Stadiums & Arenas of Canada, Part 3

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

So considering the CTC only has the Sens, we're not doing so good. Big factor of course is that that Ottawa is in between Toronto and Montreal, which makes for some heavy competition. The crappy suburban location doesn't help either.

Similar to the Sens the suburban location restricts a lot of visitors from easily traveling to the building. Its location is undeniably a con when attempting to attract acts and events.

[osmo]

Originally Posted by Berklon

Pretty impressive for ACC to be #11 worldwide, especially when the arena is booked up for Leafs, Raptors and Rock games. I think the only arenas higher than them with these restrictions are MSG and Barclays Center.

This is the reason there will never be a 2nd NHL team in the Toronto area. MLSE enjoys the monopoly it has on arena concert shows and does not want to give that up. With the obscene volume you see for Toronto it is quite obvious the metro could handle a second large scale arena.

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by osmo

This is the reason there will never be a 2nd NHL team in the Toronto area. MLSE enjoys the monopoly it has on arena concert shows and does not want to give that up. With the obscene volume you see for Toronto it is quite obvious the metro could handle a second large scale arena.

MLSE has some say on the restriction of a 2nd NHL team in the GTA (whether it's simply a single vote or something more intrusive), but they can't stop another arena from being constructed.

Of course, would someone be willing to build an arena with the hopes they can generate enough revenue solely from events and without a major tenant - that's a different matter. The Sprint Center in KC generates a profit without a tenant, but they don't have to compete with another arena too close by - whereas a new one in Toronto has to compete with the ACC and First Ontario Centre.

I've always wondered if anyone has the idea to build a concert-specific venue that can seat 12-15k or so and be optimized for these types of events. Personally, I hate large venues for concerts - even arenas are too large and offers crappy sound quality. I prefer 1k-4k venues. But I may change my tune if the venue was designed more like a larger concert hall with superior sound.

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by JHikka

There's no reason why the league can't have both Arizona and Houston. I think a lot of people underestimate just how large the Phoenix metro area is.

A bit off topic, but the NHL is just now getting to the point where it is beginning to receive incoming talent from these areas (Phoenix) so it would be unwise to move on now of all times. Franchises that have been in their current locations a bit longer (Dallas, for example) are producing more and more high level hockey players with each passing age group. Bishop signed in Dallas partly because he played junior hockey in Texas.

This is long something I've mentioned before, but the % that Canadians make up in the NHL has been declining pretty steadily over the past few decades. Because Americans tend to have fairly similar surnames to Canadians (relative to Europeans, anyway) the change is a bit more difficult to pick up on at first blush. There will eventually be a time when Canadians are no longer dominant in the league, although it'll take longer to change that mindset amongst fans.

This season there has been 10 players born in California, two in Arizona, five in Texas, six Floridians, three from the Carolinas...and these numbers will only increase in the future if youth participation rates are anything to go by.

tl;drthe NHL is beginning to realize the upsides of players born and developed in the 90s expansion areas, so moving a team like Arizona would be a poor business decision.

-Umm actually their is multiple reasons and very obvious ones too. Really the exactly opposite reality. There is no way pheonix and Houston can both have a team unless the deal in Seattle folds.

-literally Austin Mathews is the only notable player to come from the pheonix area, let's not craft a narrative over him

-What does Ben Bishop have to do with your argument? He was born in Colorado...he likes Dallas enough to sign there.. Dallas didnt produce Ben Bishop...Colorado did and Ben Bishop would be a hockey player with or without Dallas....

-Ahh Yes, I'm sure the new soon to be vacant arena in glendale, bankrurptcies, and multiple owners who have lost 100s of millions on the Coyotes over the past 2 decades has been deemed a great success...Give your head a shake, Moving them to Houston is most likley well recieived and welcomed by the BOG at this point and in fact will be GREAT for buisness. Also would help the divisions align a bit better, Vegas might fill in the void for the 10,000 coyote fans that will actually care.

[Dalreg]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

-Umm actually their is multiple reasons and very obvious ones too. Really the exactly opposite reality. There is no way pheonix and Houston can both have a team unless the deal in Seattle folds.

-literally Austin Mathews is the only notable player to come from the pheonix area, let's not craft a narrative over him

-What does Ben Bishop have to do with your argument? He was born in Colorado...he likes Dallas enough to sign there.. Dallas didnt produce Ben Bishop...Colorado did and Ben Bishop would be a hockey player with or without Dallas....

-Ahh Yes, I'm sure the new soon to be vacant arena in glendale, bankrurptcies, and multiple owners who have lost 100s of millions on the Coyotes over the past 2 decades has been deemed a great success...Give your head a shake, Moving them to Houston is most likley well recieived and welcomed by the BOG at this point and in fact will be GREAT for buisness. Also would help the divisions align a bit better, Vegas might fill in the void for the 10,000 coyote fans that will actually care.

Pull your head in mate. If the lowly province of Alberta can manage to keep two teams afloat, Then 30+ million southerners in the USA can support two teams or even three, don't forget Dallas.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by Dalreg

Pull your head in mate. If the lowly province of Alberta can manage to keep two teams afloat, Then 30+ million southerners in the USA can support two teams or even three, don't forget Dallas.

Yeah, like much greater population numbers have made a difference in other markets. Given your logic, the San Francisco and Seattle areas should have had teams decades ago, no?

[Rollerstud98]

Originally Posted by speedog

Yeah, like much greater population numbers have made a difference in other markets. Given your logic, the San Francisco and Seattle areas should have had teams decades ago, no?

Well, I suppose we could add a second team to the San Fran area as the Sharks have been there almost 3 decades already!

