Why Winnipeg Can't Support Another NHL Team—Yet

Judging by my articles on NHL expansion and Gary Bettman, I am the most hated man in Winnipeg because I keep pointing out why the new Winnipeg Arena is unsuitable for NHL expansion.  I have responded to some of you with a template answer to expand on my views and give the reasons why I have this opinion.

Yet, the comments against me keep coming in.  So, I am going publish a lengthy explanation below for all of you, hopefully to clear up this matter and show the weaknesses of the current argument. It is not feasible for the NHL to immediately expand to Winnipeg and my argument will have all the points I listed in the template plus other new information.

Let's clear up one myth right away.  I am not "anti-Winnipeg".  I want to see a team back in the city. In all reality, I want to see Winnipeg back in the NHL permanently. I don’t want to see a franchise get yanked out of town after a dozen years when the economy takes a fall.

In my fifth article, I listed Winnipeg along with the other seven cities in Canada as NHL expansion sites.  I also said that if Winnipeg had not built the current-size arena, it would be tied with Quebec as the best choice among those cities.

Winnipeg has a market that could support a NHL team right now—I never denied that. I would never have included them in my list if they did not have the market, but instead I would have ranked them with the Maritimes and Saskatchewan.

With that out of the way, I am going to list the weaknesses of the current pro-Winnipeg position.

First, it is not me you have to impress but, instead, Gary Bettman and the NHL Board of Governors, which is most likely pro-American as it is. The best way of impressing them is building an arena—the bigger the better. How is an arena that is 1,000 seats smaller than the smallest current NHL arena—Nassau Coliseum—going to impress them?

Secondly, one of my responders from Winnipeg who actually supported my arguments has attended Manitoba Moose games and says they do not sell out all the time.  That will not impress Bettman and the Board of Governors—another strike against Winnipeg.

Next, in today's sports market, you have to think long term. When you build an arena or stadium, you have to get it right the first time or else. A proper size arena will protect Winnipeg from economic problems like salary escalation, the fall of the Canadian dollar, and other unexpected crisis. A proper arena would allow Winnipeg to bid and keep more star players and free agents for a longer period of time.

In addition, many of the arguments made for expansion to Winnipeg are based on attendance comparisons with the money-losing American franchises.  The only fact is that those cities are losing money.  It does not prove that Winnipeg is viable or profitable with the current arena.  All it does prove is that Winnipeg compares more favorably with the money-losers.  The NHL can simply solve this problem by contracting all those franchises or moving them to better American markets.  Then, Winnipeg will have no other city to positively compare with.

Another problem is that the current arena is at best a "get-by" size one.  If salaries go up and the dollar falls, Winnipeg will be unable to keep its star players and bid for high-priced free agents.  Is this the kind of situation Winnipeg wants to be in?

Looking at that possible crisis, a current NHL team might end up becoming a victim to it—the Phoenix Coyotes. Rumours have been cited in a Toronto paper that the franchise will hold a "fire sale" around the trade deadline, being forced to trade all their best players because they can’t afford them. Mind you, this is in a much bigger market with a much bigger arena. As if to confirm this possibility, Bettman has publicly stated during the All-Star Game that Phoenix needs new capital.

There will be American competition with Winnipeg for any new expansion team or relocated franchises.  Kansas City has built an arena that is 3,000 seats bigger than Winnipeg's. Also, it is in a much bigger market. To compensate for your lack of size, you have to do things to close the gap in your favour. Building a larger proper size arena is the main way of doing this. By building a small one, you've hurt your chances.

Looking back at American expansion, Hartford's mayor has recently met with Gary Bettman about bringing back the Whalers within five years. They lost their franchise the same way Winnipeg and Quebec did—by not having a proper arena to get them through tough times. The mayor agrees that their old 15,000-seat arena will not do and that a new, larger arena will have to be built.  How are you going to compete against them if they build it?

Pittsburgh's current arena is almost 2,000 seats larger than Winnipeg's and they are getting sellouts every night, yet Mario Lemieux has struggled for the past few years with the Pittsburgh city council to get a new arena built. He was even considering moving to the new Kansas City arena I mentioned above.  Why?  Because he knew that the current arena could not do the job for the long term. The only way Pittsburgh would be able to afford Crosby, Malkin and be competitive in the NHL for the long-term would be to build a modern, larger arena, which Pittsburgh is currently doing.

By building a small arena, you also face unfavourable comparisons with other potential Canadian markets.  In some of the comments posted to me, I have detected an "anti-Hamilton" attitude.  In fact, Hamilton is probably the best Canadian market to expand to right now.  It would be mine and the NHL's overwhelming choice for Canadian expansion ahead of both Winnipeg and Quebec, except the NHL has hung a "territorial compensation" question over their heads regarding Toronto and Buffalo.

To further the Hamilton argument, the area is ahead of Winnipeg in two ways.  It has built a much bigger arena and is pledged to invest an additional $50 million to make it even more NHL viable.  It also has the best surrounding market for any Canadian city that does not have an NHL market—stretching from Mississauga in the east to London in the west (including Kitchener), Owen Sound in the north, and St. Catharines in the south.  Lucky for them, distance is minimal.  That's a market of several million people.  If Hamilton is not viable, Jim Balsillie is prepared to build a new arena in Kitchener or London.  Either way, it is still the same market.

In contrast, Winnipeg's potential surrounding market is much smaller and scattered over long distances, stretching from eastern Saskatchewan to Thunder Bay. Also, if other Canadian markets like Quebec build bigger, more viable arenas, Winnipeg will be further behind rival Canadian cities. Winnipeg's arena management has stated that the new arena was NOT built to attract an NHL franchise.  Why do you insist that it is?

When all is said and done, Winnipeg built an arena to suit its own needs, not the NHL, which I commended them for in my fourth article. They built the best arena for an AHL team, not an NHL team. If they had really wanted the Jets back, they would have built an arena at least the current median size for an NHL franchise, which is around 18,000 seats.

Winnipeg's fans would have done a better job if they collected a large number of signatures petitioning your city council to build an arena that was the correct NHL size before the current design was accepted. You had to show your city council that the Winnipeg public was clamouring for the Jets to return and that a large arena to impress Bettman and the Board of Governors was necessary to increase the chances of getting them back.

Now that I have stated that I want Winnipeg back in the NHL and listed the weaknesses of the current Winnipeg situation I'm going to list what I don’t want to see.

For starters, I wouldn’t want Winnipeg to be a weak team that can never win the Stanley Cup. Sadly, they more than likely would be because they don't have the ticket revenue to keep star players or bid for high-priced free agents.  That's just a con situation with an owner taking money for team that can never win or compete properly.

Also, I wouldn’t want to see the Winnipeg Jets holding a "fire sale" when their players become too expensive to afford—a perfect imitation of the Montreal Expos of later years.

Another horrible situation would be if Winnipeg's franchise was revoked like before because times have got economically tougher and Winnipeg's arena can't see the franchise through them.

Lastly, if Winnipeg’s franchise failed a second time, Winnipeg would be branded permanently in the NHL's eyes as a money-losing market.  Then, they may never come back.

Let's get Winnipeg back in the NHL permanently with a franchise that can compete favourably with other franchises. Then, they will always be able to have a real chance to win the Stanley Cup.