Arenas that could host a NHL team right now

[CHRDANHUTCH]

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.

AHL has tried both, and even San Jose indirectly through USA Hockey re:Rupp Arena and Louisville still hasn't recovered from the Afr debacle that caused Florida to back out of there 18 years ago

 

[tarheelhockey]

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)

Interesting that they felt the need to go backward on that aspect of the arena. Were the upper suites just sitting empty? Seems like replacing them with cheap seats represents a BIG loss of income.

Also, noteworthy that the 200 level is tarped off on one side. Again those were likely "premium" seats with club access, so they must have really been depressingly empty or it makes little sense to cut them out of the picture.

If only there was a hockey team to pick up some of that slack

 

[cptjeff]

Interesting that they felt the need to go backward on that aspect of the arena. Were the upper suites just sitting empty? Seems like replacing them with cheap seats represents a BIG loss of income.

Also, noteworthy that the 200 level is tarped off on one side. Again those were likely "premium" seats with club access, so they must have really been depressingly empty or it makes little sense to cut them out of the picture.

If only there was a hockey team to pick up some of that slack

The NBA has substantially poorer attendance than the NHL does, especially for teams that aren't among the league's chosen at any given moment. Their TV deal is far more lucrative, which gives them higher revenue overall- but in terms of getting people through the doors, the NHL does a lot better. I suspect a lot of it has to do with the relative wealth of their fanbases. The NBA's demographic is much poorer than the NHL's, so they don't have as much money to buy tickets and premium suites. The NHL's fanbase is the wealthiest of major US sports, and it's not terribly close (even wealthier than golf fans!), so buying tickets or springing for a suite is far less of a burden. Fewer fans, which ain't great for TV advertisers, but they spend more money going to games. But for an NBA team, a strategy to maximize luxury ticket sales in a league with the lowest income fans of the big 4 (MLS's fanbase is actually lower income, it turns out) is probably a bad decision. For the NBA, you need cheap seats to get people in, and you're not gonna sell three zillion suites and premium lounges without huge corporate all event access buys, and for that you need more than just an NBA team- you need multiple full time tenants and lots of concerts.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The NBA has substantially poorer attendance than the NHL does, especially for teams that aren't among the league's chosen at any given moment. Their TV deal is far more lucrative, which gives them higher revenue overall- but in terms of getting people through the doors, the NHL does a lot better. I suspect a lot of it has to do with the relative wealth of their fanbases. The NBA's demographic is much poorer than the NHL's, so they don't have as much money to buy tickets and premium suites. The NHL's fanbase is the wealthiest of major US sports, and it's not terribly close (even wealthier than golf fans!), so buying tickets or springing for a suite is far less of a burden. Fewer fans, which ain't great for TV advertisers, but they spend more money going to games. A strategy to maximize luxury ticket sales in a league with the lowest income fans of the big 4 (MLS's fanbase is actually lower income, it turns out) is probably a bad decision. For the NBA, you need cheap seats to get people in.

I don't know about the Hawks' situation specifically, but in general the luxury suites seem to be more aimed toward corporate partners rather than the individual fan. A suite costs several thousand dollars per game, so even in the NHL it's pretty rare to hear someone say they've just up and bought out a suite with their own money. In a city with the corporate base the size of Atlanta's, I'd expect those suites to at least be sold (if not actually full of people) for the NBA season.

This Forbes article reads like a press release, but it does imply that the "wall of suites" concept was a poor fit for the local corporate ecosystem. It seems the renovation focused on trying to capture business from startups and other smaller, more agile companies that might want a mini-suite for 1 game but would not consider buying a full season.

Atlanta Hawks' Arena Renovation Erases Notion Of Seats And Suites With Fresh Business Blueprint

Frankly it sounds like the building is becoming less of an arena and more of a mall/bar complex. I'd imagine other places will keep an eye on this as a potential trendsetter, but to me this also has a very "Atlanta" feel (e.g., we are aware that something sports-related is happening here, but mainly we just wanted to say we were in the barbershop at the same time as Diddy).

