Winnipeg Jets

[esquire]

^ Is the funding tied specifically to arena upgrades? I thought it was just an operating subsidy to be used however TNSE wanted.

I agree that stuff like boards, lighting, media space, etc. has to be a certain way to meet "NHL standards" but other cosmetic stuff that has been upgraded like the jumbotron, concourse lighting, more lounges, etc. is totally up to TNSE.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Is the funding tied specifically to arena upgrades? I thought it was just an operating subsidy to be used however TNSE wanted.

I agree that stuff like boards, lighting, media space, etc. has to be a certain way to meet "NHL standards" but other cosmetic stuff that has been upgraded like the jumbotron, concourse lighting, more lounges, etc. is totally up to TNSE.

I've been told that part of the VLT shark tank monies agreement with TNSE there was a requirement for arena enhancements. To make it more politically palpable, instead of giving money to a pro NHL team, it was to enhance a "public facility". I could have been misinformed though.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by esquire

I wonder if the NHL planning to change suppliers for jerseys has anything to do with it? I'd expect a lot of sales on Adidas stock before they change over to Fanatics.

Just a guess but I would guess that uniform design falls under IP law and changing the supply would mean needing to change up the designs in some ways. For a lot of teams those are smaller changes, just enough that the previous company isn't getting ongoing revenue from the previous design. Compare the Jets 2.0 jersey from the early days under Rebook to the Adidas design on the past season. There are definitely some subtitle changes you can spot easily once you are in the know. An example in the NHL cresting on the front in the mid neckline is drastically different. I am sure there are others.

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

That is because they screwed up in 2004, by building the arena too small.

Going back to 2004 you have to keep in mind True North needing government funding to make CLC happen. That same government needed a solution to the Eaton's problem that was rotting away at Portage and Donald. The compromise was reached to help fund the new arena if it was built on that exact site. They even made Hargrave significantly narrower to make the site work. So yes, all sorts of compromises were made on the CLC design in 2004 but the reality is there was no other viable alternative at the time and if those choices were not made the NHL wouldn't have come back here.

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

NHL arena sizes are actually increasing.

Quick someone tell Bettman and point out the seating capacity of Mullet, the new permanent home of the Coyotes.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Just a guess but I would guess that uniform design falls under IP law and changing the supply would mean needing to change up the designs in some ways. For a lot of teams those are smaller changes, just enough that the previous company isn't getting ongoing revenue from the previous design. Compare the Jets 2.0 jersey from the early days under Rebook to the Adidas design on the past season. There are definitely some subtitle changes you can spot easily once you are in the know. An example in the NHL cresting on the front in the mid neckline is drastically different. I am sure there are others.

Yeah, even if there are no "new jerseys" planned, the jerseys inevitably change subtly because the templates vary from one manufacturer to another. For instance, the old Reebok Montreal Canadiens jersey looks a bit different than the Adidas version because of the template differences, but the actual team colours and schemes remain the same as they have for decades.

But whenever a new template comes out, the old ones go on clearance. So my theory was that they were perhaps marking down the current Jets jerseys to get rid of them before they have to put them on blowout clearance sale once the new ones come out.

[pspeid]

I have to say i'm enjoying watching Paul Maurice's success with the Florida Panthers so far this post-season. They guy the Jets apparently wouldn't listen to is coaching his team in an epic playoff run; Boston down, Leafs most likely next.

I admit I personally know nothing about the dynamic in the Jet's locker room, and I don't think any one person or group is to blame for their difficulties, but it's hard to think the Jet's problems largely stem from anything other than a disgruntled segment of the players.

SO....maybe the off-season doesn't mean a total rebuild, but a shipping out of the most disgruntled, whomever they may be.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Just a guess but I would guess that uniform design falls under IP law and changing the supply would mean needing to change up the designs in some ways. For a lot of teams those are smaller changes, just enough that the previous company isn't getting ongoing revenue from the previous design. Compare the Jets 2.0 jersey from the early days under Rebook to the Adidas design on the past season. There are definitely some subtitle changes you can spot easily once you are in the know. An example in the NHL cresting on the front in the mid neckline is drastically different. I am sure there are others.

