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

Won't work for the same reason Chicago Stadium wouldn't work. Not enough seats, not enough boxes.

And I've been the most staunch supporter of the old barn at 1800 W. Madison St. Sad to say, but unless Bal-1 was converted to boxes and the E/W walls pushed out 50'-60', that place would never have survived the economy that is the current NHL and especially NBA.

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

Why on Earth would a developer build a facility that would begood for an NBA team but could not be converted into an NHL ready arena?

Why on Earth would a developer build a facility that would begood for an NBA team but could not be converted into an NHL ready arena?
- StLBravesFan

Significantly higher grossing NBA, less layout concessions for an ice management system, significant opportunity cost in layout (size, perimeter etc) of the building and seating for a 94'x50' playing surface versus a 200'x85' playing surface.

Just adding an ice-management system into a "multi-purpose" arena today costs upward of USD $10M.

Significantly higher grossing NBA, less layout concessions for an ice management system, significant opportunity cost in layout (size, perimeter etc) of the building and seating for a 94'x50' playing surface versus a 200'x85' playing surface.

Just adding an ice-management system into a "multi-purpose" arena today costs upward of USD $10M.
- blackhawk24

Offset by (if, say, the Islanders wound up there) 40-50 guaranteed nights of income without affecting the NBA income.

Offset by (if, say, the Islanders wound up there) 40-50 guaranteed nights of income without affecting the NBA income.
- StLBravesFan

Dunno. But they'd be sure to evaluate their ROI when comparing NBA-only to NBA/NHL combo.

but the candidate you support may be a traitor?
- molly2522

Traitor?

Proof right here that this conversation is swirling the toilet bowl.

Total meatball comment.

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

Yeah, that wouldn't work as a permanent home.

Built about 20 years ago, holds about 12000 for hockey. World Juniors were there about 15 yers ago. Every year they have an NHL pre season game or two and of course it is sold out.

All that needs to be done is take the roof off and add more seats to get it to 18-19000 capacity. Piece of cake.
- RickJ

Boxes man, luxury boxes. They do that and get to 18k+, they'll be fine. Sorry it was never realized at 1800 W. Madison St.

and what has barack HUSSAIN obama done?
- wonthecup10

One more and there will be some bans.

Yeah, that wouldn't work as a permanent home.
- EKolb13

Not even close. In today's sports climate for a multi-purpose facility, you need nearly 20k seats with a minimum of 10% of them "skyboxes" and another 10-15% "club" variety seats.

United Centre was built with all of that in mind; considering especially what was right across the street: 17,317 hockey seating (feel like I sat in each and every one of them), no boxes and no real opportunity to expand accordingly.

Not even close. In today's sports climate for a multi-purpose facility, you need nearly 20k seats with a minimum of 10% of them "skyboxes" and another 10-15% "club" variety seats.

United Centre was built with all of that in mind; considering especially what was right across the street: 17,317 hockey seating (feel like I sat in each and every one of them), no boxes and no real opportunity to expand accordingly.
- blackhawk24

You forgot about the standing room above the organ.

UC gets what, 21,000 for hockey and more than that for basketball - makes no sense to build a new facility in Brooklyn that couldn't do the same.

Unless the Mad Russian didn't want a co-tenant....

You forgot about the standing room above the organ.

UC gets what, 21,000 for hockey and more than that for basketball - makes no sense to build a new facility in Brooklyn that couldn't do the same.

Unless the Mad Russian didn't want a co-tenant....
- StLBravesFan

Didn't forget: Chicago Stadium "SRO" for the 'Hawks was 18,472 (not withstanding stories about the fire marshall in the 60's, the 1982 N-Stars playoff game, etc).

That included 2-Bal SRO and 1-Bal SRO, includes over the organ where the balconies were only 2 rows deep. Sat in Mezz-X from '82-'94 and in 2-Bal-H from '69-'82.

UC seats now 19,719 since they added the 4 corner bars in the 300-level and took out 4 rows of seats in each section. Made a couple other minor changes too from the original 20,500 capacity. Don't know "official" UC SRO limit but hoops has a capacity of about 1,200 more than hockey, seating or SRO.

It would make sense in Brooklyn to build the same if they knew they that the revenue opportunity long-term. Islanders? Ummm, not too sure about them. Think about the difference in an arena layout for just hoops. Lot's of college hot-beds are a good example. Huge difference in arena construction costs, many more design opportunities for hoops-only seating.

The Brooklyn issue wasn't an issue here because the original-six 'Hawks weren't going to go under or move, and the Bulls were on the rise when they announced "The New Chicago Stadium" concept in 1989/90.

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

I guess I was wrong.. and they were not smart rnough to think that way.

Didn't forget: Chicago Stadium "SRO" for the 'Hawks was 18,472 (not withstanding stories about the fire marshall in the 60's, the 1982 N-Stars playoff game, etc).

That included 2-Bal SRO and 1-Bal SRO, includes over the organ where the balconies were only 2 rows deep. Sat in Mezz-X from '82-'94 and in 2-Bal-H from '69-'82.

UC seats now 19,719 since they added the 4 corner bars in the 300-level and took out 4 rows of seats in each section. Made a couple other minor changes too from the original 20,500 capacity. Don't know "official" UC SRO limit but hoops has a capacity of about 1,200 more than hockey, seating or SRO.

It would make sense in Brooklyn to build the same if they knew they that the revenue opportunity long-term. Islanders? Ummm, not too sure about them. Think about the difference in an arena layout for just hoops. Lot's of college hot-beds are a good example. Huge difference in arena construction costs, many more design opportunities for hoops-only seating.

