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

[Yukon Joe]

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.

So I mean it's an interesting what-if. In 2011 the NHL apparently would never have accepted Gwinnet Arena as an NHL facility. By 2022 however they thought that Millet Arena was fine for the Coyotes on a short-term basis.

Should the NHL have been more open to a facility like Gwinnett in 2011? Maybe. I dunno. The question would have been how likely a new arena being built would have been. When the NHL accepted Millett it seemed like the Coyotes had a realistic plan to get a new arena built. That plan of course fell apart since then.

But having gone through the mid-90s Winnipeg relocation you can ask the same kind of "what-if"s. The league let Quebec City and Winnipeg move seemingly without concern. But just a couple of years later they introduced the Canadian Currency Assistance Program, which was an early form of revenue-sharing/exchange rate compensation. Perhaps if the league had brought in that program just a few years later both Winnipeg and Quebec would never have had to move. Because within a decade Canadian franchises like Edmonton and Calgary went from being some of the worst franchises in the league to some of the best.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

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!

This is correct and the major difference between AZ and Atlanta. My understanding is, despite struggles, Meruelo wants to keep the team and keep them in Phoenix.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

So I mean it's an interesting what-if. In 2011 the NHL apparently would never have accepted Gwinnet Arena as an NHL facility. By 2022 however they thought that Millet Arena was fine for the Coyotes on a short-term basis.

Should the NHL have been more open to a facility like Gwinnett in 2011? Maybe. I dunno. The question would have been how likely a new arena being built would have been. When the NHL accepted Millett it seemed like the Coyotes had a realistic plan to get a new arena built. That plan of course fell apart since then.

But having gone through the mid-90s Winnipeg relocation you can ask the same kind of "what-if"s. The league let Quebec City and Winnipeg move seemingly without concern. But just a couple of years later they introduced the Canadian Currency Assistance Program, which was an early form of revenue-sharing/exchange rate compensation. Perhaps if the league had brought in that program just a few years later both Winnipeg and Quebec would never have had to move. Because within a decade Canadian franchises like Edmonton and Calgary went from being some of the worst franchises in the league to some of the best.

Well, in the end, if the NHL would have allowed the Thrashers to play in Gwinnett, there still would have needed to have a willing owner which Atlanta (at the time) didn't have. In hindsight, they were able to be moved and play in a 15K arena, so maybe they would have been able to.

However, the poster I was replying to seems to think the NHL was doing everything they could to keep the team in Atlanta and there is not one thing they outwardly did besides a couple quotes of "I hope they stay".

 

[Stumbledore]

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.

Having spent a great deal of time in the States over the last half century, I'm always amazed at how often I hear an argument buttressed with: "But that's what we've been told for years!"

Then again, that does explain much of the bizarre news that emanates from south of the border these days. "If we get told it over and over, then it must be true." Sigh...

 

[BKIslandersFan]

Having spent a great deal of time in the States over the last half century, I'm always amazed at how often I hear an argument buttressed with: "But that's what we've told for years!"

Then again, that does explain much of the bizarre news that emanates from south of the border these days. "If we get told it over and over, then it must be true." Sigh...

Wait wait wait. So are you telling me that some segment of forum members here have not been saying that over and over again for years? Was that not happening? What is your point here? You guys just keep moving the goal post. And now gaslighting. Have some shame.

No one, and I mean no one, here, except maybe like one person, is saying the Jets should move. We just want to clarify that its ok to not sell out arenas when team is bad. And that is no longer on the list of reasons why team XYZ should relocate no matter where they are.

 

[NextBigThing]

No one, and I mean no one, here, except maybe like one person, is saying the Jets should move.

I’ve been saying it here for close to a decade now. The honeymoon period is long over. Empty arenas, sharply declining tv ratings, owner pleading for help, zero buzz in the city, no corporate support, etc. Winnipeg is just simply not a major league market.

 

[joelef]

Having spent a great deal of time in the States over the last half century, I'm always amazed at how often I hear an argument buttressed with: "But that's what we've told for years!"

Then again, that does explain much of the bizarre news that emanates from south of the border these days. "If we get told it over and over, then it must be true." Sigh...