 

[cptjeff]

Lighting the first few rows of seats up is just incidental, they end up somewhat illuminated just as a function of keeping the ice surface itself lit evenly. Like I said, proper lighting means meeting some bare minimums for uniformity. Otherwise the rink has light and dark 'spots' and that makes it a bit uncomfortable to watch (both live and on TV).

Here's what a photometric plan of a typical NHL rink looks like:

Spoiler

Lighting isn't pointed at the crowd, it just spills over and reflects off the ice. It's not done on purpose. Whatever changes were made to Madison Square Garden would have been because the ice rink itself was unevenly lit, not "to get the crowd on camera". Believe me: they don't care about showing schlubs like you and me on TV.

Key word there being "typical". You can adjust the lighting on the rink so that the spillover remains on the ice, and those dimmer green sections stay within the rink instead of extending out of it. And yes, that does create uneven lighting on the ice, with dark spots. The corners at MSG always used to be a little bit dimmer than the rest of the rink, and the crowd, even in the front rows, was pretty dark. That was intentional lighting design on MSG's part, and the NHL told them to change it both because they wanted more even lighting on the ice and because networks wanted the fans in the shot.

You can see it in old videos of games at MSG. The lighting is very different from what is typical now. Dim around the edges on the ice and the crowd is just flat out shrouded in black.

 

[cptjeff]

I don't know about the Hawks' situation specifically, but in general the luxury suites seem to be more aimed toward corporate partners rather than the individual fan. A suite costs several thousand dollars per game, so even in the NHL it's pretty rare to hear someone say they've just up and bought out a suite with their own money. In a city with the corporate base the size of Atlanta's, I'd expect those suites to at least be sold (if not actually full of people) for the NBA season.

This Forbes article reads like a press release, but it does imply that the "wall of suites" concept was a poor fit for the local corporate ecosystem. It seems the renovation focused on trying to capture business from startups and other smaller, more agile companies that might want a mini-suite for 1 game but would not consider buying a full season.

Atlanta Hawks' Arena Renovation Erases Notion Of Seats And Suites With Fresh Business Blueprint

Frankly it sounds like the building is becoming less of an arena and more of a mall/bar complex. I'd imagine other places will keep an eye on this as a potential trendsetter, but to me this also has a very "Atlanta" feel (e.g., we are aware that something sports-related is happening here, but mainly we just wanted to say we were in the barbershop at the same time as Diddy).

I guess the difference I mean to convey is more single game tickets versus season tickets. Most corporate buyers want the suite available pretty much constantly, and what the event it's being used for is irrelevant. A client is in town, you want to take them out to a thing. NHL, NBA, college, concert, doesn't really matter, you buy the suite for a year to give them a perk so they sign that deal. Those deals are almost always with the arena and you get access to everything. The number of companies with the money to do that, and the number of clients and vendors for whom that kind of wooing is worthwhile- is limited even in the largest cities.

But there are also a lot of single game purchases of suites for group events. It's not one person buying for one person, but it's one person channeling money for a group or an entity. A youth hockey group having a group buy, a politician having a fundraiser, a work team building thing, and those decisions are driven primarily by fans who either have money or who have access to an event budget. Even when it's a business night out, the choice to go to a hockey or basketball game rather than going to a Dave and Busters is driven by whether somebody is a fan of a team or sport, and the people in a position to have everyone chip in $100 for a suite for a party, or who are making decisions about corporate events, are statistically not as likely to be NBA fans as they are of other sports. They are disproportionately likely to be hockey fans compared to the general population, so hockey has an easier time accessing those revenues.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I guess the difference I mean to convey is more single game tickets versus season tickets. Most corporate buyers want the suite available pretty much constantly, and what the event it's being used for is irrelevant. A client is in town, you want to take them out to a thing. NHL, NBA, college, concert, doesn't really matter, you buy the suite for a year to give them a perk so they sign that deal. Those deals are almost always with the arena and you get access to everything. The number of companies with the money to do that, and the number of clients and vendors for whom that kind of wooing is worthwhile- is limited even in the largest cities.

