Rate Winnipegs New Investors Group Field Stadium

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by hexrae

Section S at Canad Inns is hardly end zone seating at IGF. I think I paid around $12 a seat in '07 and upwards of $19 a seat in the last season in the North End Zone.

I don't have the Canad Inns pricing available, but if you wanted equivalent Section S seats today it'd cost you $84 loonies.

Absolutely but that is the giant fault of the stupid stadium layout. My biggest issue with it. My crap end zone seats are waaaaay worse than my old 10 yard line S seats. But there are so few lower bowl between the goal line seats now that the equivalent price tier (not cost but comparative tier) is in bad locations like the end zone or upper deck. There used to be 20,000 seats lower tier between the goal lines. Now there might be 10,000 at most. A ten yard line seat used to be a bad seat. Today it is one of the prime high cost seats. The people who now sit on the ten used to sit on the forty.

You can't compare ticket prices by location because the locations don't exist in the new stadium. You have to compare price tier. A P4 seat or whatever a section S was is now upper deck or end zone seat.

The bowl was a dumb idea. Good for atmosphere. Bad for site lines.

[hexrae]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Absolutely but that is the giant fault of the stupid stadium layout. My biggest issue with it. My crap end zone seats are waaaaay worse than my old 10 yard line S seats. But there are so few lower bowl between the goal line seats now that the equivalent price tier (not cost but comparative tier) is in bad locations like the end zone or upper deck. There used to be 20,000 seats lower tier between the goal lines. Now there might be 10,000 at most. A ten yard line seat used to be a bad seat. Today it is one of the prime high cost seats. The people who now sit on the ten used to sit on the forty.

The bowl was a dumb idea. Good for atmosphere. Bad for site lines.

Your argument notwithstanding, the original point of my response regarding seat prices having doubled for equivalent seats, in the absence of a Canad Inns seat chart, remains proven. North End Zone seating (aka IGF Seating) has doubled and Section S equivalent seating has doubled. In price, quantity remains to be seen, this appears true.

[esquire]

For a guy who once made a very eloquent case about why the NHL would thrive in Winnipeg, you seem uncharacteristically bearish on the Bombers, TV.

The Bombers have a lot of revenue streams open to them now that they didn't have in the old place, not the least of which is a sold-out complement of luxury skyboxes, and a sold-out complement of club seats at some of the highest ticket prices in the league. Factor in signage, naming rights, higher ticket prices overall, dramatically increased food and beverage sales, higher merchandise sales (used to be nearly impossible to find a Bomber jersey for sale, now half the crowd is wearing them at $200 a pop), higher league TV revenues, and suddenly the picture doesn't seem so dire.

Whether you love it or hate it, the reality is that the Bombers have a long time to pay the stadium off and as long as the league remains in operation I don't see the taxpayers having to step in to pay it off. But frankly, even if they did I don't think I'd be terribly concerned about it... when you consider that True North will be getting about $11 million a year from the province just for operations (which is on top of the contributions made when the MTS Centre was built), a capital investment in a long-term community asset like a stadium just doesn't seem so bad.

As for the seating layout, I think it's great. The fan atmosphere is markedly better than in the old place, and I think part of that can be chalked up to the fact that it's closed in without having the yawning gaps at either end of the field. The "number of seats between the goal lines" count definitely isn't everything... in my view there is no practical difference between the upper deck corner seats (which line up with the end zone) and the old upper deck seats on the 15 yard line. If anything the upper deck corner seats are better in the new place because they are so much lower than the old ones were.

The only problem as far as I'm concerned is the terrible management of the Bombers' football operations. Continued ineptitude on that front will drive the fans away and hurt team revenues. But apart from that I think the Bombers have done well with this project.

[bomberjet]

All very good points. One thing I don't see continuing is the free ride to the stadium. I would have no problem paying for my bus ride from KP to the stadium and back. Be it regular bus fare, $5, $10. I would think they'd need to keep the cost below that of the $20/game parking fee to encourage the use of public transit. But as TV mentioned, I don't see that as being sustainable. Once the Transitway gets there, charge regular bus fare. Don't give it out for free.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Agreed. Commonwealth is way more beautiful.

