Was moving to Brooklyn a mistake for the Islanders?

[patnyrnyg]

So pretty much you are describing me... I work in the city and I live walking distance to the Stewart Manor Station on the Hempstead line. I like going to mets games and NVMC and I hate doing the grind you described for Barclays. It's too long of a day to do on a regular basis. At Nassau I could go home first and eat a quick dinner. For the mets I park at citi field in the Morning and take the 7 train in. Both are a lot better than the Marathon Brooklyn day you describe

Even if you went to every game, 41 times a year is hardly a "regular basis" and that is assuming there are no weekend home games. If it was twice a week, 52 times a year, might call it a regular basis. No idea what time you leave work, or what train you catch out of Penn, but for many people to try to get home and then to a weeknight game at Nassau Coliseum was not easy. You live very close to the Coliseum and likely didn't have to deal with the traffic many others did. I have never done it, but driving into Citi in the morning, then taking the 7 train to the city doesn't sound too pleasing.

 

[Doshell Propivo]

For the mets I park at citi field in the Morning and take the 7 train in.

WOW! That's got to be close to a 2 hour door-to-door commute.

 

[KingDeathMetal]

Oh it failed for the Nets? When did they move away? I must have missed it.



I mean, why do you think the Islanders are deadbeats? Did you not see that they outsold the entirety of 2014-15 by 30% in 12 home games this year?

Since you missed it:



Or maybe that by mid-December they were up to 35%?



http://www.crainsnewyork.com/articl...e-carries-the-islanders-banner-into-a-new-era

Let's get back to this:



Answer appears to me to be quite clearly, yes. At least in terms of business. Fan base, I'm not so sure what you think that means.



Alright. Thanks for your input. I can see Brooklyn working out. It certainly works for me.

-Nets at Barclay has been a failure by every measure, not just on the court. Attendance has been falling precipitously each year, and that trend began even when they still had Garnett, Pierce, and D-Will, and were making the playoffs. Average attendance has dropped every year for them, and dropped by 2,500 over the last year alone. Yeah, they're terrible, but a mark of a healthy team is one that can draw crowds despite what's happening on the court/ice. Teams inevitably endure down periods.

-Increase in revenue over what the team was generating at Nassau is not relevant to whether or not Barclays will seek an early out from this deal. Remember, Barclays is paying the Islanders to be there, not unlike when a city pays a team to remain at an arena (almost never a good investment), which goes back to my landlord/tenant analogy. It's not that the Islanders are deadbeats right now; it's that they were largely deadbeats at Nassau, and are on a sweet deal with Barclays that will give a number of years to focus solely on growing the fanbase in NYC, and delivering a quality on-ice product. Right now, the Islanders are an investment for Barclays. At some point, they must prove to be a good investment. So back to the revenue: it's not about Barclays Isles vs. Nassau Isles, but Barclays Isles vs. what is a reasonable return on investment for a modern NHL franchise.

-You gloss over my point about fanbase to say that the Isles are a business success, but the two cannot be separated. Without a sustainable fanbase, there is no successful business being done there, period, as Barclays will not continue to share upwards of $50 million in revenue with the team regardless of its drawing power.

-As per the Crain's article you cited, Yormark replies to a question about low attendance by citing the team's Long Island fanbase as essentially being the team's most reliable customers, and then states the need for growth in Queens, Brooklyn, and Manhattan. No shock there. It's their first season in Brooklyn, and the built-in fanbase is what they'll have to rely on for now. But there is still no indication that the team has experienced much fan growth at all, despite two solid years of promoting hockey's future in Brooklyn. What is quite obvious to any observer is that they are simply gaining ticket revenue by squeezing the oranges that were already in their basket, i.e. taking last year's Nassau attendance and hitting it up for higher ticket prices and "premium seating". That's a quick fix, not a successful long-term business model.

