|
Post by mikecubs on Aug 26, 2011 4:21:36 GMT -6
mikecubs - I don't have a whole lot to add to this arguement except a quick reply to what you said here "If Bettman did do this as you say i still don't think its means he's anti Canada. Maybe he was anti Winnipeg since the population was so small. I could see him intentionally sabotaging a deal and not wanting it to work because at the time he thought the big population south was a gold mine and at the time" I guess my point is, it doesn't matter if Bettman was against Winnipeg because of some anti-Canadian bias due to sheer irrational hatred for the country (which I agree is probably not the case) or just because he felt that more money could be made by moving teams from small markets in the north to big markets in the south. The thing is, that's really enough for us to hate the guy. Even if it wasn't personal to him, it is personal to most Canadian (and Hartford) hockey fans. Not only did the guy think there was more money to be made down South (which we can now clearly see was wrong) but he was more than willing to throw us under the bus to get there. His true underlying reasons for this aren't really all that important. The guy is a douche in my opinion, and a terrible business man as you have already agreed with on top of it! Agreed 99.9%! But I would love someone here to find the video of Bettman talking about league revenues and when he said that the league made X amount of dollars in Canadian money and X amount in real money. Show me the love Gary, show me the love! Found it One more thought Canadian assistant fund that helped save the Oilers and the Flames was announced one week after we officially lost the Jets. Well we agree on something at least!! That was painful to watch. The guy interviewing him should have punched him. Gary couldn't talk about all the revenue from Canada or anything else really because as usual he had to awnser questions about which team is bankrupt or moving. That is a staple of any Gary Bettman interview. Seen one seen 90% of them. Your right about the Canadian assistance fund but if he had this anti Canada bias why not let Edmonton and Calgary go under too and move them to have even less teams?? He certain had the excuse too at the time. If you noticed the last part of the video he was talking about "righting wrongs" in Winnipeg and Quebec. I think even if he was against those 2 cities at that time he learned his lesson. If Phoenix does move i just can't see him picking a Houston over a new Quebec City arena. If he did not only would he be the dumbest commissioner of all time he'd be one of the stupidest human beings of all time.
|
|
GreatCanadian
2nd Line Winger
Jets fan from New Brunswick
Posts: 348
|
Post by GreatCanadian on Aug 26, 2011 5:47:16 GMT -6
Another outsider here,
If I recall, Bettman threw roadblock after roadblock.... and one of the big ones Bettman threw on that potential new ownership group was deciding at the last second that there were too many members in the group and that was against some obscure NHL bylaw.
Basically he was saying that an ownership group could only have XX number of people in it and that Winnipeg was past that........... which resulted (along with other roadblocks) to derail the whole thing.
I remember reading that somewhere.... maybe a Winnipegger can confirm or deny that? Anyone else heard that?
