans would sell out no matter what. So now that they don't yall just gonna walk it back huh?

GTFOH bro.


At no point did league take over Thrashers or allow them to play in smaller arena. They could have, but they did not.
Yep the anti Arizona and Florida people are simply exposing themselves as hypocrites .
 

joelef

Registered User
Nov 22, 2011
2,093
881
Yes. The hypocrisy is <fill in the blank>.

The NHL has moved hell and high water to keep a team in Arizona. Let's see what they do for Manitoba.

My guess : Gary's already shopping the team in the U.S.
The nhl bent there own rules to keep Edmonton and Ottawa while doing nothing to protect the thrasher’s

Is it a joke to you or you truly need an explanation?

Winnipeg need to charge higher price than Florida or Arizona because they simply do not have enough corporate support that Arizona or Florida do.

The ENTIRE SELLING POINT of having teams in small Canadian market was the idea that they would sell out no matter what. Thats what we have been told for years. The rabid fans would sell out no matter what. So now that they don't yall just gonna walk it back huh?

GTFOH bro.


At no point did league take over Thrashers or allow them to play in smaller arena. They could have, but they did not.
And bent there own rules to keep the oilers and senators in Canada but let’s ignore that .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Price is Wright

ORRFForever

Registered User
Oct 29, 2018
19,735
10,998
Maybe that's because the US markets are more important. There's a reason that the NHL is no longer gate driven and it's not because of markets like Winnipeg, although Winnipeg will benefit it and because of the increased revenue of the US TV deals and sponsorships the Jets can draw 11-12k and still turn a profit.
Fine. Split the CDN TV money among the CDN teams and let the U.S. teams split the U.S. TV money. That's fair.

Yep the anti Arizona and Florida people are simply exposing themselves as hypocrites .
Everyone's a hypocrite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stumbledore

joelef

Registered User
Nov 22, 2011
2,093
881
That IMO, is people ignoring the greater picture and just focusing on Winnipeg. Hockey in Canada is dying, slowly sure, but the support is dwindling everywhere.
Because of the nhl refusal to market there stars and demographic changes . Putting a team in Quebec does nothing to cure those issues.
 

ORRFForever

Registered User
Oct 29, 2018
19,735
10,998
The nhl bent there own rules to keep Edmonton and Ottawa while doing nothing to protect the thrasher’s


And bent there own rules to keep the oilers and senators in Canada but let’s ignore that .
Like I said, let the Canadian teams split the Rogers TV money 7 ways and the American teams can split the ESPN money. That's fair.

**********************************************************

The best way to solve this is to keep ALL CDN money (T.V. - Rogers / TSN, gate, merch) in Canada and split it among the 7 teams.

Do the same with the U.S. teams and their money.

Then let the chips / franchises fall where they may.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HolyCrap

BKIslandersFan

F*** off
Sep 29, 2017
11,878
5,375
Brooklyn
The best way to solve this is to keep ALL CDN money (T.V. - Rogers / TSN, gate, merch) in Canada and split it among the 7 teams.
Solve what? What problem is there to solve? Canadian team owners are also clearly not interested in more teams in Canada.

And under your proposal, there is even less incentives for Canadian team owners to go for additional teams up north.
 

ORRFForever

Registered User
Oct 29, 2018
19,735
10,998
Solve what? What problem is there to solve? Canadian team owners are also clearly not interested in more teams in Canada.

And under your proposal, there is even less incentives for Canadian team owners to go for additional teams up north.
That's fine because we're not getting an 8th franchise anyway.

Keep the CDN money in Canada. ALL of it. And your 25 U.S. franchises can split up all the ESPN money - that should come to about $1.87 per U.S. franchise per year. That's fair.
 
Last edited:

93LEAFS

Registered User
Nov 7, 2009
34,176
21,372
Toronto
That's fine because we're not getting an 8th franchise anyway.

Keep the CDN money in Canada. ALL of it. And your 25 U.S. franchises can split up all the ESPN money - that should come to about $1.87 per U.S. franchise. That's fair.
The split is already pretty much entirely done between the Canadian teams. They get around 30m or so a year from it, and the only reason it's that high is because of Toronto and Montreal, none of the others could come close to selling their national tv rights for anywhere close to that outside maybe the Oilers when they have McDavid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeeto

Turin

Erik Karlsson is good
Feb 27, 2018
24,026
28,456
Won’t be long until hockey is number 3 in Canada. Soccer and basketball will soon be more popular. Canada is changing, deal with it.
By the time that happens it probably won't even be called Canada.
 

nhlfan79

Registered User
Feb 3, 2005
620
1,008
Atlanta, GA
You're kidding. At what point did he make ANY effort to keep the Thrashers in Atlanta??

