| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| umteman |
Posted - 10/15/2009 : 18:14:33
I've got an addendum to this one. If you where starting a new franchise in what city would you place it and why? Many of you may favor Winnipeg but keep in mind the arena they built there is only 15,000 seats. I might say how about Seattle or maybe Sacremanto?
Did you hear about the retired proctologist? He spent 40 years saying "what's a place like this doing in a girl like you?" |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| doublechamp7 |
Posted - 02/25/2011 : 09:04:55
I like the idea of a game in the Maritimes. The CFL had their touchdown Atlantic there and it was a success. A game in Sask. would be good, and every year there is a pre- season game in Wpg already.
Bring back the Jets! |
| Guest4623 |
Posted - 02/25/2011 : 08:52:19
Oh please wish this topic would Drop already Moooose all the way No need for NHL in winnipeg.. I pay 34 bux for center line 4 row lower bowl for a Moose game.. If that a NHL game would cost more like 200 plus..Awesome hockey ... No to the NHL in WINNIPEG.. |
| JonPolley |
Posted - 02/24/2011 : 06:07:04
The Classic is a great idea actually. They want to add more games next year and having at least a game or two in non NHL cities would be a great idea. My city for a franchise was for Moncton because it was pretty much central but if it was just one game like the Classic then I say bring it to Saint John, best arena in the Maritimes - Harbour Station. none better. Would love to see a game here like that. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 02/22/2011 : 14:20:00
FER, I feel for you having to sit through 2 Stone Concerts........
You are dead on about Regina. There is this assumption that people are going to travel for 6+ hours to go to a hockey game 41 times a season in places like Saskatchewan or Atlantic Canada in the in the winter. It is simply unrealistics. Sure, the WJC was rockin, but that's a 10 day event, not a 10 yr commitment.
I do love the idea of the Heritage Classic type game in Regina. Sell out in a heartbeat. Brilliant plan. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 02/22/2011 : 14:08:54
I was watching some of the alumni game on Saturday and the panel on there, Glenn Healy et al., stated that Atlanta is in huge trouble, and unless they find a suitable buyer, that can keep the team in Atlanta, in the next couple weeks, the team is moving to Winnipeg, for exactly some of the reasons stated. State of the art facility, albeit smallish, some dedicated corporate sponsorship, and a proven hockey market. I was surprised at how candidly they talked about it.
Regarding Regina, where I live, nice thought, but no way it could even begin to support an NHL team long, or even medium term. 8 rider games a year is one thing, but 41 hockey games at who knows what for ticket prices? Not a chance.
What I think could be go over tremendously well here though, would be a winter Classic type of game. Mosaic Stadium held 45,000 plus for the Rolling Stones, twice in one weekend(I was at both shows), which surprised a great deal of the world, but a Montreal - Toronto game, outdoors, in regular season? It would work, and sell, just as easily if not easier.
Saskatchewan has as devout, and knowledgeable, fans as anywhere, and per capita, probably outdoes most bigger markets, the Riders are proof.
Bring the Winter Classic to the home of Howe!!! The shrine of Shore!!! The backyard of many, many NHL greats, and as deserving of this as any location. |
| JonPolley |
Posted - 02/22/2011 : 13:20:05
I've said that before actually.. I have said Regina might be an option as well. I think a team there would be like the RoughRiders in teh CFL and they could draw from the whole province |
| Guest0965 |
Posted - 02/21/2011 : 22:36:13
when the world juniors was in saskatchewan...the building was electric!! |
| Guest4856 |
Posted - 02/21/2011 : 21:50:23
WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 02/21/2011 : 20:42:49
Yes, I am quite aware of the Irvings and they money they have. But that simply isn't enough. For example, Edmonton is owned by a Billionairre. They still have majors sponsors such as Rexall Drugs (owned by the same D. Katz), Ford, Telus, Air Canada, and Molson's to name a few. It takes more than one.
