Got this from ESPN:

"Barclays Center...fitted to accommodate approximately 14,500 for hockey, it would be the NHL's smallest..."

Don't think it would work.
- Beaver-Warrior

It makes sense as a pit stop most likley...

Wang wants to build near where he is but even a guy with his wealth is getting disgusted with the process.

There aren't many place in the US which will float big bond offereings in this economy or help with some sort of user tax.

These days Chicago wouldn't that's for sure.

OK - $100MM to build a hockey arena (which, effectively, that's what we're saying) - not bad for a new, NHL-ready arena.

I know there would be an affect (effect?) on the Nets, but from the developer's stand-point, seems to be a no-brainer.
- StLBravesFan

No it is a lot more to build a new arena...The UC cost around $175 mill and prices 20 years ago were much different.

In a big city prices aren't going to be less than $250 mill probably more due to land cost in most places....Today the UC would probably cost close to $300 mill.

It makes sense as a pit stop most likley...

Wang wants to build near where he is but even a guy with his wealth is getting disgusted with the process.

There aren't many place in the US which will float big bond offereings in this economy or help with some sort of user tax.

These days Chicago wouldn't that's for sure.
- Al

What's the mood these days about the Whalers old stomping grounds, Hartford CT?

No it is a lot more to build a new arena...The UC cost around $175 mill and prices 20 years ago were much different.

In a big city prices aren't going to be less than $250 mill probably more due to land cost in most places....Today the UC would probably cost close to $300 mill.
- Al

My point was that if it cost the Brooklyn developer $100MM more to include an NHL ready arena, not as a separate facility but as part of Barclay's Center, then that's like getting a new NHL facility for $100MM,, albeit as part of the Barclay's Center.

UC can accomodate over 21,500, including everything even after seats were removed.

UC has averaged highest crowds since seat removal at least once if not 2 times...I think last yr or yr before even though Montreal has more seating capacity..
- Al

Percent of capacity has gone up to 109% since - and including - the cup year. 2008/09 it was 107% though the capacity was higher since the 300-level bars were not built yet.

Reason I followed it is I have a Hull-plan in addition to my full ST's and they're 8th row. Uniqueness of that is even though it's row 8, with the open area immediately below, there isn't anyone sitting right in front of us. This way I can take one of the younger kids to the game, they can easily see and I don't have to drop 3 C-notes for a game with one of the kids, who are really there just to be with Dad and see Tommy Hawk.

My point was that if it cost the Brooklyn developer $100MM more to include an NHL ready arena, not as a separate facility but as part of Barclay's Center, then that's like getting a new NHL facility for $100MM,, albeit as part of the Barclay's Center.
- StLBravesFan

If you want to look at that way....But you need a much bigger appetite to throw in another $100 mill.

It makes no sense for the Bradley Center to do so because it would be doubtful they could ever get a NHL team as long as there was one in Chgo.

Percent of capacity has gone up to 109% since - and including - the cup year. 2008/09 it was 107% though the capacity was higher since the 300-level bars were not built yet.

Reason I followed it is I have a Hull-plan in addition to my full ST's and they're 8th row. Uniqueness of that is even though it's row 8, with the open area immediately below, there isn't anyone sitting right in front of us. This way I can take one of the younger kids to the game, they can easily see and I don't have to drop 3 C-notes for a game with one of the kids, who are really there just to be with Dad and see Tommy Hawk.
- blackhawk24

It works for you for sure...And from a $$ standpoint I'm sure the bars generate enough to make them worthwhile.

I agree and the issue is really a simple one....

The fan base and demographics in certain markets isn't deep enough.

This sport is built on gate revenue and even if a sellout all the stars have to line up to turn a profits.
- Al

Which brings up an interesting debate. Do you socialize revenues so that "small market" teams that are not feasible based on age, interest, population size, disposable income, whatever demographics are applicable in the name of fostering artificial growth...

OR do you strengthen the markets that are viable, then grow your fan base based on providing the best competition between the most vested/interested parties and expand as popularity of a great product thrives...