I missed that part, too. My recollection is we went from a sellout against the Pens in the final home game of the season in early April, to Glendale's vote to authorize another $25 million for the Coyotes in early May, to a press conference in Winnipeg by the end of May.
 

Yukon Joe

Registered User
Aug 3, 2011
6,786
4,817
YWG -> YXY -> YEG
You're kidding. At what point did he make ANY effort to keep the Thrashers in Atlanta??

We've been over Atlanta before. Lots of times.

ASG did not want to own a hockey team. They controlled Phillis Arena, which was the only place an NHL franchise could play. This left the NHL with no options.

You can compare it to Arizona, where at least for years Glendale (which controlled that arena) DID want an NHL franchise, and so the league fought hard to keep the team in Arizona.

Going from 2011 to 2023 - the league in Arizona now vastly changed what they would consider to be an acceptable arena, allowing the Coyotes to play in a 5000 seat arena. Maybe the league should have shown that kind of flexibility back in 2011 - but honestly I'm doing some googling and I can't find anything that would have even compared to Mullett Arena in the Atlanta area. Certainly Atlanta doesn't host a NCAA hockey team.

Yep the anti Arizona and Florida people are simply exposing themselves as hypocrites .

Look, I don't consider myself anti-Florida or anti-Arizona. I wish those franchises all the success in the future.

But there is a big difference between teams that have struggled with attendance throughout their entire existence, and a team that has historically had good attendance but is struggling recently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stumbledore

joelef

Registered User
Nov 22, 2011
2,093
881
We've been over Atlanta before. Lots of times.

ASG did not want to own a hockey team. They controlled Phillis Arena, which was the only place an NHL franchise could play. This left the NHL with no options.

You can compare it to Arizona, where at least for years Glendale (which controlled that arena) DID want an NHL franchise, and so the league fought hard to keep the team in Arizona.

Going from 2011 to 2023 - the league in Arizona now vastly changed what they would consider to be an acceptable arena, allowing the Coyotes to play in a 5000 seat arena. Maybe the league should have shown that kind of flexibility back in 2011 - but honestly I'm doing some googling and I can't find anything that would have even compared to Mullett Arena in the Atlanta area. Certainly Atlanta doesn't host a NCAA hockey team.



Look, I don't consider myself anti-Florida or anti-Arizona. I wish those franchises all the success in the future.

But there is a big difference between teams that have struggled with attendance throughout their entire existence, and a team that has historically had good attendance but is struggling recently.
Translation :But but but but it different when we do it
 

AtlantaWhaler

Thrash/Preds/Sabres
Jul 3, 2009
20,216
3,460
We've been over Atlanta before. Lots of times.

ASG did not want to own a hockey team. They controlled Phillis Arena, which was the only place an NHL franchise could play. This left the NHL with no options.

You can compare it to Arizona, where at least for years Glendale (which controlled that arena) DID want an NHL franchise, and so the league fought hard to keep the team in Arizona.

Going from 2011 to 2023 - the league in Arizona now vastly changed what they would consider to be an acceptable arena, allowing the Coyotes to play in a 5000 seat arena. Maybe the league should have shown that kind of flexibility back in 2011 - but honestly I'm doing some googling and I can't find anything that would have even compared to Mullett Arena in the Atlanta area. Certainly Atlanta doesn't host a NCAA hockey team.



Look, I don't consider myself anti-Florida or anti-Arizona. I wish those franchises all the success in the future.

But there is a big difference between teams that have struggled with attendance throughout their entire existence, and a team that has historically had good attendance but is struggling recently.
Oh, I've been involved in a lot of those discussions. I'm fully aware of the Thrashers history. This doesn't answer my question at all which is, what did the NHL do to try to keep the Thrashers in Atlanta?

Also, the Gwinnett Arena (home of an ECHL team) was built in 2003 and seats 13K for hockey.
 

oldunclehue

Registered User
Jun 16, 2010
1,254
1,367
Oh, I've been involved in a lot of those discussions. I'm fully aware of the Thrashers history. This doesn't answer my question at all which is, what did the NHL do to try to keep the Thrashers in Atlanta?

Also, the Gwinnett Arena (home of an ECHL team) was built in 2003 and seats 13K for hockey.

They did very minimal to save the Thrashers from what I recall. But when the owner of the arena doesn’t want the tenant and there isn’t plans for a new owner or a facility for them at the time….they agreed to move them. Was it right? Looking back probably not seeing as they are letting the Coyotes play in a 4600 seat arena.

But an owner who wants to keep the team there and is doing everything he can do make that happen.

Also during the Thrashers final years the valuation of teams was way way less. I’m sure looking back the owner wishes he would have kept the team.

But hope yall get one back with the new planned arena!
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad