Stadiums and Arenas of Canada part 2

[ggopher]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

SaskTel Centre in Saskatoon is younger than Saddledome but talks have already begun last year for a downtown Saskatoon replacement.

Ed Sheeran last week sold out concert in 30 mins for SaskTel Centre, his second appearance at the facility in two years. The centre has served it purpose well but its become outgrown & a larger replacement will likely come in a decade or two.

Enjoy it. Ed Sheeran has skipped over Calgary and is playing in Saskatoon and twice in Edmonton. We are making the drive from Calgary to Saskatoon just to see that concert (not my choice of artist, I am just the driver). But I still don't think that is reason enough to justify public money being used to build a new arena in Calgary.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by ggopher

Enjoy it. Ed Sheeran has skipped over Calgary and is playing in Saskatoon and twice in Edmonton. We are making the drive from Calgary to Saskatoon just to see that concert (not my choice of artist, I am just the driver). But I still don't think that is reason enough to justify public money being used to build a new arena in Calgary.

The list of concerts and other events skipping over Calgary because the roof of the Saddledome can't support modern stage setups is growing by the month. People who are against a new arena seem to think the only beneficiary will be the Flames when that is far from the truth. If the city wants a huge say in where it's built and what is built with it they'll have to put up some of the funding.

[TorontoDrew]

The Saddledome is an iconic structure that could still be used for many events but as far as sight lines go for hockey and as a concert venue it's sub par. Calgary could use a new venue for sure.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

The Saddledome is an iconic structure that could still be used for many events but as far as sight lines go for hockey and as a concert venue it's sub par.

I get the concert issue, but what's the problem with respect to hockey sightlines? It's a pretty standard bowl configuration much like just about every other arena I've been to built in the last 40 years.

[TorontoDrew]

I've heard in terms of press boxes blocking the scoreboards in the upper levels it can take away from game experience.

It kind of sucks having so much of the crowd blocked out by the roof. Half of the experience of being at a game is being part of the crowd and seeing the crowd.

From: http://aviewfrommyseat.com

[esquire]

^ I don't think that the view of the scoreboard from the top of the nosebleeds is anything more than a fairly minor consideration in terms of deciding whether or not to build a new rink.

[TorontoDrew]

It's not, the lower bowl is the main concern I hear. Only 6000 seats where most other NHL arenas have 9000.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

It's not, the lower bowl is the main concern I hear. Only 6000 seats where most other NHL arenas have 9000.

This is the biggest bullshit reason there could ever be. The reason there are so few lower bowl seats is because the Saddledome was reconfigured in the mid 90s at the Flames' request so as to provide box seating closer to the ice.

Here's the best pic I could find, one end still has the original number of rows that used to wrap all the way around the rink.



Anyhow, the lower bowl used to be considerably bigger than it is now. If that's the biggest issue, then I guess the Flames could always restore it to the way that it used to be. It certainly isn't a change that could never be undone.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by esquire

This is the biggest bullshit reason there could ever be. The reason there are so few lower bowl seats is because the Saddledome was reconfigured in the mid 90s at the Flames' request so as to provide box seating closer to the ice.
Anyhow, the lower bowl used to be considerably bigger than it is now. If that's the biggest issue, then I guess the Flames could always restore it to the way that it used to be. It certainly isn't a change that could never be undone.

No need to get angry or swear at me. This is the reason that has been mentioned many times by Brian Burke and the league. I've never been in the Saddledome so I'm only going by what's been mentioned many times over the years.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

No need to get angry or swear at me. This is the reason that has been mentioned many times by Brian Burke and the league. I've never been in the Saddledome so I'm only going by what's been mentioned many times over the years.

Sorry, I'm not suggesting that you're in any way responsible for that line of reasoning. It's simply an asinine argument given that the Flames are the reason that the Saddledome's original seating configuration was modified in the first place... it takes an unbelievable amount of chutzpah on their part to now argue that the costly renovations done for their benefit are now a reason why governments should pony up for a new rink.

[TorontoDrew]

I'm thinking they might just be a little jealous of Edmonton and are using the seating as an excuse. If concerts are skipping over Edmonton though it is definitely time to consider building something new.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by osmo

I am talking viewing eyes. NBA is the second most popular sport in the USA out of the Big 4 leagues.

People are cherry picking numbers as well. Regional TV monies do not get distributed league wide in MLB. What is there core league revenues (?), that is what is important. Each team will vary widely from their own local revenue sources that don't count towards league revenues.

Also, MLB gets good money from its assets such as BAM media. MLB makes good money and is profitable but it is not the number 2 league in the USA. NBA dominates the number 2 position, it isn't close (I say this as an MLB fan myself).