It’s

Having spent a great deal of time in the States over the last half century, I'm always amazed at how often I hear an argument buttressed with: "But that's what we've told for years!"

Then again, that does explain much of the bizarre news that emanates from south of the border these days. "If we get told it over and over, then it must be true." Sigh...

You literally had announcers on Winnipeg first game saying that atlanta only had 7 fans. Many Canadian fans have slung mud for years now and are angry when you throw it back .

 

[TheLegend]

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.

At risk of stepping back into this mess…

The answer is relatively little.

Now why didn’t they do something similar as in Arizona you’d have to take that up with the NHL.

But Arizona had two things Atlanta didn’t have. They had an arena to play in, and someone willing to put up the funds to run the franchise (which at one point Glendale did both).

The Thrashers didn’t have either. Now the thought of Gwinnett’s arena coming into play is intriguing. But…. were there any groups who would have been able to…

1) Purchase the Thrashers
2) Invest in making the Gwinnett arena NHL ready on a temporary basis.
3) Get a new NHL-ready arena ready within a short period of time.
and…..
4) Absorb the losses that would incur during this transitional period.

The Coyotes playing at ASU was actually a bit of luck. ASU originally planned for a capacity of about 3500 instead of the 5300 it ended up with. That change came just as Glendale announced they were going to renew the Coyotes lease at their arena. Glendale’s action didn’t influence the expanded size in any way. The Coyotes were looking at other alternatives by then.

Still… Alex Meruelo had to outlay somewhere around $45 million just to get in the door at ASU last year. Plus absorb a ton of losses due to less ancillary income than he got in Glendale. And do it over the next 4-5 years until he could get his new barn built. IF he can get it built.

Yet he’s still willing to push it forward.

Now I know from the old Thrashers threads there were various groups looking at buying the franchise to keep them in Atlanta. But never did have an idea as the if they have deep enough pockets to take the steps I described above.

 

[TheLegend]

It’s
You literally had announcers on Winnipeg first game saying that atlanta only had 7 fans. Many Canadian fans have slung mud for years now and are angry when you throw it back .

Gary Lawless (who spent years slamming Arizona and “desert hockey” before he went to work for Vegas) was chortling during a pre-season Yotes/Vegas game that the Yotes should be moved to Salt Lake City.

I missed his comments myself but multiple Yotes fans who were watching the Vegas feed of the game did.

Some people simply are not going to change.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

Having spent a great deal of time in the States over the last half century, I'm always amazed at how often I hear an argument buttressed with: "But that's what we've told for years!"

Then again, that does explain much of the bizarre news that emanates from south of the border these days. "If we get told it over and over, then it must be true." Sigh...

Man...if you were around during the Thrashers days, or the days of Carolina's or Florida's low attendance, or when Nashville was almost moved, you'd know how hypocritical this post is.

 

[Headshot77]

It's simple:

Relocate the Yotes to Atlanta
Relocate the Jets to Arizona
Relocate the Atlanta Coyotes back to Winnipeg
Relocate the Arizona Jets to Atlanta

Big wheels keep on turnin'

 

[oldunclehue]

It's simple:

Relocate the Yotes to Atlanta
Relocate the Jets to Arizona
Relocate the Atlanta Coyotes back to Winnipeg
Relocate the Arizona Jets to Atlanta

Big wheels keep on turnin'

Should maybe just have two full time travel teams. Each player gets a driver and an RV, they never play a home game in the same arena. Don't have homes and get to live the road life. Could grow the game!

 

[Stumbledore]

Wait wait wait. So are you telling me that some segment of forum members here have not been saying that over and over again for years? Was that not happening? What is your point here? You guys just keep moving the goal post. And now gaslighting. Have some shame.

I'm not moving any goalposts or gaslighting you or telling you anything else. If you want to actually focus on my point, read the first half of my post (#479).

I'll make it easier for you: Americans are really gullible. If they get told something often enough, they believe it. Just look at Fox News for proof.

 

[Stumbledore]

Man...if you were around during the Thrashers days, or the days of Carolina's or Florida's low attendance, or when Nashville was almost moved, you'd know how hypocritical this post is.

