Montreal and Vancouver interested in NBA expansion
- Thread starter MMC
- Start date
I don't think MTL can support an MLB franchise but that's only me. The NBA is extremely popular with the younger generation and the fact they can play at the bell center seems like a good deal. An MLB franchise would be too costly, they would have to build a new stadium and the city of Montreal already rejected the plan. I think MTL can easily have an NBA and NHL franchise
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
Even that's probably overblown. The Dodgers haven't averaged less than 45k since 2012 (covid years excluded).
Yeah LA and to some extent New York. When I was in NY the Nets were still in New Jersey so maybe they've been able to carve out a fanbase in NY but at the time I didn't know any Nets fans who weren't from Jersey.
JianYang
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2017
- 17,946
- 16,444
Montreal has a reputation for being an event city more than a sports city. By that, I mean the F1 is a big draw but it's an event for a few days.
Having said that, the market is comfortably big enough to support both leagues. However, the demographics of the city have changed alot since the expos came to town. You could argue that's it's better suited for NBA than MLB now.... not to mention they already have a building for NBA.
ponder719
Haute Couturier
I can't imagine that Comcast, who owns the Flyers and the WFC, give priority to Josh Harris' Sixers for dates; I'm fairly certain that's part of the reason Harris is frustrated being a tenant, and wants his own arena. The Sixers may be grandfathered into this arrangement, but there's almost no way that purported requirement holds true in Philly.
GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 187,245
- 39,289
Dude doesn’t give a shit about the Sixers, he wants own Market East and get the subsidy handouts from the city. Comcast has offered him half of the building, where if that is a question, would eliminate it.
My understanding of the dates is that there isn’t a conflict because they’re always consistent on the dates. The idea is raised question to whether or not they can take the Disney on Ice dates if they want, but don’t. Either because it isnt true, or they don’t want the public backlash of disrupting a holiday tradition
KevFu
Registered User
Totally agree. Back 10 years ago, I was wondering why Montreal and Seattle ownership didn't get cozy and be like "we both want to join the NBA together!"
It's the start-up cost for baseball that's the problem. As you said, there's an NBA arena already built. If Bugs Bunny sawed off Florida today, the Heat or Magic could finish their seasons in Bell Centre.
But it's $1.5 billion USD minimum to have a place to play MLB baseball Building a new MLB stadium and tearing down the Big O would be closer to $3 billion USD. And the owner needs to buy a team for $2.2 billion USD.
I think the SECOND owner of Montreal Baseball 2.0 could make it work financially. The first guy is gonna need to be a philanthropist who loves baseball more than he loves $5 billion Canadian dollars.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
Knicks are very popular here but they aren't #1.
If they had half the success Lakers did for many years though they could have been.
Montreal Baseball 2.0 owner wouldn't be responsible for tearing down the Big O.
That being said Montreal getting NBA and MLB would be the catalyst for the Bell Rogers divorce people have been talking about around here. The NBA may not allow Bell owning parts of 2 teams like the NHL does.
KevFu
Registered User
Right, I get that on the team owner and the Big O, I'm saying that the cost of the Big O limits what municipal funds can be given toward a new stadium.
Ownership has to foot more of the bill either way: an outdoor stadium doesn't replace the Big O, so the city needs to fix the roof and is like "Have fun building a $650m (or more) stadium on your own!" But if you go indoor stadium (at triple the price) to replace the Big O... city can't really do that either, because tearing it down is just as expensive as fixing it: "Let it rot" isn't a great option.
Yeah I don't get the insane cost of tearing it down. I know there is a metro station under it so they can't implode it but other stadiums have been dismantled. Both NYC baseball stadiums were dismantled. Heck they've talked about taking down MSG, I've never heard a cost that high for that.
KevFu
Registered User
I'd assume the difference is the level of "crashing" that's allowed. Shea wasn't imploded, it was "dismantled" but it still came crashing down:
Montreal can't bring it crashing down, so it's gotta be more of a "take it a part" than "demolish"
Shea cost $17 million to demolish. They are saying Olympic Stadium would cost US $1.5B.
