Stadiums & Arenas of Canada, Part 3

[elly63]

^Agree

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by isaidso

1 team for all of southern Ontario with nose bleed seats starting at $100? Instead of growing professional hockey and cultivating new fans in this region, Bettman and the NHL have ignored this market completely. He went to places like Atlanta and Phoenix instead.

Southern Ontario already has a team (Toronto) with two more nearby (Detroit/Buffalo). There is more growth potential in Atlanta and Phoenix than in Hamilton/London or splitting the Leafs market.

Originally Posted by isaidso

When demand far outstrips supply people will eventually move on to other sports and other leagues. In southern Ontario you have huge swaths of the population who've moved on. Some were hockey fans who've gotten frustrated with being shut out and switched to something else but most are people that could have been lured to the NHL but were never given a product to get behind. They picked up basketball or soccer instead.

Have anything to back this up? The Leafs are still one of the most popular and valuable franchises in the league and for my money still the most popular sports team in Canada.

Originally Posted by isaidso

Fortress Hockey' was so dominant that even after 3 decades of neglect there's still a huge fan base. On the surface everything looks fine but the NHL has nothing close to the dominance it once had. If they keep this up I can see hockey slipping to 2nd or even 3rd in southern Ontario within a generation. Of course lots of hockey people won't even notice because all they'll see is a full arena and conclude that everything is fine.

The NHL is not the sole proprietor of hockey in Canada. Im fairly certain there are other organizations (Hockey Canada, Ontario Hockey League, Canadian Hockey League) whose goals are to promote the sport in Canada. The NHL's first and foremost goal is to make money for its owners - not to ensure the longevity of a sport in a specific area.

How does adding another team in Toronto promote the Leafs and the NHL more than the status quo? How does it maximize their revenues more than today?

Originally Posted by isaidso

Quebec City is another obvious example. People will only wait so long before they give up. Laval football has filled in the vacuum.

So there are no more hockey fans in Quebec City now? Nobody watches the NHL or supports an NHL team? And they all support Laval football exclusively? Good to know.

The NHL gains less by expanding/relocating to QC than doing so in other markets. The growth potential (for revenues) is higher for the NHL (note: NHL, not the sport at large) in the US than in Canada. People who like hockey already like hockey. The potential upside in a market like Seattle or Las Vegas is so much higher than QC.

[J.OT13]

Phoenix and Miami have proven that the NHL doesn't work in those markets. Nothing has changed in two decades. Time to move those teams to new markets.

I understand how a brand new market (Seattle for example) could be more attractive to the NHL or other sports leagues because it would be new revenue as opposed to splitting, or partially splitting an existing market (media, merchandise, fan base). I still think Southern Ontario (S.O.) could support another team, similarly to the New York City region with 3 teams (granted the Islanders are struggling) and L.A. with 2 teams. I tend to believe the Sabres and Red Wings have little to no influence on the S.O. market just as the Flyers have no influence on the NYC teams.

[tomthumb2]

Originally Posted by elly63

IMO, a big mistake. Throw that 80 million into the fieldhouse (as in the CalgaryNext concept) and get a decent new downsized facility to move forward in.

Agree 110%!!

[Franco401]

Everyone here (who should be in the sports business thread) seems to also not know how the NHL works. The owners decide everything ultimately. Blaming Bettman for things you don't like plays right into their hand. It's absolutely ridiculous to think Bettman is the real reason for the Jets moving to Phoenix, the Nordiques to Denver and various expansion teams to cities that a)wanted them, b) had new arenas, and c)didn't have their economies in the toilet.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by zoomer

Saskatoon has an arena that is massive (15,100 seats) even its current population of 250,000.

I see the Blades attendance has declined for six straight years and is under 4,000 per game, so why the need to build a new arena unless the seating will be reduced? I get the downtown is better angle, and that there are other events and teams using the arena.

Matter of opinion but I wouldn’t call Saskatoon a middle to large city in the Canadian context, but a small to medium city.

Pretty much - it's a city with metro population of a little over 300,000. While the arena is nothing fantastic it does the trick.

There is also this widely accepted opinion that building a new arena will result in an immediate and long-term upturn in concerts. This is can be true in come cases, but often it is not. For example, Edmonton has seen a decline in the number of concerts and tickets sold the past few years despite moving into their new state-of-the-art arena a few years ago. All one has to do is look at Poll Star numbers to see the decline from a few years ago.

