Fans at Rogers

[spook007]

2 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

For me, it's ticket prices and atmosphere (or lack there of) that keeps me away from the arena and IMO they go hand in hand.

 

I lived in Victoria until about 3 years ago and I would always plan a trip over to the mainland each year to see a game but since I moved over here, I've only been to one game.

 

The atmosphere sucks. Plain and simple. The product does not match the price. I just can't justify dropping $100+ to see a game (in it's current state) when I can watch it for free in the comfort of my own home. But the price wouldn't be as much of an issue if the product was better and in our situation, that's a tough problem to solve.

 

I see other arenas on TV and how the atmosphere differs city to city. Their product is night and day to ours. So how do we get that? Winning is a good start. A winning franchise is much easier to market and will surely sell more tickets. But how do we get the right people to buy those tickets? That's our biggest problem. 

 

Ownership needs to start building the kind of culture that we see in Toronto, New York, Montreal etc and it has to start with the youth. As it stands right now, the average family can't afford to go to the games. Dropping $500 for a night out in your own city is absurd. I don't see ownership doing this but if they want things to improve then they need to drastically slash ticket prices. Once they establish a highly marketable product, they can raise ticket prices again but until then, they need to make it affordable for families to go to the games. They need to engrain their product into these kids like a McDonalds happy meal. It's a process that will take a long time but eventually the Canucks will be the hottest ticket in town. But it's such a massive overhaul, I just don't see ownership having any appetite for it. So sadly, I think what you see is what you get. Although, I do see things improving a bit once we have a good team again.

Like this post very much...

I know the Canucks does a lot of promotional work in the community, but at the end of the day, what really sells the club to kids and adults alike are watching the games live.

The life blood to any sports club comes through youth. Most adults have already got their allegiance to a club, and that like will never change, but youngsters will often follow a team that is doing well. 

I've often noticed on these boards people supporting various teams, and that is something I can't really relate to. Doesn't mean I don't like to see good hockey, and of course get excited to watch SC games as such, but during the season, I don't see many non Canucks games. 

I believe the club should do even more to get hold of the youngsters in these times of need. When the team is winning it comes natural to become a supporter, but in a transitional period less so. And once the youngsters are lost to other colours, its very hard to get hold of them again.

These last few games suggests to me that the club could a lot worse than make some bring you kids for free games or kids $5... 

I am totally aware that the clubs main income is from corporate seats at a high cost, and whether we like it or not, the money has to come from somewhere....

However when things do not go to plan, and the corporate ticket holders lose interest, the people who will suffer the most are the hard core fans, who could end up losing their club....

 

Atmosphere.... You have to wonder if its the corporate ticket holders, who have vetoed people having a good time in the stands? 

I think @Jimmy McGillsaid it best... write to the club and tell them how you feel. Its entertainment, and as such let people feel they can participate... 

I come from another sports culture, but I would find it hard to go to a match, without being able to shout and sing from the stands. It takes so little, and often brings a huge smile to peoples faces... more importantly is brings unity... young and old.

 

 

[Davathor]

6 hours ago, NucksPatsFan said:

I was there on Tuesday. 

 

$24.75 CDN for my ticket

2 beers at $8.75 each - $17.50

Went to The Pint pre-game for their wing special and  pint - $10

 

$52.25 for a fun night out with friends, not bad. 

 

 

Disclaimer: I enjoy sitting in the upper bowl in rows 6-10, I find it's usually others like me who don't care about where they're seated and just want to have fun and watch hockey. I understand if I had a need to sit in 'better' (subjective topic) seats it would cost a lot more.

 

 

I was wondering on the other posters math of 'working out to at least very expensive

 

That sounds super reasonable.. like that's the kind of price tag to get an arena rocking.

[DontFockWithBrock]

Kinda late to the thread and probably saying the same thing that a handful of other have already said but HERE WE GO... 

 

As a post-secondary student, I would go to more games if ticket prices were lower. Don't have enough time to work to afford tickets (or beer!!). Watching games at home with my pops and sister is so much kinder to the wallet (and the beer is provided). 

 

Side note: since the canucks have been in a slump for a few years, the number of friends I have that LOVE the canucks has greatly diminished. In 2011 I had a bunch of friends over to watch games (at least once/week during regular season and almost every playoff game) and they were all super into it. And now... I've got one canucks fan friend remaining. It's really sad how much the interest in the canucks has gone down since 2011. 

 

[Riviera82]

1 hour ago, tas said:

real fans see that management has done exactly what they said they would do from day one, and the people that are confused about direction or see disorganization or contradictions have been brainwashed by the media.

