Stadiums and Arenas of Canada part 2

[Oilkountry]

MTS Centre Loge, $6,048.00

Rogers place Loge $15,750.00

what....

[tomthumb2]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

To be fair, the watered down version of rogers place is basically Console or videotron. Rogers place is a rolls royce theirs no doubt about it, Although it's Nice,expensive and gonna turn heads their is absolutely nothing wrong with a brand new Cadillac, especially when you're trading in your grandmas station wagon that she bough new in the 80's. Edmonton needs it to attract talent where Calgary doesn't. A cookie cutter version of videotron centre with some southern Alberta charm will be perfectly fine for the flames

I've always wondered about the perception that Edmonton needs to do more than Calgary to attract talent. I've lived in both and don't find Calgary that much better than Edmonton. They might get a bit more snow in winter and we have the mountains but that's about it. After that, they are virtually the same size.

Now Winnipeg's a different story. I've heard players hate the cold winters there with no breaks from chinooks like we get. Although they have to love playing in that atmosphere. By comparison, the Saddledome should be renamed "The Library" (although it did get loud in playoffs last year).

[FutureSmith]

Nice! Looks like they went with the same model as Madison Square Garden

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by tomthumb2

I've always wondered about the perception that Edmonton needs to do more than Calgary to attract talent. I've lived in both and don't find Calgary that much better than Edmonton. They might get a bit more snow in winter and we have the mountains but that's about it. After that, they are virtually the same size.

Now Winnipeg's a different story. I've heard players hate the cold winters there with no breaks from chinooks like we get. Although they have to love playing in that atmosphere. By comparison, the Saddledome should be renamed "The Library" (although it did get loud in playoffs last year).

Edmonton and Winnipeg are apples and oranges when it comes to weather. Edmonton doesn't get chinooks. It's dry and Cold for 7 straight month's. Edmonton has a bad rep for NHL players and It's basically opposite of detroit when it come to a winning identity. That's gonna change soon. Mcdavid and the arena district is gonna be a big sell in Edmonton

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

MTS Centre- True North Sqaure Should take care of that
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JkMsjGPRxU



Videotron Centre- From what the locals of Quebec city say, It's the best place they could have put it. Although I agree with you I love the downtown arenas. Apparently it was the best option. But I cant agree with you on bland. Untill that Picture of rogers place came out earlier today I was in complete awe of the interior of VTC. I'll leave the exterior up for debate I seem to wake up with a different opinion day to day.

New rink in Ottawa- Unless this is being built with Private funds (which it's not, never is anymore) you had better get use to the CTT because you have 20 years left in it minimum. I mean It's one of canada's better arenas IMO If it was built in DT Ottawa you think this talk of a new Arena would even be considered? This apparent "shelf life" the CTT is quickly approaching would triple.

First off, well done Winnipeg. Awesome development all around. It proves that you don't need tall buildings to come up with an all around excellent concept and good architecture.

I agree that, if I hadn't seen Oiler's rink, I might have been less harsh about Vidéotron. As for the site, I can understand it might have been the best spot for x reason, but they could have built up a proper arena district around it. I'm sure it will happen one day (took a few years for Molson, ACC and MTS)however, it should be done right off the bat as it did with Edmonton and Lansdowne in Ottawa.

Back to the new Ottawa arena, assuming the Sens win, the land will be transferred and/or leased to them for much cheaper than it's actually worth. If the Sens don't win, another private company will get it for cheap. My vote at this point, is for the arena. Anyway, the Sens have made it clear; they will not ask for government support in this, other than land of course; they, along with their private sector partners, will pay their own way to the arena district.

The CTC is not terrible, just a horrible location.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by tomthumb2

With the economy tanking I think we may be waiting quite a while. Or maybe they'll scale their idea way back (IE: basic arena and no stadium).

Better wait to have it all rather than steeling for mediocrity.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by tomthumb2

I've always wondered about the perception that Edmonton needs to do more than Calgary to attract talent. I've lived in both and don't find Calgary that much better than Edmonton. They might get a bit more snow in winter and we have the mountains but that's about it. After that, they are virtually the same size.

Now Winnipeg's a different story. I've heard players hate the cold winters there with no breaks from chinooks like we get. Although they have to love playing in that atmosphere. By comparison, the Saddledome should be renamed "The Library" (although it did get loud in playoffs last year).

Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton would probably be the cities listed most frequently on NHL players' no-trade clauses. I would think all 3 would be considered top-5, maybe top-7 least desirable NHL cities for players. When Quebec City receives a team it will be added to this list as well. Being the most attractive city in that group isn't some great achievement. It's like being the tallest midget..oops I mean little person.