The lower dollar combined with the the rising bids to bring in artists to various arenas has worked against many Canadian markets - the promoters in these cities realize that they cannot make money on these bids from tickets sold so they refuse to ante up. The tour operators for these various artists also will do everything they can to accomodate the arena schedules of the larger cities because they know that is where the greatest money will be made. So if places like Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Quebec City happen to have sporting events occurring while an artist is finishing up in a nearby city, it is likely those cities will miss out on the artist and they are unlikely to accomodate them in favor of larger markets. The isolation of the Prairie cities relative to one another is another strike against them.

If Saskatoon builds a new arena anytime soon, the above factors will not go away. It didn't for the city of Edmonton, so why would it for a city 1/5th the size?

I also doubt they public has the appetite for a 100% subsidized arena in Saskatoon. Stakeholders need to have some skin in the game. I seem to recall reading a comment from the owner of the Rush saying he would invest some money in a new arena. That would be a start I guess.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by EpicPonyTime

I disagree entirely. The small city attitude is reflected in many aspects of the city, including the bridges, the fight over revamping the transit system, the arena (but muh parking), and infill (demonstrated by the recent NIMBYism found on Broadway).



The Blades have never been a major draw to Sask Place. The Rush are the first team to draw consistent sellouts to the arena.

Saskatoon is in an interesting position, because although the arena is large in context of the city, it is the main arena for the entire province. So if a major tour is going to stop in Saskatchewan, it will be there. Saskatoon has had a pretty good success rate at not only attracting big shows, but selling them out (17K to Metallica this year is a great example), so really I don't believe there is a reason to reduce the seating. If they reduced the seating I think it would put Saskatchewan's appeal as a major concert stop in jeopardy (although to be fair, the age of the arena is doing that as well).

It works for one of the main tenants, and for a majority of concerts, so why should it be reduced for a tenant that has never been a huge draw in the city?

You can reduce the number of seats in an arena and still have similar capacities for most concerts. Concert tours like Metallica which have a 360 degree concept are in the minority. Most concert tours use a 180 degree concept for which seats beside the stage and behind it are tarped off. Examples of arenas that have an unbalanced seating (continuous lower bowl seating, but no upper bowl seating at one end) are Budweiser Gardens in London and the Van Andel Arena in Grand Rapids. For most concert set-ups they have a similar capacity to the Sasktel Centre. It is also worth noting that both draw more concerts and sell more ticket than Sasktel.

https://www.pollstar.com/Chart/2018/...Venues_628.pdf

Despite their continued dominance, the Rush saw a softening in their attendance last year, especially in the playoffs. I suspect that will continue this year. As such, a slightly smaller capacity with unbalanced seating might be the best bet in Saskatoon.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Winnipeg doesn't have mass transit?? Are you sure you're not getting it confused with somewhere else?

Haha I think he means city wide rapid transit.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I tend to agree with this. Hockey is still very strong but not what it used to be and is declining. In Canada the NHL could or should be what the NFL is in the US at the moment. They have squandered this opportunity.

Is it the NHL though or something else? Like the ridiculous costs for a child to play the game. Perhaps Hockey Canada bears some responsibility for the game increasingly becoming the domain of the upper-middle class and beyond.

[EpicPonyTime]

Originally Posted by Dalreg

Explain please?

How exactly is small city attitude reflected in the bridges? transit? infill?

Please do site one or two things mate, infill is fought in EVERY city in Canada, does that make every city "small"? Same goes with transit. Winnipeg doesn't have mass transit, does that make it small?

How is someone supposed to cite empirical evidence exactly? My observations of the mentality of Saskatoon comes from it being my hometown for my entire life.

With the bridges, look at how things have gone over the past few years. They failed to maintain one and then rebuilt a cheap replica because no one wanted to take a risk or build anything different that would have cost more money, resulting in a bridge no one is exactly happy with.

Meanwhile, they constructed several new bridges on the outskirts of the city to keep drivers happy while doing very little for transit and seeing opposition to buses and bike lanes (and a downtown arena for that matter) because everyone is concerned they'll have to walk five minutes downtown. We can't have these major developments because they'll completely change what people are used to, even if it is for the better. Even when city hall calls for a BRT system, it is reduced to a half-baked replica of an actual system because no one wants to spend money and no one wants it driving up and down their streets.


