|
Post by Tim on Apr 21, 2014 8:35:52 GMT -6
... truth be told I wouldn't mind seeing every row losing a seat to make way for larger seats!?? I'm only 155lbs wet and I have know idea how folks over 200lbs or 6 foot and over even squeeze into their seats. Your right there bud! But this is Winnipeg and most people are satisfied with mediocre, and average is something we set the bar at.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on Apr 21, 2014 8:52:27 GMT -6
I think they should already be working on plans for MTSC's successor. This is Winnipeg so we know what that means; it probably won't happen for at least a generation, maybe two. It will have to happen sooner if TN begins to find that they can no longer raise the revenue necessary to run an NHL franchise. After they add these last few seats, what could they possibly have left in their bag of tricks to squeeze more out of this tiny facility? For now with the current CBA, tv money, revenue sharing, it looks like we're OK for the foreseeable future. JMO, MTSC is a good stop gap building that is merely sufficient from a fan experience perspective, but as a (still) very happy Jets STH I'm glad that they're investing in improvements to bring it to as high a standard as possible. Again Ric O. comes to the rescue with some sanity. We're small minded in this city. Somebody had a vision and we got the beautiful (despite some of the fixable leaking issues) IGF maybe the best stadium in Canada (maybe BC Place comes in second, lol). Somebody stated we don't need more than 15,000 or so seats. I didn't expect ownership of the Jets to say anything contrary to this especially when they wanted to bring a franchise to this city. Bad politics to state the facility was inadequate when you're bidding for a fanchise. But you can expect as the years progress they will be talking about new facilities. I think Edmonton is the best comparison. When they became the Edmonton Oilers of the NHL they increased the seating in the Coliseum (as it was then known) from roughly 15,500 to roughly 17,500 - that's the latter part of the 70's when their population was around 650,000. Our population is 745,000. They did renovations in 1994 for luxury boxes and in 2001. I don't buy it when people state this is enough for our size city. Just look back at Edmonton - 15,500 WHA days to 17,500 latter part of the 70's. And now look at the beautiful building they'll be building and their pop. is around 850,000 now. MTSC is a nice little stop gap and will take us for a short while but I would expect the ownership to be putting money aside and to be thinking and quietly planning about a stadium worthy of a city of 3/4 million people and a Manitoba population excited to have an NHL franchise back.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Apr 21, 2014 9:59:27 GMT -6
I think they should already be working on plans for MTSC's successor. This is Winnipeg so we know what that means; it probably won't happen for at least a generation, maybe two. It will have to happen sooner if TN begins to find that they can no longer raise the revenue necessary to run an NHL franchise. After they add these last few seats, what could they possibly have left in their bag of tricks to squeeze more out of this tiny facility? For now with the current CBA, tv money, revenue sharing, it looks like we're OK for the foreseeable future. JMO, MTSC is a good stop gap building that is merely sufficient from a fan experience perspective, but as a (still) very happy Jets STH I'm glad that they're investing in improvements to bring it to as high a standard as possible. Again Ric O. comes to the rescue with some sanity. We're small minded in this city. Somebody had a vision and we got the beautiful (despite some of the fixable leaking issues) IGF maybe the best stadium in Canada (maybe BC Place comes in second, lol). Somebody stated we don't need more than 15,000 or so seats. I didn't expect ownership of the Jets to say anything contrary to this especially when they wanted to bring a franchise to this city. Bad politics to state the facility was inadequate when you're bidding for a fanchise. But you can expect as the years progress they will be talking about new facilities. I think Edmonton is the best comparison. When they became the Edmonton Oilers of the NHL they increased the seating in the Coliseum (as it was then known) from roughly 15,500 to roughly 17,500 - that's the latter part of the 70's when their population was around 650,000. Our population is 745,000. They did renovations in 1994 for luxury boxes and in 2001. I don't buy it when people state this is enough for our size city. Just look back at Edmonton - 15,500 WHA days to 17,500 latter part of the 70's. And now look at the beautiful building they'll be building and their pop. is around 850,000 now. MTSC is a nice little stop gap and will take us for a short while but I would expect the ownership to be putting money aside and to be thinking and quietly planning about a stadium worthy of a city of 3/4 million people and a Manitoba population excited to have an NHL franchise back. We wish that it was only some "fixable leaking issues".
