Stadiums and Arenas of Canada part 2

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by esquire

Look at Chicago... for a few years they sucked and the fans stayed away. It got to the point where the Wolves were drawing more fans on some nights. Then they shook things up and look at how they've turned that franchise around.

Shook things up = Their antiquated, forcing blackouts-on-local-TV, owner died. Wirtz Sr. tried to run that thing into the ground and damn near succeeded.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

As owner of the Blackhawks, Wirtz had a reputation for stubbornness and frugality, earning the nickname "Dollar" Bill.[4] He was vilified by Blackhawks fans for forbidding home games to be televised unless they were picked up by national broadcasters, which only happened when the Blackhawks made the playoffs. As Wirtz explained it, broadcasting regular-season home games was unfair to season-ticket holders.[5] For a short time during the 1991-92 and 1992-93 seasons, Wirtz introduced Hawkvision, a pay-per-view service that operated in conjunction with Chicago's local SportsChannel outfit, which cost $29.95 per month and broadcast Blackhawks home games.

Wirtz was also blamed for allowing Bobby Hull to leave the Blackhawks and the NHL for the World Hockey Association (although his father, Arthur Wirtz, was actually responsible for that decision).[4][6] Wirtz was further blamed for the loss of both Dominik Hašek and Ed Belfour, for trading Denis Savard in 1990, for the trade of Chris Chelios to Detroit (in actuality, Chelios had asked to be traded and gave approval to then-General Manager Bob Murray when told Detroit was the most interested team), for the trading of Jeremy Roenick, and for the 1967 trade of Phil Esposito.[4] Wirtz was also blamed for the Blackhawks' Stanley Cup drought, which was the second longest in NHL history and the longest in team history.[4] Under the ownership of Wirtz, the Chicago Blackhawks were named by ESPN in 2004 as the worst franchise in sports.[7] In 2002, ESPN ranked Wirtz as the third greediest owner in all of sports.[8]

American franchises typically either can't afford to be bad or will turn around and rebuild quicker as there is less appetite, or at least less marketing ability, in a rebuilding/bad franchise. In Canada your franchise can be abysmally bad for a decade (Toronto, Edmonton) and it won't really matter because you'll still sell out. This is why Promotion/Relegation is always a better model for sports leagues, but I digress.

The problem with the Leafs is that they're so popular with such a large market to themselves that even if one person walked away there's 15 more waiting for their tickets, even if the team is shit.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Shook things up = Their antiquated, forcing blackouts-on-local-TV, owner died. Wirtz Sr. tried to run that thing into the ground and damn near succeeded.

American franchises typically either can't afford to be bad or will turn around and rebuild quicker as there is less appetite, or at least less marketing ability, in a rebuilding/bad franchise. In Canada your franchise can be abysmally bad for a decade (Toronto, Edmonton) and it won't really matter because you'll still sell out. This is why Promotion/Relegation is always a better model for sports leagues, but I digress.

The problem with the Leafs is that they're so popular with such a large market to themselves that even if one person walked away there's 15 more waiting for their tickets, even if the team is shit.

I won't say that MLSE is operating in bad faith the way that Harold Ballard did... I mean, at least the Leafs went out and got Babcock for what that's worth, but still... if the team's viability hinged on them winning, they'd find a way to speed things up.

But anyway, your comment goes to my point... it's hardly surprising that Toronto and Edmonton, the two most loyal markets in Canada, the ones that just bend over and keep renewing tickets at ever increasing prices, are the cities whose teams have been chronically abysmal year after year.

By contrast, Montreal's fans had the good sense to stay away when then their team began sucking in the late 90s. Things got turned around and despite the fact they haven't won any cups, they have been a legitimate contender almost every season.

The Leafs will start winning once the fans there stop letting themselves get played.

[cjones2451]

Another one from @Qman604 from BMO



Looking at the gap between the stands and the roof, I think sometime of plexi glass or ETFE type material should go there to block wind and rain

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by esquire

I won't say that MLSE is operating in bad faith the way that Harold Ballard did... I mean, at least the Leafs went out and got Babcock for what that's worth, but still... if the team's viability hinged on them winning, they'd find a way to speed things up.

