Has the NHL Priced itself out of Winnipeg's Market?

rosencrentz wrote:The Stadium and the "Jets" arena should have been paid for by the public purse, because the public purse is the beneficiary of the taxes paid for by the $4,000,000 Bomber salary and the +$40,000,000 Jets payroll!
Or wait, our provincial government didn't pay for the Jets or the Jets arena, and we don't have that $40,000,000 salary being paid out to athletes! Pity!
I am sure glad we have that Asper Museum being built for +$300,000,000, plus that $22,000,000 per year in local salaries for the Museum.
Rumour has it the Aspers made a $100 donation for a McDonalds meal to Harper and his Cabinet for a free lunch! lol
Yea Aspers!! Thank you!!

I can not tell if you are serious or not.
And I can not remember what the salary cap was when the Jets left.
But today the cap is 57 million not 40 million.
And I think all of the Canadian teams are spending at the cap.
So most of them are having cap problems because of their over-paid players.
Unlike football, NHL players have to be paid their salaries even if they are not performing up to expectations.
Of all the Jet players who played in Winnipeg over the years how many still call Manitoba home?
(Besides Joe Daly).
That seems to mean most of the millions the Jet players made outside of the taxes paid and the day-to day living expenses was actually invested outside of Manitoba.
At least the Bomber salary cap is around 4.2 million.
It is easier for a Joe average fan like me to identify with the Bomber players because they are lunch bucket workers just like the fans.
By the way I was listening to a radio show out of Toronto last night.
One of the guests who used to be the general manager of Columbus Blue Jackets said it costs about $90 million ANNUALLY to run a team in the NHL now.
I am sure I am not the only Winnipeger who thinks the NHL has priced itself out of our market.

Outsider, You still need to at least appear to do some research. There are TWO elements to the cap. The maximum ($57 million) and the floor (or minimum, $41m).

The latest numbers I can find are for 2008: Montreal: $42,313,500; Ottawa: $49,997,370; Toronto: $46,445,180; Calgary: $50,934,900; Edmonton: $46,915,659; Vancouver: $45,710,000

The salary cap for 2008 was $56,700,000(US) with a floor of $40,700,000(US).

It would appear then that your "guess" that all of the Canadian teams are spending at the cap is dead wrong.

Then there is this bizarre notion you are advancing that players staying in the community they earned the money is somehow relevant. So, I'm gonna ask you to do a little homework. Of the current generation of NHL players how many live year round in the same city they played in after they retired.

I get that you don't support the NHL in Winnipeg. But how about you stop making sh1te up to support your position?

I don,t believe there was a cap when the Jets left , as far as I was told by Shenkrow. It was part of the problem

Was the cap not the result of the 2004 walkout?

Anywho, this thread is off topic. Let's post the anti-NHL-in-Winnipeg crap in the anti-NHL-in-Winnipeg thread.

Yes i do believe it was, The biggest deal breaker here was the control of the revenue stream (consessions) which enterprises would not give up.

grumpy old man wrote:Outsider, You still need to at least appear to do some research. There are TWO elements to the cap. The maximum ($57 million) and the floor (or minimum, $41m).

The latest numbers I can find are for 2008: Montreal: $42,313,500; Ottawa: $49,997,370; Toronto: $46,445,180; Calgary: $50,934,900; Edmonton: $46,915,659; Vancouver: $45,710,000

The salary cap for 2008 was $56,700,000(US) with a floor of $40,700,000(US).

It would appear then that your "guess" that all of the Canadian teams are spending at the cap is dead wrong.

Then there is this bizarre notion you are advancing that players staying in the community they earned the money is somehow relevant. So, I'm gonna ask you to do a little homework. Of the current generation of NHL players how many live year round in the same city they played in after they retired.

I get that you don't support the NHL in Winnipeg. But how about you stop making sh1te up to support your position?

Well Grumpy I don't have to make "sh1te" to support my position.
Please check out these 2 sites:

http://www.sportscity.com/NHL-Salaries/ (2009/2010 season)

http://proicehockey.about.com/od/learnthegame/a/nhl_salary_cap.htm

It appears some teams are actually over the cap.
If I understand the second site correctly they can get themselves back under the cap if they "buy out" or dump some players by the time training camp comes around.

Even the lowly Phoenix team which is rumored to lose about $20 million this season has a $53 million cap hit for the 2009 season. And this is while the league is covering their losses.

By the way the guys on the CBC "hot stove" last Saturday mentioned the cap will probably actually go up by $900,000 for the 2010/2011 season.
And this is while North American has not recovered from the recession yet.

And I really don't care about the generation of players who came after the NHL left Winnipeg. They did not take money out of the Winnipeg economy. I am only concerned about Winnipeg.