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Apr 22, 2014 9:40:21 GMT -6
... truth be told I wouldn't mind seeing every row losing a seat to make way for larger seats!?? I'm only 155lbs wet and I have know idea how folks over 200lbs or 6 foot and over even squeeze into their seats. 1. Aisle seating. 2. Ensure wife is in next seat so arm rest comfortably on her shoulder. m.
|
|
Steve
3rd Line Checker
Posts: 290
|
Post by Steve on Apr 26, 2014 21:12:30 GMT -6
I would so like to agree but you need to consider the economies. Edmonton is known for oil money. Winnipeg is known for what, exactly? Pretty much being a cheap, discount city. A budget-conscious, coupon-clipping society. Edmontonians have way more surplus money for things like hockey.
Then there's the demand factor. Look what happened when TNSE made SeatExchange exclusive to the Wait List. That experiment didn't last very long because suddenly some of the seats weren't getting picked up. If a couple thousand additional seats were suddenly to become available either in a new facility or MTSC, say goodbye to the rabid, pent-up demand. And those additional seats would probably be the lowest priced ones which wouldn't add much, relatively speaking, to TNSE's coffers.
Bottom line: you can't compare Winnipeg to Edmonton without concluding that there's way more entertainment money to be spent in Edmonton. NHL prices have skyrocketed since the late 70s which makes such a comparison even less useful. And the reason the Jets are successful is because of the pent-up demand. As much as I didn't like it initially, I have to admit that the limited capacity of MTSC is key to the Jets' success because it lets them charge higher prices across the board due to demand.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on Apr 27, 2014 7:44:14 GMT -6
lenny Avatar Apr 21, 2014 9:52:27 GMT -5 lenny said: I think Edmonton is the best comparison. When they became the Edmonton Oilers of the NHL they increased the seating in the Coliseum (as it was then known) from roughly 15,500 to roughly 17,500 - that's the latter part of the 70's when their population was around 650,000. Our population is 745,000. They did renovations in 1994 for luxury boxes and in 2001. I don't buy it when people state this is enough for our size city. Just look back at Edmonton - 15,500 WHA days to 17,500 latter part of the 70's. And now look at the beautiful building they'll be building and their pop. is around 850,000 now. MTSC is a nice little stop gap and will take us for a short while but I would expect the ownership to be putting money aside and to be thinking and quietly planning about a stadium worthy of a city of 3/4 million people and a Manitoba population excited to have an NHL franchise back. I would so like to agree but you need to consider the economies. Edmonton is known for oil money. Winnipeg is known for what, exactly? Pretty much being a cheap, discount city. A budget-conscious, coupon-clipping society. Edmontonians have way more surplus money for things like hockey. Then there's the demand factor. Look what happened when TNSE made SeatExchange exclusive to the Wait List. That experiment didn't last very long because suddenly some of the seats weren't getting picked up. If a couple thousand additional seats were suddenly to become available either in a new facility or MTSC, say goodbye to the rabid, pent-up demand. And those additional seats would probably be the lowest priced ones which wouldn't add much, relatively speaking, to TNSE's coffers. Bottom line: you can't compare Winnipeg to Edmonton without concluding that there's way more entertainment money to be spent in Edmonton. NHL prices have skyrocketed since the late 70s which makes such a comparison even less useful. And the reason the Jets are successful is because of the pent-up demand. As much as I didn't like it initially, I have to admit