I'm 78 years old, I've been around through all those teams' struggles. But I wasn't commenting on them or any attendance issues. Go back and read #479 carefully.

I was saying that people are gullible. Americans are especially gullible. They believe something is true because they've heard it said over and over. News flash: liars repeat their lies over and over. You have a news channel in America devoted to that.

Please point out how I was being hypocritical.

 

[Stumbledore]

Gary Lawless (who spent years slamming Arizona and “desert hockey” before he went to work for Vegas) was chortling during a pre-season Yotes/Vegas game that the Yotes should be moved to Salt Lake City.

I missed his comments myself but multiple Yotes fans who were watching the Vegas feed of the game did.

Some people simply are not going to change.

I haven't followed Lawless' career since he left Winnipeg, other than seeing him on TV occasionally when we're in Scottsdale. But I do know he was a fatheaded idiot when he worked in Winnipeg -- you can verify that with a lot of Winnipeggers -- and I expect he hasn't changed since his move south.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

I'm 78 years old, I've been around through all those teams' struggles. But I wasn't commenting on them or any attendance issues. Go back and read #479 carefully.

I was saying that people are gullible. Americans are especially gullible. They believe something is true because they've heard it said over and over. News flash: liars repeat their lies over and over. You have a news channel in America devoted to that.

Please point out how I was being hypocritical.

This isn't only news outlets and stupid broadcasters we're talking about. It's also general hockey fans and many who regularly post here that have been calling for all the southern markets to relocate to various Canadian markets. Southern market fans have been debating keeping the teams in place for years and now, it appears we're seeing that very few markets are immune to dips in attendance. You may be 78, but I was speaking to your join-date of 2018. This goes back a long ways.

Not sure how a response of "Americans are especially gullible" applies here.

 

[Stumbledore]

This isn't only news outlets and stupid broadcasters we're talking about. It's also general hockey fans and many who regularly post here that have been calling for all the southern markets to relocate to various Canadian markets. Southern market fans have been debating keeping the teams in place for years and now, it appears we're seeing that very few markets are immune to dips in attendance. You may be 78, but I was speaking to your join-date of 2018. This goes back a long ways.

Not sure how a response of "Americans are especially gullible" applies here.

I joined in 2010. I had to rejoin when HF software underwent a catharsis.

If you're not sure how my response applied here, you haven't been paying attention.

And I notice you never replied to my invitation point out how I was being hypocritical.

 

[ForumNamePending]

So reading the various threads it seems the three most common given reasons are as follows...

1) People can't afford to go right now - If this is a major contributing factor then I would think this is bad news regarding the Jets' long term viability in Winnipeg. Perhaps there just isn't enough collective wealth in Winnipeg to afford the luxury of a NHL franchise?

2) On ice performance - I dunno... This seems sorta weak. The Jets have been pretty meh, but they have managed to make the post season in 5 of the past 6 seasons (the plague interrupted year might deserve a asterisk) and won a playoff round as recently as two seasons ago. Calgary has only made the playoffs like 5 out of the past 15 seasons, but have usually finished top 10 in attendance. The Oilers played to like 99.9% capacity during their decade long playoff drought. Moving forward, if it's going to take a perennial Cup contender to sell the place out then I think that is bad news for Winnipeg.

3) Ownership/Management took high demand over the first ~decade for granted and grew complacent - If true, this is good news for Winnipeg as it's something the organization, with a bit of time and effort, should be able to fix.

As far as people kvetching about hypocrisy goes... What am I missing?... There are currently multiple active threads running Winnipeg through the ol'HFBoards gauntlet, with some people defending the market, and others questioning its ability to support a franchise... It all seems pretty typical.

 

[Smirnov2Chistov]

I'm surprised this isn't as discussed as fiercely as the Phoenix/Atlanta topics. I was really skeptical when WPG came back - still am with players reportedly not wanting to go there in press interviews. They may be hockey-crazy, but it takes more than just that

I will always have Atlanta's back, even when I've repeatedly tried to explain to specific individuals (particularly on my 'home' Ducks board) that it wasn't just due to on-ice/off-ice performances. (but they never want to engage in a discussion about it.. case closed). They should have been helped out much like PHX.