This is way too soon to comment on. Babcock and the rebuild et.al. only really began this summer (and late last season). Give it a few years.

Originally Posted by esquire

But anyway, your comment goes to my point... it's hardly surprising that Toronto and Edmonton, the two most loyal markets in Canada, the ones that just bend over and keep renewing tickets at ever increasing prices, are the cities whose teams have been chronically abysmal year after year.

Montreal is probably the most loyal...and are also the quickest to throw a bad (or even mediocre team) under the bus. Your point is taken, though. No incentive for a franchise to make a better product if the worst product still sells out.

Originally Posted by esquire

By contrast, Montreal's fans had the good sense to stay away when then their team began sucking in the late 90s. Things got turned around and despite the fact they haven't won any cups, they have been a legitimate contender almost every season.

The Leafs will start winning once the fans there stop letting themselves get played.

Leafs will start winning when their management allows the team to rebuild properly which is finally now just happening. Toronto could get by in the 90s and pre-cap 00s because they just had so much money to burn they could build very good teams from free agency. Now the Draft is probably the most vital day of the year, and the development of those players is pivotal. Toronto management is only just now catching on to that. They got caught in a very dangerous place (similar to New Jersey) where the team was just bad enough to miss the playoffs but not bad enough to get good draft picks (top 5, top 10 depending on year). You get stuck in a cycle of never really challenging and never really rebuilding and getting solid prospects.

Like I posted previously it's difficult for Leafs fans to stop themselves from being played because there's just so many of them. One may stop but five more take their place, at least for bums in the seats at the ACC. The best thing for the Leafs, product and competition-wise, would be to have a franchise in the GTA competing with them, IMO.

[blueandgoldguy]

the media fuels much of perceived impatience among the Leaf fans in Toronto for a rebuild. They are already sowing the seeds for an implosion in Leafland should management not be able to sign Stamkos to a contract this summer. Should the Leafs actually sign a declining player like Stamkos to a contract that pays $10 million per season or more it will show what a joke this supposed rebuild is. Suspect defense and goaltending and the Leafs seek to hasten the rebuild by signing a player who will take up a disproportionate amount of the salary cap which would have major implications for the Leafs going forward. It's a recipe for failure like the last faux rebuild with Kessel.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

the media fuels much of perceived impatience among the Leaf fans in Toronto for a rebuild.

Absolutely. Their constant focus and fabrication of stories fuels a lot of the views centered around the team and its management.

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

...declining player like Stamkos...

....what? Stamkos scored 43 goals last season. His team went to the Stanley Cup Finals last season. What are you even trying to say?

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

...to a contract that pays $10 million per season or more it will show what a joke this supposed rebuild is.

But the media always creates these stories. Lindros, Stamkos, Tavares...for some reason they should all want to play in Toronto despite the team being run atrociously and having a media circus that would follow and criticize them at their every turn. Of course Stamkos would want to switch pre-game flip flops for 20 reporters at his doorstep.

Media: "Would you be interested in signing Stamkos?"
Leafs Mgmt: "Well of course, who wouldn'-"
Media: "LEAFS TO SIGN STAMKOS CONFIRMED"

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

Suspect defense and goaltending and the Leafs seek to hasten the rebuild by signing a player who will take up a disproportionate amount of the salary cap which would have major implications for the Leafs going forward.

Leafs have plenty of cap room for a star player if they so choose. Signing a bluechip goalscorer like Stamkos would be possible. Is it rushing a rebuild? Perhaps. But you need goalscorers regardless of what you're doing. Unless you can prove to me that Nylander and/or Marner are going to be 30-goal scorers in the next three years then those goals will have to come from somewhere.

[osmo]

The Stamkos thing is such a waste of hot air. Canadian Hockey media, desperate for a story since to many Canadian teams are spinning the rudders this year.

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

It's a recipe for failure like the last faux rebuild with Kessel.