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Aug 26, 2011 6:04:24 GMT -6
Take a look here is some information on some of the things that were going on. www.curtiswalker.com/jets/mec.aspxIf memory serves me it was a 110 million dollar arena, each level of government was putting in 30mil private would pick up the rest. Would have to do some real archive digging to get the exact figures. The one thing I can tell you demolition to that proposed site would not have started, with ground work, if the money commitments were not there. Company's don't just do things like that just because they hope an arena was going to be built. Work or demolition was in progress then it was halted when the deal died. Was going to be a much nicer arena then we have today. Thanks for that link. Very interesting. I still have a lot of questions. I never knew you did actual demolition and clean up work. Thats just weird. Usually that never ever happens until the final arena deal is 100% approved. I never heard of any city doing that before until the whole thing was approved. That does show that someone was at least confident this was going to work. On your article i found this WHAT'S AHEAD ... The Manitoba Entertainment Complex is currently in the design and approvals stage and scheduled to begin construction in the summer of 1995. Construction is conditional upon obtaining all necessary funding commitments, the sale of the Winnipeg Jets to new private-sector owners, and obtaining all required government and regulatory approvalsWasn't the part that derailed it? No one wanted to own the team due other factors like no cap, small population and small growth at that time, the horrible dollar and horrible economy back then? Just curious what hoops were Bettman making the owners go through that you talked about?[/b][/i] Just curious what hoops were Bettman making the owners go through that you talked about?Those are questions guys like Mark Chipman, Ross Robinson would know about but now that they have a team again, that information won't resurface, would not be smart to air the dirty laundry. Ross Robinson was a very big player in putting the ownership group together, he has lots of neat stories. Wasn't the part that derailed it? No one wanted to own the team due other factors like no cap, small population and small growth at that time, the horrible dollar and horrible economy back then? Yes and no, the will and the funding was there then roadblocks and infighting started. Gary wanted out of Winnipeg and there was no way he was letting this succeed. If Phoenix had 25% of the support that Manitoba showed back then they would be a very secure team. The bottom line is that if Gary want the Jets to stay in Winnipeg back then it would have happened, everything was in place for it to happen, and most of all they had the support of the community and the province, something most US failing franchise don't have. I will leave it at Gary hated small markets with large fan support, and would rather take a chance with a large market with no fans and try to sell them on the game. Hences all of the big changes in the game in the last 15 years trying to appease non traditional markets. Funny the one things some of those markets really liked about the game and sparked there curiosity was fighting in the game, and Gary really did a number on that part of the game. (Hope he is now happy about the cheep hits and the head shots he created by taking the enforces out of the game to police that crap)
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Aug 26, 2011 6:16:42 GMT -6
Another outsider here, If I recall, Bettman threw roadblock after roadblock.... and one of the big ones Bettman threw on that potential new ownership group was deciding at the last second that there were too many members in the group and that was against some obscure NHL bylaw. Basically he was saying that an ownership group could only have XX number of people in it and that Winnipeg was past that........... which resulted (along with other roadblocks) to derail the whole thing. I remember reading that somewhere.... maybe a Winnipegger can confirm or deny that? Anyone else heard that? Again you are bang on thank God the Internet wasn't as prevalent as it is today, because lots of those facts and information would be out there for all to see, and some people would finally understand why some of us carry such bib chips on our shoulder's, and just because we got a new team now we should forget about the past? That's like saying that since David Milgaarde if free now so he should just forget about all those years in prison. The day Gary is repaced will be a good day for hockey.
|
|
|
Post by Douggy-D on Aug 26, 2011 12:04:03 GMT -6
Didn't Good ol' Gary also say that a potential owner for the Jets had to have a net worth of at least $600 Million? But he approved of Hulsizer and his net worth is half that.
|
|
|
Post by jetsorbust on Aug 26, 2011 12:07:37 GMT -6
Didn't Good ol' Gary also say that a potential owner for the Jets had to have a net worth of at least $600 Million? But he approved of Hulsizer and his net worth is half that. Yeah but in Buttman's defense, Hulsizer wasn't actually paying for the team ;D
|
|
|
Post by Douggy-D on Aug 26, 2011 12:18:21 GMT -6
^If a group in Winnipeg tried pulling what Hulsizer tried pulling and expected approval, Buttman would laugh at him/them.
|
|
GreatCanadian
2nd Line Winger
Jets fan from New Brunswick
Posts: 348
|
Post by GreatCanadian on Aug 26, 2011 12:22:45 GMT -6
Didn't Good ol' Gary also say that a potential owner for the Jets had to have a net worth of at least $600 Million? But he approved of Hulsizer and his net worth is half that. I think that was the other half of his biggest roadblock. Pretty sure he shot that down with 1) the number of members in the group and 2) the apparent lack of a "sugar daddy"
|
|
|
Post by enarwpg on Aug 26, 2011 17:04:48 GMT -6
Didn't Good ol' Gary also say that a potential owner for the Jets had to have a net worth of at least $600 Million? But he approved of Hulsizer and his net worth is half that. Guess when the league wants to keep a team in a city where the council is willing to throw close to $200 million to whomever steps up to "purchase" the team, it really doesn't matter whether the 5 or 6 owners have a total net worth of $600 million or $100 million because the crazy city council will just keep throwing more money at it.....