All I have to say for infill is go check out the past two months of the Saskatoon Construction page and read up on the community response to the Broadway and University Drive condo proposals. Other cities might be opposed to infill, but Saskatoon takes it to a while new level. Apparently we can't even be Halifax according to some people in this city.

Originally Posted by esquire

Somehow it feels like the arena discussion in Saskatoon is about nothing more than keeping up with Regina... "they got their stadium, so we should get an arena".

Honestly the way the debate has been framed, it isn't about keeping up with Regina so much as it is keeping up with Edmonton. Rogers Place and the role it had in revitalizing Edmonton's downtown comes up all the time when a downtown arena for Saskatoon is discussed, despite the obvious differences. No one really cares about Mosaic Stadium because it serves a different purpose.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by EpicPonyTime

Honestly the way the debate has been framed, it isn't about keeping up with Regina so much as it is keeping up with Edmonton. Rogers Place and the role it had in revitalizing Edmonton's downtown comes up all the time when a downtown arena for Saskatoon is discussed, despite the obvious differences. No one really cares about Mosaic Stadium because it serves a different purpose.

You might be right. But either way, is it about meeting a need that exists or is it about wanting to be seen as keeping pace with other cities? I suspect it is more the latter... Sasktel Place is perfectly adequate for NLL and the WHL. It's a far cry from the Edmonton scenario where the Northlands Coliseum had become somewhat outdated by modern NHL standards.

[EpicPonyTime]

Originally Posted by esquire

You might be right. But either way, is it about meeting a need that exists or is it about wanting to be seen as keeping pace with other cities? I suspect it is more the latter... Sasktel Place is perfectly adequate for NLL and the WHL. It's a far cry from the Edmonton scenario where the Northlands Coliseum had become somewhat outdated by modern NHL standards.

It depends. Sask Place does not need to be updated if the reasoning is to keep up with NHL cities, I agree. It's perfectly fine for sporting events (issues with the concourses and accessibility by traffic aside), but the issue is a little more convoluted than that when it comes to concerts and events.

I cannot find the exact article which outlines the issues of Sask Place, but one of the key issues actually has to do with the roof. It is too low and is not capable of supporting the weight necessary for the equipment of many major tours. It was also one of the last arenas of its size to be built without profit-drivers like luxury boxes, which means that there is less economic incentive to make a stop in Saskatoon because the profit margins for shows are more restricted. The series of Garth Brooks concerts help demonstrate the city's demand for major events, but they almost didn't happen because of infrastructure concerns. There is the option to renovate Sask Place, which I believe to be a valid one if done correctly, but there the issue is spending $100M on a temporary bandage, and still having to pay $250M on a new arena a decade or two from now.

Blueandgoldguy mentioned potential issues with Saskatoon continuing to attract acts with a new arena, but one has to wonder whether or not they are already losing out on major acts because of Sask Place's condition. I believe a study of major arenas was done and only Hamilton and Halifax were included in less major tours than Saskatoon; they too have old arenas that some people argue should be replaced.

Also, regarding building an arena of a smaller capacity, I just don't believe there is the political will to do that. If the arena were to be replaced, it would have to be a similar size because it would likely still be our arena once the city is 400-500K. Saskatoon is accustomed to having a large arena, and it has served the city and province very well to have it.

I imagine the discrepancy between London and Saskatoon in terms of ticket sales is largely due to the fact that the Knights draw 9K a game. London isn't usually included on major concert tours, but Saskatoon has been in recent years. If they were to reduce capacity to 10K I don't think it would be looked at by most tours.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by EpicPonyTime

It depends. Sask Place does not need to be updated if the reasoning is to keep up with NHL cities, I agree. It's perfectly fine for sporting events (issues with the concourses and accessibility by traffic aside), but the issue is a little more convoluted than that when it comes to concerts and events.

I cannot find the exact article which outlines the issues of Sask Place, but one of the key issues actually has to do with the roof. It is too low and is not capable of supporting the weight necessary for the equipment of many major tours. It was also one of the last arenas of its size to be built without profit-drivers like luxury boxes, which means that there is less economic incentive to make a stop in Saskatoon because the profit margins for shows are more restricted. The series of Garth Brooks concerts help demonstrate the city's demand for major events, but they almost didn't happen because of infrastructure concerns. There is the option to renovate Sask Place, which I believe to be a valid one if done correctly, but there the issue is spending $100M on a temporary bandage, and still having to pay $250M on a new arena a decade or two from now.

