Arenas that could host a NHL team right now

[McDLT]

Melnyk could put an NHL caliber team at the Canadian Tire Centre.

I’ll show myself out.

 

[HisIceness]

Golden 1 Center in Sacramento?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I still can't believe that Milwaukee doesn't have a team

Why Milwaukee is Not an NHL City

 

[YEM]

Why Milwaukee is Not an NHL City

funny, I clicked on that thinking I'd see an article about why the NHL isn't suited for Milwaukee but the answer is basically a difference of $15 million dollars in 1990.

 

[Sharks2020]

Target Center

 

[BKIslandersFan]

Target Center

This is a strange one. From what I have seen the arena can flawlessly host hockey but Wild still chose to build their own arena in St. Paul. I guess they wanted to maximize their own revenue I suppose.

 

[These Are The Days]

SaskTel Centre or the arena that's liable to replace it might be possible. No... I'm NOT saying Saskatoon is getting a team or needs one, just that its current/future arena may be liable to be comparable to Bell MTS Place in Winnipeg. Maybe one day they can get a team but God the whole province would have to pitch in to fill it every night. That's way different than a few weeks of the Riders being the only game in town

 

[Dirty Old Man]

But that's not what's gonna happen, is it? It will become "Why should this one be included, not that one...but that market's not big enough...oh yes it is" bla bla bla ad nauseam.

see? witness the posts since I posted that.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

funny, I clicked on that thinking I'd see an article about why the NHL isn't suited for Milwaukee but the answer is basically a difference of $15 million dollars in 1990.

$20 million. Plus potential [likely] indemnification to Chicago. Plus the whole "the teams needs to be competitive" thing, which wasn't going to happen with those expansion teams for a while.

Kind of runs along with what I'm saying. There's another article I found that questions whether corporations were going to fork over dollars to support another pro sports team with the Packers, Brewers, Bucks, and Badgers/Golden Eagles all getting significant dollars to support them. [The "is there enough business to support another major team?" question I've asked a number of times.]

 

[YEM]

$20 million. Plus potential [likely] indemnification to Chicago.

not to nitpick, but the article said they were prepared to pay $5 million to Chicago->$15 million
as to yr latter point, I think the money in Wisconsin would have naturally flowed toward a pro hockey team.
If that town can support two of the more bland and unsuccessful teams in recent history in the NBA and MLB, then they'd support an NHL team.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

SaskTel Centre or the arena that's liable to replace it might be possible. No... I'm NOT saying Saskatoon is getting a team or needs one, just that its current/future arena may be liable to be comparable to Bell MTS Place in Winnipeg. Maybe one day they can get a team but God the whole province would have to pitch in to fill it every night. That's way different than a few weeks of the Riders being the only game in town

Isnt SaskTel Center essentially Nassau Coliseum clone? Yea it’s no longer NHL capable.

 

[KevFu]

Golden 1 Center in Sacramento?

Nope. Way to cramped on the corner/endlines to fit hockey. It was built for basketball.

 

[These Are The Days]

Isnt SaskTel Center essentially Nassau Coliseum clone? Yea it’s no longer NHL capable.

I'm not sure to be honest but I know there are plans to replace it and I know they're not gonna spend all that time and money for anything less than what Winnipeg has. When it's done I'm sure it would be NHL caliber but just simply not in a big enough place

 

[jkrdevil]

The only ones I can think of that haven't been brought up yet

AT&T Center in San Antonio
Bankers Life Fieldhouse in Indianapolis

Looks like neither is suitable for full-time NHL.

As discussed in another thread, The Alamodome in San Antonio has a built in ice plant and can could technically house a team. Not that I think the league would ever look at it as a permanent building

 

[Ted Hoffman]

not to nitpick, but the article said they were prepared to pay $5 million to Chicago->$15 million

They were ready to pay as much as $30 million. The expansion fee was $50 million. The indemnity fee to Chicago was on top of that, and they were only expecting $5 million. [No clue what it really would have been; based on what the Devils paid to the Rangers, Islanders and Flyers - the Rangers alone reportedly got $4 million - and what the Ducks would end up paying to the Kings, I'd say $5 million is really optimistic.]

$50 million minus $30 million is .... well, I'll let you figure out the math. Then figure out what you think Chicago would have actually gotten in indemnity fees, subtract $5 million from that, and ... well, again - you figure out the math.

as to yr latter point, I think the money in Wisconsin would have naturally flowed toward a pro hockey team.
If that town can support two of the more bland and unsuccessful teams in recent history in the NBA and MLB, then they'd support an NHL team.

Read the article again about the team having to be consistently competitive. Not "suck for the first handful of years trying to get its shit together." Living in the area, I can tell you there's not some massive pile of cash waiting to be spent on some sports team that just drops in downtown. The Badgers and Packers are significantly more popular now than they were in the late 80s, the Bucks are finally relevant again [for now], and Marquette is Marquette. Beyond that, I've stated my thoughts on this numerous times; feel free to search for them.

Short version: if the NHL is looking to expand or relocate, Milwaukee isn't in the top-5 desirable locations. Saying "what if" is all speculation, and your guess and my guess are accurate - meaning, they're neither true nor untrue. I prefer to stick to known facts when possible, which is where I'm OK stepping off saying Chicago getting $5 million was probably optimistic.

 

[alko]

Yeah, but you know this group. It's not really about what arenas are suitable. It's a way to keep alive relo/expansion discussion even though there is a slim chance of anything besides seattle happening in the foreseeable future.

That's why I'm saying - start with those 2 lists, pare it down, establish your criteria, determine which meet it, be done with it.

But that's not what's gonna happen, is it? It will become "Why should this one be included, not that one...but that market's not big enough...oh yes it is" bla bla bla ad nauseam.