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by Dalreg

Pull your head in mate. If the lowly province of Alberta can manage to keep two teams afloat, Then 30+ million southerners in the USA can support two teams or even three, don't forget Dallas.

It's about availability "mate" you're obviously not very educated on the NHL. Secondly There's more hockey fans in Alberta then all of Texas, California and Arizona combined. And if Your theory is true then we wouldn't be having this conversation would we?

I also love how you down play Alberta as a hockey market. We don't keep "manage to keep 2 teams afloat". Both teams absolutely thrive and consistantly sell out both buildings with some of the highest ticket prices in the league and have continued to do that even with a 10 year playoff absence. Your ignorance is shocking

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

It's about availability "mate" you're obviously not very educated on the NHL. Secondly There's more hockey fans in Alberta then all of Texas, California and Arizona combined. And if Your theory is true then we wouldn't be having this conversation would we?

I'd love to see the numbers to back up your claim. Pretty sure that can't be even close to true.

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

Well, I suppose we could add a second team to the San Fran area as the Sharks have been there almost 3 decades already!

So population dictates NHL viability? Why are both Atlanta teams in Canada? 1 being the NHLs smallest market? Why Aren't the islanders selling out every game? Why is Carolina, Dallas, and Arizona consistantly at the bottom of NHL attendance standings?

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

I'd love to see the numbers to back up your claim. Pretty sure that can't be even close to true.

California may have been a long shot but you get my point. You Cannot compare "Lowly Alberta" to the sunbelt states. The ratio of hockey fans to population isn't comparable. I could convince half of Texas that gretzky is the caption of the Stars.

[TorontoDrew]

Love to see you try.

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Love to see you try.

I would give you 10 to 1 odds that I could ask 100 random people in Dallas to name 1 player on the stars and less than 5 could. On the flip side i bet 30 out of 100 could name half of Edmontons current squad

Regardless I'm not here to bash southern markets I'm only defending Alberta. My original comment was aimed at the availability of franchises. Seattle will be the NHLs 32nd team through expansion. That is written in stone and always has been. So whether we are talking about Quebec City or Houston relocation is the only option. And the ONLY western team that is close to being up for relocation is the Coyotes. Houston's gain will be at the expense of AZ which is why they both cant have teams as stated above. I have no doubt Houston could make it work. It's North America's 4th biggest metropolis, Toyota center is a great building, And the perspective ownership is solid.

But after Seattle is announced as the NHLs 32nd team both Quebec and Houston will be on the outside looking In. And in my opinion the Only Logical way that any of those 2 markets see a franchise is if the Coyotes land in Houston and Carolina or Florida land in Quebec City.

The league wont expand to 34 teams in our lifetime.

I realize it's the off season but go back to soccer fellas You're out of your Element

[Rollerstud98]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

So population dictates NHL viability? Why are both Atlanta teams in Canada? 1 being the NHLs smallest market? Why Aren't the islanders selling out every game? Why is Carolina, Dallas, and Arizona consistantly at the bottom of NHL attendance standings?

Maybe read the comment I was replying to, stating we should have put a team in the San Fran region decades ago when in fact the sharks have been there now 26 years? I was just pointing out that region already has a team who does quite well actually draw wise.

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

Maybe read the comment I was replying to, stating we should have put a team in the San Fran region decades ago when in fact the sharks have been there now 26 years? I was just pointing out that region already has a team who does quite well actually draw wise.

I can't discredit what you're saying not do I wish too. I'm just stating population or Location doesn't always equal success. San Jose has drawn quite well, Anaheim hasn't Always drawn so well. Florida draws flies while Tampa bay thrives. Just because San Jose does okay doesn't mean the San Fran is a no brainer

[osmo]

NHL has had a presence in California since the 70s. San Jose is definitely a very healthy market and is almost 30 years old. The Sharks need a cup to cement that market forever.

Atlanta is a dead market for sports. Every team there suffers aside from the Falcons and College Football. The place is easily the worst large market for sports in North America and it isn't close.

Texas has a real base of hockey now that the Dallas Stars have invested into local hockey. All the rinks in the Dallas Metroplex have been a result of the Stars and you now see young players coming out of the metro. Same thing with Phoenix as they have grassroots and ice rinks which are not churning out players. The Coyotes should of never left downtown. Nobody complained when they played in the Suns arena as witness a quirky and intimate place to watch a game.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

Maybe read the comment I was replying to, stating we should have put a team in the San Fran region decades ago when in fact the sharks have been there now 26 years? I was just pointing out that region already has a team who does quite well actually draw wise.

So that area with about double the population of Alberta could or could not host another team?

[240glt]

Edmonton loses the CFR

http://edmontonjournal.com/sports/lo...ne-in-edmonton

[speedog]

Originally Posted by 240glt

Edmonton loses the CFR

http://edmontonjournal.com/sports/lo...ne-in-edmonton

They're downplaying it too but the financial impact will most likely be missed by quite a few businesses. A good catch for either Red Deer or Saskatoon, front runners apparently.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

So population dictates NHL viability? Why are both Atlanta teams in Canada? 1 being the NHLs smallest market? Why Aren't the islanders selling out every game? Why is Carolina, Dallas, and Arizona consistantly at the bottom of NHL attendance standings?

Owners care most about the market value of their teams. It's simple economics that having teams in known, larger markets will have a greater positive impact on the average value of teams than ticket prices or attendance providing you get the numbers to stay afloat.

Pretty bold statement to say Alberta has more hockey fans than all of California, Arizona and Texas. I do believe most schools in California have NCAA hockey programs. IIRC, some are Division 1. That's suggests there are fans playing the sport and watching it even if they don't necessarily follow the NHL. There's over 30 million California alone.