Doubtful.

Going back to 2004 you have to keep in mind True North needing government funding to make CLC happen. That same government needed a solution to the Eaton's problem that was rotting away at Portage and Donald. The compromise was reached to help fund the new arena if it was built on that exact site. They even made Hargrave significantly narrower to make the site work. So yes, all sorts of compromises were made on the CLC design in 2004 but the reality is there was no other viable alternative at the time and if those choices were not made the NHL wouldn't have come back here.

Once again, if the city and province knew the Jets were to return, they would have allocated more funding for a new arena. This is pretty much a no-brainer. Governments tend to be more receptive to provide more funding to a facility with a major league tenant, than a minor league tenant. As for viable alternatives, the city could have put the new arena in a number of locations. if they desired to do so. There was a plan to convert the old Eatons to residential housing units, while gutting the inside to make way for an atrium, similar to what is happening with the old Hudson Bay building.

Quick someone tell Bettman and point out the seating capacity of Mullet, the new permanent home of the Coyotes.

Now you are just being disingenuous.

There is a very real possibility that the Coyotes will be in Houston by 2024, if their new arena proposal falls through.

[thurmas]

hindsight is 20-20 the arena was being planned in 2001-2002 just 5 or 6 years after the jets had left, our population was still stagnant and not growing and the NHL had just expanded to several sun belt cities. At that time there was zero inclination Winnipeg would ever be in the running for an NHL tea, again. Chipman was very lucky he got the 15,000 seats as all indicators were that the politicians only wanted 10 or 11,000 seats for a AHL arena.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by thurmas

hindsight is 20-20 the arena was being planned in 2001-2002 just 5 or 6 years after the jets had left, our population was still stagnant and not growing and the NHL had just expanded to several sun belt cities. At that time there was zero inclination Winnipeg would ever be in the running for an NHL tea, again. Chipman was very lucky he got the 15,000 seats as all indicators were that the politicians only wanted 10 or 11,000 seats for a AHL arena.

As I recall it was the other way around, TNSE initially pitched an 11,000 or 12,000 or so seat arena for the land south of the Convention Centre. Then once the politicians got involved, the proposal moved to the Eaton's site and the capacity increased to 15,000. I do remember Glen Murray giving himself credit for insisting that the new arena have (roughly) at least as many seats as the old one, it's possible that Gary Doer and whatever federal minister was involved (Ron Duhamel?) likely had some impact on that too.

Kind of makes me wonder what TNSE's initial game plan was... were they really going to go ahead with an 11,000 seat arena for the Moose and concerts without any regard for the future possibility of the NHL? I suppose it did seem like a distant dream at that point... the Moose were floundering to some extent and then, as now, the CAD was slumping badly. There also was no salary cap in place in the NHL.

[drew]

I may be the minority - but I think the current capacity of the arena is just about perfect for this city.

The only time it suffers is on a some measuring contest lists with various city's and the capacity of the local arena gets highlighted.

But in actual practice - it's genius IMO.

I hope they keep the current arena for as long as possible.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by esquire

As I recall it was the other way around, TNSE initially pitched an 11,000 or 12,000 or so seat arena for the land south of the Convention Centre. Then once the politicians got involved, the proposal moved to the Eaton's site and the capacity increased to 15,000. I do remember Glen Murray giving himself credit for insisting that the new arena have (roughly) at least as many seats as the old one, it's possible that Gary Doer and whatever federal minister was involved (Ron Duhamel?) likely had some impact on that too.

^This.

This is exactly what I recall hearing too As for the location, in 1991, a months long study was released by the city about what arena was best for the Jets- a 18,000 free standing arena, or a Multiplex (similar to the Fargo Dome) for the Bombers and Jets. It concluded that the free standing arena (Shankerow's idea), was the far better option for the Winnipeg Jets.