-What does attendance look like if the Islanders have one bad season? Just one. Fans are already leery about making the trek to Brooklyn, but are mostly willing to do so because the team is good. Without a fanbase foothold in Queens/Brooklyn/Manhattan, you're looking at a potential disaster. The Nets this year and last are a good indicator of what that looks like.

-Clearly this whole deal is about new fans, not the old ones. Every quote from anyone high up at Barclays betrays that sentiment. The Nassau holdovers are "good enough" for now, but this is 100% a play for a new fanbase. NYC is a large pie. This was never about doing something good for a historic Long Island team and their fans - it's just a nice sentiment to cheer people up for the next few years while Barclays Execs and Isles ownership decides what the future holds.

-Just my personal opinion, but I cannot envision a scenario where Barclays and the Isles get a divorce because one (or both) sides realizes there is just too much to gain by moving out of state. Hockey in Brooklyn has to catch fire, or a new development deal in Long Island allows the team to move back. The latter is way more likely than the former.

-Owning your building is key. The saving grace for the Nets is that Prokhorov owns the team and the building, and therefore can generate revenue to the fullest extent. They also had the advantage of the arena being built to accommodate the Nets' brand equity; conversely, the Isles have very low brand equity in Barclays, because there is nothing about the building, from design, to colors, to seating etc. that enhances the experience for hockey fans. On the contrary, there are many aspects of the building that take away from the experience. In the words of Brett Yormark, "fans can just watch the game on their mobile phones or on the big screen."

So yeah, I'm not bullish on Brooklyn. For everyone who says, "But the Rangers succeeded in NYC! That means there is plenty of hockey interest in NYC!" Not really. It just means that one team that has been around for 90 years, owns its building and its television has found a way to eat considerably from a small pie. The Rangers' portion of a small pie is not a good argument for why the Isles stand to eat good too. The case needs to be made that the pie is large enough for two.

Hockey in NYC is a small pie in a large box. At least on Long Island, the Islanders have their name on the box.

 

[stranger34]

WOW! That's got to be close to a 2 hour door-to-door commute.

Nope

Even if you went to every game, 41 times a year is hardly a "regular basis" and that is assuming there are no weekend home games. If it was twice a week, 52 times a year, might call it a regular basis. No idea what time you leave work, or what train you catch out of Penn, but for many people to try to get home and then to a weeknight game at Nassau Coliseum was not easy. You live very close to the Coliseum and likely didn't have to deal with the traffic many others did. I have never done it, but driving into Citi in the morning, then taking the 7 train to the city doesn't sound too pleasing.

It all depends on where you work in NYC and what you have a higher tolerance for... Traffic or the LIRR.

I've spent about 2/3 of my career working in Battery Park City and 1/3 of my time split between the Bryant Park area and now over by St Patrick's Cathedral. In my experience the biggest mistake you can make as a New York City commuter is to go along with the consensus best commute. You have to get creative.

When I worked downtown I started with the LIRR to Penn then ACE to WTC. In time I settled on the best approach to be driving all the way to and from Jun-Sept and taking the LIRR through Brooklyn and taking any of the various subway lines to the Wall Street area.

For midtown I started with penn again but that got old quick. If you are near a 7 line stop or a 7 transfer like the M and The E then I think parking at Citi field, paying $4 for the commuter lot and taking the 7 train into Manhattan is a great and little known secret. I also still drive all the way in occasionally, go through penn or take the LIRR to hunters point and switch to the 7 there.

Like I said, I'm not a masochist when it comes to my commute, hockey team and job. If I wanted to root for a city team I'd be a Rangers fan. I'm also not used to going to a handful of games per year like a lot of rangers fans. I like going to as many games as I can like when they were in Nassau or if they moved to queens. It's also not my birth duty to support them financially in Brooklyn if I don't find the atmosphere worth the aggravation as opposed to watching on TV. Maybe with their Barclays fee the attendance doesn't matter, and maybe that's why the building is low energy. Nice neighborhood and good food selection though!

 

[patnyrnyg]

Nope



It all depends on where you work in NYC and what you have a higher tolerance for... Traffic or the LIRR.