This is because I worked on it.

[rypinion]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

All very good points. One thing I don't see continuing is the free ride to the stadium. I would have no problem paying for my bus ride from KP to the stadium and back. Be it regular bus fare, $5, $10. I would think they'd need to keep the cost below that of the $20/game parking fee to encourage the use of public transit. But as TV mentioned, I don't see that as being sustainable. Once the Transitway gets there, charge regular bus fare. Don't give it out for free.

If they continue to give it out for "free", then it'll just get rolled into the ticket price. Also, I've heard a large portion of MPI's sponsorship goes specifically to the transit - probably makes sense for them since it surely reduces claims on game nights.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Agreed. Commonwealth is way more beautiful.

I just don't see it.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by hexrae

Your argument notwithstanding, the original point of my response regarding seat prices having doubled for equivalent seats, in the absence of a Canad Inns seat chart, remains proven. North End Zone seating (aka IGF Seating) has doubled and Section S equivalent seating has doubled. In price, quantity remains to be seen, this appears true.

except that if you are going by numbers (overall revenue) my argument does matter....its not about location, its about pricing levels, no matter where they sit...a P3 seat is not in the same location as it was before, so you cant compare between locations....they had a certain number of people paying P1 price last year....are those same people, wherever their P1 seats are this year paying double?...that's the question that needs to be answered...it has nothing to do with location.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

I just don't see it.

you are seduced by the wiggly roof.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by rypinion

If they continue to give it out for "free", then it'll just get rolled into the ticket price. Also, I've heard a large portion of MPI's sponsorship goes specifically to the transit - probably makes sense for them since it surely reduces claims on game nights.

Either way, I'm willing to pay for it. I also heard recently about the sponsorship stuff. MPI, Liquor and Lotteries, Hydro. Would those sponsorship dollars, specifically MPI like you mentioned, still be coming in if transit wasn't free? Or are they contingent on the transit thing?

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by esquire

For a guy who once made a very eloquent case about why the NHL would thrive in Winnipeg, you seem uncharacteristically bearish on the Bombers, TV.

The Bombers have a lot of revenue streams open to them now that they didn't have in the old place, not the least of which is a sold-out complement of luxury skyboxes, and a sold-out complement of club seats at some of the highest ticket prices in the league. Factor in signage, naming rights, higher ticket prices overall, dramatically increased food and beverage sales, higher merchandise sales (used to be nearly impossible to find a Bomber jersey for sale, now half the crowd is wearing them at $200 a pop), higher league TV revenues, and suddenly the picture doesn't seem so dire.

Whether you love it or hate it, the reality is that the Bombers have a long time to pay the stadium off and as long as the league remains in operation I don't see the taxpayers having to step in to pay it off. But frankly, even if they did I don't think I'd be terribly concerned about it... when you consider that True North will be getting about $11 million a year from the province just for operations (which is on top of the contributions made when the MTS Centre was built), a capital investment in a long-term community asset like a stadium just doesn't seem so bad.

As for the seating layout, I think it's great. The fan atmosphere is markedly better than in the old place, and I think part of that can be chalked up to the fact that it's closed in without having the yawning gaps at either end of the field. The "number of seats between the goal lines" count definitely isn't everything... in my view there is no practical difference between the upper deck corner seats (which line up with the end zone) and the old upper deck seats on the 15 yard line. If anything the upper deck corner seats are better in the new place because they are so much lower than the old ones were.

The only problem as far as I'm concerned is the terrible management of the Bombers' football operations. Continued ineptitude on that front will drive the fans away and hurt team revenues. But apart from that I think the Bombers have done well with this project.

people who used to sit in crap seats think the seating layout is great, I find.....

for me that atmosphere is significantly worse than it was in the old stadium.....the site lines are far worse for at least 1/3 of the stadium....again, you cant compare to direct location....yes the upper deck seats are lower than they were but for half the people in the upper deck, they used to sit in the lower tier....if you compare upper deck to upper deck, I agree with you, but if you compare where most people used to sit to where they do now in comparable pricing levels, their seats are almost always worse.