Secondly, not every team is the Leafs and are monster money makers. The vast majority of NHL teams break even or actually lose money. In fact, looking at Forbes list from last year, 16 teams lost money. Furthermore, there are only 8 teams that have a return on the value of the team of more than 4%. If the team is not Toronto, Montreal, NYR, Vancouver, Chicago, Detroit, Edmonton, of Philadelphia, the owner would have made more money putting his cash into a GIC than in the NHL team. Sports teams are a horrible investment unless they are NFL football teams or English Soccer teams. They are the only sports that I am aware of that make money(all of them) regardless of the product.
No government or group of governments will put taxpayers money into play in a sports team that does not make cash. There is a higher chance of seeing a team in Helsinki or Moscow before Moncton. The financials just don't work. I appreciate you wanting it to happen but it simply never will. |
| JonPolley |
Posted - 02/21/2011 : 20:13:16
Corporate money in Atlantic Canada?.. There is that little ma and pa organization called the Irvings.. but no you're right other then that there isn't a lot. Maybe a public ownership of the team could happen.. or the governments of the Atlantic provinces could come up with some sort of deal together. I don't know exactly how it would work and its probably just a pipe dream, I just would like to see if it could happen. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 02/21/2011 : 13:32:23
Ya, like having a team in Kelowna would draft people from the interior of BC too, right??
Firstly, people don't travel that far for hockey. Maybe the odd week end game or early on during the honeymoon phase, but not long term. A team needs the access to at least 750,000 people within a reasonable drive of the stadium to be stable.
And that is just the fan base. What about the corporate money that is the real life line of these teams solvency. Not saying there isn't corporate money in Atlantic Canada, but no nearly that of QC, Winnipeg(not that great either), the GTA, and some of the attractive US markets like KC. |
| doublechamp7 |
Posted - 02/21/2011 : 13:09:15
quote:
Originally posted by JonPolley
probably going to sound foolish to you guys but I seriously think they should look in Atlantic Canada and have it in New Brunswick as a Maritime team. YOu could draw fans from Moncton, Halifax, Saint John, Fredericton.. I think it could possibly work. They need a new arena to do it but I think it could be viable.
This could work with Winnipeg too, it might draw in people from saskatchewan ocassionally...
Bring back the Jets! |
| JonPolley |
Posted - 02/21/2011 : 08:28:48
probably going to sound foolish to you guys but I seriously think they should look in Atlantic Canada and have it in New Brunswick as a Maritime team. YOu could draw fans from Moncton, Halifax, Saint John, Fredericton.. I think it could possibly work. They need a new arena to do it but I think it could be viable. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 02/21/2011 : 08:18:35
Hey Slozo, was stadium in TO (or anywhere else for that matter) is bigger and/or newer than MTS in Winnipeg?? It is the most viable 'Canadian" option today, at least until the stadium in QC is built.
That is why I personally see a team going to Kansas City next. They built the Sprint Center for the potential expansion of basketball and hockey. It hold 17,700 for hockey and KC is know for it's rabid NFL fan base.
Not at all saying I would like to see a team in KC before a team in Canada, but having a facility like that already built and very new does make them a very viable option if local (stable) ownership can be established. |
| n/a |
Posted - 02/21/2011 : 07:05:51
Guest 4725 - and yet, to counter your point on the MTS Centre in Winnipeg, Mr. Don Cherry spoke during the winter classic yesterday on just that, and assured all Canadians that there would be a hockey team in Winnipeg soon, and he seemed to think the MTS thing could work.
Not that I like him or anything, but . . . Ron McLean was right there and didn't even cut him off on that point, so, to me that says something. And, I have heard other commentators say it could work as well . . . but, I have to say, it doesn't give the NHL that perfect option yet, for sure.
Which is why the first team to come back to Canada should go to Toronto! 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Altius |
Posted - 02/21/2011 : 01:46:38
hi check out information about Canada Games 2011, schedule, winter game events, venues, sports, participating cities, medal tally and more here..