This isn't meant to dump on those cities. There will be plenty of players willing to play in these locales. There will also be a significant number who will be unwilling to sign or be traded to these cities for various reason, whether true or not ie. it's cold, nothing to do. Just the reality of the situation.

[bkd]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

Edmonton and Winnipeg are apples and oranges when it comes to weather. Edmonton doesn't get chinooks. It's dry and Cold for 7 straight month's. Edmonton has a bad rep for NHL players and It's basically opposite of detroit when it come to a winning identity. That's gonna change soon. Mcdavid and the arena district is gonna be a big sell in Edmonton

May, June, July, August, September and October are not cold and dry in Edmonton. Neither is the latter half of April or the beginning of November, generally. This 7 months of winter crap that people think Edmonton gets always gives me a laugh. 5 months at the most, and the past couple years our January's have been Spring-ish. Go global warming.

[MacLac]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton would probably be the cities listed most frequently on NHL players' no-trade clauses. I would think all 3 would be considered top-5, maybe top-7 least desirable NHL cities for players. When Quebec City receives a team it will be added to this list as well. Being the most attractive city in that group isn't some great achievement. It's like being the tallest midget..oops I mean little person.

This isn't meant to dump on those cities. There will be plenty of players willing to play in these locales. There will also be a significant number who will be unwilling to sign or be traded to these cities for various reason, whether true or not ie. it's cold, nothing to do. Just the reality of the situation.

"Would probably?" Do you have any facts to back up that statement? Or just conjecture you pulled from ur a&s? Thinking the latter is true...show me some no trade clauses first buddy....later

[king10]

Originally Posted by MacLac

"Would probably?" Do you have any facts to back up that statement? Or just conjecture you pulled from ur a&s? Thinking the latter is true...show me some no trade clauses first buddy....later

Hit a soft spot with someone i see.

[caltrane74]

Originally Posted by esquire

Will it really the worst "by far"?

It may be the worst after this season, but I'd say that the eastern division CFL stadiums could at least give McMahon some stiff competition:

-Molson Stadium... it's ultra-urban and it has loads of charm, but it's old and cramped.

-TD Place... also a good urban location and nicely renovated, but at its core it's basically a 60s grandstand facing a nice but really small new stand, with a huge empty void at one end of the field

-Tim Hortons Field... the most stripped down, ultra-basic underwhelming new stadium imaginable. Like the Nissan Micra of stadiums.

-BMO Field... kind of a weird bolted-together undersized franken-stadium.

It's a soccer stadium not a football stadium. The Argos should use the new field they built up at York for their games. It looks really nice on TV.

[king10]

Originally Posted by caltrane74

It's a soccer stadium not a football stadium. The Argos should use the new field they built up at York for their games. It looks really nice on TV.

Besides the fact that it has a running track and 75% of the stands are temporary, and only 5000 permanent seats and the owner york U isnt even letting their football team play on it, let alone the argos, and the argos new owners alrdy have the managing contract to BMO that is undergoing a $120 million dollar reno, and the york U stadium doesnt have a quarter the amount of suites or premium seating bmo has, and the argos will be able to keep more revenue at a stadium they already manage.

I can go on and on really. Takes a lot more than "looking nice on tv" to make it work.

And just like you say "bmo is a soccer stadium, not a football stadium", (even tho bmo will undergo a multi million dollar conversion to accomadate cfl football) i can say "york u isnt a football stadium its an athletics stadium" case in point the football team isnt moving in after the games, its being used solely for athletics.

[christopherj]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton would probably be the cities listed most frequently on NHL players' no-trade clauses. I would think all 3 would be considered top-5, maybe top-7 least desirable NHL cities for players. When Quebec City receives a team it will be added to this list as well. Being the most attractive city in that group isn't some great achievement. It's like being the tallest midget..oops I mean little person.

This isn't meant to dump on those cities. There will be plenty of players willing to play in these locales. There will also be a significant number who will be unwilling to sign or be traded to these cities for various reason, whether true or not ie. it's cold, nothing to do. Just the reality of the situation.

To be fair... it has less to do with the weather/city, and more to do with the success of the team. That's why a city like Detriot is never on a no-trade list.

The Oilers will be on nearly all of them right now... not because of the city, but because of 9 straight years of being awful.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by christopherj

To be fair... it has less to do with the weather/city, and more to do with the success of the team. That's why a city like Detriot is never on a no-trade list.