I wouldn't be surprised if a discussion came up about relocation. Hockey crazed doesn't always = a successful business investment!

 

[BKIslandersFan]

I'm not moving any goalposts or gaslighting you or telling you anything else. If you want to actually focus on my point, read the first half of my post (#479).

I'll make it easier for you: Americans are really gullible. If they get told something often enough, they believe it. Just look at Fox News for proof.

What is your point? That no one here ever said Canadian teams will always sell out no matter what?

Because you and I know thats not true.

So what is your point? And sure there are a lot of stupid people down here, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with Canadian nationalists being hypocrites.

 

[BMN]

The truth is that you can hold the opinions of messageboard warriors against an entire population if you'd like and get the worst impression of any fanbase if you did so.

There's no denying there's keyboard warriors that hold Canadian franchises to different standards than American franchises.

But there's also no denying there's keyboard warriors who pretend that only one side is "provincial" which is absurd. I've seen plenty of that on all sides.

I'm sure a quick deep dive search would find plenty of people saying "all Canadian teams sell out all the time" or other such ridiculous hyperbole. Flogging those fans, to me, is like flogging a strawman. And I'd take no pride in winning an argument with such dim people.

But also to rest one tired counterargument: I lived in Atlanta during most of the Thrashers' time, was p!$$#d at the NHL's indifference when they left and still think that market could make the league beaucoup bucks if done right. I like to think of myself as much more pro Atlanta than anti-Atlanta. But whenever someone points out Atlanta's attendance, and the natural Atlanta rebuttal comes "but Boston, Chicago, etc. had bad attendance for x, y, z years and we don't make fun of them because traditional," I cringe at how intellectually weak of an analogy that is.

Cities like that have whole decades of history of selling out the joint and in some cases, more than a century of history. It's not remotely an apples-to-apples comparison. As far as attendance for Atlanta goes, the best you can say for the Thrashers is: a--- They set an expansion attendance record which was broken by Vegas, b--- they were...an 'OK' attended team when doing well. The highest they were ever ranked in the league, despite having an arena capacity that would have capably supported being in the Top 10, was #11 (their first year). The best you can say for the Flames is: They never set the NHL on fire as an attendance firehouse but they were miles better than the NBA Hawks when taken cumulatively from 1972-80. And we have zero evidence they ever broke through on television (which is the biggest reason you would want a team in Atlanta in the first place).

So it's NOT true is pretend they were like Boston and Chicago at every market's peak. There's zero evidence to support that. It's NOT a strong counterargument to say "we give Boston, Chicago, etc." excuses. Those markets get excuses because they are very different markets historically (mostly for reasons that aren't Atlanta's "fault" per se but nevertheless are very different).

Now mind you, there's also zero way of knowing how Atlanta would have done if either the Flames had turned out like the Islanders competitively or if the Thrashers had turned out.........like any regular playoff team. Or if the Thrashers had ever had anything resembling competent ownership. That's the argument I keep trying to make whenever I wade into this: ANYONE PRETENDING TO KNOW WITH 100% CERTAINTY WHETHER ATLANTA CAN SUCCEED OR FAIL IS LYING. Because we don't have enough evidence to see that they could be the "talk of the town" (their best attended years were "mid" at best) and we also have next-to-no evidence of a properly run franchise in the city (...but their "best" years weren't all that "best" and in fact, if you draw a line from the first Flames season to the last Thrashers season, the ownership gets progressively worse).

Bringing it all back to Winnipeg, I think any fan that thought the Jets would sell out in perpetuity was lying to themselves. But saying it's not right that we "treat" Winnipeg differently? Well........we should treat Winnipeg differently! It's a very unique market. I wouldn't judge Atlanta by Winnipeg's standards or vice-versa. I think each market brings something very different to the NHL. FWIW, I feel the same about American markets like Columbus or Florida (Sunrise). In Winnipeg, what we judge differently is the market's interest in hockey. We know hockey is Winnipeg's #1 sport: The TV ratings in that market as compared to southern teams that struggle will bear that out. But does that mean that Winnipeggers have sufficient capital and passion to sustain mediocrity over an extended period of time? Who can say......not looking good in a small sample set this year, let's see how the next five years play out.