You are welcome. Do your homework and show us your results.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

Nah, that's an exercise for the reader. I've given detailed instructions.

 

[scholl]

FirstOntario Center in Hamilton. They've always wanted a NHL team but the location is too close to Toronto.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Yeah, but you know this group. It's not really about what arenas are suitable. It's a way to keep alive relo/expansion discussion even though there is a slim chance of anything besides seattle happening in the foreseeable future.

That's why I'm saying - start with those 2 lists, pare it down, establish your criteria, determine which meet it, be done with it.

But that's not what's gonna happen, is it? It will become "Why should this one be included, not that one...but that market's not big enough...oh yes it is" bla bla bla ad nauseam.

Well, you weren't wrong. That's exactly where the thread is headed.

To be fair, spitballing expansion/relo possibilities is always going to be an area of interest. It's the reason they include those options in EA video games. Some people just really enjoy fantasizing about starting up a team in a new city. Nothing wrong with that.

what are those now? is it documented in the expansion bid process? i sense many older venues in the league now might not meet current new standards - which suggest the league might be willing to camp out temporarily in an older, satisfactory venue when a new one gets built. so we could even further divide the arenas into great and good-enough-for-now.

can i also ask? is building an arena specific to NBA preference (and excluding hockey) that much better for that NBA experience than building a flexible arena? or is the advantage just in costs savings, not needing ice equipment? i guess i just figured that folks would always just build the venue that gave it greatest flexibility.

My closest experience with this was in the relocation of the Hurricanes. The arena was originally designed to host NCAA basketball only, and when the Whalers accepted the relocation bid the architects had to scramble and re-design the locker rooms and press areas. That was where the "not up to NHL standards even if you put a rink in it" came into play. Now, in an NBA arena maybe it's not as much of an issue because you're already designing with a pro league in mind. But it's hard to say exactly what the standards are, because they're not publicly distributed. My guess is they're set by one of the BOG committees and shared with potential expansion/relo applicants to ensure compliance.

Ice standards, on the other hand, are relatively public. This company gives us a hint of what NHL compliance looks like:

"Recently the NHL has issued revised design parameters to improve ice sheet and arena conditions for professional hockey venues. New modern arena construction has included active desiccant dehumidification to provide 65ºF at 35% to 40% RH (Relative Humidity) conditions to optimize the ice conditions.
...
In the recreational rink market the dew-point of the rink is maintained at or below 32 ºF, This will provide an indoor condition of 55 to 60ºF at 40 to 35% RH. The National Hockey League (NHL) has now issued requirements that are similar to the recreational market. The NHL has requested a 60ºF at 35% pre-game condition and a 65ºF at 45% post game condition"

What this means on a practical basis is that the arena needs to have up-to-date humidity control* and also high-quality icemaking equipment**.

You are absolutely right that the league has shown a willingness to temporarily use non-compliant arenas as long as a better facility is on the way. That was certainly the case when the Canes were in Greensboro, the Sharks in the Cow Palace, and now we know the Isles will play in non-compliant Barclays while they wait for the Belmont project. And there are always compromises to be made for exhibition games and outdoor games.

So yes, three categories:
1) Incapable of hosting an NHL team, due to completely inadquate ice facilities or a layout that simply won't work
2) Capable of being a temporary arena, as long as a compliant facility is on the way
3) Fully compliant and ready to be a permanent NHL arena tomorrow

As to the last question, the cost of installing and maintaining icemaking equipment is a factor. Perhaps a larger factor is that the seating area has to be architecturally designed for a hockey rink, or else you end up with a Barclay's situation for hockey. But if you don't intend to ever host hockey, it makes sense to fully commit to a design that works best for basketball and concert-type events.

* this was an issue at the new Canes arena as well, they had to install not just a rink but also humidity-control equipment that wasn't originally part of the plans
** this is an issue at Barclay's, which was recently revealed to out of NHL compliance

 

[Jumptheshark]

I still can't believe that Milwaukee doesn't have a team

To close to chicago

 

[Lt Dan]

To close to chicago

Disagree
They have a successful team in every other major sport.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Disagree
They have a successful team in every other major sport.

personally I do not think the NHL could coexist with the NBA in Milwaukee the Bucks are to Milwaukee as the Packers are to Green bay

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

Disagree
They have a successful team in every other major sport.

So does Kansas City, Portland, Indianapolis, Atlanta, and Houston. That doesn't mean that it would be a great NHL market.

 

[KevFu]

personally I do not think the NHL could coexist with the NBA in Milwaukee the Bucks are to Milwaukee as the Packers are to Green bay

The smallest "Four sport" city is just under 3 million. That's like 733,000 per sports team. Milwaukee DMA is about 2.1 times that number; making them "about right" for the sports they have and a stretch to add another.

Non-NHL cities over that 733,000 per sport team threshold, not counting adjacent markets, or ones that would require rights fees:
1. Houston (Toyota Center, but new NBA/NHL facility could happen)
2. San Diego (no arena, but new NBA/NHL facility could happen)
3. San Antonio (no arena, but new NBA/NHL facility could happen)
4. Portland (Moda Center)
5. Austin (new Texas arena, with OVG/Leiweke involved)
6. Kansas City (Sprint Center)
7. Hampton Roads/Virginia Beach (no NHL venue)

Meets requirements but not realistic:
Orlando (Amway Center, but not while a competing Raleigh franchise is low on the revenue chart)
Charlotte (but not while a competing Raleigh franchise is low on the revenue chart)
Atlanta (Phillips Arena, but not willing to try again with Hawks ownership)
Sacramento (no arena, NBA one is brand new)

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

the Bucks are to Milwaukee as the Packers are to Green bay

Wait, what?