I look at the new stadium in Hamilton and see a good compromise...they have the concourse in the end zones allowing fans to stand and watch as we have but their seats are between the goal lines where they should be....it provides the enclosed atmosphere without forcing 1/3 of the people to sit in the end zones like our does......put a wiggly roof on it and I think their scheme is far superior....obviously theirs is cheap as shit but the layout is better for fan experience in a small stadium....a concourse that doesn't intersect traffic patterns and a small amount of end zone seats....perfect.


I also do not see the increased revenue long term being enough to cover a $140m loan.....this is a team that lauds annual profits of half a million dollars....I would bet anything that we will eventually see them begging for hand outs....whether you think that acceptable or not, it was not what was sold to us by asper or the bombers.

I agree that people should pay for the bus...that makes no sense whatsoever.

the bombers are not the jets....

[esquire]

Originally Posted by trueviking

I also do not see the increased revenue long term being enough to cover a $140m loan.....this is a team that lauds annual profits of half a million dollars....I would bet anything that we will eventually see them begging for hand outs....whether you think that acceptable or not, it was not what was sold to us by asper or the bombers.

I agree that people should pay for the bus...that makes no sense whatsoever.

the bombers are not the jets....

An annual profit of a million dollars still puts the Bombers ahead of roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of the teams in the NHL in any given season. (For context, the Bombers averaged about $16M in revenue over the past couple seasons, and that figure is expected to increase significantly with the new building.)

Bombers are on the hook for repaying $95M... the rest will be paid by tax revenues on the old stadium site. With their increased revenues, I don't see why the Bombers couldn't pay that off over the course of a few decades. And besides, if they run into trouble, the province could extend the same special VLT deal they've given True North and the loan could be repaid in 10 years.

I just don't see the doom and gloom here. Reading some of these arguments is a bit like listening to someone from Edmonton circa 2009 talking about why the MTS Centre is too small and how the NHL will never fly in Winnipeg.

[trueviking]

should be noted, i'm not bearish on the bombers....I've been a season ticket holder for years...I am bearish on their plan to take on $140m in debt as a long term viable solution for a team with a $4m salary cap....the bombers are not the jets....I am concerned that the location will hurt them once the new car smell wears off, or when the weather turns....I am concerned that all these increased revenue streams will not be enough....this is a small time operation taking on a big time debt.

....and my game experience is not as good as it used to be and that pisses me off.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by esquire

An annual profit of a million dollars still puts the Bombers ahead of roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of the teams in the NHL in any given season.

Bombers are on the hook for repaying $95M... the rest will be paid by tax revenues on the old stadium site. With their increased revenues, I don't see why the Bombers couldn't pay that off over the course of a few decades. And besides, if they run into trouble, the province could extend the same special VLT deal they've given True North and the loan could be repaid in 10 years.

I just don't see the doom and gloom here. Reading some of these arguments is a bit like listening to someone from Edmonton circa 2009 talking about why the MTS Centre is too small and how the NHL will never fly in Winnipeg.

the jets wouldn't fly without the government...I guess if we are ok with having the government pay $240m for a stadium, then you are right....there is no argument ever if the solution is, we will just have the government bail us out if the idea is bad....they are on the hook for $5m a year in payment...and that is before the cost overruns are factored in....not sure where that will land....this is a team with total ticket revenues of $6m per year....taking on more debt than the most NHL teams would handle....last year revenues were $16m (jets are over $100m)....their debt service now is more than 1/3 of their overall revenues from last year....I hope these new sources are significant.

I worked with the bombers on their feasibility study.,...these are not shrewd business minds running this thing, trust me....they are not chipman an Thomson.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by esquire

The Bombers have a lot of revenue streams open to them now that they didn't have in the old place, not the least of which is a sold-out complement of luxury skyboxes, and a sold-out complement of club seats at some of the highest ticket prices in the league. Factor in signage, naming rights, higher ticket prices overall, dramatically increased food and beverage sales, higher merchandise sales (used to be nearly impossible to find a Bomber jersey for sale, now half the crowd is wearing them at $200 a pop), higher league TV revenues, and suddenly the picture doesn't seem so dire.

