Arenas that could host a NHL team right now

[tarheelhockey]

Sure; what's the threshold? How many is 'enough'?



(I know you don't know. And I hope I don't come across as though I'm picking on you, it's a rhetorical question.)

No worries.

I think it comes down to, if newer arenas have 60+ suites that are completely modern and selling for $3000, and my arena has 30 suites that are selling for $1000 and look like something my grandmother would come up with, then I don't have a good enough arena to keep pace. Even if my franchise is above water, that $150000 gap every game from suites alone is going to create a widening gap between the franchises over time.

 

[Hoser]

Right, the idea is maximizing revenue. The cheeky thing is the teams (and Uncle Gary) don't talk about the actual numbers.

Did you know for instance that Rogers Place in Edmonton has fewer suites than its predecessor Rexall Place (née Northlands Coliseum) does? Did you know the allegedly decrepit Saddledome has more suites (72 + six 'party' suites) than Rogers Place (57) and T-Mobile Arena (44. two party suites & eight at the event level)? I bet you didn't.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Right, the idea is maximizing revenue. The cheeky thing is the teams (and Uncle Gary) don't talk about the actual numbers.

Did you know for instance that Rogers Place in Edmonton has fewer suites than its predecessor Rexall Place (née Northlands Coliseum) does? Did you know the allegedly decrepit Saddledome has more suites (72 + six 'party' suites) than Rogers Place (57) and T-Mobile Arena (44. two party suites & eight at the event level)? I bet you didn't.

I'll bet an incredibly large sum of money that the owners aren't trying to maximize revenue, just like they aren't trying to maximize profits like some believe.

 

[HisIceness]

The Canes didn’t have many options when they moved in 1997. Crown Coliseum is a 4,500 seat arena. Imagine seeing NHL games in a arena that is smaller than some mid-major college basketball gyms. And the team would have been mocked even more for years (like they were in Greensboro with all the empty seats).

Imagine the culture shock of not just the Whalers-turned-Hurricanes players, but also the rest of the NHL when they would have stepped foot in Fayetteville for the first time had that been the route the Canes took I'm sure there would have been some good stories out of it that would make for a great podcast listen though, so in a way the league kind of missed out.

For those that don't know, North Carolina is a booming state with fast-growing cities and business/housing opportunities galore. Fayetteville is not one of those cities, to put it nicely.

 

[JMCx4]

This blogger either knows nothing about the business of pro hockey, or sacrificed that knowledge to the click-bait gods. Still, his fanciful collection from last fall of destinations for NHL franchises includes some thoughts about home ice venues for each in keeping with the theme of this thread ...

Stadium Talk-Peng: Cities That Should Have an NHL Team

 

[Dirty Old Man]

Stadium Talk-Peng: Cities That Should Have an NHL Team

OMG he left out Virginia Beach and Louisville!

 

[tarheelhockey]

Right, the idea is maximizing revenue. The cheeky thing is the teams (and Uncle Gary) don't talk about the actual numbers.

Did you know for instance that Rogers Place in Edmonton has fewer suites than its predecessor Rexall Place (née Northlands Coliseum) does? Did you know the allegedly decrepit Saddledome has more suites (72 + six 'party' suites) than Rogers Place (57) and T-Mobile Arena (44. two party suites & eight at the event level)? I bet you didn't.

To be fair, in the case of the Saddledome it's not strictly about counting the number of suites. As I understand it, the key issues for the Saddledome are:

1) Only half of those suites are located in the bottom part of the arena, where modern suites are usually located. The other half are way up near the press boxes. So while they are better than normal seats, they are not the premium experience we have in mind, and they are priced accordingly.

2) Unlike a new arena, 2/3rd of the Saddledome seats are located in the middle and upper bowl. Basically 2/3rds of the regular seats are "cheap seats", compared to 1/3rd premium seats. In a newer arena it's no worse than 50/50.