The Brooklyn issue wasn't an issue here because the original-six 'Hawks weren't going to go under or move, and the Bulls were on the rise when they announced "The New Chicago Stadium" concept in 1989/90.
- blackhawk24

16,666.

Didn't forget: Chicago Stadium "SRO" for the 'Hawks was 18,472 (not withstanding stories about the fire marshall in the 60's, the 1982 N-Stars playoff game, etc).

That included 2-Bal SRO and 1-Bal SRO, includes over the organ where the balconies were only 2 rows deep. Sat in Mezz-X from '82-'94 and in 2-Bal-H from '69-'82.

UC seats now 19,719 since they added the 4 corner bars in the 300-level and took out 4 rows of seats in each section. Made a couple other minor changes too from the original 20,500 capacity. Don't know "official" UC SRO limit but hoops has a capacity of about 1,200 more than hockey, seating or SRO.

It would make sense in Brooklyn to build the same if they knew they that the revenue opportunity long-term. Islanders? Ummm, not too sure about them. Think about the difference in an arena layout for just hoops. Lot's of college hot-beds are a good example. Huge difference in arena construction costs, many more design opportunities for hoops-only seating.

The Brooklyn issue wasn't an issue here because the original-six 'Hawks weren't going to go under or move, and the Bulls were on the rise when they announced "The New Chicago Stadium" concept in 1989/90.
- blackhawk24

According to espn.com, Hawks averaged over 21,500 last year (leading the league), which was 105% of capacity (second to Philadelphia).

Winnipeg averaged 15,000 per game. The difference over a year was 268,000 attendees. At $50 per ticket (and I'm assuming it should be more), that would be over $13,000,000 in revenues.

16,666.
- StLBravesFan

That was the Fire Marshall story of the 60's.

Real seating capacity was 17,317 and SRO was 18,472 for the 'Hawks. Add 204 to each number for the Bulls.

According to espn.com, Hawks averaged over 21,500 last year (leading the league), which was 105% of capacity (second to Philadelphia).

Winnipeg averaged 15,000 per game. The difference over a year was 268,000 attendees. At $50 per ticket (and I'm assuming it should be more), that would be over $13,000,000 in revenues.
- StLBravesFan

The 21,500 is right, but the % capacity is wrong (109%+) because ESPN is still using the old 20,500 seating capacity; it's 19,719 now.

That $13M revenue difference sure can be real, probably more than that, so the arena operators in Brooklyn has to consider that to the total cost of ownership for a combo arena. And take into acct the Isles won't exactly draw like the Jets.

But maybe more important is your other comment that the mad-rusky doesn't want a co-tenant.

The 21,500 is right, but the % capacity is wrong (109%+) because ESPN is still using the old 20,500 seating capacity; it's 19,719 now.

That $13M revenue difference sure can be real, probably more than that, so the arena operators in Brooklyn has to consider that to the total cost of ownership for a combo arena. And take into acct the Isles won't exactly draw like the Jets.

But maybe more important is your other comment that the mad-rusky doesn't want a co-tenant.
- blackhawk24

Bad comparison: Jets stadium probably hold 70,000+.

Don't disagree, but..... if a team is selling 4 tickets for $99 and giving away a hot dog and coke with each ticket .... well you haven't got any kind of fan base or a crappy team.

But then again, no price is cheap enough to get me to buy a ticket for an NBA game.
- RickJ

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.

If it comes down to the Isles having to move, wouldn't Brooklyn make some sense?
- EKolb13

Yes...If they could get the right facility (lease deal etc).

Won't work for the same reason Chicago Stadium wouldn't work. Not enough seats, not enough boxes.

And I've been the most staunch supporter of the old barn at 1800 W. Madison St. Sad to say, but unless Bal-1 was converted to boxes and the E/W walls pushed out 50'-60', that place would never have survived the economy that is the current NHL and especially NBA.
- blackhawk24

...And you hit the exact reason it was replaced. There was no way feasible cost effective way to make that building work. You can fit 2.5 old Stadiums inside of the UC.

Why on Earth would a developer build a facility that would begood for an NBA team but could not be converted into an NHL ready arena?
- StLBravesFan

Probably 100 million reasons...$$$

Yes...If they could get the right facility (lease deal etc).
- Al

re: Islanders moving to Brooklyn:

Bettman comment (from prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com): " NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman also has some concerns about the team relocating to Brooklyn. His concern is that it would be hard for the Islanders fans in Queens and Long Island to reach games."

I'm not sure that's a real issue, considering they only averaged about 13,000 per game in Nassau County last year.

Didn't forget: Chicago Stadium "SRO" for the 'Hawks was 18,472 (not withstanding stories about the fire marshall in the 60's, the 1982 N-Stars playoff game, etc).

That included 2-Bal SRO and 1-Bal SRO, includes over the organ where the balconies were only 2 rows deep. Sat in Mezz-X from '82-'94 and in 2-Bal-H from '69-'82.

UC seats now 19,719 since they added the 4 corner bars in the 300-level and took out 4 rows of seats in each section. Made a couple other minor changes too from the original 20,500 capacity. Don't know "official" UC SRO limit but hoops has a capacity of about 1,200 more than hockey, seating or SRO.

It would make sense in Brooklyn to build the same if they knew they that the revenue opportunity long-term. Islanders? Ummm, not too sure about them. Think about the difference in an arena layout for just hoops. Lot's of college hot-beds are a good example. Huge difference in arena construction costs, many more design opportunities for hoops-only seating.

The Brooklyn issue wasn't an issue here because the original-six 'Hawks weren't going to go under or move, and the Bulls were on the rise when they announced "The New Chicago Stadium" concept in 1989/90.
- blackhawk24

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..

Probably 100 million reasons...$$$
- Al

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.