Blueandgoldguy mentioned potential issues with Saskatoon continuing to attract acts with a new arena, but one has to wonder whether or not they are already losing out on major acts because of Sask Place's condition. I believe a study of major arenas was done and only Hamilton and Halifax were included in less major tours than Saskatoon; they too have old arenas that some people argue should be replaced.

Also, regarding building an arena of a smaller capacity, I just don't believe there is the political will to do that. If the arena were to be replaced, it would have to be a similar size because it would likely still be our arena once the city is 400-500K. Saskatoon is accustomed to having a large arena, and it has served the city and province very well to have it.

I imagine the discrepancy between London and Saskatoon in terms of ticket sales is largely due to the fact that the Knights draw 9K a game. London isn't usually included on major concert tours, but Saskatoon has been in recent years. If they were to reduce capacity to 10K I don't think it would be looked at by most tours.

The Last 2 years, Hamilton and London have sold more tickets than Saskatoon for non-sporting events. I suspect that means they are attracting more major concert tours than Saskatoon. Having larger populations and being located in areas with relatively higher population densities appears to be important factors.

https://www.pollstar.com/Chart/2017/...Venues_350.pdf

https://www.pollstar.com/Chart/2018/...Venues_628.pdf

2016

151. Sasktel Centre 91,716
108. FirstOntario Centre 145,040
86. Budweiser Gardens 176,826

2017

140. Sasktel Centre 99,807
122. Budweiser Gardens 122,399
106. FirstOntario Centre 163,341

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Phoenix and Miami have proven that the NHL doesn't work in those markets. Nothing has changed in two decades. Time to move those teams to new markets.

Both teams did really well when they had arenas that were actually located in their respective markets. Glendale isn't Phoenix and Sunrise isn't Miami, just like how Kanata isn't Ottawa.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I understand how a brand new market (Seattle for example) could be more attractive to the NHL or other sports leagues because it would be new revenue as opposed to splitting, or partially splitting an existing market (media, merchandise, fan base). I still think Southern Ontario (S.O.) could support another team, similarly to the New York City region with 3 teams (granted the Islanders are struggling) and L.A. with 2 teams. I tend to believe the Sabres and Red Wings have little to no influence on the S.O. market just as the Flyers have no influence on the NYC teams.

The Flyers have a big influence on the Devils, though. Southern New Jersey is almost primarily Flyers fans given the proximity. This is the same scenario in Niagara for the Sabres and in Windsor/Chatham for the Wings. Whenever the idea of a Hamilton expansion team is brought up there always seems to be some Sabres STH numbers trotted out saying Canadians account for X amount of their tickets sold every year.

I agree that Southern Ontario could support another team in theory but the NHL has bigger fish to fry in other markets.

[J.OT13]

The Cayotes had poor attendance even when they were in Phoenix proper.

http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendan...h.php?tmi=7450

The Panthers played in Miami for only two years, and at the time had a poor attendance, even as a new team. They did have a handful of good years.

http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendan...h.php?tmi=5763

Ottawa's attendance had more good years than bad years. The recent drop can be attributed to the Phoenix Pay System (since 2016, many Federal public servants have/had been underpaid or not paid, have/had no benefits...), issues with the owner's perceived cheapness, outbursts and general negative attitude, and the idea of a new downtown arena might discourage people from driving to Kanata, which now seems more distant now than ever.

Note the first the Sens played at the 10,000 seat Civic Centre from October 1992 to January 1996 before moving to the much larger Corel Centre.

http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendan...h.php?tmi=7328

As for the NYC/Philadelphia and Niagra/Detroit markets, I have no reason not to accept your arguments.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The Cayotes had poor attendance even when they were in Phoenix proper.

http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendan...h.php?tmi=7450

Capacity of the arena after the first season was 16,210 after the team tarped off seats with poor views. The arena was not made for hockey and was primarily built as a basketball venue, so it had plenty of poor seats (similar to Barclays today).

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The Panthers played in Miami for only two years, and at the time had a poor attendance, even as a new team. They did have a handful of good years.

http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendan...h.php?tmi=5763

Should be noted that Miami Arena only had a capacity of 17,000 or so. Their five seasons in that arena average out to roughly 84% capacity utilization.