Moving incomes from Chicago, Detroit, Vancouver, Toronto, Philly... vested and interested teams... to places like Phoenix where there isn't sustainable interest:
-shrinks the revenue from the markets that make money

-forces a contraction of net salaries for mid to lower skilled players

-but an artificial increase in demand for top skilled players as those teams should not exist nets them astronomically high salaries disproportionate to the rest of the league

-raises gate prices because entire teams must be subsidized and someone needs to pay for it be it the owners in revenue loss, players in salary loss or fans in income loss (more expensive merch/tickets) OR a combination of all three

The only teams that prosper are ones like Toronto or Chicago that can charge inflated prices to stay ahead and reliably pay top tier talent top dollar, mid to low level players are priced out and fans get irritated with the increase cost in going to games and a substandard product when the weaker teams play. This creates animosity between the owners, a division between the players and an irritated fan base.

Basically if the market says "contract" you contract. Responsible business owners, consumers and stewards make adjustments when things don't work regardless of how "painful" or cut throat it may seem because in the long run the benefits will be significantly greater than the detriments.

It works for you for sure...And from a $$ standpoint I'm sure the bars generate enough to make them worthwhile.
- Al

Works great and the bars are nice too. When I have one of the slightly older kids, there's been games where I spent an entire period standing at the bar and overlooking the ice. Those do quite well given all that's gone on the last few years.

Which brings up an interesting debate. Do you socialize revenues so that "small market" teams that are not feasible based on age, interest, population size, disposable income, whatever demographics are applicable in the name of fostering artificial growth...

OR do you strengthen the markets that are viable, then grow your fan base based on providing the best competition between the most vested/interested parties and expand as popularity of a great product thrives...

Moving incomes from Chicago, Detroit, Vancouver, Toronto, Philly... vested and interested teams... to places like Phoenix where there isn't sustainable interest:
-shrinks the revenue from the markets that make money

-forces a contraction of net salaries for mid to lower skilled players

-but an artificial increase in demand for top skilled players as those teams should not exist nets them astronomically high salaries disproportionate to the rest of the league

-raises gate prices because entire teams must be subsidized and someone needs to pay for it be it the owners in revenue loss, players in salary loss or fans in income loss (more expensive merch/tickets) OR a combination of all three

The only teams that prosper are ones like Toronto or Chicago that can charge inflated prices to stay ahead and reliably pay top tier talent top dollar, mid to low level players are priced out and fans get irritated with the increase cost in going to games and a substandard product when the weaker teams play. This creates animosity between the owners, a division between the players and an irritated fan base.

Basically if the market says "contract" you contract. Responsible business owners, consumers and stewards make adjustments when things don't work regardless of how "painful" or cut throat it may seem because in the long run the benefits will be significantly greater than the detriments.
- fattybeef

Ah f(u)ck it, go back to the original six!

Percent of capacity has gone up to 109% since - and including - the cup year. 2008/09 it was 107% though the capacity was higher since the 300-level bars were not built yet.

Reason I followed it is I have a Hull-plan in addition to my full ST's and they're 8th row. Uniqueness of that is even though it's row 8, with the open area immediately below, there isn't anyone sitting right in front of us. This way I can take one of the younger kids to the game, they can easily see and I don't have to drop 3 C-notes for a game with one of the kids, who are really there just to be with Dad and see Tommy Hawk.
- blackhawk24

Here's a picture of the Winterhawk version, "Tom A Hawk" with some random kid.

Which brings up an interesting debate. Do you socialize revenues so that "small market" teams that are not feasible based on age, interest, population size, disposable income, whatever demographics are applicable in the name of fostering artificial growth...

OR do you strengthen the markets that are viable, then grow your fan base based on providing the best competition between the most vested/interested parties and expand as popularity of a great product thrives...

Moving incomes from Chicago, Detroit, Vancouver, Toronto, Philly... vested and interested teams... to places like Phoenix where there isn't sustainable interest:
-shrinks the revenue from the markets that make money

-forces a contraction of net salaries for mid to lower skilled players

-but an artificial increase in demand for top skilled players as those teams should not exist nets them astronomically high salaries disproportionate to the rest of the league

-raises gate prices because entire teams must be subsidized and someone needs to pay for it be it the owners in revenue loss, players in salary loss or fans in income loss (more expensive merch/tickets) OR a combination of all three

The only teams that prosper are ones like Toronto or Chicago that can charge inflated prices to stay ahead and reliably pay top tier talent top dollar, mid to low level players are priced out and fans get irritated with the increase cost in going to games and a substandard product when the weaker teams play. This creates animosity between the owners, a division between the players and an irritated fan base.