Keep in mind a good portion of the demo costs of any stadium is hollowing out the inside before you take down the structure so that would be pretty much the same. So I can understand a couple of hundred million but not $1.5B
I also find it ironic that implosions are illegal in NYC since the Mets do it every year.
If I recall, there is a Metro line really close, if not under, the Big Owe's foundations. Could add to the cost of a demo. That said, it's a terrible location for a ballpark.
That's the thing though. With 'cheap' NBA franchises going for 3B and MLB median going for 2B, it probably breaks even in Montreal's case as the Peel Basin plans are open air. Might even be in an owner's favor if they can get events in a building they own.
Probably less about population and more about GDP and buying power. Montreal is closer to Portland and Vancouver is closer to Columbus.
Correction, Montreal is closer to Kansas City and Vancouver is closer to Milwaukee
KevFu
Registered User
I think a lot of the reported cost depends on how you itemize the project.
I saw "$50m" for Shea's demolition reported in the CitiField deal (which, BTW, was included in the price tag of a new stadium), so that makes me wonder if they separated costs into 2 or 3 categories, like "dismantling" the parts of the stadium to prep it for knocking it down, knocking it down, and removing the rubble are separate charges? I dunno.
Just "problem solving on why it would be 30 to 88 times more expensive than Shea...
"good portion of the costs being hollowing out the inside" seems to be the key. It took WEEKS of hand dismantling to get Shea to the point where that 45 second video starts. It would take more weeks if you can't just yank that support beam, and it's probably the hardest/longest part left: Chiseling out millions of pounds of concrete and manually remove it from the upper deck.
I'd guess the price tag is "paying the workers for the length of time it takes" and that's gonna be totally different if the Mets were able to use gravity to remove everything from the upper deck and the Expos have to take the stairs; and if nothing was affected by tearing down Shea, but everything in the Big O's is connected to what's underneath?
Just going by the pre-implosion/takedowns inside shots I've seen of other stadiums (Kingdome, Astrodome, Old Oilers Arena, etc) they usually have everything but the outside walls and roof gone before they do the final take down. Even the Jays renovation of Rogers Centre they took the lower level stands down to the studs.
Now sure you can't have a one-ton piece of concrete crash onto the ground because of the metro station in underneath. It's been a long time since I've been there so I don't know if the swimming pool, indoor cycling track, etc. still need to be dealt with.
I also don't know if Olympic Stadium memorabilia has as much of a market as Shea and Yankee Stadium did, which would offset some costs.
At the end of the day I don't think anyone really believes that number.
KevFu
Registered User
Yeah, which seems weird because revenue differences between MLB and NBA clubs is like the same... but I think the NBA's value is higher because of the difference in national revenues vs local ones. Like, you're just guaranteed so much more revenue from the NBA league split compared to MLB that the value of a team is higher, because your floor is lower.
But for Montreal, I'd still say the total bill for baseball is going to be higher. Very few of the stadium deals are 100% public, and teams usually get the overruns, since it's extra stuff they're asking for. That's gonna offset a ton of the difference in expansion fee.
There's also the organizational startup costs. You're getting zero revenue for three years of organization building, hiring everyone from GM down to ushers and vendors. You need marketing people, and designers to do logos and brands, and uniforms and publicity to sell season tickets, and a ticket office to take those sales. With computer systems to integrate your business.
If the Moulson family bought an NBA franchise, it's just like "Open new tab" in their existing infrastructure. Arena seating chart is 95% done already. You know your colours (Habs bleu with rouge instead of rouge with blue) and your marketing team can get to work. It's a ton of "do this for a second team now, and we'll get you some help later." You're growing the existing organization by like 20%, not 0 to 100 like MLB.
MLB organizations are also just bigger than NBA organizations, because MLB teams have five minor league teams and 150 players to develop. NBA teams have like 25 guys on a max of two teams. Even though minor league teams can be independent, you still have coaches, managers, scouts etc at every level. NBA teams don't have spring training complexes, but MLB have to build one.