|
|
|
Post by jjmoohead on Aug 26, 2011 18:36:38 GMT -6
Exactly, aslong as Gongdale is willing to give the up the money, why would the NHL leave? I have to assume that this is the last year they will try though.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Aug 27, 2011 1:52:10 GMT -6
Thanks for that link. Very interesting. I still have a lot of questions. I never knew you did actual demolition and clean up work. Thats just weird. Usually that never ever happens until the final arena deal is 100% approved. I never heard of any city doing that before until the whole thing was approved. That does show that someone was at least confident this was going to work. On your article i found this WHAT'S AHEAD ... The Manitoba Entertainment Complex is currently in the design and approvals stage and scheduled to begin construction in the summer of 1995. Construction is conditional upon obtaining all necessary funding commitments, the sale of the Winnipeg Jets to new private-sector owners, and obtaining all required government and regulatory approvalsWasn't the part that derailed it? No one wanted to own the team due other factors like no cap, small population and small growth at that time, the horrible dollar and horrible economy back then? Just curious what hoops were Bettman making the owners go through that you talked about?[/b][/i] Just curious what hoops were Bettman making the owners go through that you talked about?Those are questions guys like Mark Chipman, Ross Robinson would know about but now that they have a team again, that information won't resurface, would not be smart to air the dirty laundry. Ross Robinson was a very big player in putting the ownership group together, he has lots of neat stories. Wasn't the part that derailed it? No one wanted to own the team due other factors like no cap, small population and small growth at that time, the horrible dollar and horrible economy back then? Yes and no, the will and the funding was there then roadblocks and infighting started. Gary wanted out of Winnipeg and there was no way he was letting this succeed. If Phoenix had 25% of the support that Manitoba showed back then they would be a very secure team. The bottom line is that if Gary want the Jets to stay in Winnipeg back then it would have happened, everything was in place for it to happen, and most of all they had the support of the community and the province, something most US failing franchise don't have. I will leave it at Gary hated small markets with large fan support, and would rather take a chance with a large market with no fans and try to sell them on the game. Hences all of the big changes in the game in the last 15 years trying to appease non traditional markets. Funny the one things some of those markets really liked about the game and sparked there curiosity was fighting in the game, and Gary really did a number on that part of the game. (Hope he is now happy about the cheep hits and the head shots he created by taking the enforces out of the game to police that crap)[/quote] Ok you convinced me. Bettman didn't want Winnipeg the 1st time. Thanks a lot for all the inside info on the failed arena attempt. I had never seen all that before on any ballpark/stadium sites or even jets owner. I still say it all worked out for the best.
|
|
|
Post by rainmanrh on Aug 27, 2011 6:27:04 GMT -6
Exactly, aslong as Gongdale is willing to give the up the money, why would the NHL leave? I have to assume that this is the last year they will try though. Never under estimate the stupidity of the COG council.
|
|
|
Post by swervinmervin on Aug 27, 2011 7:15:56 GMT -6
I'm sorry I didn't notice this very interesting discussion sooner. I'll be checking in on this page and this grouping often over the next year. I find this stuff really fascinating to follow. I am also hoping for more Canadian teams in the NHL, from a sentimental perspective, as a Canadian hockey fanatic.
I've had some interesting discussions about Gary Bettman with Tim and Jetsorbust on the old Jetsowner website. I won't rehash our good discussions here, except to say that I think there were some good comments by both sides. (I am open to accepting a redeemed Gary Bettman, but I recognize that he is not "converted" to the idea of success in Canada in the NHL - yet. Maybe Winnipeg will make an impact on his views on the NHL increasing its presence in Canada) . My brother (who doesn't contribute regularly on these boards) also reminded me of some of the things I had forgotten from that sad era (1995). In particular, it is a fact (not a rumour or spin) that Bettman actually added new constraints on the rules for the new ownership group WITHIN DAYS of the NHL's deadline for the new group to be NHL ready. As the new group (publicly) pointed out at that time, the new constraints imposed so late in the process really killed what they were working on. The new ownership group was really a fleet of ships with supply boats trailing along, not a battleship or aircraft carrier. On such short notice by Bettman, it just couldn't make the changes that Bettman required in such a short time.