And in case you are wondering how $57 milllion in player salaries can actually equate to $90 million to actually run a club.
1. Travel, Hotels, Per Diem expenses. (I don't think they are staying at Super8.
2. Many (Most ?) teams use charter flights for travel. Heck even the Moose are chartering this year.
3. Scouting- Example: Ovechkin, the Sedin twins, etc played their junior hockey in Europe. Think how many people from different organizations scouted these guys in Europe before they were drafted. And don't forget scouting in N.A. There are a lot of junior leagues and college games in N.A. that are also being scouted all winter long.
4. Most if not all NHL clubs have their own AHL club to stock.
5. Coaches, trainers, doctors, equipment people, office staff, etc..
6. I would think insurance to cover all those salaries would be a big cost.
7 Isn't there is some sort of agreement between the NHL and other organizations to compensate the organization for every player who signs with an NHL club?
I think the one between the NHL and Sweden is about $200,000 per player.
8. ETC, ETC, ETC.

And I don't really care one way or the other about the NHL returning to Winnipeg.
But I do not want the Taxpayers putting one thin dime into bringing the NHL back OR bailing the club out if they get into financial troubles if they do return.

by george i think ive got it! all we need to do is woo leonard asper back to winnipeg. then "loan" him a few hundred million and hope he reaquires the canwest newspaper empire and somehow makes money which can be used to repay the taxpayer. this plan is so brilliant we should name the new nhl team the "winnipeg freebies".

Winnipeg is fast becoming a proctologist's dream.

Outsider wrote:Well Grumpy I don't have to make "sh1te" to support my position. Please check out these 2 sites:

http://www.sportscity.com/NHL-Salaries/(2009/2010 season)

http://proicehockey.about.com/od/learnthegame/a/nhl_salary_cap.htm

It appears some teams are actually over the cap.
If I understand the second site correctly they can get themselves back under the cap if they "buy out" or dump some players by the time training camp comes around.

How come every team has a different "CAP" on this website?
http://www.sportscity.com/NHL-Salaries/ Some as high as $65 million?

How has every single Canadian team increased their payroll by $10 - $20 million in one year?

As to the money players "took out of the economy" how much do you suppose they left in the economy while playing in Winnipeg. Gotta look at the big picture.

grumpy old man wrote:

Outsider wrote:Well Grumpy I don't have to make "sh1te" to support my position. Please check out these 2 sites:

http://www.sportscity.com/NHL-Salaries/(2009/2010 season)

http://proicehockey.about.com/od/learnthegame/a/nhl_salary_cap.htm

It appears some teams are actually over the cap.
If I understand the second site correctly they can get themselves back under the cap if they "buy out" or dump some players by the time training camp comes around.

How come every team has a different "CAP" on this website?
http://www.sportscity.com/NHL-Salaries/ Some as high as $65 million?

How has every single Canadian team increased their payroll by $10 - $20 million in one year?

As to the money players "took out of the economy" how much do you suppose they left in the economy while playing in Winnipeg. Gotta look at the big picture.

If a player is traded from team A to team B the player gets the whole salary listed. But his salary is proportionately split over each teams salary cap.
Some of these players get a large jump in salary when their new contract is negotiated.
Example: Howard is the starting goalie for Detroit gets 750 grand this year. He is a pretty good goaltender. His next contract will be for millions more.

The problem is when a player signs a new BIG contract with a no trade clause because he had a real big year and does not perform up to expectations. His team is now stuck with an underperforming player and his big salary against the cap.

I do look at how much money the player spends in the city while he is living here.
But how much is the player who is making $5 or $6 million a year going to spend while he is living here? If he is smart and most of them have smart financial advisers now, he will sock most of it away. And when he and his family move (trade or retirement), he takes his sock with him.

Why is it so important that players spend all their money in the city they play in? It's not good enough they pay taxes on their income? This is a red herring and it serves little purpose in the debate IMO.

Well, taking millions out of our local economy, which is what some are saying, is a very important consideration and should not be taken out of the equation.

JTF wrote:Well, taking millions out of our local economy, which is what some are saying, is a very important consideration and should not be taken out of the equation.

are we talking about photo radar companies again?

Outsider wrote:
And I don't really care one way or the other about the NHL returning to Winnipeg.
But I do not want the Taxpayers putting one thin dime into bringing the NHL back OR bailing the club out if they get into financial troubles if they do return.

I know I said it before.

JTF wrote:Well, taking millions out of our local economy, which is what some are saying, is a very important consideration and should not be taken out of the equation.

How so?

I am having trouble following the logic. When judging the merit of bringing an NHL team to Winnipeg we should consider how much they will spend in Winnipeg versus what they will spend elsewhere?

Ummmm, huh?

grumpy old man wrote:

JTF wrote:Well, taking millions out of our local economy, which is what some are saying, is a very important consideration and should not be taken out of the equation.