I've spent about 2/3 of my career working in Battery Park City and 1/3 of my time split between the Bryant Park area and now over by St Patrick's Cathedral. In my experience the biggest mistake you can make as a New York City commuter is to go along with the consensus best commute. You have to get creative.

When I worked downtown I started with the LIRR to Penn then ACE to WTC. In time I settled on the best approach to be driving all the way to and from Jun-Sept and taking the LIRR through Brooklyn and taking any of the various subway lines to the Wall Street area.

For midtown I started with penn again but that got old quick. If you are near a 7 line stop or a 7 transfer like the M and The E then I think parking at Citi field, paying $4 for the commuter lot and taking the 7 train into Manhattan is a great and little known secret. I also still drive all the way in occasionally, go through penn or take the LIRR to hunters point and switch to the 7 there.

Like I said, I'm not a masochist when it comes to my commute, hockey team and job. If I wanted to root for a city team I'd be a Rangers fan. I'm also not used to going to a handful of games per year like a lot of rangers fans. I like going to as many games as I can like when they were in Nassau or if they moved to queens. It's also not my birth duty to support them financially in Brooklyn if I don't find the atmosphere worth the aggravation as opposed to watching on TV. Maybe with their Barclays fee the attendance doesn't matter, and maybe that's why the building is low energy. Nice neighborhood and good food selection though!

Well, that is the key. If you are not enjoying it, then don't go. Just like the LI Jets fan who doesn't want to drive to the Meadowlands or the Devils fan who doesn't want to go to Newark. Seems like you like going to games as much as I do, so keep going and don't think about the aggravating parts.

As far as commuting, most of the time when I worked in NYC, it was the overnight shift. Drove in most night, unless I was going to a Rangers game before work or was going to do an 8:30am happy hour with co-workers. Yes, 8:30 AM. Used to go to a pool hall in Chelsea, shoot pool (one guy with whom I worked was disgustingly good and made a lot of money hustling), and the guy would open the bar for us.

 

[stranger34]

Well, that is the key. If you are not enjoying it, then don't go. Just like the LI Jets fan who doesn't want to drive to the Meadowlands or the Devils fan who doesn't want to go to Newark. Seems like you like going to games as much as I do, so keep going and don't think about the aggravating parts.

As far as commuting, most of the time when I worked in NYC, it was the overnight shift. Drove in most night, unless I was going to a Rangers game before work or was going to do an 8:30am happy hour with co-workers. Yes, 8:30 AM. Used to go to a pool hall in Chelsea, shoot pool (one guy with whom I worked was disgustingly good and made a lot of money hustling), and the guy would open the bar for us.

8:30 happy hour!! Haha. The night shift drive was probably a breeze right?

http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...-are-second-class-citizens-on-nets-home-court

A lot of rehashing here, but interesting that the nets attendance was brought up.

 

[Doshell Propivo]

-
-Just my personal opinion, but I cannot envision a scenario where Barclays and the Isles get a divorce because one (or both) sides realizes there is just too much to gain by moving out of state. Hockey in Brooklyn has to catch fire, or a new development deal in Long Island allows the team to move back. The latter is way more likely than the former.

The only side that would potentially have anything to gain by moving out of state, is the Islanders of course. Barclays does not own the team. So if Barclays wants a "divorce" they won't care if NYI ends up in Queens or Nassau or Quebec.

As far as LI being "way more likely" than another market, I don't know about that. If Brooklyn doesn't work, everything's on the table.

Which is why every Islander fan should pray that Brooklyn works. There's NOTHING waiting for them on LI. And if it doesn't work in Brooklyn, NYC is going to build them ANOTHER arena in Queens? Fat chance. Pinning your hopes that something magical will happen on LI after decades of trying is a bit naive.

What makes the Islanders more valuable in NY than any other market is the incredible TV deal. THAT is what has most likely been their saving grace. Without it, they're probably gone by now. And ironically, we have Spano to thank for that.

