It was nice to see NHL hockey back on MTS Centre ice this week. It looked just as good on a nation wide broadcast by TSN. Further, it looked as good on the MTS Centre as it looked on the NHL back in Manitoba.Winnipeggers and Manitobans once again did themselves proud by hosting a very successful night of hockey. While some will point to a lower attendance this year, the truth is that of all North American non-NHL cities hosting a game, Winnipeg’s total gate revenue would be nearly the highest.By comparing attendances and multiplying them by their average of the ticket pricing ranges across all “neutral” sites, it is easy to see that Manitoba is at the front of the line for a “gentle-used” or “pre-owned” NHL franchise. Attendance of 11,644 fans translates into a total gate of $809,258.This is a very respectable number across the NHL. This total per game gate revenue can be compared to the NHL numbers for the 2007-08 season, which is the last season that had league-sourced numbers published.$809,258 is good for 16th place out of 30 teams. more »

Our thoughts are with the families, friends and victims of 9-11 from over 80 countries of the world.~~~You probably heard these before. Or maybe you are asking these questions yourself?“There is still no tangible (public) evidence that a serious well-heeled ownership group from or for Winnipeg exists.”“Up to now we can legitimize their (the group’s) silence and I'd say the conditions are not yet ideal for our presumed group.”“The optimum time for it (the group) to reveal itself will very soon be upon us (after the Coyotes auction is settled and NHL hopefully wins)”The evidence is on this website, Myth #3: No Ownership Group (over 30 items, many with Mark Chipman, the group’s prime communicator, directly speaking on video or audio and quoted in many articles about the group’s plans for the NHL in Winnipeg):http://www.manitobamythbusters.com/php/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=77&MMN_position=108:101Would you as a respected businessperson from our city make these types of public statements, or have people make statements about your supposed-NHL desires without correcting them, if you were not certain that you could move ahead and buy a team?NHL fans would be OFFside to think this publicity is to be sought after.Who in the right mind would set themselves up for a public horsewhipping later? Especially in a town who lost the NHL already?On the other side of the puck, thankfully, there is very little similar evidence for cities competing with Winnipeg, notwithstanding Jim Balsillie and Hamilton. So we have more to "hang our hat on" than most NHL fans around North America that, like us, continue to hope for the NHL to move to town. more »

A person cannot sell what is not theirs to sell.Given the legal manoeverings in an Arizona courthouse full of suits, a website stirring up Canadian NHL fans and anti-Maple Leafs sentiment, 24/7 blogging and real-time blow by blow jousting by the myriad of parties, it is easy to forget that simple reality.But NHL fans, especially Jim Balsillie’s supporters, would be OFFside to forget this basic truth and what it may mean.As the NHL constitution reads a franchise is a licence to operate a team in a given area. Under a relocation vote, only then could a team be considered to be removed from one area (and that territory goes back to the league as a future opportunity) and moved to a new area (which is its' BOG-voted and mandated territory amending its' license). So that is why Jerry Moyes can't sell something which he doesn't own: any territory outside of Phoenix.And this is the ultimate point, in buying a sports franchise of a given league you are essentially buying its' licence agreement. Part of the agreement is to abide by the rules of the NHL constitution and by-laws.So using the court to overrule the NHL constitution statutes on ownership votes and also relocation votes is somewhat selective or arbitrary. The team is inherently part of the league and its constitution. So to break certain constitution statutes leads me to believe that the sum of the team isn't really being sold. A new business partner would be forced on the league by bypassing its' own constitution. By adding in the other dimension, of a subsequent relocation, other NHL constitution statutes would be by-passed. Only the parts the bidder wants to accept are being attempted to being bought, not the team collectively via its' licensing agreement. more »