MLB just like the NBA is in a bubble. Regional TV money that is inflating MLB teams isn't sustainable. At least with the NBA the money is league wide and the water will bring down all the boats together and is manageable from a league level. MLB some teams will be under water while some teams float. Arizona Diamondbacks are a good example of a bloated TV deal. I believe the Rangers have a hot air TV deal as well.

Apparently you are unaware of revenue sharing in MLB. Thanks to the redistribution of funds (particularly the revenues from teams which are penalized for exceeding the salary cap) even the lowest revenue teams are making out like bandits. It fact it has reached the point that the higher revenue teams have complained about teams like Tampa Bay pocketing tens of millions of dollars in profits while maintaining a low payroll rather than investing the revenue-sharing dollars in improving the team.

The NBA deal is league wide so all the teams benefit but one of the two networks that signed the latest multi-billion dollar deal is in financial trouble. ESPN has been laying off hundreds of workers recently as their cable subscription rates have nosedived by hundreds of thousands a month (probably happening to some degree with most if not all sports networks) for the past few years. No doubt, they are losing money hand over fist as ratings for most of their sports properties has been in decline in the corresponding time frame. No doubt they rue the day they signed their latest deals with the likes of the NBA and MLB. I'm sure Disney is trying to figure out a way to divest themselves of this money-losing venture. Once that new national NBA contract runs out we will surely see a steep decline for the next tv/multimedia deal.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by osmo

What is more intesting to me is the NBA ever comes back to Canada with a second team. Vancouver was a good market for the long term. A young and ethic population base with lots of Asian-Canadians who are fans of basketball she NBA botched it by not connecting with the grassroots and community groups. There is enough sentimental value for the old Grizzlies brand in Vancouver but the NBA let the trademark move away. I could see the NBA return there in my lifetime but only after Seattle gets a team back.

The next market I think that could potentially do well would be Calgary as it has a corporate base and a younger population that is much more diverse. I see more potential in Calgary being able to support to major teams over a Ottawa.

The Raptors have shown it's a long term game with markets and you need some luck of course. Vince Carter was the sole reason for many young fans who are now adults and are diehard Raptors fans. During the VC era he brought a excitement to the Raptors brand that help sell tickets and make the brand a viable attention grabber. Now the patience has paid off as the Raptors will soon start bringing more revenues each year than the Leafs.

Not sure why you think this. If that does actually happen (extreme long shot) it will only because the US national contract (at 80+ million per team) pays more than the NHL's current US national TV deal (comparatively paltry $6 million per team) which has little to do with Raps popularity vs. Leafs popularity.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

I didn't think airport was an issue either but Blueandgoldguy seemed to think it was.. I know Sask Rush charters flights too.



SaskTel Centre in Saskatoon is younger than Saddledome but talks have already begun last year for a downtown Saskatoon replacement.

http://saskatoon.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=852483

Ed Sheeran last week sold out concert in 30 mins for SaskTel Centre, his second appearance at the facility in two years. The centre has served it purpose well but its become outgrown & a larger replacement will likely come in a decade or two.

http://thestarphoenix.com/entertainment/...katoon-return-to-sell-out-sasktel-centre

You are still on about this. Sasktel Centre seems to be serving the city just fine. It is a pretty active arena supporting two teams and plenty of concerts throughout the year. Unless the building is structurally unsound, it should be able to last another 20-25 years with even a modest refurbishment. There is no major financial benefit to building a new arena when the two primary tenants are a junior team (for whom the arena is actually far too big) and a NLL team that only plays 9 home games a year (plus playoffs) with revenues that are probably half that of a CFL team. The arena serves its purpose well.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by esquire

This is the biggest bullshit reason there could ever be. The reason there are so few lower bowl seats is because the Saddledome was reconfigured in the mid 90s at the Flames' request so as to provide box seating closer to the ice.

Here's the best pic I could find, one end still has the original number of rows that used to wrap all the way around the rink.



Anyhow, the lower bowl used to be considerably bigger than it is now. If that's the biggest issue, then I guess the Flames could always restore it to the way that it used to be. It certainly isn't a change that could never be undone.

Smaller lower bowl though by 3,000 seats than most current arenas (QC's new arena has closer to 10,000 lower bowl seats). The arena has substantially more upper bowls seats than any other arena in the NHL and those will be lower priced seats. The third level seats are so far away that they are practically worthless and would be eliminated with a new arena.

A new arena similar to Edmonton would probably allow Calgary to increase their revenues just from the 45 games by $20 - $30 million per year - not just from the gate but from all the additional advertising opportunities and concessions available. Add all the additional concerts and that number would only rise.

With that said, the ownership group in Calgary needs to have more skin in the game than Katz did in Edmonton. Considering Calgary is western Canada's corporate hotbed there is no excuse for the vast majority of the new arena to be funded privately. Really no excuse for anything other than that.