But I dunno man, a franchise that "failed" on LI and then hypothetically fails in NYC is way more likely to look elsewhere.

Success in Brooklyn ensures the Isles stay in the area. Failure in Brooklyn makes losing NYI more likely. As an Isles fan, I'd want to avoid that potential as much as possible.

 

[Kimota]

This is flying off the rails fast, especially with the referendum blame game.

- queens and Suffolk couldn't vote
- it was a single issue referendum which is why the low turnout
- there was an immense amount of disinformation coming from the opposing party. This included suggestions of better alternatives when there were none and robocalls to fixed income seniors that taxes would go up.
- to suggest blaming the residents you would need to be able to say that most municipalities would have voted yes. Otherwise they are just like any other place. Do you have examples of successful first Ballot publicly funded sports arena referendums? Are they more common than no votes
- this was during a recession

Also a dynasty does wonders to build a fanbase but it also can potentially create a sense of entitlement and hangover in the subsequent years. The islanders on ice product never had a normalized period of success since 1993. They haven't even hosted a home ice advantage playoff series.

Good post. Exactly. I'm thinking sort of like the Colorado Avs, that fanbase never had to struggle "to work at" being a fan and seeing their team grow. They were Champions right of the gate. And they remained great for years. But when the Sakic/Forsberg years ended there was that hangover. And even when they were somewhat good at some point when Joe Sacco was there, the people had left the arena. As if the great long party had stopped and it was time to go on with real life. Especially since for Colorado, these people probably were not even hockey fans(and I don't blame them the culture just wasn't there). They jumped on the bandwagon cause a Colorado team winning. When it stopped they left.

 

[stranger34]

The only side that would potentially have anything to gain by moving out of state, is the Islanders of course. Barclays does not own the team. So if Barclays wants a "divorce" they won't care if NYI ends up in Queens or Nassau or Quebec.

As far as LI being "way more likely" than another market, I don't know about that. If Brooklyn doesn't work, everything's on the table.

Which is why every Islander fan should pray that Brooklyn works. There's NOTHING waiting for them on LI. And if it doesn't work in Brooklyn, NYC is going to build them ANOTHER arena in Queens? Fat chance. Pinning your hopes that something magical will happen on LI after decades of trying is a bit naive.

What makes the Islanders more valuable in NY than any other market is the incredible TV deal. THAT is what has most likely been their saving grace. Without it, they're probably gone by now. And ironically, we have Spano to thank for that.

But I dunno man, a franchise that "failed" on LI and then hypothetically fails in NYC is way more likely to look elsewhere.

Success in Brooklyn ensures the Isles stay in the area. Failure in Brooklyn makes losing NYI more likely. As an Isles fan, I'd want to avoid that potential as much as possible.

When it comes to a sports team, I'm not going to cling to and pray for the success of a deeply flawed scenario just because it keeps the worst case scenario off the table.

Sorry, but I don't find that to be a compelling rationale.

 

[Doshell Propivo]

When it comes to a sports team, I'm not going to cling to and pray for the success of a deeply flawed scenario just because it keeps the worst case scenario off the table.

Sorry, but I don't find that to be a compelling rationale.

Whatever dude. Cling and pray for the Islanders to move into a freaking SOCCER stadium like to suggested on the Isles board! Now THAT is some compelling rationale! A SOCCER stadium! You actually think the Isles playing in a soccer stadium would be better than the current set-up!

Deeply flawed indeed...

 

[stranger34]

Whatever dude. Cling and pray for the Islanders to move into a freaking SOCCER stadium like to suggested on the Isles board! Now THAT is some compelling rationale! A SOCCER stadium! You actually think the Isles playing in a soccer stadium would be better than the current set-up!

Deeply flawed indeed...

I never said move into a soccer stadium. Either you are purposely characterizing my post incorrectly or misread it. There is not even a soccer stadium in Queens to move into.