3) Lack of a club level. That's a pretty big deal, because club levels are integral to modern arena design. It's a missed opportunity for sponsorships, and also makes for a less "premium" experience where people are willing to pay more per seat in order to be able to also spend more on food and drink.

4) The roof design is not great for acoustics and can't handle heavy loads. That makes the arena unattractive for non-hockey events and limits what you can go with e.g. scoreboards and speakers.

I don't think anyone has argued that the building is literally incapable of hosting an NHL team. The issue is that as it ages, the economics of staying there become less appealing for all the reasons listed above. If you're losing, let's say $10 million a year due to these limitations, that's $100M over the course of the next decade. Next thing you know you're talking real money.

 

[tarheelhockey]

This blogger either knows nothing about the business of pro hockey, or sacrificed that knowledge to the click-bait gods. Still, his fanciful collection from last fall of destinations for NHL franchises includes some thoughts about home ice venues for each in keeping with the theme of this thread ...

Stadium Talk-Peng: Cities That Should Have an NHL Team

My hot take reactions:

Atlanta - Actually not as bad an idea as it sounds, but realistically it's going to take a generation of recovery before it can be considered seriously again.

Austin - Again not as bad an idea as it sounds. I don't see a huge difference between this and Raleigh.

Baltimore - It's already a 3-sport town and it's massively challenged in so many ways. Too close to DC, contracting economically. Maybe if one of the other pro teams left town, otherwise I can't see it going well.

Cincinnati - It's like Baltimore but smaller. Does not need to be a 3-team city.

Cleveland - Same story. It's sports-oversaturated and contracting economically. An NHL team could probably survive there but would limp along.

Halifax - You'd have to sell a season ticket to every 200th person in the city. That will never, ever happen.

Hamilton - One way or another, they'd be crushed by the Leafs. They'd be the Clippers. Even if they survived, it would not be pretty.

Hartford - This has been gone over in so many ways. Teams do not survive on nostalgia. Hartford is not a major league city in 2019.

Helsinki - What? Oh **** he's doing international cities? Ok let's get this out of the way...
Mexico City, Moscow, Prague, Sapporo (???!?!???) - No. Stop.

Houston - Top-tier potential. At worst it's another Dallas.

Indianapolis - Make the Pacers disappear and sure.

Kansas City - I could see it in a 36-team league.

Milwaukee - I could see it. The economic profile isn't perfect, but I think it would support a team.

Oklahoma City - It's like Kansas City lite, but OKC has actually supported hockey for a long time. It deserves a fair look.

Portland - With Seattle and Vancouver on board, I think you have to really consider it. There's potential to have a nice little trio in the PNW.

Quebec City - The question is whether it's more like Hartford or Winnipeg. It's not a major league city, but sheer cultual inertia might make a team viable. It's a close call.

Salt Lake City - In a weird way I can kind of squint and see it, but we're talking 40-team league territory here.

San Francisco - I don't see how you could do this without cannibalizing the Sharks, which is one of the most successful franchises of the past 20 years. I mean SF by itself is a home run, but why compete with yourself? Hamilton-type situation here.

Saskatoon - WAY too small to be in serious consideration. Barely a better option than Halifax.

Toronto - There is simply no reason to do this.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

My hot take reactions:
Baltimore - It's already a 3-sport town...

Ravens, O's, and....?

otherwise, great post.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Ravens, O's, and....?

otherwise, great post.

LOL, in my addled brain I always regard the Wizards as a Baltimore team because they occupy that market. Obviously not a "Baltimore team" for the purposes of this conversation.

 

[JMCx4]

OMG he left out Virginia Beach and Louisville!

He was only allotted so much column length. Maybe his October 2019 revisit will include those.

 

[Ocoffeemycoffee]

The arena is about to be torn down, and obviously there wouldn't be 2 Metro Detroit NHL teams, but the Palace of Auburn Hills is capable.

The Carrier Dome in Syracuse, NY. I know Syracuse wouldn't be viable either, but it hosts Football and Basketball, so I'd imagine it has enough seating for NHL and then some.