The higher ticket prices is a neutral item at best. With the poor performance on the field it hass been all too common to hear people say they have season tickets but they aren't going to the games. This means that those tickets are being resold or given away to people that otherwise might be purchasing single game walk up tickets.

I also question if food and beverage sales are truly going to be higher. Yes, the bottom line might be a little higher as the price of the items increases but it seems doubtful the average fan is suddenly going to go from four beers and a burger to say six beers and two burgers. Further, concession sales are going to start taking a hit, if they haven't already, from the poor performance on the field due to fewer fans cmoing at all and those that do leaving early.

Merchandise sales I think are down from two seasons back, aka the height of Swaggerville. The number of jerseys seems fairly consistent to me as a lot of people have always had them. The old store even had premade ones on the racks so it wasn't difficult to get at all. I would not be surprised to learn that merchandise sales are directly propotional to the success of the team on the field. If they want merchandise to boom again we need a winning team and a slogan to go with it.

[bomberjet]

It sucks that the team is in such disarray at what should be a shining moment. If this new stadium was built at the time of Swaggerville, all the games would be sold out, the team would be winning (somewhat) and the cash would be rolling in. I for one, have not purchased one of the new jerseys as of yet. Probably will just go for a blank one, since who knows who will be around at seasons end. I like to have numbers and names, but plain blue is good too.

[esquire]

Bottom line is that both the Bombers and Jets get favourable treatment from the province... without it, the Bombers would not have a new facility and the Jets might not be here period. Why are provincial contributions OK in one case but not the other? If anything, you would think the Jets, with revenues of $100M, wouldn't need the $11M of VLT money which essentially pays the salaries of Jokinen, Ladd and Frolik.

If we're going to say that nobody should receive provincial loans or grants then fine, but let's make that apply to everyone. It's a bit much to point a finger at the Bombers for getting a loan from the province to pay for a capital expenditure that will last 40 years when the Jets get an outright gift of > $10M every year for nothing more than operating costs.

[rypinion]

Originally Posted by CoryB

The higher ticket prices is a neutral item at best. With the poor performance on the field it hass been all too common to hear people say they have season tickets but they aren't going to the games. This means that those tickets are being resold or given away to people that otherwise might be purchasing single game walk up tickets.

Except we've had great sized crowds so far: 33,500; 31,257; 31,597; 32,409 (with Banjo Bowl on deck) - basically sold out every night except the end zones.

Originally Posted by CoryB

I also question if food and beverage sales are truly going to be higher.

My understanding is that they are removing the 2nd Bomber Store to add more Rum Hut because it's been so successful. They are also adding two more bars to the upper decks.

[trueviking]

I don't disagree with you....I just think that we didn't ever really decide if this was something we needed and to what level?....it was rammed down our throats by asper who then walked away with a massive payment and left us with the bill for the whole thing.....did the bombers need a $240m stadium?....who made the case for that?.....they just raised the PST, we have a huge deficit....its nice to have it, but was it the right thing to build?....did we need a $40m canopy?....will servicing the cost of that wiggly piece of metal really help the bombers be more sustainable?...I liked being in the sun in the old stadium...now i'm always in shadow...and when it rains, the 35 minute walk from where I have to park will counteract any protection I get from the canopy.

the jets do different things for the city and the economy....their existence has huge spin off that would not be here if not for the government...that isn't true for the bombers.....they could have worked very nicely in a nice new stadium that didn't come with a $140m noose around the team's neck....or a massive payment from the government.

its fine to pay for a new stadium...did we need this one?...does it do what is best for the bombers?...they desperately want to be seen as 'big league'...it had nothing to do with fan experience or long term sustainability....I question the motives of the project.

I think having a modest stadium with good site lines that provides a great fan experience and is convenient to get to, without saddling the bombers with huge debt payments and massive costs to get people there every game, would have been a better solution for the team and the taxpayers.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by rypinion

My understanding is that they are removing the 2nd Bomber Store to add more Rum Hut because it's been so successful. They are also adding two more bars to the upper decks.

they should push the rum hut back to the north on to the exterior concourse to give it more room.