that the limited capacity of MTSC is key to the Jets' success because it lets them charge higher prices across the board due to demand. Problem with your comparison is that the oil revenues really didn't start flowing until the early eighties. The Coliseum expanded by 2000 seats when they joined in the latter part of the seventies. Further, Edmonton is a blue collar town unlike Calgary. It is very much like Winnipeg. And we do have natural resource revenues - hydro power. Columbus another example. Hotbed of hockey? Don't think so. Another one of Bettman's make work projects. Pop. of city is about 50,000 more. So what? We're a hotbet of hockey, which pop. increased by 90,000 or so since the Jets were last here. What is the size of the Columbus arena? That's right, 18,500. Do you think the US economy and particularly Columbus/Ohio is ripping with oil revenue? Not at all. So I don't buy the small minded we can't do it nonsense that floats around here masquerading as a cheap humble mentality.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Apr 27, 2014 12:12:19 GMT -6
^^^The city stat is 100% meaningless. It's just arbitrary boarders drawn up by politicians. For example Austin and Jacksonville come out bigger than San Francisco, Memphis comes out bigger than Boston, Seattle and Denver. El Paso comes out bigger than Washington. Metro is better, combined statistical area is best. Columbus is 1.9M in the metro area, 2.3M in the combined statistical area. Columbus also has 15 fortune 1000 companies which puts them tied for 14th in the United States. Edmonton is 1.159 million in the metro area as of 2011. Winnipeg was 730,000. Edmonton is also growing more than twice the rate of Winnipeg. I do agree however Winnipeg would be much better off with a 17,000 seat arena.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on Apr 27, 2014 14:29:57 GMT -6
^Metro areas in the US don't translate to hockey fans and why they have big arenas. If that was the case Atlanta would have been a huge sustainable market. The same goes for 10 US franchise NHL teams which are losing money. Everyone is in a bigger market than Winnipeg. Want to know who lost the most money last year? Minnesota Wild. Minneapolis/St. Paul population - 3.2 million. It's all about hockey fans. So 740,000 pop in Winnipeg easily translates to a bigger arena not only because of the sufficient resource of population but the fact this is a hockey crazed market. My only comparisons with Edmonton is that we share a common characteristic - hockey crazed fans. We share much more in common to Edmonton than anywhere else.
|
|
|
Post by cheswick on Apr 27, 2014 21:38:41 GMT -6
^Metro areas in the US don't translate to hockey fans and why they have big arenas. If that was the case Atlanta would have been a huge sustainable market. The same goes for 10 US franchise NHL teams which are losing money. Everyone is in a bigger market than Winnipeg. Want to know who lost the most money last year? Minnesota Wild. Minneapolis/St. Paul population - 3.2 million. It's all about hockey fans. So 740,000 pop in Winnipeg easily translates to a bigger arena not only because of the sufficient resource of population but the fact this is a hockey crazed market. My only comparisons with Edmonton is that we share a common characteristic - hockey crazed fans. We share much more in common to Edmonton than anywhere else. Even if Edmonton is the best comparison in terms of corporate structure and sporting interest of the populace, Edmonton is 60% larger than Winnipeg. So to have as many seats per person as the MTS center has for Winnipeg currently it would equate to a 24000 seat arena. Comparatively to population size the MTS center is larger than the new Edmonton rink.
|
|
|
Post by chemicalxv on Apr 27, 2014 21:46:34 GMT -6
Wait are there people actually trying to argue we don't need a bigger arena with BIGGER seats?