Maybe you didn't realize this because you don't live in the area anymore. If I was a watch on TV / follow remotely fan, I'd be perfectly fine with Barclays too!

I was asking if it was viable to build an arena that is meant for both... I wasn't suggesting it be done if it wasn't (Like The Barclays/bball - We've learned our lesson)

The Cosmos and NYCFC are both in the market for a place to make a permanent home. So are the Islanders. If it was viable to build one that works for both in Queens that would be perfect. If it would be a bad design for both, or just the Isles (Like Barclays), forget it.

 

[thedonger]

I never said move into a soccer stadium. Either you are purposely characterizing my post incorrectly or misread it. There is not even a soccer stadium in Queens to move into.

Maybe you didn't realize this because you don't live in the area anymore. If I was a watch on TV / follow remotely fan, I'd be perfectly fine with Barclays too!

I was asking if it was viable to build an arena that is meant for both... I wasn't suggesting it be done if it wasn't (Like The Barclays/bball - We've learned our lesson)

The Cosmos and NYCFC are both in the market for a place to make a permanent home. So are the Islanders. If it was viable to build one that works for both in Queens that would be perfect. If it would be a bad design for both, or just the Isles (Like Barclays), forget it.

Here's a list of all stadiums used for MLS(including 2 in Canada).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Soccer_stadiums
Do you see a common theme among them? (Hint, hint...you can see the sky)
If you don't see why DP sees the ridiculousness in the logistics of such a suggestion, I dunno what else to tell ya.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

A hockey/soccer combo is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on HF.

 

[stranger34]

A hockey/soccer combo is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on HF.

Desperate times call for desperate ideas. The Cosmos currently play in an 11,000 seat venue. I was asking a question. Could a hockey/football hybrid be built? Hockey would be first in mind, seating and set up not a priority for soccer... So far I have just heard misrepresentation and mockery; that's fine but right now, in the present, the joke is on the Islanders.

Cosmos might be willing to play indoors as it still might be an upgrade in revenue capability from playing at Hofstra.

It is a strange idea, but so is an NHL team playing in a horsehoe arena in 2016. At least in this situation the Islanders wouldn't be the second class tenant.


PS.
Nets having attendance issues in Brooklyn...

http://deadspin.com/report-brooklyn-nets-tickets-will-be-cheaper-next-seas-1761520294

 

[IU Hawks fan]

Could a hockey/football hybrid be built?

I don't see how. The field sizes are way too different. You'd have to have some kind of extreme temp seating set up.

You play basketball on top of the ice. The ice would need to be on top of the grass. It'd be like setting up for the Winter Classic for every game.

Putting a roof on Arthur Ashe was a ridiculous idea I've read here, but I got to believe it's more doable than this.

 

[stranger34]

I don't see how. The field sizes are way too different. You'd have to have some kind of extreme temp seating set up.

You play basketball on top of the ice. The ice would need to be on top of the grass. It'd be like setting up for the Winter Classic for every game.

Putting a roof on Arthur Ashe was a ridiculous idea I've read here, but I got to believe it's more doable than this.

I've read the Arthur Ashe idea as well which is what made me think of the soccer/hockey hybrid. The roof is already being built for arthur ashe, but I don't know how that would work retrofitting the lower level because the ice surface is a lot larger than a tennis court and the lower level was designed for tennis and I'd imagine the upper level would have a lot of blind spots like Barclays.

In the soccer situation I'd assume it would not be natural grass. The Cosmos are not MLS, they would be the second tier tenant. I just don't know if there is a way to build a viable arena for both due to the dimensions even given the assumption that it can be indoors and artificial turf.

 

[Abe Vukota]

A hockey/soccer combo is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on HF.

Check out our Brooklyn threads; this is tip of the iceberg for ol' Stranger. It gets much, much worse.

 

[stranger34]

Check out our Brooklyn threads; this is tip of the iceberg for ol' Stranger. It gets much, much worse.

actually I can't think of anything more "out there" that I've come up with than the soccer/hockey hybrid.