There was an article back in the spring of 1991, when the results of the study were made public in the Free Press, with the headline "Paradise on a Parking Lot?" which showed the lot south of the Convention Centre, where the arena was proposed to be built.

Kind of makes me wonder what TNSE's initial game plan was... were they really going to go ahead with an 11,000 seat arena for the Moose and concerts without any regard for the future possibility of the NHL? I suppose it did seem like a distant dream at that point... the Moose were floundering to some extent and then, as now, the CAD was slumping badly. There also was no salary cap in place in the NHL.

I truly believe that in 2001, Chipman was content with the Moose. This is assuming it would be years later that he struck up his business partnership with David Thomson. Chipman himself would never be able afford to buy an NHL franchise by himself (He was originally part of the "Spirit of Manitoba" group in 1995 as a minority partner).

[esquire]

^ You are referencing the failed Manitoba Gardens arena proposal for the Jets around 1990 or thereabouts.

After the Jets left in 1996, TNSE floated the idea of a new arena on the same site by the Convention Centre... I don't remember exactly when, but it would have been around 1999 or thereabouts (we'd have to look back in the newspaper archives to confirm exactly when). But since Eaton's closed down for good in 1999, the plan shifted to that site instead, which was owned by David Thomson's Osmington, and the rest is history.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by drew

I may be the minority - but I think the current capacity of the arena is just about perfect for this city.

The only time it suffers is on a some measuring contest lists with various city's and the capacity of the local arena gets highlighted.

But in actual practice - it's genius IMO.

I hope they keep the current arena for as long as possible.

It's a perfect size....for Saskatoon or Halifax.

For a city with an NHL team, ideally, it woiuld be 17,500 seats.

Don't drink the TNSE kool-aid. If they could turn back time, and with the knowledge that the Jets would return 10 years after they made plans to build a new arena, said arena would have a minimum capacity of 17,000 seats.

PS...if you think the arena is a "perfect size for our city" then you must think Winnipeg is second rate. "Typical Winnipeg" is what one acquaintance from Winnipeg I worked with in Calgary 2006 said, when I told him about the new arena, and the fact that they built it to 15.015 seats, after the city and province said they would only provide funding if capacity was minimum 15,000.

Of the Canadian cities with a population over 650,000, only Winnipeg does not have an arena with 17,000 seats. Hamilton and Quebec don't even have an NHL team, and their arenas are both larger than our arena.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ You are referencing the failed Manitoba Gardens arena proposal for the Jets around 1990 or thereabouts.

That's correct. The study was released in May 1991, and as a result Shankerow and the Province of Manitoba struck a deal in the fall, covering the Jets losses through to the 1994-95 season, in exchange for Shankerow promising not to move the team, and to try and find local owners to buy the Jets.

[thurmas]

Originally Posted by esquire

As I recall it was the other way around, TNSE initially pitched an 11,000 or 12,000 or so seat arena for the land south of the Convention Centre. Then once the politicians got involved, the proposal moved to the Eaton's site and the capacity increased to 15,000. I do remember Glen Murray giving himself credit for insisting that the new arena have (roughly) at least as many seats as the old one, it's possible that Gary Doer and whatever federal minister was involved (Ron Duhamel?) likely had some impact on that too.

Kind of makes me wonder what TNSE's initial game plan was... were they really going to go ahead with an 11,000 seat arena for the Moose and concerts without any regard for the future possibility of the NHL? I suppose it did seem like a distant dream at that point... the Moose were floundering to some extent and then, as now, the CAD was slumping badly. There also was no salary cap in place in the NHL.

Sorry my bad you are correct when I think more clearly back to my high school days in that era.

[drew]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

It's a perfect size....for Saskatoon or Halifax.

For a city with an NHL team, ideally, it woiuld be 17,500 seats.