|
|
|
Post by chemicalxv on Apr 27, 2014 21:49:48 GMT -6
I would so like to agree but you need to consider the economies. Edmonton is known for oil money. Winnipeg is known for what, exactly? Pretty much being a cheap, discount city. A budget-conscious, coupon-clipping society. Edmontonians have way more surplus money for things like hockey. Then there's the demand factor. Look what happened when TNSE made SeatExchange exclusive to the Wait List. That experiment didn't last very long because suddenly some of the seats weren't getting picked up. If a couple thousand additional seats were suddenly to become available either in a new facility or MTSC, say goodbye to the rabid, pent-up demand. And those additional seats would probably be the lowest priced ones which wouldn't add much, relatively speaking, to TNSE's coffers. Bottom line: you can't compare Winnipeg to Edmonton without concluding that there's way more entertainment money to be spent in Edmonton. NHL prices have skyrocketed since the late 70s which makes such a comparison even less useful. And the reason the Jets are successful is because of the pent-up demand. As much as I didn't like it initially, I have to admit that the limited capacity of MTSC is key to the Jets' success because it lets them charge higher prices across the board due to demand. Yes increasing the capacity for Jets' games by 2000 seats means "say goodbye to the rabid, pent-up demand". 2000 people isn't even 0.3% of the metro population of Winnipeg, and the catchment area is obviously far larger than that. You clear 2000 people off your Season Ticket wait-list and then it just gets filled again.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Apr 27, 2014 23:19:24 GMT -6
^Metro areas in the US don't translate to hockey fans and why they have big arenas. If that was the case Atlanta would have been a huge sustainable market. The same goes for 10 US franchise NHL teams which are losing money. Everyone is in a bigger market than Winnipeg. Want to know who lost the most money last year? Minnesota Wild. Minneapolis/St. Paul population - 3.2 million. It's all about hockey fans. So 740,000 pop in Winnipeg easily translates to a bigger arena not only because of the sufficient resource of population but the fact this is a hockey crazed market. My only comparisons with Edmonton is that we share a common characteristic - hockey crazed fans. We share much more in common to Edmonton than anywhere else. You make good points. I agree with most of this. I was just saying don't use the city stat. Canada kicks @ss because hockey is a religion in Canada and they have more fans per capita(see NHL Winnipeg's fan chart on the business board info section) compare to the US. Wild are a poor example to use however because last season was a lockout and they agreed to pay the 2 free agents to lump sum signing bonuses for that season. With the lack of games due to the lockout you get the abnormality of a massive loss. The Wild have PLENTY of fans. You should have stuck with the Atlanta example and threw in other big(ish) places like Florida(5.8M), Phoenix(almost 4.4M) etc... But overall your right. Edmonton is somewhat comparable because it's Canadian vs. Canadian but still there is a 400,000ish gap between the 2 cites and Edmonton has runaway population growth so the comparison is not perfect. When you use the city stat it makes the cities seem almost even and they are NOT. You also need to look at per capita income between Edmonton and Winnipeg. I'm certain Edmonton is much higher. Edmonton's new arena is going to seat 18,641. Given the gap in both growth rate and actual population it's fair to say Edmonton should have a bigger arena. However I don't think the gap should be 3,637. I think for Winnipeg given all the fans/intensity of the market 17,000 would have been perfect. But it is what it is. It's not the end of the world there are 2,000 "cheap" seats missing. There was no guarantee Winnipeg was ever going to get a team. MTS is a bottom rung MODERN NHL facility BUT it does get the job done and we should never loose site of that and be thankful for that.
|
|
|
Post by chemicalxv on Apr 28, 2014 0:33:32 GMT -6
It doesn't even need to be seats.
I swear I will not shut up about standing room tickets until they get them, somehow.
|
|
|
Post by jetsv2 on Apr 28, 2014 0:54:56 GMT -6
It doesn't even need to be seats. I swear I will not shut up about standing room tickets until they get them, somehow. Have you been inside the MTS centre, where exactly would you suggest they put standing room only seats. There is literally no place they could put them without removing seats or having people standing in the aisles which would never be allowed because of the safety hazard it would create. There is nowhere in the upper bowl where you could put standing room only seats, and that is where standing room only tickets are usually located.
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Apr 28, 2014 10:38:50 GMT -6
Wait are there people actually trying to argue we don't need a bigger arena with BIGGER seats? I am. We don't need a bigger arena with bigger seats. But it sure as hell would be high on the list of 'wants' - at least the 'bigger seats' part. Capacity wise I'm good with 15000. Don't be fooled by the 'pent up demand' argument. There were a lot of non-prime tickets going unsold on Seat Exchange once the Jets were out of the playoffs. Exhibition games? Fuhgeddabout it. Those tickets sold like coldcakes on a Sunday night. Single tickets on Ticketmaster for weeknight games against unpopular teams like Florida and Carolina? Easily available. The new team smell is off this bunch and increasing supply isn't needed. m.
|
|