Canada Games 2011
|
| Guest4803 |
Posted - 12/21/2010 : 13:13:14
It be great if winnipeg could get another nhl team...that way the moose would more then likely move, Victoria needs some better hockey then ECHL(only Canadian team) we cant support a NHL team but we could support an AHL team. Abbotsford already have the flames affiliate so that would make for a great rivalry, if not it would be nice to at least get the WHL back in the Capital City. |
| Guest4725 |
Posted - 12/21/2010 : 12:08:38
To clear up something that I've seen here a few times from skimming through this chat. Winnipeg WILL NOT expand the MTS Centre. Repeat, will not expand. They cannot, and do not want to. As Mark Chipman (President of TNSE, owners of the arena) said, the expansion of the arena makes no sense. Adding seats in the upper decks are the most expensive to build, and generate the least revenue. An 18,000 seat capacity lowers demand for tickets. |
| chef |
Posted - 12/20/2010 : 19:40:03
i wouldn't count Winnipeg out yet! the mts center holds 15,000 ,they could squeeze in about 3,000 more.18,000 sounds like enough seats for an nhl team . Franchises like Atlanta,Tampa,Columbus and Phoenix can't even get 4,000 a game. MTS Center is big enough and Winnipeg is still waiting!
Jets Come back!
Habs for the Cup |
| foolpittier |
Posted - 12/20/2010 : 15:29:38
halifax wouldnt stand a chance, no where to play, hardly 18000 people with money to burn. were to broke to have a cfl team. plus if it did happen the goverment would find some way of messing it up. i would love to have a team but it's just not going to happen. and that is the word coming out of halifax bra. |
| ToXXiK1 |
Posted - 12/20/2010 : 02:57:46
http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=345914
This will be the 2nd team to end up leaving Atlanta. This is why I hesistate for Quebec and Winipeg to get teams again. If it failed once before......... |
| ToXXiK1 |
Posted - 09/13/2010 : 10:33:40
1. Hamilton
2. Winnipeg
3. Quebec City
No more to the U.S. as there's enough failing teams there. Keep it in Canada where hockey sells. If it doesn't snow, it doesn't grow! Oh, and the only reason I put Hamilton first is because the other 2 have had teams in the past.
Can't see the forest for the trees? BUY A CHAINSAW !! |
| Guest4013 |
Posted - 09/11/2010 : 13:25:15
I think Milwaukee. There is over 600,000 people in the city and in the greater Milwaukee area there is more than 2 million. The Bradley Center, which is where the NBA's Milwaukee Buck's and the AHL's Admirals play seats around 18,000 people.
It's in the north, where it actually snows and people may care about hockey, unlike in other candidate cities such as Houston and Las Vegas. Plus, Bettman and the NHL would much rather have a franchise in the US than in Canada. |
| Guest4178 |
Posted - 09/07/2010 : 11:58:32
A big factor with team location (or relocation) is the marketability of the team as it relates to the current NHL teams. With 80% of NHL franchises domiciled in the US (and the NHL's head office there), the desire to add more Canadian cities to the NHL is not their first choice.
US teams have gotten used to the current six Canadian teams, but most US teams are not in a big hurry to see Winnipeg, Halifax, Hamilton, Saskatoon, or Quebec City join the NHL. Teams like Nashville, Florida, Dallas, San Jose, etc. want to fill their rinks, and to do so, they need competitive competition, but at the same time, cities which their fans can identify with, which usually means other US cities. And while it matters somewhat that other teams are financially healthy, they are more interested in selling out their arena. This is why some US teams now have different pricing based on who they're playing against. And while some of the current Canadian team draw okay in US cities, they do better when it's a US vs. US match-up.
When Wild Bill Hunter tried to "float the noon balloon from Saskatoon" many years ago, the NHL essentially admitted that they did not want add a cold prairie city which was mostly anonymous to US hockey fans, so the St. Louis team stayed put.