 

Well I'm a little confused. Is what we've been seeing for the last couple of years what management said was going to happen?

[Pavel_Bure 10]

I hate going to Rogers Arena. When you cheer people start looking at you like you are doing something bad. Once some guy told me to shut my mouth cause i was cheering to loud.

[RRypien37]

1 hour ago, tas said:

real fans see that management has done exactly what they said they would do from day one, and the people that are confused about direction or see disorganization or contradictions have been brainwashed by the media.

 

 Yeah for sure. And I have some land to sell you on the moon. 

[RRypien37]

1 hour ago, 10pavelbure96 said:

If you look at the ice time in the last few games you can see that our top  players are now Horvat Granlund Tanev Del Zotto, all under 30. Most under 25.

 

The rebuild is happening we aren't just mailing it in like some teams. It's good to have vets around for the youth. 

 

I will agree though that Eriksson was a big mistake but not every move they make is going to work out. He plays a smart defensively 200 ft game but is grossly overpaid and has been a disappointment. 

 

I think it's pretty obvious what direction we are going, especially once Petterson, Juolevi, Dahlen, Gaudette, Goldobin, Brisebois etc etc start pushing for spots (hopefully). Not every rookie makes the show.

MDZ has been the highest TOI in the 1st few games yes...but he is 27 and has been in the league for now his 9th season. Not an up coming prospect or rookie. Same can be said for Tanev who is a year older. 

 

People can be content and see a clear direction but I am not convinced. They have flip flopped and contradicted on their position regarding playoffs, rebuild, rebuild on the fly and being "competitive". 

 

It's all over the map. There has been no 100% clear commitment either way to one specific path. 

[Davathor]

3 hours ago, tas said:

real fans see that management has done exactly what they said they would do from day one, and the people that are confused about direction or see disorganization or contradictions have been brainwashed by the media.

 

 

Yeah I mean, besides the direct quote of "WE ARE NOT REBUILDING". you remember that? It was 2 years ago. Been living under a rock?

[cuporbust]

20 hours ago, Twilight Sparkle said:

unless the team's winning again and putting a on 2011-style explosive hockey, interest is going to remain low. all the team can do is start winning, because right now, it's "not cool" to be a canucks fan anymore, because the team isn't good. we can't talk about anything to be "proud" of this team, because not all of those fans in the stands, sit around and play make belief general manager all day, and stress out on how to make this team better and invest their time looking into advanced stats, something we really have no business knowing, if you want my honest opinion. i'm not an armchair person, and never will be. i leave it to the professionals to build this team, and i watch the vancouver canucks like i would any other tv show, and if i'm not entertained, i'm going to change the channel or do something else

 

does that make me a bandwagonner? "oh, so when you see a game's good, you'll tune in?" yea, because watching a 2 1/2 hour show is a lot to ask of someone, especially from what we saw last season. everyone has their breaking point, so if i'm watching a game, and i'm seeing the same old thing from last year, i'm changing the channel. if i'm going to see a game live, like when the jets are in town, i know the game will be entertaining from the jets fans alone, who clearly make more noise, then canucks fans themselves, an in my section, some jets fans almost got ejected because they were "too loud"

 

i'm just so done with this lame, library zone that is rogers arena, where visiting fans can't come in and chirp these uber sensitive canucks fans, when this team deserves it

 

ticket prices i think have bottomed out, but not everyone wants to invest their time into a rebuilding team, even if you can find tickets for 40~ bucks

It wasn't just the play in 2011, it was also the emotional attachment. They were a fun group to follow as well as watch. Add the bourdon tragedy , the Pyatt tragedy , and a team full of guys we drafted take over the team and u have a city that came together for more then just hockey. 

 

The sedins were still in their prime, burrows and Kesler putting on side shows and ripping teams apart , salo battling through ball pain , Hordichuk playing pranks and throwing down , Rypien fighting guys twice his size , Bieksa doing superman punches , Ehrhoff picking water bottles of the oppositions nets , and bigger then life Lu and all that came with him..... And so on. 

 

Its not the same , and the let down was huge. 

 

We wont gather steam until we have a new core of exciting players. We have a few pieces , but it is going to take more then a few maybe s and some actual success to get fans back in the seats I think. Fans will pay the prices..... We know that.... Just not for this ......whatever this is.  

 

 

Its not just fans at games. Even CDC has become a ghost town in comparison to back then. A thread would take about 6 hours before getting bumped to the second page. Now they sit in Canucks talk for a week.  