Those are facts, but the underlying reality was that Bettman - who was new on the job - had an agenda to expand into new markets in the United States. We must also remember that it was the Canadian teams - especially the prairie teams - that were struggling with the business side of hockey at that time. So, what Bettman was doing seemed logical to him at the time.
The problem with Bettman's plans was that they ignored one important reality - as he put it himself on the return of the NHL to Winnipeg, the "intensity" of interest in hockey in a particular market.
To be fair (from a business analytical perspective) we ARE using hindsight now, when we look back on this. NOW, the decision to leave Winnipeg seems like a very foolish business move. And it WAS a very foolish business move by the NHL. But, from a 1995 perspective, many of the business aspects argued against Winnipeg, whereas now the business aspects are really mostly in favour of the NHL in Winnipeg, objectively. But at the time, there was no way to predict the degree of the relative economic changes in say, Winnipeg versus the areas of the U.S. that were hardest hit in the recent recession, including Arizona.
BUT, what hasn't changed, and what Canadians correctly forecasted (in 1995) would NOT change, was the "intensity" of interest in hockey in Canada versus the non-traditional hockey markets in the southern United States. The NHL's southern hockey strategy was based on a premise that interest in hockey by the south could be developed at a fast enough rate to (a) get good paid attendance, and (b) get lucrative television contracts at a national level in the United States, and perhaps even regional television in the south. The problem with this plan - ESPECIALLY FOR TELEVISION - is that the rate of increase in fan interest in the southern U.S. was (and is) nowhere near what it needed to be for this strategy to pay any MEANINGFUL dividends from television. Without large US national television revenues (or Southern US regional television revenues), the southern teams must rely on paid ticket revenues. Again, the rate of increase in paid ticket revenues was (and is) too low to pay the very high salary costs. Without a massive REDUCTION in salaries, the revenues produced cannot cover the expenses. Even if salaries were frozen at current levels, it would take many many years for the southern revenues to increase enough to cover the expenses. (For example, the new U.S. TV deal doesn't provide enough on a per-team basis to cover the existing shortfall in funding southern teams cost structure - and it is locked in for the next ten years - apparently without annual increases. That means that a large increase in paid ticket revenues is required to close the gap. While some franchises are making large enough progress on paid ticket revenues, most are not).
So, as many on ROTJ said, it doesn't matter how many people live in a large U.S. city, unless a high enough percentage of them will (a) watch hockey on television, and (b) pay HIGH ticket prices in large enough numbers to produce the required paid ticket revenues. (Oh, and BTW, parking revenues are a joke when you can't get people to pay $75 per ticket for 41 home games at 15,000 per game. And lack of paid ticket revenues and larger TV fan interest also calls into question the business case for corporate boxes, advertising etc. If the fan interest isn't there, are you going to reach your target market through that team and sport? No.
In short, and to state the obvious, the southern expansion strategy was based on a premise that the fan interest would increase fast enough to achieve a sufficient "intensity" level to make TV revenues lucrative, and to get people to pay **good money** to go to games. Unfortunately for the NHL's strategy, it just didn't happen. There MIGHT be one exception - maybe. There are signs that Nashville might be able to achieve sustainable gate revenues. But as a group of franchises in the south, it has NOT happened to a large enough extent. The intensity of fan interest is not high enough to make the business math work. Big markets, very low market share in terms of paid ticket revenues and (most importantly) TV viewing.
Without a big enough increase in fan interest in the southern US, the business strategy is doomed.