While signing Stamkos would seem to be another attempted shortcut in a long line of failed shortcuts for the Leafs - it wouldn't be nearly as bad as the Kessel deal since they not only paid him a big salary - they gave up valueable draft picks (Tyler Seguin says Hi).

I think they should forget about Stamkos. I don't think his addition would be enough to push the Leafs into the playoffs, yet it would improve the team enough where they wouldn't even get a lottery pick. It would do more harm than good.

In any case, why is this discussion in the Stadiums thread?

[Migs]

Had the great opportunity to view the Mosaic Stadium Presentation Center today, wow what a great experience. Very very impressed with the materials being used on the stadium. They had lots of multimedia presentations as well as new renderings of the club box seats area as well as the Virtual Venue 3D interaction, looks even better than I thought it would. They also had a scaled down model of the stadium, Loge & club box seating examples, PTGE roof fabric, large LED Ephesus bulb (there will be 400 for stadium) & many other displays. I highly recommend all season ticket holders to come & check it out. I believe they said it will be open to the general public on certain dates.

Exciting times.

[Trans Canada]

Ice District - December [19] 2015 by Jeff Wallace, on Flickr

[Black Star]

Sweet shot.....

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by JHikka

...what? Stamkos scored 43 goals last season. His team went to the Stanley Cup Finals last season. What are you even trying to say?

Yeah but he hit 60 in 12-13. So anything below that is sub par

[Stormer]

Here are some screen caps from the virtual stadium presentation centre for New Mosaic Stadium, Regina, including one of the interior of the Club Lounge.

[esquire]

^ Very nice. As with TD Place, the upper deck is so small you wonder why they even bothered with it. But that said, it will clearly be the place to sit if you want a good view and a practically semi-private concourse with short washroom and concession lines as I'm sure it won't be too crowded.

Really the biggest differences relative to IGF are endzone seats only on one end, and more rows on the lower deck sideline. I like that part... always thought that the lower deck sideline grandstand at IGF looked kind of small, but then our upper deck is more substantial than the other new parks.

[tomthumb2]

One thing I like about Mosaic is that its not perfectly symmetrical. However, I can't figure out the reasoning behind that sharp angle in the lower bowl.

I also love the double deck endzone, but clearly this is the only place where they could sell tickets like that.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by tomthumb2

I also love the double deck endzone, but clearly this is the only place where they could sell tickets like that.

The NMS layout tries to strike a compromise between being fan friendly (like THF where all the seats are on the sidelines) vs. being TV friendly (like IGF where you have a bowl and a backdrop of fans for every camera angle).

Even though those upper level end zone seats will be the last to sell, I'm sure they will provide better views than lower deck end zone seats. There is no worse view of a CFL field than low in the end zone.

[tomthumb2]

Originally Posted by esquire

The NMS layout tries to strike a compromise between being fan friendly (like THF where all the seats are on the sidelines) vs. being TV friendly (like IGF where you have a bowl and a backdrop of fans for every camera angle).

Even though those upper level end zone seats will be the last to sell, I'm sure they will provide better views than lower deck end zone seats. There is no worse view of a CFL field than low in the end zone.

... GREAT point!

[Migs]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Very nice. As with TD Place, the upper deck is so small you wonder why they even bothered with it. But that said, it will clearly be the place to sit if you want a good view and a practically semi-private concourse with short washroom and concession lines as I'm sure it won't be too crowded.

Really the biggest differences relative to IGF are endzone seats only on one end, and more rows on the lower deck sideline. I like that part... always thought that the lower deck sideline grandstand at IGF looked kind of small, but then our upper deck is more substantial than the other new parks.

That upper decks on those images are slightly misleading. At the highest point the upper deck is 21 rows which is IMO significant.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by tomthumb2

One thing I like about Mosaic is that its not perfectly symmetrical. However, I can't figure out the reasoning behind that sharp angle in the lower bowl. .

If you look closely the seats in the corners past the sharp angles are actually elevated above the sideline seats. Gives a much better point of view for the folks in the corners.

[Oilkountry]

it's absolutely beautiful. definitely on par with IGF