When the NHL gobbled up four WHA franchises, even Toronto didn't want the Canadian teams which came with the package!
It's a romantic notion to believe that fan support (or where the players were born) would be huge factors in determining which cities deserve NHL teams. If so, Saskatchewan would be quite deserving based on both factors. Their fans are great (and not just for football – look at the support given to the Blades or Pats. They also have more NHLers per capita than anywhere else in the country, and by quite a margin!
The economics required to make an NHL team viable in Saskatchewan is certainly debatable though. (As it is with many other Canadian cities mentioned as being deserving of an NHL franchise.)
This is a very interesting post though, because the question remains "What city would you like to see for your NHL franchise?" There have been a lot of passionate responses, and lots of responses with merit, but is the NHL listening? Or does the NHL care?
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/12/2010 : 17:33:57
Irvine, one might agree with you.
But one might also suggest that there have been teams in the southern states for some time. In fact, Los Angeles has had a viable franchise since 1966. Dallas has found a lot of sucess, and San Jose has been very strong for nearly 20 years.
Now, I am not saying that Hockey is better in the Southern States and that too many teams in that area is a good thing, but to say that hockey in the Southern US is not very factual.
|
| irvine |
Posted - 05/12/2010 : 17:19:12
I agree with Beans in that, relocation has to be the final option. It's not good for the league or fans to just up and relocate a team, on the fly. Without first trying a multitude of other options.
However,
Where you place a team to begin with, should be considered. The NHL decided to up and try (of course they did some research), to place NHL (hockey!) teams in the deeper Southern United States.
Now, i'm not expert of research, marketing nor the US. But, it seems to me like before even trying this experiment, that it would fail. And it would happen fairly quick.
I mean, in all honesty, it does not take an expert to see that hockey is not overly popular in the Southern US.
So, I agree relocation is last resort. But perhaps, adding more franchises to begin with, and where they were placed, should have been more thought out and considered.
Irvine/prez. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/12/2010 : 16:43:24
Slozo, you are talking about apples and oranges. First off all, the NFL is a league with complete revenue sharing. Meaning (purely football profits) there are not super rich and super poor teams. They all pool their profits and spilt them 30 different ways.
That covers some issues that other league have.
Secondly, it is really great that you can cite 6 relocations in the NFL, none of which have occured in 12+ years and have no qualifier for any moves before 1990 to see the total history of the league.
Here are some hard facts:
The NFL has had 12 franchises relocate since 1921. Furthermore, between 1960 and 1982 there were zero relocations in the NFL. Between 1982 and today, there have been 6.
This is consistant with each of the pro sports leagues with the exception of basketball in the past 10ish years. MLB had just 3 teams relocate since 1970!!
Relocation is not healthy. It's the final option that any sports league has prior to folding a franchise. |
| irvine |
Posted - 05/12/2010 : 15:31:33
Saint John, New Brunswick!!!
Heh, I can only wish.
Sadly, our city and province in general is not populated enough to support an NHL franchise, despite having one of the wealthiest Canadians (family), and Companies in Canada. The Irving's, to sponsor the franchise. Along with, Moosehead Breweries.
We'd need a new arena, as Harbour Station is not large enough. And a larger population. :(
I'd love having an NHL team where I live, but it will never happen.
Irvine/prez. |
| Jumbo Joe Rocks |
Posted - 05/11/2010 : 10:48:05
My 5 choices would be
1.Winnepeg
2.Halifax
3.Regina
4.Seattle
5.Saskatoon
GO SHARKS GO |
| n/a |
Posted - 05/11/2010 : 10:33:35
Moving a franchise in a professional sports league is "drastic"?
How about . . . healthy? Normal?
NFL - most successful sports league in North America
Since 1990:
1995 - LA Rams move to St.Louis
1995 - LA Raiders move to Oakland (not far, but it counts)
1996 - Cleveland Browns move to Baltimore, become the Ravens
1997 - Houston Oilers move to Memphis, call them the Tennessee Titans
1998 - Cleveland is awarded an NFL franchise (returned after a few years)
1998 - Tennessee Titans move from Memphis to Nashville
This is all while the NFL was passing baseball as America's most popular sport. Do any of the moves smack of "desperation", or were they just sound financial moves for franchises that were losing money?