 

[HisIceness]

My hot take reactions:
Austin - Again not as bad an idea as it sounds. I don't see a huge difference between this and Raleigh.

I agree completely. Austin as a market is on the same tier as San Jose, Nashville, Columbus, and Raleigh. Highly educated, fast growing, lots of disposable income. It will be interesting to see how they do with the MLS franchise.

Problem is right now there's no arena, get one built and then speculation can commence. FWIW if they had an ownership group thats willing to put a good product on the ice, I think Austin would be a tremendously successful NHL town. Guarantee players would love living there, especially those who are young and single.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

I thought we were talking about cities that has arenas that can host a team right now. Not cities like Austin which COULD work if it had one.

 

[JMROWE]

My hot take reactions:

Atlanta - Actually not as bad an idea as it sounds, but realistically it's going to take a generation of recovery before it can be considered seriously again.

Austin - Again not as bad an idea as it sounds. I don't see a huge difference between this and Raleigh.

Baltimore - It's already a 3-sport town and it's massively challenged in so many ways. Too close to DC, contracting economically. Maybe if one of the other pro teams left town, otherwise I can't see it going well.

Cincinnati - It's like Baltimore but smaller. Does not need to be a 3-team city.

Cleveland - Same story. It's sports-oversaturated and contracting economically. An NHL team could probably survive there but would limp along.

Halifax - You'd have to sell a season ticket to every 200th person in the city. That will never, ever happen.

Hamilton - One way or another, they'd be crushed by the Leafs. They'd be the Clippers. Even if they survived, it would not be pretty.

Hartford - This has been gone over in so many ways. Teams do not survive on nostalgia. Hartford is not a major league city in 2019.

Helsinki - What? Oh **** he's doing international cities? Ok let's get this out of the way...
Mexico City, Moscow, Prague, Sapporo (???!?!???) - No. Stop.

Houston - Top-tier potential. At worst it's another Dallas.

Indianapolis - Make the Pacers disappear and sure.

Kansas City - I could see it in a 36-team league.

Milwaukee - I could see it. The economic profile isn't perfect, but I think it would support a team.

Oklahoma City - It's like Kansas City lite, but OKC has actually supported hockey for a long time. It deserves a fair look.

Portland - With Seattle and Vancouver on board, I think you have to really consider it. There's potential to have a nice little trio in the PNW.

Quebec City - The question is whether it's more like Hartford or Winnipeg. It's not a major league city, but sheer cultual inertia might make a team viable. It's a close call.

Salt Lake City - In a weird way I can kind of squint and see it, but we're talking 40-team league territory here.

San Francisco - I don't see how you could do this without cannibalizing the Sharks, which is one of the most successful franchises of the past 20 years. I mean SF by itself is a home run, but why compete with yourself? Hamilton-type situation here.

Saskatoon - WAY too small to be in serious consideration. Barely a better option than Halifax.

Toronto - There is simply no reason to do this.

Let's narrow that list down .
Houston - Should of had NHL. team by now & will have team within the next few years most likely a relocated coyotes team .

Quebec City - Brand new arena all set to go an NHL. should be there within the next 10 years.

Hamilton - The FOC. dose need a 250 million dollar face lift or 350 million dollar new arena but overall still should have an NHL. team by 2030 because Hamilton 's population should be over a million by then & be to much of gold mine for the NHL. to ignore anymore & by then the 2 people the kept hockey out of Hamilton will be dead or long gone in which I mean Gary Bettman & Jeremey Jacobs.

Portland - All they need is an owner to make it happen.

These are the only 4 cities I believe that have no risk & will be huge money makers for the NHL. while those other markets
have some risk to them .

 

[Dirty Old Man]

Keepin' dat 10 year incorrect streak alive...go for 20, why not!

 

[mouser]

Let's narrow that list down .
Houston - Should of had NHL. team by now & will have team within the next few years most likely a relocated coyotes team .

Quebec City - Brand new arena all set to go an NHL. should be there within the next 10 years.