 

[Stumbledore]

What is your point? That no one here ever said Canadian teams will always sell out no matter what?

Because you and I know thats not true.

So what is your point? And sure there are a lot of stupid people down here, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with Canadian nationalists being hypocrites.

You keep asking what's my point. I have told you my point. I have repeated my point. I have told you a third time what the point was.

I have to believe at this stage that you're incapable of grasping my point. I'm sorry, but responding to you any further -- such as asking you to defend your accusation of hypocrisy -- seems "pointless".

 

[Stumbledore]

The truth is that you can hold the opinions of messageboard warriors against an entire population if you'd like and get the worst impression of any fanbase if you did so.

There's no denying there's keyboard warriors that hold Canadian franchises to different standards than American franchises.

But there's also no denying there's keyboard warriors who pretend that only one side is "provincial" which is absurd. I've seen plenty of that on all sides.

I'm sure a quick deep dive search would find plenty of people saying "all Canadian teams sell out all the time" or other such ridiculous hyperbole. Flogging those fans, to me, is like flogging a strawman. And I'd take no pride in winning an argument with such dim people.

But also to rest one tired counterargument: I lived in Atlanta during most of the Thrashers' time, was p!$$#d at the NHL's indifference when they left and still think that market could make the league beaucoup bucks if done right. I like to think of myself as much more pro Atlanta than anti-Atlanta. But whenever someone points out Atlanta's attendance, and the natural Atlanta rebuttal comes "but Boston, Chicago, etc. had bad attendance for x, y, z years and we don't make fun of them because traditional," I cringe at how intellectually weak of an analogy that is.

Cities like that have whole decades of history of selling out the joint and in some cases, more than a century of history. It's not remotely an apples-to-apples comparison. As far as attendance for Atlanta goes, the best you can say for the Thrashers is: a--- They set an expansion attendance record which was broken by Vegas, b--- they were...an 'OK' attended team when doing well. The highest they were ever ranked in the league, despite having an arena capacity that would have capably supported being in the Top 10, was #11 (their first year). The best you can say for the Flames is: They never set the NHL on fire as an attendance firehouse but they were miles better than the NBA Hawks when taken cumulatively from 1972-80. And we have zero evidence they ever broke through on television (which is the biggest reason you would want a team in Atlanta in the first place).

So it's NOT true is pretend they were like Boston and Chicago at every market's peak. There's zero evidence to support that. It's NOT a strong counterargument to say "we give Boston, Chicago, etc." excuses. Those markets get excuses because they are very different markets historically (mostly for reasons that aren't Atlanta's "fault" per se but nevertheless are very different).

Now mind you, there's also zero way of knowing how Atlanta would have done if either the Flames had turned out like the Islanders competitively or if the Thrashers had turned out.........like any regular playoff team. Or if the Thrashers had ever had anything resembling competent ownership. That's the argument I keep trying to make whenever I wade into this: ANYONE PRETENDING TO KNOW WITH 100% CERTAINTY WHETHER ATLANTA CAN SUCCEED OR FAIL IS LYING. Because we don't have enough evidence to see that they could be the "talk of the town" (their best attended years were "mid" at best) and we also have next-to-no evidence of a properly run franchise in the city (...but their "best" years weren't all that "best" and in fact, if you draw a line from the first Flames season to the last Thrashers season, the ownership gets progressively worse).

Bringing it all back to Winnipeg, I think any fan that thought the Jets would sell out in perpetuity was lying to themselves. But saying it's not right that we "treat" Winnipeg differently? Well........we should treat Winnipeg differently! It's a very unique market. I wouldn't judge Atlanta by Winnipeg's standards or vice-versa. I think each market brings something very different to the NHL. FWIW, I feel the same about American markets like Columbus or Florida (Sunrise). In Winnipeg, what we judge differently is the market's interest in hockey. We know hockey is Winnipeg's #1 sport: The TV ratings in that market as compared to southern teams that struggle will bear that out. But does that mean that Winnipeggers have sufficient capital and passion to sustain mediocrity over an extended period of time? Who can say......not looking good in a small sample set this year, let's see how the next five years play out.

Best post I've read all month.

 

[LadyStanley]

Clip from interview fully releasing Thursday.