Please note the EXTREMELY short financial leash the NFL keeps you on, compared to the NHL.
And let's keep the gov't out of it . . . I as a taxpayer - even a hockey loving one - do not want to pay more taxes for a sporting venue. Big thumbs down! No, the corporate powers can fund that quite nicely and think of a way to make money from it, thank you very much. No need for the building of a stadium to come out of poor taxpayer wallets for some corporate entity to profit from in the future, bloody hell!
However, the folding of teams, or contraction of the league, is a whole different issue - and would have to come from the top, I'd think. But we are miles away from that possibility, IMHO - I think it'd have to be many more franchises losing even bigger money before such a drastic move was made. After all, there is no better sign of a dying league than contraction (see: CFL).
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Guest6813 |
Posted - 05/10/2010 : 15:25:16
EYEBROW, SASKATCHEWAN!
or Saskatoon |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/30/2010 : 11:50:43
The renovation plans for adding the 3000 seats plus luxury boxes has been in place for some time. They have been waiting for the relocation of a team or expansion
From a perspective of a fan on Edmonton, this is only a band-aid solution. Edmonton added another level of sky suites as well as I think 1500 more seats about 10 years ago and it was obsolete and outdated about 3 years after the renos. More importantly, the fan experience is garbage compared to a properly build stadium like the ACC with the giant concourses and larger seats/leg room.
I don't like the drastic moves as Slozo does of moving a number of franchises as much as I like the drastic folding of franchises. I agree that teams in Winnipeg and Quebec City make sense, but only with local government support as arena's were the reason both teams left in the first place. I am also in favor of a team in the GTA but only North as I firmly believe that a team south of TO will spell the end of Buffalo. Also consider the Islanders are more than likely out of Long Island in the next 2-4 years as they need a new building as well and the City Council wants nothing to do with it.
Ultimately, I would rather see the league fold 6-8 teams (Phoenix, Florida, Carolina, NY Islanders, Atlanta, and ??) and not replace them quickly. Rather, make a sound infastructure in 4 places (arenas/ownership/sponsorship) eventually getting to a 26 team league max. Could you imagine the quality of the sport basically taking every 4th line in the league and dropping those players out??? More skill, less goon garbage means better hockey.
Then, get into full revenue sharing a la the NFL and watch the NHL flourish in all markets. Unfortunately, ownership will not go for any of it. |
| Guest2000 |
Posted - 03/30/2010 : 11:48:57
Gentleman many interesting and well researched responces as far as my answer to whom deserves a team. Being originally from the East Coast i'd love to see a team in Halifax an agree that large company's like Irving, Sobeys, Moosehead & Keiths & Global would all jump at the bit as either investors or sponsors for such a move.
In the GTA Mississauga or Woodbridge / Richmond Hill could easily support a team. Hell if the leafs weren't so greedy you could successfully put a team in both areas and this would still leave the Golden Horse Shoe area who regularly attend the Sabres games not killing the Buffalo organization.
I Like Regina or Saskatchewan as a potential location seeing how crazy and loyal roughrider fans are i could only imagine if we tapped into their hockey market.
I am not a fan of a Winnipeg market hell thats why we have a team in Phoenix now cuz they flunked the first time. ( I'm Sure i'll get a little grief for this.) But thats just my opinion.
Even though Quebec flunked the first time i believe their the first candian city to get a chance at the next team just because they are desperately making moves to build an arena. As far as the US Market i do like the idea of Wisconsin they are loyal College Hockey fans and knowledgeable; if you can tap into a third of the packers fan base then you have a sell out every game not to mention its -40 there in the winter so i'm sure there are more then enough people who enjoy the game of hockey.