My point about the three is that all three have been relegated to dreadful suburban arenas, limiting their ability to market and get fans out to games easily, in contrast to all other franchises in the league. It's no coincidence that the three teams in suburban locations are also three of the worst in regards to attendance.

[J.OT13]

Agreed; suburban locations don't help any of these teams. Carolina is also plagued with the same issue. The Canadian team however, has fared better than the three U.S. examples.

http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendan...h.php?tmi=5154

[esquire]

Originally Posted by EpicPonyTime

It depends. Sask Place does not need to be updated if the reasoning is to keep up with NHL cities, I agree. It's perfectly fine for sporting events (issues with the concourses and accessibility by traffic aside), but the issue is a little more convoluted than that when it comes to concerts and events.

I cannot find the exact article which outlines the issues of Sask Place, but one of the key issues actually has to do with the roof. It is too low and is not capable of supporting the weight necessary for the equipment of many major tours. It was also one of the last arenas of its size to be built without profit-drivers like luxury boxes, which means that there is less economic incentive to make a stop in Saskatoon because the profit margins for shows are more restricted. The series of Garth Brooks concerts help demonstrate the city's demand for major events, but they almost didn't happen because of infrastructure concerns. There is the option to renovate Sask Place, which I believe to be a valid one if done correctly, but there the issue is spending $100M on a temporary bandage, and still having to pay $250M on a new arena a decade or two from now.

Blueandgoldguy mentioned potential issues with Saskatoon continuing to attract acts with a new arena, but one has to wonder whether or not they are already losing out on major acts because of Sask Place's condition. I believe a study of major arenas was done and only Hamilton and Halifax were included in less major tours than Saskatoon; they too have old arenas that some people argue should be replaced.

Also, regarding building an arena of a smaller capacity, I just don't believe there is the political will to do that. If the arena were to be replaced, it would have to be a similar size because it would likely still be our arena once the city is 400-500K. Saskatoon is accustomed to having a large arena, and it has served the city and province very well to have it.

I imagine the discrepancy between London and Saskatoon in terms of ticket sales is largely due to the fact that the Knights draw 9K a game. London isn't usually included on major concert tours, but Saskatoon has been in recent years. If they were to reduce capacity to 10K I don't think it would be looked at by most tours.

Even if we accept this at face value, asking the taxpayers of Saskatoon and probably all of Saskatchewan to shoulder the $250 million+ cost of a new arena so that concert promoters can, say, double their annual concert attendance from 100,000 to 200,000 seems like a pretty huge and onerous request.

I mean, I would love to go to a Drake concert as much as the next guy but I'm not sure that it's worth decades of arena debt.

It's one thing when the chief sports tenants with dozens of dates a year need a new building... it's a lot of dates/attendees, and the teams along with their players have ties to the community and a lot of the money ends up in the local economy. But concerts? If Shawn Mendes comes through town, the only people in Saskatoon really making money off it are the local promoters, maybe some hoteliers, and the arena workers.

[EpicPonyTime]

Originally Posted by esquire

Even if we accept this at face value, asking the taxpayers of Saskatoon and probably all of Saskatchewan to shoulder the $250 million+ cost of a new arena so that concert promoters can, say, double their annual concert attendance from 100,000 to 200,000 seems like a pretty huge and onerous request.

I mean, I would love to go to a Drake concert as much as the next guy but I'm not sure that it's worth decades of arena debt.

It's one thing when the chief sports tenants with dozens of dates a year need a new building... it's a lot of dates/attendees, and the teams along with their players have ties to the community and a lot of the money ends up in the local economy. But concerts? If Shawn Mendes comes through town, the only people in Saskatoon really making money off it are the local promoters, maybe some hoteliers, and the arena workers.

So are you suggesting they don't spend anything on a new arena and keep using Sask Place? I don't believe that is tenable, nor is renovating it to try and keep it operational. That huge price tag is going to be paid eventually; it's just up to the city whether they want it to be $250 million, or $350+.

[Dalreg]

Originally Posted by EpicPonyTime

So are you suggesting they don't spend anything on a new arena and keep using Sask Place? I don't believe that is tenable, nor is renovating it to try and keep it operational. That huge price tag is going to be paid eventually; it's just up to the city whether they want it to be $250 million, or $350+.

So should every other city build new updated arenas just to try to keep things operational? Halifax is old and outdated, so $250 million there?

Hamilton? Regina? Calgary?

Vancouver is only 7 years newer, is it outdated?