To a very, very large degree, this issue has nothing to do with the recession in the U.S. It costs nothing to turn on the TV and watch sports on the tube. But people are not tuning in. Period. (Reference the dismal stats on TV hockey viewing in Arizona, posted on the ROTJ boards).
To this, some may say, but what about TV revenues in Canada? How much does Winnipeg add? This is a valid debate. But the fact is, more people watch when there is "intensity" in a market. Sure, we're just over 1 million people in Manitoba. But we have already seen very strong anecdotal interest of interest in the Jets across Canada, and especially Western Canada. And with a very high viewership increase in Manitoba, with a smaller increase in the Canadian market (which, by the way is over THIRTY MILLION PEOPLE), you are more likely to get a significant increase in TV revenues from Winnipeg, than, say, Phoenix or Atlanta.
What we are now seeing is a rearguard action by the NHL, with respect to a southern strategy that is hanging by a thread. The problem for the NHL is that if the trickle of franchise movement turns into a flood, then the strategy is really lost - probably forever. So Bettman will shed the ones that are most likely to die anyway, but only after he has exhausted every possible means of saving them. We have already seen that the NHL will fight tooth and nail for those franchises. The ones that will be sacrificed first are the ones where there is no public will to keep them (that is why Glendale still has a team - their elected officials are (were?) on board to fight for the team to stay, with dollars). The NHL is clinging to a hope that a sufficiently large number of southern US NHL teams can survive for the next 10 years, and that the "intensity" of fan support will finally grow to a high enough percentage that it will cross into a new category of television viewership and paid attendance, that make the business strategy viable.
In the mean time, interest in hockey in Canada has grown as well - maybe even dramatically. My support for this comment is my perception that TV viewership of NHL hockey has had strong growth in Canada. The Jets coming back will likely have a strong positive impact on TV viewership, at least in the short run. But maybe even in the long run. Canadians like to watch 2 Canadian teams playing, and there is a potential for renewed prairie hockey rivalries, and strong TV viewership increases. Funny thing is, advertisers will pay good money for advertising when they know they are going to reach a particular market. The strong Canadian paid ticket revenues relative to the rest of the NHL has already been documented on this site. Winnipeg adds another strong revenue base to that list.
I haven't studied the numbers for Quebec City (** and the surrounding region **), but my impression is that it would be a similar story to Winnipeg. And Ontario is an insanely obvious choice, if they get permission to go there. They could put the team in Barrie and people would pay to go to the games and watch them on TV.
The potential for additional franchises in Canada is buttressed by the state of the economy and government finances in the United States. I enjoyed visiting friends in Olympia, Washington this summer. My friend is a senior manager in a company that publishes information and strategies for governments. His perspective is that US governments will be severely strapped for cash for many years to come. Even in places (like Seattle) where a hockey arena is on the radar screen, it will be priority number C-1,804,210, with a note saying "not this term". US governments are cutting spending, not increasing. Roads come before hockey arenas. And with the US economy still in doldrums (even outside of the south), potential owners are not running to buy teams, as we have seen in St. Louis and Dallas. If existing teams (with existing fan bases) can't attract potential buyers with dollars, the outlook for new locations can't be any better. For this reason, the odds of teams in places like KC are not much better than the rest. Without an existing arena, the odds are even lower. Other than roads and hospitals, things are not getting built in the US these days - definitely not arenas.
So, like it was for the return of the Jets, the troubled franchise watch continues. QC is next, as long as they get their stuff in order fast enough. But they absolutely need to do that, if they want the next team.
|
|
|
Post by swervinmervin on Aug 27, 2011 7:20:52 GMT -6
By the way - the problem with the grand experiment and the loss of the Jets for 16 years is that a whole generation of Winnipeggers missed out on local NHL hockey - and our beloved Jets. Tim and I have chatted about this. Our kids missed out on that. We are going to try to make up for lost time, now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2011 10:50:02 GMT -6
although I'm sure it was an interesting post, you lost me after the 1st paragraph...please feel pity for those reading via smart phone. "....in short...." you're kidding right?
|
|