 

[Rocko604]

Technically, it could be done.

I give you, the Tacoma Dome.

Also the Lightning once played in Tropicana Field. There have also been numerous basketball configurations played in football stadiums. Spurs, Raptors and a number of NCAA Tournament games (with the court at an endzone, not the whole stadium like the Final Four.

Now, that doesn't mean the Islanders playing in such a configuration (first things first, it would have be a retractable roof) its the best solution to their problems, but it can and has been done.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

Technically, it could be done.

I give you, the Tacoma Dome.

Also the Lightning once played in Tropicana Field. There have also been numerous basketball configurations played in football stadiums. Spurs, Raptors and a number of NCAA Tournament games (with the court at an endzone, not the whole stadium like the Final Four.

Now, that doesn't mean the Islanders playing in such a configuration (first things first, it would have be a retractable roof), but it can and has been done.

Did any of these examples have an overlap of a hockey and other team playing there at the same time, though?

Basketball is a much easier set up than hockey.

 

[Rocko604]

Did any of these examples have an overlap of a hockey and other team playing there at the same time, though?

Basketball is a much easier set up than hockey.

Not sure if there was any overlap, except for maybe the odd high school football game.

But, in hockey/basketball configurations, the ice just gets covered and the basketball court goes overt op. And in most of those areas, they take the boards out too. In this day an age of arena/stadium reconfiguration, it could probably be done.

Doesn't mean it's the Islanders best solution though.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

Not sure if there was any overlap, except for maybe the odd high school football game.

But, in hockey/basketball configurations, the ice just gets covered and the basketball court goes overt op. And in most of those areas, they take the boards out too. In this day an age of arena/stadium reconfiguration, it could probably be done.

Doesn't mean it's the Islanders best solution though.

I get all that, and it's irrelevant as we're not talking about ice & wood, we're talking about ice & turf. Both turf and ice are the ground level, and wood goes on top of either. At the Trop, they could build a rink on top of the turf, since the Rays didn't exist, there were no other commitments. This idea would require the ice rink to be completely torn down to host soccer, ice included. Unless the turf could be laid over the ice. That's done for arena soccer/football, but that's using the same dimensions and keeping the boards up. It's an entirely different thing in an arena, where the ice/concrete is the bottom layer.

Should add, soccer is trying it's best to get as far away from fake grass as possible anyway.

 

[Bones45]

So if you really wanna get stupid, how about this?

"..Louis Armstrong Stadium will remain functional for the ’16 Open with a seating capacity of over 10,000 seats, but once the ’16 Open concludes, Armstrong Stadium will be demolished and construction will begin on a new Armstrong facility to be ready for the 2018 Open, complete with 14,000 seats, a roof and open-air design."


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/u-s-open-site-major-makeover-article-1.2548254

 

[denis]

Technically, it could be done.

I give you, the Tacoma Dome.

...
Also the Lightning once played in Tropicana Field. There have also been numerous basketball configurations played in football stadiums. Spurs, Raptors and a number of NCAA Tournament games (with the court at an endzone, not the whole stadium like the Final Four.

Now, that doesn't mean the Islanders playing in such a configuration (first things first, it would have be a retractable roof) its the best solution to their problems, but it can and has been done.

LOL. Don't know if you were ever at a Lightning game at the Thunderdome (what Tropicana was known as back then, before Tampa got baseball), but I was, and it was surreal and just awful all around. Trust me, Barclays is a much better experience.

 

[TorstenFrings]

Should add, soccer is trying it's best to get as far away from fake grass as possible anyway.

Agreed. It would, if it could be done, be a bad set up for the soccer team in question anyway as it would preclude them from ever getting a first tier team, an international friendly, a premier league club summer training camp or any other kind of "higher" soccer competition there. How high can second tier soccer team revenue possibly be in a country that claims not to care about soccer and whose first tier league isn't anything much to begin with? Really enough for retractable roofs and everything else that would be needed there?