Doesn't this prove the exact opposite? The drop from 4th to 50th is substantial. And this is a venue that actually has regular transit access (LIRR) compared to Belmont. Wouldn't the "Al Arbour" rank even lower than NVMC if built?
The drop from 4th to 50th isn't really "substantial." I mean, yes, through six months, 4th has almost 3 times the tickets sold as 50th.
NVMC has 110,000 concert tickets sold in three months, more than the United Center -- because the United Center has more pro teams playing in it. (And also, I typed the first thing wrong: the United Center is 54th). And with about 6000 less seats to sell.
The point is: Concert tickets is money to be made from an arena. And in the New York metro area, there is not a shortage of events.
When you look at the concert list, it doesn't quite "match-up" with what you'd expect when you think about market size.
Pro sports teams occupy so many of the dates that it limits concert ticket sales. The NHL venues in Tampa and Nashville (mid to small markets in pro sports) are higher on the list than Dallas, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia. Because those cities have double the sports dates.
MSG and Barclays and Newark transcend that trend because of how freaking big the market is, and because of how easy it is to book concerts.
Would "Al Arbour Arena" make NVMC go down in terms of ticket sales? Maybe, because it would be a better venue, closer to Queens, etc. But it would also make Barclays concert ticket sales GO UP, because there'd be more concert dates available to Barclays without the Islanders 41 games, and any turnover dates getting the arena ready for hockey would be bookable.
Can't get the new site's search to help me; but I guarantee you when Ratner was trying to build Barclay's, people on this site said the exact same thing: "Does NY Metro need ANOTHER arena? There's already three!"
And Barclays is #1 in the USA in concert ticket sales.