Don't drink the TNSE kool-aid. If they could turn back time, and with the knowledge that the Jets would return 10 years after they made plans to build a new arena, said arena would have a minimum capacity of 17,000 seats.

PS...if you think the arena is a "perfect size for our city" then you must think Winnipeg is second rate. "Typical Winnipeg" is what one acquaintance from Winnipeg I worked with in Calgary 2006 said, when I told him about the new arena, and the fact that they built it to 15.015 seats, after the city and province said they would only provide funding if capacity was minimum 15,000.

Of the Canadian cities with a population over 650,000, only Winnipeg does not have an arena with 17,000 seats. Hamilton and Quebec don't even have an NHL team, and their arenas are both larger than our arena.

You just proved my point. Capacity is only important if you are in some argument wrt city size and arena capacity. No of us should care about Halifax, or Saskatoon. Just be happy we have an nhl team and an arena that cost a fraction of what any other city is going to be paying or has paid.

What does an extra 2,000 seats gain?

How much do those extra 2,000 seats cost?

[The Jabroni]

Why the hell are we talking about seating capacity increases? It's not gonna happen unless we get a completely new arena in at least another 20 years, if ever. We've talked about this over and over again over the course of nearly 20 years when the NHL wasn't even in the radar, CLC was under construction, the Moose were 2 years into the AHL, and we were beginning to come to terms with ourselves with a renaissance in the city with many planned projects back then, including CLC, and that the NHL would be a pipe dream.

Don't kid yourself with increasing capacity of the arena, because it's never gonna happen from a practical standpoint. It's already a great as it is, and does have a bit of an intimate atmosphere. As much as I would LOVE to see more people in the arena, the key is to keep the people selling out the arena, and 9 out of the 12 years the NHL has been back in this city has proven that with nightly sellouts in the regular season.

Yes, we've struggled to fill the arena in the last 3 years, mostly because of COVID, and other reasons being inflation and 3% incremental increases of season ticket sales over the course of those 12 years.

With this past season being any indication, it's actually the first time they experienced struggling ticket sales with most nights not selling out without any government mandated restrictions due to the pandemic. Can't really blame ticket sales from that anymore, so the blame can be seen mostly with inflation rates, but also partly because of the product on the ice, ups and downs included.

Now everyone is talking that there's this similar uncertainty like it was last year on what the future of the team is during the off-season, whether we rebuild or not, or if it's a coaching issue. Clearly it wasn't a coaching issue after this year, so there is something going on in the locker room, and even with management, which they already made themselves clear that nothing will happen, at least in the management side of things going into next season.

Now going back to seating capacities, how will any of this will merit a seating capacity increase when we are already struggling with ticket sales to sell out arenas? When you see those Winnipeg Jets ads with deals going on, what does that really mean? Yes, a deal is a deal, but also it's a sign that tickets aren't selling out as they once did, because of reasons stated earlier.

Seating capacity increases will NOT solve struggling ticket sales, even if it's a short term or long term cycle that we are going through. As it stands right now, TNSE staying the course by making improvements here and there, as well as investing in the downtown area over the last 20 years, is the most logical thing for them right now.

And yes, the amount of concert stops we had since CLC opened is amazing, and that 9 out of 10 times, big name artists will make their stop here, rather than 60% of the time, all the time back when the old barn was still kicking.

There's always room for improvement for all areas with TNSE, including how they handled their customers and long time season ticket holders this season. I just hope they had a major wake up call from that.

[Biff]

I believe this was the proposal for next to the convention centre. It was very big city and I remember being very excited about all of it. The image quality is definitely lacking.

And I agree with Drew. I feel the arena capacity is just about right, maybe 16k as a max but that is a minor difference. My only wish was for more open space in the corridors.

[esquire]

^ Nice, thanks... I remember that Manitoba Gardens rendering from when it was first released. At the time it seemed hard to believe that something like that might actually get built in Winnipeg.

It's interesting to consider what it would have been like had a new arena gone up on the site south of the Convention Centre. It could have made for a roomier, more spacious arena, even though it's unlikely the seating capacity would have been any higher.