But there are also a lot of single game purchases of suites for group events. It's not one person buying for one person, but it's one person channeling money for a group or an entity. A youth hockey group having a group buy, a politician having a fundraiser, a work team building thing, and those decisions are driven primarily by fans who either have money or who have access to an event budget. Even when it's a business night out, the choice to go to a hockey or basketball game rather than going to a Dave and Busters is driven by whether somebody is a fan of a team or sport, and the people in a position to have everyone chip in $100 for a suite for a party, or who are making decisions about corporate events, are statistically not as likely to be NBA fans as they are of other sports. They are disproportionately likely to be hockey fans compared to the general population, so hockey has an easier time accessing those revenues.

OK, I think I misunderstood the other post. I agree that they appear to be taking a direction of going after a somewhat lower-cost, lower-frequency demographic. Both in terms of individuals and even in terms of corporate partners who might not go all the way in for the biggest suite packages.

I wonder if some of this isn't also influenced by the difference between pre- and post-recession thinking. Atlanta is an extremely corporate oriented city and that arena design was based on certain expectations for the corporate sector, which may not have played out as anticipated.

 

[nhlfan79]

As an Atlantan and former Thrashers STH every year they were here, I think the answer for the arena renovation is much simpler than whether to target corporate suite clients vs. standard ticket buyers. The grand flaw in Philips Arena's original stacked-suite design is the fact that no one---not even the suits---wanted to own what is essentially a nosebleed suite, regardless of the amenities it might offer. On occasion, I went to hockey games in the fourth level of suites, and it was like sitting in the press box or a crappy top-of-the-upper-bowl standard seat. It was ridiculously high and far away from the action, especially if your suite was down on one of the ends. That's no way to impress a client, if that was your goal. Private bathrooms and catering weren't enough to make up the lost value of the suite location itself. As a result, the corporations did buy the lower cluster of suites near center ice/midcourt, but the ones on the ends, and the ones in the highest two tiers, were regularly empty.

On top of all that, not having "fans" on all sides of the playing surface completely killed any home court/ice advantage. One half of the arena was noisy, the other half was a disinterested morgue.

 

[tarheelhockey]

As an Atlantan and former Thrashers STH every year they were here, I think the answer for the arena renovation is much simpler than whether to target corporate suite clients vs. standard ticket buyers. The grand flaw in Philips Arena's original stacked-suite design is the fact that no one---not even the suits---wanted to own what is essentially a nosebleed suite, regardless of the amenities it might offer. On occasion, I went to hockey games in the fourth level of suites, and it was like sitting in the press box or a crappy top-of-the-upper-bowl standard seat. It was ridiculously high and far away from the action, especially if your suite was down on one of the ends. That's no way to impress a client, if that was your goal. Private bathrooms and catering weren't enough to make up the lost value of the suite location itself. As a result, the corporations did buy the lower cluster of suites near center ice/midcourt, but the ones on the ends, and the ones in the highest two tiers, were regularly empty.

On top of all that, not having "fans" on all sides of the playing surface completely killed any home court/ice advantage. One half of the arena was noisy, the other half was a disinterested morgue.

It really is incredible to imagine someone spending hundreds of millions on a building and getting it that badly wrong.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

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

Hamilton is looking at building a new 10,000 seat arena while tearing down Copps Coliseum(deemed too big for the city's needs) and replacing it with a convention centre. That would pretty much kill what little chance the city has of acquiring an NHL team.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