[GiveEmTheCan]

The Canucks have a PR problem right now. Management have been completely tone deaf in their message and the direction of the team appears to change week to week. Ownership, management, coaching, and the players all appear to be operating independently of one another, oftentimes in contradictory and spectalularly idiotic fashion. Fans have been clamouring for a real rebuild since AV was the coach and what we’ve been given is a series of ineffectual half measures that have amounted to little in the way of progress. 

 

The Sedins were great in the salad days of their careers, but this protracted epilogue feels like it has gone on forever. The foolhardy notion that the Sedins have “earned” retirement as Canucks is laughable as it broadcasts to the world that the whims of two men are more important than the well-being of franchise. Until they retire, the team doesn’t matter.

 

Nobody cares about wins and losses. No one cares if Brandon Sutter had a decent night. Or Loui Eriksson. Or Derek Dorsett. Or Sven Baertschi. Or Thomas Vanek. 

 

They’ve schlocked together a random assortment of washed up vets, C-level bottom sixers, and a prospect here or there to “appease” the fan base. Jim and Trev have taken almost half a decade to assemble what amounts to be a mediocre expansion roster. 

 

Tear the team down. Go back in time and stop Benning from signing Eriksson. Don’t re-sign the Sedins when their contracts expire. Move on and actually commit to a rebuild. Maybe then, fans will come back. I have a feeling this won’t occur until the team is under new management, with a President who can keep all the branches of his organization moving in one direction. Because there’s only one goal in hockey that matters, and that’s the cup. And they won’t win one as long as they have coaches who are out for themselves and general managers who would rather watch kids in Latvia than build a contender in Vancouver. 

 

 

 

 

[tas]

6 hours ago, Davathor said:

 

Yeah I mean, besides the direct quote of "WE ARE NOT REBUILDING". you remember that? It was 2 years ago. Been living under a rock?

no, I don't remember that quote. do you have a link?

[tas]

9 hours ago, RRypien37 said:

 Yeah for sure. And I have some land to sell you on the moon. 

the problem everyone in the media, both locally and nationally, as well as the vast majority of fans on here, seems to have is with the word "rebuild." are they rebuilding? are they retooling? why won't they say rebuild? why are they adding vets when they say finally said they're rebuilding?

 

the problem is that all those terms are meaningless slang terms without any actual definition, yet the hockey media has effectively created a very narrow meaning for rebuild: tear it all down, ditch all the vets, lose catastrophically for 5 - 15 years, hope to get lucky by drafting high, and cross your fingers that you can put it all together before the salary cap squeezes your team apart, making the last decade of suffering a giant waste for everyone involved. 

 

well, the canucks don't believe in that method of rebuilding. they rebuild differently. they avoided using the term "rebuild" for so long because they didn't want the prevailing connotation to give fans and media the wrong idea. 

 

"call it what you want ... we ARE rebuilding this team" is what trevor linden said (paraphrasing). rest assured, even when linden finally used the word, he didnt mean the crash and burn method. they have been rebuilding from day one whether you see it or not. 

 

the message since the inaugural press conference has been '"we want to get younger, faster and more skilled while remaining competitive throughout the process. we want our young players to develop in a winning environment." people read the words "competitive" and "winning environment" in those sentences and interpret them as the team still being a playoff team, winning more than they lose, whatever. being competitive in this context meant not necessarily BEING a playoff team, but always TRYING to be a playoff team. a winning environment means winning is always the ultimate goal. 

 

they are rebuilding the team in a way that assures that those sentiments get passed to the young players. it's incredibly important to their culture to maintain those beliefs, and never have a period where players learn that losing is ok because only the future matters. 

 

now, will the plan work? who knows? probably not. but you can say the same for damn near every rebuild. only one team can win the cup every year, which means that 30 other teams failed. 

 

the reality is, there are 5 players left that predate management. 2 of them will likely retire after this year. that's a complete rebuild, even if it's not the style of rebuild you wanted. there are some promising pieces in the pipeline, and likely at least 2 more high 1st round picks coming before the team starts to rise up the standings. I've seen enough progress that I've chosen to trust this regime enough to stand by them at least long enough for them to complete their vision and see what comes of it. whether ownership is that patient is another question altogether. 

 

[Toews]

39 minutes ago, tas said:

A winning environment means winning is always the ultimate goal. 

 

Sorry mate, no offence but that was just hilarious. You have gone so far overboard in your defence of this organization that you have redefined 'winning' as 'trying'. 

[Alflives]

43 minutes ago, tas said:

the problem everyone in the media, both locally and nationally, as well as the vast majority of fans on here, seems to have is with the word "rebuild." are they rebuilding? are they retooling? why won't they say rebuild? why are they adding vets when they say finally said they're rebuilding?