Outside of Wisconsin i see know reason to expand any further in the US. I know KC has been thrown around but then do you endup tapping to much into the Blues Market? |
| impropriety |
Posted - 03/30/2010 : 11:18:30
I'm not sure how true this is, but I've been hearing a lot of talk about plans to renovate the MTS Centre to seat ~18,000 people. I've been hearing it from quite a few reputable sources.
I really don't see how it could happen. I go to the MTS Centre a lot. My office building is connected to it so I go there every day because there's a Tim Hortons in the concourse. I'm also a regular fixture at Manitoba Moose games because there's a company discount available.
They list the capacity at 15,000 but I'm pretty sure they only actually sell to ~13,000, and even then it's cramped. They could hit 18,000 with a major renovations as there's a huge parking lot that's adjacent, but it would be a big job. |
| ReyR |
Posted - 03/30/2010 : 10:22:10
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4339
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6982
For all those people saying that winnipeg and quebec have already tried and failed, please remember that they weren't given the same amount of money struggling teams now get. I also don't get why people defend bettman if the whole phoenix situation happened to a canadian team he would be all for the movement of the team and thats what pisses me off about him
Absolutely wrong; the league would not allow ANY team to move in the Phoenix situation.
Guys, don't let Balsillie brainwash you. That was all about control over who gets to decide where franchises go. It was not about US vs Canada and all that other stuff.
As for the guest that said that 15k is "almost" the same as 18k.
That 3k difference, if we use Bean's $50 average ticket price translates into $6 million per year revenue.
Darn, I just registered. That was me above. |
| Guest4339 |
Posted - 03/30/2010 : 10:20:40
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6982
For all those people saying that winnipeg and quebec have already tried and failed, please remember that they weren't given the same amount of money struggling teams now get. I also don't get why people defend bettman if the whole phoenix situation happened to a canadian team he would be all for the movement of the team and thats what pisses me off about him
Absolutely wrong; the league would not allow ANY team to move in the Phoenix situation.
Guys, don't let Balsillie brainwash you. That was all about control over who gets to decide where franchises go. It was not about US vs Canada and all that other stuff.
As for the guest that said that 15k is "almost" the same as 18k.
That 3k difference, if we use Bean's $50 average ticket price translates into $6 million per year revenue. |
| impropriety |
Posted - 03/30/2010 : 09:17:40
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/NHL-has-spoken-with-True-North-about-return-to-Winnipeg-89436782.html
This is what local media's got to say about it.
I also just noticed I said Kypreos on Sportcentre. It was actually on Sportsnet Connected AM.
He was basically saying that the deal in place is that Thompson would assume all of the debt associated with the Coyotes franchise (which is really best-case scenario for the NHL) in exchange for moving the team to Winnipeg. Then in a couple years when he already has his foot in the door with the league, he sells his interest in the Winnipeg franchise and gets the option to set up shop for a second team in the GTA through expansion. |
| n/a |
Posted - 03/30/2010 : 08:58:32
One thing is assured: if Phoenix actually manages to move back to Winnipeg, it won't have been Bettman's idea!
I would welcome back any team to Canada, and support this wholeheartedly. Do I think a team in southern Ontario in Toronto's area would do even better? Hell yeah . . . but that doesn't take away from the fact that WInnipeg is very deserving of getting their team back. No WAY do I want to see another disaster in a city like Kansas City, which there have also been many rumours about . . .
Phoenix to Winnipeg - check!
Next up:
Nashville to Hamilton - ?
Atlanta to Quebec City - ?
Florida to . . . Halifax ?!? 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| impropriety |
Posted - 03/30/2010 : 08:07:37
Looks like there's some legs to the Winnipeg thing this go around. Kypreos on Sportcentre today said he's heard it from a few of his in-the-know sources that a deal's been in the works since the olympic break. |
| Guest4746 |
Posted - 03/29/2010 : 19:39:19
WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEGWINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG WINNIPEG |
|
|