It probably would have given commercial activity on Broadway a little push, I could see there being a few (but not many) shops, restaurants, etc. along that strip.

Around the Y2K era there was, as now, some concern over the direction of Portage Avenue. The feeling was that some big projects could help turn it around, and the arena was one of them. It's clear in hindsight that even massive projects like Portage Place, Hydro and a NHL arena have barely moved the needle down there. I'm not sure that Portage Avenue would have been tangibly worse off had the arena been built on York Avenue instead.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

Doubtful.

Uniform design is 100% covered under IP laws such as copyright. The question is who owns the IP. In terms of NHL jerseys they are likely using team and league owned design elements under authorized use but the final product is owned by the company making them, ie Adidas. It is also notable that jersey designs include IP that is owned by the companies that make them such as the brand name and other protected design elements from the brand.

It would seem likely that the overall completed design is licensed back to the league/team for future use but a change from say Adidas to Fanatics would result in Adidas continuing to receive payment for its work unless a new design is made. Otherwise why would the uniform companies be constantly introducing design changes and new alternates? Yes revenue generation is part of it but not just for the team. Otherwise why would there be so much interest from companies is getting pro sports contracts to make jerserys?

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

Once again, if the city and province knew the Jets were to return, they would have allocated more funding for a new arena.

I could not more strongly disagree. Sure there may have been other proposals floated for the Eaton's building but it is no different than the Hudson Bay building in that refuse has been discussed for decades but they are cost prohibitive and no one is coming to the table with the necessary cash. It was also a very different time with many effectively vacant or even boarded up buildings on Portage Ave. Something needed to be done and CLC was that project. The site restrictions caused the design choices limiting the building capacity as much as anything else.

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

Now you are just being disingenuous.

There is a very real possibility that the Coyotes will be in Houston by 2024, if their new arena proposal falls through.

From what I have read the Coyotes Tempe arena plans are effectively dead. The City of Phoenix and Skyharbor Airport are actively using their rights to block it from proceeding and there is now a lawsuit underway over it. Unless there is already a deal effectively done on the Houston move the team will be playing out of Mullett at least one more season. And being real here the crowds in places like Glendale before the move to Mullett and Sunrise show that maybe an arena with 10,000 or less seats in some of these southern markets may not necessarily be a bad thing if that is what the league is truly wanting to do long term to be in these markets. The Coyotes almost giving away tickets to get warm bodies into Glendale was never a sustainable thing and it is a big part of why they couldn't pay the costs to stay in that building. The reality is the Tempe arena plan is as much about putting a newer facility than Footprint Center (where the Suns play) at a closer location the the affluent Scottsdale for non-hockey events such as concerts as it is given the Coyotes a home. Not to mention if the NHL is less on the extreme edges of the greater Phoenix metro it might be easier to pull in more casual fans.

The reality here is the Coyotes are going to play out of Mullett for 5+ seasons unless the Bettman and the NHL are finally going to permanently walk away from being in the Phoenix metro area.

Originally Posted by esquire

Kind of makes me wonder what TNSE's initial game plan was... were they really going to go ahead with an 11,000 seat arena for the Moose and concerts without any regard for the future possibility of the NHL?

Just a guess but if the 11,000 arena had happened in Winnipeg for the Moose it would likely have included a design plan to add additional seats in a future 300 level but in a manner that worked a heck of a lot better than the expansion that was bolted on to the old Winnipeg Arena.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Just a guess but if the 11,000 arena had happened in Winnipeg for the Moose it would likely have included a design plan to add additional seats in a future 300 level but in a manner that worked a heck of a lot better than the expansion that was bolted on to the old Winnipeg Arena.

Yeah, true. SaskTel Centre is an example of an arena with a full-sized NHL shell but without all the seating slabs installed on day one. They were added over time to the point where there are now over 15,000 seats, and there is still room to add a few sections worth of seating. It may have been like that.