 

the problem is that all those terms are meaningless slang terms without any actual definition, yet the hockey media has effectively created a very narrow meaning for rebuild: tear it all down, ditch all the vets, lose catastrophically for 5 - 15 years, hope to get lucky by drafting high, and cross your fingers that you can put it all together before the salary cap squeezes your team apart, making the last decade of suffering a giant waste for everyone involved. 

 

well, the canucks don't believe in that method of rebuilding. they rebuild differently. they avoided using the term "rebuild" for so long because they didn't want the prevailing connotation to give fans and media the wrong idea. 

 

"call it what you want ... we ARE rebuilding this team" is what trevor linden said (paraphrasing). rest assured, even when linden finally used the word, he didnt mean the crash and burn method. they have been rebuilding from day one whether you see it or not. 

 

the message since the inaugural press conference has been '"we want to get younger, faster and more skilled while remaining competitive throughout the process. we want our young players to develop in a winning environment." people read the words "competitive" and "winning environment" in those sentences and interpret them as the team still being a playoff team, winning more than they lose, whatever. being competitive in this context meant not necessarily BEING a playoff team, but always TRYING to be a playoff team. a winning environment means winning is always the ultimate goal. 

 

they are rebuilding the team in a way that assures that those sentiments get passed to the young players. it's incredibly important to their culture to maintain those beliefs, and never have a period where players learn that losing is ok because only the future matters. 

 

now, will the plan work? who knows? probably not. but you can say the same for damn near every rebuild. only one team can win the cup every year, which means that 30 other teams failed. 

 

the reality is, there are 5 players left that predate management. 2 of them will likely retire after this year. that's a complete rebuild, even if it's not the style of rebuild you wanted. there are some promising pieces in the pipeline, and likely at least 2 more high 1st round picks coming before the team starts to rise up the standings. I've seen enough progress that I've chosen to trust this regime enough to stand by them at least long enough for them to complete their vision and see what comes of it. whether ownership is that patient is another question altogether. 

 

The argument is that JB’s philosophy of a “rebuild” results in a lesser team when done compared to the traditional style.  This lesser team then results in another management group needing to come in and rebuild in the traditional way.  As a result we, as fans, suffer through seemingly endless years of mediocre to crap teams. 

[tas]

10 minutes ago, Toews said:

 

Sorry mate, no offence but that was just hilarious. You have gone so far overboard in your defence of this organization that you have redefined 'winning' as 'trying'. 

not at all. I've defined a winning environment as one in which the focus is on winning. 

[tas]

9 minutes ago, Alflives said:

The argument is that JB’s philosophy of a “rebuild” results in a lesser team when done compared to the traditional style.  This lesser team then results in another management group needing to come in and rebuild in the traditional way.  As a result we, as fans, suffer through seemingly endless years of mediocre to crap teams. 

and that argument is based on what? is someone here from the future?

 

edit: but that's also not the point. my beef isn't necessarily with people who disagree with benning's rebuild philosophy, it's with people who can't understand the philosophy or see the direction and instead conjure up disorganization and contradiction and confusion where there isn't any. 

[Alflives]

14 minutes ago, tas said:

and that argument is based on what? is someone here from the future?

 

edit: but that's also not the point. my beef isn't necessarily with people who disagree with benning's rebuild philosophy, it's with people who can't understand the philosophy or see the direction and instead conjure up disorganization and contradiction and confusion where there isn't any. 

I accept JB's plan, but disagree with it on the account his plan is based on fewer draft picks (than a triditional rebuild) and a seeming arrogance that he can out draft (with lesser picks) all the other teams, while keeping a constant competitive on ice product.  

[tas]

5 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I accept JB's plan, but disagree with it on the account his plan is based on fewer draft picks (than a triditional rebuild) and a seeming arrogance that he can out draft (with lesser picks) all the other teams, while keeping a constant competitive on ice product.  

you're entitled to disagree, but the guy was brought in for his vaunted scouting background. I personally enjoy his confidence in being able to hit on a higher percentage of picks than most guys.  

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, tas said:

you're entitled to disagree, but the guy was brought in for his vaunted scouting background. I personally enjoy his confidence in being able to hit on a higher percentage of picks than most guys.  

Like you said earlier, we will not know for certain how well he's done until the new core group is matured.  As for his belief of icing a competitive team, that clearly has not worked.

[tas]

3 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Like you said earlier, we will not know for certain how well he's done until the new core group is matured.  As for his belief of icing a competitive team, that clearly has not worked.

I disagree. the team competes. they lose because they aren't as good as other teams. but they compete and the drive to win is there.