Chipman not going to throw towel in and sell team.

 

[Salsero1]

The truth is that you can hold the opinions of messageboard warriors against an entire population if you'd like and get the worst impression of any fanbase if you did so.

There's no denying there's keyboard warriors that hold Canadian franchises to different standards than American franchises.

But there's also no denying there's keyboard warriors who pretend that only one side is "provincial" which is absurd. I've seen plenty of that on all sides.

I'm sure a quick deep dive search would find plenty of people saying "all Canadian teams sell out all the time" or other such ridiculous hyperbole. Flogging those fans, to me, is like flogging a strawman. And I'd take no pride in winning an argument with such dim people.

But also to rest one tired counterargument: I lived in Atlanta during most of the Thrashers' time, was p!$$#d at the NHL's indifference when they left and still think that market could make the league beaucoup bucks if done right. I like to think of myself as much more pro Atlanta than anti-Atlanta. But whenever someone points out Atlanta's attendance, and the natural Atlanta rebuttal comes "but Boston, Chicago, etc. had bad attendance for x, y, z years and we don't make fun of them because traditional," I cringe at how intellectually weak of an analogy that is.

Cities like that have whole decades of history of selling out the joint and in some cases, more than a century of history. It's not remotely an apples-to-apples comparison. As far as attendance for Atlanta goes, the best you can say for the Thrashers is: a--- They set an expansion attendance record which was broken by Vegas, b--- they were...an 'OK' attended team when doing well. The highest they were ever ranked in the league, despite having an arena capacity that would have capably supported being in the Top 10, was #11 (their first year). The best you can say for the Flames is: They never set the NHL on fire as an attendance firehouse but they were miles better than the NBA Hawks when taken cumulatively from 1972-80. And we have zero evidence they ever broke through on television (which is the biggest reason you would want a team in Atlanta in the first place).

So it's NOT true is pretend they were like Boston and Chicago at every market's peak. There's zero evidence to support that. It's NOT a strong counterargument to say "we give Boston, Chicago, etc." excuses. Those markets get excuses because they are very different markets historically (mostly for reasons that aren't Atlanta's "fault" per se but nevertheless are very different).

Now mind you, there's also zero way of knowing how Atlanta would have done if either the Flames had turned out like the Islanders competitively or if the Thrashers had turned out.........like any regular playoff team. Or if the Thrashers had ever had anything resembling competent ownership. That's the argument I keep trying to make whenever I wade into this: ANYONE PRETENDING TO KNOW WITH 100% CERTAINTY WHETHER ATLANTA CAN SUCCEED OR FAIL IS LYING. Because we don't have enough evidence to see that they could be the "talk of the town" (their best attended years were "mid" at best) and we also have next-to-no evidence of a properly run franchise in the city (...but their "best" years weren't all that "best" and in fact, if you draw a line from the first Flames season to the last Thrashers season, the ownership gets progressively worse).

Bringing it all back to Winnipeg, I think any fan that thought the Jets would sell out in perpetuity was lying to themselves. But saying it's not right that we "treat" Winnipeg differently? Well........we should treat Winnipeg differently! It's a very unique market. I wouldn't judge Atlanta by Winnipeg's standards or vice-versa. I think each market brings something very different to the NHL. FWIW, I feel the same about American markets like Columbus or Florida (Sunrise). In Winnipeg, what we judge differently is the market's interest in hockey. We know hockey is Winnipeg's #1 sport: The TV ratings in that market as compared to southern teams that struggle will bear that out. But does that mean that Winnipeggers have sufficient capital and passion to sustain mediocrity over an extended period of time? Who can say......not looking good in a small sample set this year, let's see how the next five years play out.

The crux of the frustration is that Atlanta 3.0 wouldn't need to be the "talk of the town" to be successful, yet Canadians keep acting like that is the measuring stick of whether a market is worthy. Franchises like Dallas, LA, Tampa, Carolina, etc (including the New Yorks) have such a large pool of customers (regular people and corporate) that you don't need to be the reason everyone gets out of bed in the morning like small town Canada to be perfectly fine. I don't think Atlanta 3.0 will eclipse the Falcons or Braves but they wouldn't need to.