1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Yet another argument for the NHL to move at least one team to Canuckistan

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by JR, May 30, 2008.

  1. PCLoadLetter

    PCLoadLetter Well-Known Member

    Please, JR, just once -- read what I'm actually writing. I'm not defending sunbelt expansion, much as you would prefer to argue about that.

    The Coyotes ticket prices are indeed very low. As were the Winnipeg prices - about $22 a ticket when they were drawing 12k -13k a game.

    You want to keep arguing that Phoenix is a bad market and not addressing my point -- Winnipeg is not an NHL market. You think their revenue was terrific in '94-'95, when they drew 13,000 a game at an average $22 a ticket? (And, of course, they may have flat-out lied and it was 9,000 a game.)

    Again, I think the smartest thing the NHL could do is eliminate at least 6 teams -- and yes, Phoenix is probably number one on the list of teams that should go. But don't play a shell game by moving a shitty franchise to Winnipeg just because it's in Canada, because that shitty franchise will be in KC or Vegas or Houston within 5 years.
     
  2. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    If we're going to argue about this, at least let's compare apple to apples.

    You can't compare NHL ticket prices in 2008 to NHL ticket prices 12 years ago.

    My point is, given the right ownership and new revenue streams provided by a new rink, Winnipeg could possibly be reborn as an NHL team--not one of the elite, but at least equal to probably half the teams operating now. Based on a set of circumstances from the 80's and 90's, you can't automatically deduce that Winnipeg is "not an NHL city"

    The point of Brunt's article was that Bettman was complicit in allowing franchises from places like Winnipeg & QC to move and then he expanded into places where the NHL didn't belong. Brunt's argument--using Winnipeg as an example--is that to relocate at least one team back to Canada would be a giant admission of fail on Bettman's part.

    This is why he fought so vigorously against Balsillie--the Commish had to save face.
     
  3. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Well-Known Member

    JR, you're wrong. Winnipeg is not an NHL city anymore and if it weren't for the WHA, Winnipeg would never have gotten into the NHL in the first place.
     
  4. PCLoadLetter

    PCLoadLetter Well-Known Member

    Here's apples to apples.

    A sampling of '94 - '95 ticket prices.

    Toronto - $35.68
    NY Rangers - $32.01
    NY Islanders - $40.20
    Pittsburgh - $40.37
    Los Angeles - $37.00
    Vancouver - $41.03
    Winnipeg - $22.35

    Exactly 2 teams had lower prices - Tampa Bay and Edmonton. And only 3 teams had worse attendance - Ottawa, Hartford and the Islanders. Of those three Hartford had the cheapest tickets -- $36, or $12 more per game than Winnipeg.

    If Brunt wants to make his argument he should not use Winnipeg as an example. Again, either he has no understanding of the Jets situation at the time or he's being dishonest. Winnipeg was a crashing failure. It had to go. Phoenix, as pathetic as it is, is better than Winnipeg.
     
  5. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    PC, what's your source for those prices?

    I find it hard to believe that the Islanders, Penguins, LA & Vancouver all had higher ticket prices than Toronto. I'm not saying it's not the case, I'm curious as to the source.

    My point about Winnipeg is that if the NHL under the Weasel wanted to keep the Jets, they would have found a way.

    Instead, 12 years alter, Gary fights tooth and nail to keep failures like Nashville and the pre-Crosby Penguins out of the hands of Balsillie who wanted to move them to Canada, Bettman's worse nightmare.

    I don't mind if you consider Winnipeg a failure but let's not talk about Kansas City or Las Vega being BETTER hockey cities.
     
  6. PCLoadLetter

    PCLoadLetter Well-Known Member

    I'm getting them here, where they are sourced from the Team Marketing Report:

    http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/NHL-Business/ticket-prices.htm

    And I'm not saying KC or Vegas would be better cities. I think teams would fail there too. But long-term, they aren't any worse than Winnipeg.
     
  7. Smasher_Sloan

    Smasher_Sloan Active Member

    <i>Please, JR, just once -- read what I'm actually writing.</i>

    Why would he start now? The fucker is irrational on this shit, which is now in it at least its third go-round.

    I wish the NHL would put a franchise in Winnipeg and three more in the Winnipeg suburbs (if there is such a thing) just to end these threads.
     
  8. Flash

    Flash Guest

    Likewise ... but I think six is a good number for Canada.

    We don't know what's going to happen to the economy and whether the dollar will always hold parity. Too many hypotheticals in the argument.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page