Melnyk could put an NHL caliber team at the Canadian Tire Centre.
I’ll show myself out.
I’ll show myself out.
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.
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.Target Center
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.
$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.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.
not to nitpick, but the article said they were prepared to pay $5 million to Chicago->$15 million$20 million. Plus potential [likely] indemnification to Chicago.
Isnt SaskTel Center essentially Nassau Coliseum clone? Yea it’s no longer NHL capable.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
Golden 1 Center in Sacramento?
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 placeIsnt SaskTel Center essentially Nassau Coliseum clone? Yea it’s no longer NHL capable.
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.
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.]not to nitpick, but the article said they were prepared to pay $5 million to Chicago->$15 million
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
I still can't believe that Milwaukee doesn't have a team
DisagreeTo close to chicago
Disagree
They have a successful team in every other major sport.
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
the Bucks are to Milwaukee as the Packers are to Green bay