How so?

I am having trouble following the logic. When judging the merit of bringing an NHL team to Winnipeg we should consider how much they will spend in Winnipeg versus what they will spend elsewhere?

Ummmm, huh?

It doesn't matter whether the team spends the money on on scouting in Europe, Hotels and meals in the opposing city, renting a bus to get to the rink or just plain salaries.
The point is the NHL club has to make most (all ?) of their revenue in their home city to pay these expenses. This can come from ticket sales, advertising, TV, etc.
I just have a hard time believing Winnipeggers can support a NHL team at the current cost levels and economic climate on an ongoing basis without the taxpayers being forced to pitch in..

I get that. When the team arrives do make sure you let your elected representatives know that you won't have any taxpayer monies spent on the team.

Me? I'll wear my rose coloured glasses and enjoy watching NHL hockey in Winnipeg and think good thoughts about their success. I'll not whine about future negative events that have not happened and may never happen.

Differing approaches to life I guess.

It was reported this week by an economist that the Canadian dollar will remain near par for the next 5-10 years. Assuming that is true, this would be a huge boon to a team that will spend a large chunk of its expenses in US dollars.

A chart prepared by a poster on ssp...It shows significant population growth and projected growth based upon current growth rates.

This is significant as it demonstrates Winnipeg will support big money events, in droves, despite having to pay their mortgages. It also indicates Winnipeggers are attracted to events in the arena.

In 2008, the MTS Centre sold 385,427 tickets. These ticket sales included only non-sporting events and did not include hockey games. With the tickets sales the MTS Centre placed as the 19th busiest arena in the world. The arena sat as 11th busiest among facilities in North America, its highest ranking ever, and it remained in the 3rd spot in Canada, after the Bell Centre in Montreal (sixth worldwide) and the Air Canada Centre in Toronto (fifth worldwide).[5] For the year of 2009 it ranked as the 39th busiest arena in the world, and 26th busiest in North America.[6]

Hopefully many naysayers don't take too much offence to this. But anyone who bitches about NHL players not spending money in the local economy year round; what about the Bomber players? The vast majority are American, and we all know where their allegiences lie, in the US of course. They don't want to stay in Canada in the winter because it's too cold for them. It doesn't mean they completely ditch their team's city. It just means they have options; like retired Canadian citizens that decide to spend winters in the US. Will people b1tch about your local seniors with options to spend their days in warmer climats, too?
Sorry, but I've been drinking and the gf has been irritating me lately, but that will resolve itself as usual. Readin weak arguments about why Winnipeg can't support NHL hockey just adds fuel to the fire and why I am continually frustrated with my hometown.

EdWin wrote: Readin weak arguments about why Winnipeg can't support NHL hockey just adds fuel to the fire and why I am continually frustrated with my hometown.

Don't be frustrated with the whole city. Just be frustrated by the few pessimists who have a difficult time envisioning the good over the bad.

rosencrentz wrote:The Stadium and the "Jets" arena should have been paid for by the public purse, because the public purse is the beneficiary of the taxes paid for by the $4,000,000 Bomber salary and the +$40,000,000 Jets payroll!
Or wait, our provincial government didn't pay for the Jets or the Jets arena, and we don't have that $40,000,000 salary being paid out to athletes!

There is something twisted with this math. 50million salary paid to a handful of players is about $100 per adult winnipegger. This is not money added to economy - this is money that would be effectively withdrawn from the economy because winnipeggers would spend it otherwise on products and services that create real jobs that pay real taxes.

Unh, it's a rosen-post, rarely to be taken seriously...

grumpy old man wrote:This is significant as it demonstrates Winnipeg will support big money events, in droves, despite having to pay their mortgages. It also indicates Winnipeggers are attracted to events in the arena.

In 2008, the MTS Centre sold 385,427 tickets. These ticket sales included only non-sporting events and did not include hockey games. With the tickets sales the MTS Centre placed as the 19th busiest arena in the world. The arena sat as 11th busiest among facilities in North America, its highest ranking ever, and it remained in the 3rd spot in Canada, after the Bell Centre in Montreal (sixth worldwide) and the Air Canada Centre in Toronto (fifth worldwide).[5] For the year of 2009 it ranked as the 39th busiest arena in the world, and 26th busiest in North America.[6]

And your point is what that people will spend for the NHL where were they last time . Not at the game in enough numbers to work the finances . Yes concessions were a sore point but so was fanny's in the seats . Told to me by Mr Shenkarow himself , the salaries were going thru the roof , and if and with his agreement with Enterprises . It was not profitable to stay. Why do you think no one stepped up to buy them as it was tried .
The situation has changed I hope all are right but if the people do not go and sit at home to watch on TV then it will not work . Also remember there will be less dates for big concerts , working around schedules .