Basically if the market says "contract" you contract. Responsible business owners, consumers and stewards make adjustments when things don't work regardless of how "painful" or cut throat it may seem because in the long run the benefits will be significantly greater than the detriments.
- fattybeef

Socialism works as in NFL if the pot can grow large enough to satisfy biggest mkts and weak sisters....Otherwise, as in the way it works with a society there isn't enough money to go aound.

If there is a contraction it can't be from 30 to 12 largest mkts otherwise there won't be much national appeal for TV and media coverage.

If costs and arena availability was greater another league could form in the US.

But as it is now I think ticket prices in most US cities are closer to the point of excess rather than a good value.

NFL works for mnay reasons but there are only 16 regular season games.....

Here's a picture of the Winterhawk version, "Tom A Hawk" with some random kid.


- Beaver-Warrior

At least he doesn't have the creepy blue "Meijer" eyes like Tommy Hawk.

Which brings up an interesting debate. Do you socialize revenues so that "small market" teams that are not feasible based on age, interest, population size, disposable income, whatever demographics are applicable in the name of fostering artificial growth...

OR do you strengthen the markets that are viable, then grow your fan base based on providing the best competition between the most vested/interested parties and expand as popularity of a great product thrives...

Moving incomes from Chicago, Detroit, Vancouver, Toronto, Philly... vested and interested teams... to places like Phoenix where there isn't sustainable interest:
-shrinks the revenue from the markets that make money

-forces a contraction of net salaries for mid to lower skilled players

-but an artificial increase in demand for top skilled players as those teams should not exist nets them astronomically high salaries disproportionate to the rest of the league

-raises gate prices because entire teams must be subsidized and someone needs to pay for it be it the owners in revenue loss, players in salary loss or fans in income loss (more expensive merch/tickets) OR a combination of all three

The only teams that prosper are ones like Toronto or Chicago that can charge inflated prices to stay ahead and reliably pay top tier talent top dollar, mid to low level players are priced out and fans get irritated with the increase cost in going to games and a substandard product when the weaker teams play. This creates animosity between the owners, a division between the players and an irritated fan base.

Basically if the market says "contract" you contract. Responsible business owners, consumers and stewards make adjustments when things don't work regardless of how "painful" or cut throat it may seem because in the long run the benefits will be significantly greater than the detriments.
- fattybeef

I like the way you think. Fatty for President.

Well, they are playing hockey here in Finland. I´ll keep focusing on Teräväinen but so far he (and the whole team Jokerit - lost second game straight 3-0) has been a bit disapointment to the exeptations. It´s only two games so far but if he doesn´t play better he will find himself playing and finding his game on juniors or lower levels.

I like the way you think. Fatty for President.
- Ogilthorpe2

Under that scenario you also must take away from the remaining teams all shared TV revenues that are split equally among teams, and all shared NHL licensing revenue shared equally among all teams.

Good bye free TV broadcasts and welcome back SportsChannel.......

I agree with Al - socialism is the best model for professional sports who are interested in sustainability and growth.

I will guarantee you that the future fans of hockey - kids - are more familiar with the sport in great part due to the FREE television exposure they get to the sport. One only needs to compare the post old man Wirtz era to today to see how dramatically the fan base has changed....and grown.

Percent of capacity has gone up to 109% since - and including - the cup year. 2008/09 it was 107% though the capacity was higher since the 300-level bars were not built yet.

Reason I followed it is I have a Hull-plan in addition to my full ST's and they're 8th row. Uniqueness of that is even though it's row 8, with the open area immediately below, there isn't anyone sitting right in front of us. This way I can take one of the younger kids to the game, they can easily see and I don't have to drop 3 C-notes for a game with one of the kids, who are really there just to be with Dad and see Tommy Hawk.
- blackhawk24

with my kid you add get teir faces painted and a friend of mine puts their picture on the scoreboard before the game starts. they really get a kick out of that

more troubling for me is the fact that my daughters wear a kane versey. i hope that is notan indcation for their taste in men or i will have to spend the last of my years in jail from killing their suitors

with my kid you add get teir faces painted and a friend of mine puts their picture on the scoreboard before the game starts. they really get a kick out of that

more troubling for me is the fact that my daughters wear a kane versey. i hope that is notan indcation for their taste in men or i will have to spend the last of my years in jail from killing their suitors
- molly2522

I have found one of these 2 works:

1. I ripped off the line from the H2 ad. Man asks kid how tall he is. Then tells kid the bed of the truck "...can carry something about his size to the middle of nowhere, and I do mean nowhere. When will my first-born be home?"