A few years ago, when I first heard about this CalgaryNext project I thought they would be 10 years away from having a new facility. I will stick with that as I think we are still a good 8 years away from seeing a new home for the Calgary Flames. 5 more years of negotiating and planning and 3 years to clear a site and build an arena. In the meantime, Calgary will be fine in their current building remaining a mid-revenue NHL team.

[SaskScraper]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper
I didn't think airport was an issue either but Blueandgoldguy seemed to think it was.. I know Sask Rush charters flights too.

SaskTel Centre in Saskatoon is younger than Saddledome but talks have already begun last year for a downtown Saskatoon replacement.

http://saskatoon.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=852483

Ed Sheeran last week sold out concert in 30 mins for SaskTel Centre, his second appearance at the facility in two years. The centre has served it purpose well but its become outgrown & a larger replacement will likely come in a decade or two.

http://thestarphoenix.com/entertainm...sasktel-centre

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

You are still on about this. Sasktel Centre seems to be serving the city just fine. It is a pretty active arena supporting two teams and plenty of concerts throughout the year. Unless the building is structurally unsound, it should be able to last another 20-25 years with even a modest refurbishment. There is no major financial benefit to building a new arena when the two primary tenants are a junior team (for whom the arena is actually far too big) and a NLL team that only plays 9 home games a year (plus playoffs) with revenues that are probably half that of a CFL team. The arena serves its purpose well.

^^its been determined already your opinion on the subject doesn't mean much blueandgoldguy

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

I've heard in terms of press boxes blocking the scoreboards in the upper levels it can take away from game experience.

It kind of sucks having so much of the crowd blocked out by the roof. Half of the experience of being at a game is being part of the crowd and seeing the crowd.

From: http://aviewfrommyseat.com

Yeah, but when your wearing a cowboy hat your view is always blocked like that.

[tomthumb2]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

Smaller lower bowl though by 3,000 seats than most current arenas (QC's new arena has closer to 10,000 lower bowl seats). The arena has substantially more upper bowls seats than any other arena in the NHL and those will be lower priced seats. The third level seats are so far away that they are practically worthless and would be eliminated with a new arena.

A new arena similar to Edmonton would probably allow Calgary to increase their revenues just from the 45 games by $20 - $30 million per year - not just from the gate but from all the additional advertising opportunities and concessions available. Add all the additional concerts and that number would only rise.

With that said, the ownership group in Calgary needs to have more skin in the game than Katz did in Edmonton. Considering Calgary is western Canada's corporate hotbed there is no excuse for the vast majority of the new arena to be funded privately. Really no excuse for anything other than that.

A few years ago, when I first heard about this CalgaryNext project I thought they would be 10 years away from having a new facility. I will stick with that as I think we are still a good 8 years away from seeing a new home for the Calgary Flames. 5 more years of negotiating and planning and 3 years to clear a site and build an arena. In the meantime, Calgary will be fine in their current building remaining a mid-revenue NHL team.

You obviously haven't been here lately - Calgary is def not the boom town it used to be - it's the complete opposite in fact. I do agree with you on the timing though - it's gonna be at least 8 more years before we get a new arena, unless we get the Olympics which I don't really see happening given the current state of affairs. It's also 99.9% likely that CalgaryNext dies and they go with Plan B which is arena only and minor upgrades to McMahon.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

^^its been determined already your opinion on the subject doesn't mean much blueandgoldguy

Newflash. None of our opinions mean much here. It is a discussion board.

As for the tv news item, they are looking at a replacement some time down the road (10 years minimum) and are not ruling out a renovation instead of a replacement which will not come cheap!

It's funny that my opinion doesn't mean much when I stated that Sasktel Centre would not need to be replaced for 20 - 25 years when in a comment just prior to this you stated the arena has served it's purpose and Saskatoon would need a larger replacement in a decade or two. Last I checked, two decades is 20 years. I guess we are in agreement!

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by tomthumb2

You obviously haven't been here lately - Calgary is def not the boom town it used to be - it's the complete opposite in fact. I do agree with you on the timing though - it's gonna be at least 8 more years before we get a new arena, unless we get the Olympics which I don't really see happening given the current state of affairs. It's also 99.9% likely that CalgaryNext dies and they go with Plan B which is arena only and minor upgrades to McMahon.

I realize times are tough, but that doesn't mean the Alberta economy won't improve in the coming years. Maybe Calgary and the rest of the province will emerge more diversified and less dependent on oil in the next decade? If that happens the corporate heft in the city should return to its former state and some reasonable facsimile.

I'm sure CalgaryNext is all but dead now and fully expect the proposal will be a new arena with refurbishments to McMahon. I don't think Calgary will get quite as glamorous an arena proposal as Edmonton (less public funding imo) but I'm sure it will be a major improvement on their current digs.