The Oilers will be on nearly all of them right now... not because of the city, but because of 9 straight years of being awful.

A lot of players, particularly players 27+ who have wives and families, will take living situations into perspective. It's why players have little issue playing for Tampa/Florida/Nashville (no taxes) or Arizona/Dallas/LA/Anaheim (great, year-round warm weather). This doesn't mention housing markets or any other little ticks that individuals like. At the end of the day hockey players are people, too, and we often forget this.

QC wouldn't be a very desirable location for young American kids coming out of college, or for prairie boys from out west, IMO. However, at the end of the day, hockey is hockey.

[MoXXon]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton would probably be the cities listed most frequently on NHL players' no-trade clauses. I would think all 3 would be considered top-5, maybe top-7 least desirable NHL cities for players. When Quebec City receives a team it will be added to this list as well. Being the most attractive city in that group isn't some great achievement. It's like being the tallest midget..oops I mean little person.

This isn't meant to dump on those cities. There will be plenty of players willing to play in these locales. There will also be a significant number who will be unwilling to sign or be traded to these cities for various reason, whether true or not ie. it's cold, nothing to do. Just the reality of the situation.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1840707/many-nhl-players-not-keen-on-playing-in-canadian-cities-survey/
An article on the least desirable markets to play in.

[osmo]

Edmonton (and QC) are over building their arenas for that exact reason. They need the best player facilities to compete with other markets for players. The reality is that ALL Canadian markets are not sought highly because of the amount of pressure and inability to hide when playing here. also, getting double taxed is always annoying as well. Markets in Denver, Dallas, LA/Anahiem will always have s easier time getting free agents.

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by christopherj

To be fair... it has less to do with the weather/city, and more to do with the success of the team. That's why a city like Detriot is never on a no-trade list.

The Oilers will be on nearly all of them right now... not because of the city, but because of 9 straight years of being awful.

That's not the reason. There are plenty of teams who've been horrible for a long stretch of time - but players are willing to play there because of the lifestyle factor. Unless they're veterans who are free agents and are looking to close out their careers with a Stanley Cup ring - players don't usually have the team's performance as a high priority when choosing where to play.

As MoXXon's post shows, places like Edmonton, Winnipeg, Calgary and Ottawa aren't attractive options. The winters suck and there's not nearly enough things for someone with a lot of money to do - plus because hockey is a religion to Canadians, the players feel a lot more pressure than they would in places like Arizona and Florida where players can walk down the street and very few people even recognize them. Toronto gets on the list because of the winters as well, but even though there's more to do - the pressure is brutal... same with Montreal.

It's all about lifestyle, not performance.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by MoXXon

http://globalnews.ca/news/1840707/many-nhl-players-not-keen-on-playing-in-canadian-cities-survey/
An article on the least desirable markets to play in.

Seems to back my point. If they went with bottom 7 I'm sure Calgary would be on the list. Toronto is on there partly because of perception (it's cold in winter but not nearly as cold as the western Canadian cities) and partly because of the last decade of poor management and teams. The Toronto media certainly would not help either.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by Berklon

That's not the reason. There are plenty of teams who've been horrible for a long stretch of time - but players are willing to play there because of the lifestyle factor. Unless they're veterans who are free agents and are looking to close out their careers with a Stanley Cup ring - players don't usually have the team's performance as a high priority when choosing where to play.

As MoXXon's post shows, places like Edmonton, Winnipeg, Calgary and Ottawa aren't attractive options. The winters suck and there's not nearly enough things for someone with a lot of money to do - plus because hockey is a religion to Canadians, the players feel a lot more pressure than they would in places like Arizona and Florida where players can walk down the street and very few people even recognize them. Toronto gets on the list because of the winters as well, but even though there's more to do - the pressure is brutal... same with Montreal.

It's all about lifestyle, not performance.

The weather and lifestyle of large American cities certainly plays an important factor for an NHL player, but it's not always the deciding one. If the team is a perennial loser that might cancel out any advantages of city size and weather for the player. Florida and Phoenix haven't exactly attracted an abundance of Grade A free agents. The southern teams that appear to attract the top 6 forwards and top 4 defensemen are franchises with good management and winning records. Same thing with "cold weather" American cities.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by MacLac

"Would probably?" Do you have any facts to back up that statement? Or just conjecture you pulled from ur a&s? Thinking the latter is true...show me some no trade clauses first buddy....later

Did you see the reference from the poster MoXXon with a survey from the players? There's your proof sunshine. Also see Chris Pronger, Danny Heatley, Michael Nylander.