2. I have a shotgun (it helps they see you cleaning it once, even if you don't actually have to clean it at that particular time; any ol' 12ga will do) a shovel and a hundred acres up north; you won't be missed.

Practiced the lines with my God-daughter's dates, perfected it with my own daughter's dates. Next two are this Friday when it's homecoming dance time.

I have found one of these 2 works:

1. I ripped off the line from the H2 ad. Man asks kid how tall he is. Then tells kid the bed of the truck "...can carry something about his size to the middle of nowhere, and I do mean nowhere. When will my first-born be home?"

2. I have a shotgun (it helps they see you cleaning it once, even if you don't actually have to clean it at that particular time; any ol' 12ga will do) a shovel and a hundred acres up north; you won't be missed.

Practiced the lines with my God-daughter's dates, perfected it with my own daughter's dates. Next two are this Friday when it's homecoming dance time.
- blackhawk24

to add to your lines i was told the story of a friend of mine who on a first date was told by the father to have his daughter home at 11pm and he said what if i dont. the dad responded that he had been to jail before and was wiling to go back

It's a well-established fact that on-ice success translates to higher attendance and off-ice profitability.

Based on this premise the NHL should institute an arrangement a different league such as the AHL to create a "promote/demote" system, similar to soccer in Europe. Obviously the real logistics of this would be complicated given the AHL/NHL relationships, but this is just a thought experiment.

The two worst performing teams in the NHL drop to the AHL the following season. The two top performers in the AHL promote to the NHL the following season. This way teams that are on an upswing from a good AHL season will have the momentum and the support in the big league. If they can't keep it up they eventually go back down to the AHL again.

And the teams not doing well in the NHL will have time to sort their rosters out and re-group against weaker competition before making another push.

It's a well-established fact that on-ice success translates to higher attendance and off-ice profitability.

Based on this premise the NHL should institute an arrangement a different league such as the AHL to create a "promote/demote" system, similar to soccer in Europe. Obviously the real logistics of this would be complicated given the AHL/NHL relationships, but this is just a thought experiment.

The two worst performing teams in the NHL drop to the AHL the following season. The two top performers in the AHL promote to the NHL the following season. This way teams that are on an upswing from a good AHL season will have the momentum and the support in the big league. If they can't keep it up they eventually go back down to the AHL again.

And the teams not doing well in the NHL will have time to sort their rosters out and re-group against weaker competition before making another push.
- m4rshmallow

I am against anything that makes hockey more like soccer, European or domestic.

Sorry - bad post

It's a well-established fact that on-ice success translates to higher attendance and off-ice profitability.

Based on this premise the NHL should institute an arrangement a different league such as the AHL to create a "promote/demote" system, similar to soccer in Europe. Obviously the real logistics of this would be complicated given the AHL/NHL relationships, but this is just a thought experiment.

The two worst performing teams in the NHL drop to the AHL the following season. The two top performers in the AHL promote to the NHL the following season. This way teams that are on an upswing from a good AHL season will have the momentum and the support in the big league. If they can't keep it up they eventually go back down to the AHL again.

And the teams not doing well in the NHL will have time to sort their rosters out and re-group against weaker competition before making another push.
- m4rshmallow

I understand your premise, but how would that work? Say rockford is the team that gets to move up. What happens when Chicago needs to call up players. They move from 1 team in the league to another? I think you need to think about this a little more.

I understand your premise, but how would that work? Say rockford is the team that gets to move up. What happens when Chicago needs to call up players. They move from 1 team in the league to another? I think you need to think about this a little more.
- powerenforcer

As I said I'm against this premise, but the only way I could see it working is to leave the AHL alone as a developmental league, and divide the NHL into two seperate leagues. Take last years' bottom 10 teams and make a"B" league. At the end of each season, the winner of the new "B" league moves up, and the last place team from the "A" team moves down.

I still don't see the point though.

I am against anything that makes hockey more like soccer, European or domestic.
- Ogilthorpe2

How about teams that miss the play-offs 3 years in a row get turned back to the league with no compensation; the league can then resell those teams, with the proceeds being distributed to the remaining teams, thus increasing revenues for the league and eliminating incompetent owners who couldn't make an 8-team play-off in a 6 team league.