The NBA has substantially poorer attendance than the NHL does, especially for teams that aren't among the league's chosen at any given moment. Their TV deal is far more lucrative, which gives them higher revenue overall- but in terms of getting people through the doors, the NHL does a lot better. I suspect a lot of it has to do with the relative wealth of their fanbases. The NBA's demographic is much poorer than the NHL's, so they don't have as much money to buy tickets and premium suites. The NHL's fanbase is the wealthiest of major US sports, and it's not terribly close (even wealthier than golf fans!), so buying tickets or springing for a suite is far less of a burden. Fewer fans, which ain't great for TV advertisers, but they spend more money going to games. But for an NBA team, a strategy to maximize luxury ticket sales in a league with the lowest income fans of the big 4 (MLS's fanbase is actually lower income, it turns out) is probably a bad decision. For the NBA, you need cheap seats to get people in, and you're not gonna sell three zillion suites and premium lounges without huge corporate all event access buys, and for that you need more than just an NBA team- you need multiple full time tenants and lots of concerts.

Hmmmm, I'm not so sure about that. The numbers don't bear that out. I will agree that the NBA has cheap seats to get people in. Upper deck seats for NBA games are noticeably cheaper than NHL upper deck seats. Of course, seats in the first few rows for an NBA game are far more expensive than your typical NHL game.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

Hmmmm, I'm not so sure about that. The numbers don't bear that out..

A cursory glance at ESPN's attendance numbers for the two leagues last season shows the NBA is indeed slightly higher in the markets where both leagues have teams. The NHL wins about a third of those markets, though, it's by no means a rout.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

Hamilton is looking at building a new 10,000 seat arena while tearing down Copps Coliseum(deemed too big for the city's needs) and replacing it with a convention centre. That would pretty much kill what little chance the city has of acquiring an NHL team.

I agree. I'm guessing he goes 0 for 4, in keeping with his historical track record.

 

[nhlfan79]

It really is incredible to imagine someone spending hundreds of millions on a building and getting it that badly wrong.

Too clever by half. The list of things that the Hawks, Thrashers, and arena did right is remarkably short.

 

[Hoser]

Key word there being "typical".

By "typical" I meant "compliant with NHL (and basically any televised sport) broadcast standards".

You can adjust the lighting on the rink so that the spillover remains on the ice, and those dimmer green sections stay within the rink instead of extending out of it. And yes, that does create uneven lighting on the ice, with dark spots. The corners at MSG always used to be a little bit dimmer than the rest of the rink, and the crowd, even in the front rows, was pretty dark. That was intentional lighting design on MSG's part, and the NHL told them to change it both because they wanted more even lighting on the ice and because networks wanted the fans in the shot.

You can see it in old videos of games at MSG. The lighting is very different from what is typical now. Dim around the edges on the ice and the crowd is just flat out shrouded in black.

I think you missed the point I was making. No, no you can't adjust the lighting on the rink so that the "spillover green sections" stay within the rink: you don't want the green parts of the diagram within the rink, that's bad.

I'm not saying MSG wasn't dim, I'm in perfect agreement with that. The NHL (and, again, pretty much any other pro or major junior hockey league, NCAA, etc.) want about 1000 lux (red, in the previously posted diagram) of luminance across the entire playing surface. Lighting up some of the crowd is unavoidable and totally incidental. It's not about lighting up the crowd, it's never about the crowd.

 

[cptjeff]

By "typical" I meant "compliant with NHL (and basically any televised sport) broadcast standards".



I think you missed the point I was making. No, no you can't adjust the lighting on the rink so that the "spillover green sections" stay within the rink: you don't want the green parts of the diagram within the rink, that's bad.

You understand that the entire point I was making was that the NHL did have such lighting standards and that MSG was forced to modify their lighting to meet those standards, yes? And that in the context of this discussion, any NHL ready arena would have to be able to meet those standards as well?

MSG did what you think is bad for a very long time by choice, because they thought it gave a dramatic effect that they liked. What you think is bad, they thought was good, because they were not trying to optimize for the same things you are trying to optimize for. Different goals, different lighting design. The NHL forced them to change it, because it looks bad on TV and yes, because the NHL wanted it to look like there were fans in their arenas. Despite your insistence that nobody cares about fans, the NHL does in fact care about whether its arenas look full and passionate on TV, and I don't think it's a mystery to anyone else here as to why they do care about that visual.