Hamilton - The FOC. dose need a 250 million dollar face lift or 350 million dollar new arena but overall still should have an NHL. team by 2030 because Hamilton 's population should be over a million by then & be to much of gold mine for the NHL. to ignore anymore & by then the 2 people the kept hockey out of Hamilton will be dead or long gone in which I mean Gary Bettman & Jeremey Jacobs.

Portland - All they need is an owner to make it happen.

These are the only 4 cities I believe that have no risk & will be huge money makers for the NHL. while those other markets
have some risk to them .

I see one big fish in there and three minnows.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

Is Portland big enough for 2.5 major league teams? .5 being MLS.

 

[Hoser]

To be fair, in the case of the Saddledome it's not strictly about counting the number of suites. As I understand it, the key issues for the Saddledome are:

1) Only half of those suites are located in the bottom part of the arena, where modern suites are usually located. The other half are way up near the press boxes. So while they are better than normal seats, they are not the premium experience we have in mind, and they are priced accordingly.

46 of the 72 are located at the lower bowl, 13 rows up. They're considerably closer to the playing surface than most arenas' suites; costs are private, but as far as I know they're between $150,000 and $300,000 per season.

The 26 suites at the top of the second bowl are still >$100,000 per season. There are an additional 349 ticketed seats in the Saddleroom Grille and the Platinum Club restaurants, which are located at the suite level at centre ice.

2) Unlike a new arena, 2/3rd of the Saddledome seats are located in the middle and upper bowl. Basically 2/3rds of the regular seats are "cheap seats", compared to 1/3rd premium seats. In a newer arena it's no worse than 50/50.

There are 4799 seats in the 100 level (not including the suites), 10122 in the 200 level, and 3555 in the Press ('300') level.

The highest revenue tickets are the first row of the 200 level. The first 13 rows of the 100 level are next, then the second, third and fourth rows of the second level, followed by the 871 seats in the 14th through 24 rows of the 100 level.

3) Lack of a club level. That's a pretty big deal, because club levels are integral to modern arena design. It's a missed opportunity for sponsorships, and also makes for a less "premium" experience where people are willing to pay more per seat in order to be able to also spend more on food and drink.

On the contrary, there is a club concourse below the main concourse, inaccessible to the hoi polloi. The club seats on the 100 level and the suiteholders have exclusive access to it. Club tickets also include wait service, and the suites are catered and have their own washrooms.

4) The roof design is not great for acoustics and can't handle heavy loads. That makes the arena unattractive for non-hockey events and limits what you can go with e.g. scoreboards and speakers.

The roof is great for acoustics (for an arena); it's specially designed to cut down reverb.

It is true it's not designed to support a lot of extra load from stage riggings.

 

[Newfoundland]

Bielle

 

[BKIslandersFan]

I think State Farm Arena has some obstructed seats, but those seats are newly added, replacing some of the suites.

 

[jkrdevil]

Is Portland big enough for 2.5 major league teams? .5 being MLS.

Depends on the two major league teams. An NBA and Baseball team whose seasons run opposite each other? Probably. An NHL and NBA whose seasons run concurrent? Probably not.

 

[HisIceness]

I think State Farm Arena has some obstructed seats, but those seats are newly added, replacing some of the suites.

I guess it is safe to say that the Wall of Suites idea never took off as intended.

(and, holy hell that is one very ugly Basketball floor)

 

[BKIslandersFan]

I guess it is safe to say that the Wall of Suites idea never took off as intended.

(and, holy hell that is one very ugly Basketball floor)

Atlanta Hawks Virtual Venue™ by IOMEDIA

Hm, actually those seats where suites used to be are not bad for hockey at all.

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

Centre Videotron is the number one.

Lots are good, I find Fiserv Forum to be one that could be an NHL team. Rupp Arena would be interesting.

Lexington and Louisville are do-able, but I think they're much more suited for Basketball than they are hockey in terms of fans. Although I do understand they're more of a college sports city, but I think they could be one of the best sports states in the world.

Kansas City though should have NHL and NBA.