Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Will the NHL Ever Go to a Wider Rink?


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#21 MabusIncarnate

MabusIncarnate

    The Truth Is Out There

  • Silver Booster Mod
  • 2,274 posts
  • Location:Monteagle, Tennessee

Posted 14 February 2013 - 04:43 PM

We could just throw everyone off and leave it to the discretion of the team's own arena like they do in baseball. We could have "Mile Long Stadium" and "The Glass Monster" with 40 foot tall boards where over the glass delay of game penalties become a non-factor. Random length and width for each stadium would be entertaining, imagine the ice space in Phoenix with all that extra seating room to spare.


13585921555_24551f5658.jpg


#22 Learn2LuvIt

Learn2LuvIt

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 566 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 04:47 PM

Wrong. You havent thought this out. You add more glass seats and more seats up to the last x amount of rows that need to be removed in the lower section. So if you have 25 rows around the lower section and you need to remove 3 of them to get the bigger ice, you are not losing rows 1, 2, and 3 as far as tickets and ticket prices are concerned. Youre losing rows 23, 24, and 25. That is lost revenue that needs to be made up, but im sure they could make it up with ticket price increases.

I would propose to make it mandatory for a rink thats 15 feet wider and 30 feet longer for every NEW NHL arena from this point forward. Then give existing teams/arenas the option for upgrade. Fast teams with skill would probably change their rinks. Slow teams with muckers would probably stick to what they have.

Respectfully....I don't think you read my post thoroughly.  I never mentioned losing premium seats (other posters did), I simply stated that you would be loosing three rows at ice level.  Which you would be....I don't care how you want to number the rows and what you charge per that row....really not that relevant. 

But for argument sake; let's take your assertion that an arena would loose three rows.  That's at least 300-400 seats!! (and that's a very conservative number....look at a map of The Joe and start counting).  So let's take your theory and follow it through (at least try)....the top seats of the lower bowl at the Joe go for $80 a seat (that's actually low as I did my research and three of the major ticket venue's have the average price of these top lower bowl rows a bit higher than $80 per seat).

= Math (using low numbers and averages to give you a break make sure there is no doubt you have no clue):

300 seats x $80 per seat = $24,000 per game in lost revenue

$24,000 in lost revenue per game x 41 home games per year = $984,000 in lost revenue per year!!!

 

Also things any owner/business minded person would consider:

300 people per game that are NOT buying your food, pop, beer, jersey's/swag, and parking!!!!  A survey conducted by HockeyBroad 65.7% of hockey fans claimed they spent more than $26 above ticket price when attending an NHL game.  Link to article and survey http://www.hockeybroad.com/

= Math

300 fans per game x $26 = $7800 in lost revenue per game.

41 home games per year x $7800 = $319,800 in lost revenue per year!!!!

 

So now we are up to $1,303,800 in lost revenue per year!!!!

 

Lastly:

Construction cost remove these 3 rows!!  (Again, I'm no builder or architect...but this sounds like a couple million at least).

 

In your statement about adding more premium glass seats....maybe some, but not that many.  Having 100 more seats that you can charge $30 more per seat (again...Math: 100 more premium seats x $30 more per seat...$3000 per game....$123,000 season....this doesn't offset the $1,303,800 you lost in achieving this + building costs!!!).  Hell, you could add 200 more premium seats and the economics STILL don't work.  Any why, because the fans want it.  I'm not sure if you were around the last 6 months of the lockout, but the owners don't have a huge respect for "what the fans want".  They are business owners first, hockey people second.  Dude...I'm no Bill Gates....but you're the one who might want to think this out.  Booya.


ENJOY THE RIDE

#23 Pskov Wings Fan

Pskov Wings Fan

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,027 posts
  • Location:Minneapoilis, MN

Posted 14 February 2013 - 07:52 PM

Will the public want to help pay for the probably 15+ new arenas the owners would ask to be built to support going to a wider ice surface?  Don't think they would use this move as an excuse to at least float new arena talk out there?  I think a good chunk of them would, especially those sharing arenas with the NBA.

 

The difference is just 13 feet (4 meters). There got to be a way to modify existing buildings provided there is a will to do that.



#24 The Axe

The Axe

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,379 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 03:45 AM

Respectfully....I don't think you read my post thoroughly.  I never mentioned losing premium seats (other posters did), I simply stated that you would be loosing three rows at ice level.  Which you would be....I don't care how you want to number the rows and what you charge per that row....really not that relevant. 
But for argument sake; let's take your assertion that an arena would loose three rows.  That's at least 300-400 seats!! (and that's a very conservative number....look at a map of The Joe and start counting).  So let's take your theory and follow it through (at least try)....the top seats of the lower bowl at the Joe go for $80 a seat (that's actually low as I did my research and three of the major ticket venue's have the average price of these top lower bowl rows a bit higher than $80 per seat).
= Math (using low numbers and averages to give you a break make sure there is no doubt you have no clue):
300 seats x $80 per seat = $24,000 per game in lost revenue
$24,000 in lost revenue per game x 41 home games per year = $984,000 in lost revenue per year!!!
 
Also things any owner/business minded person would consider:
300 people per game that are NOT buying your food, pop, beer, jersey's/swag, and parking!!!!  A survey conducted by HockeyBroad 65.7% of hockey fans claimed they spent more than $26 above ticket price when attending an NHL game.  Link to article and survey http://www.hockeybroad.com/
= Math
300 fans per game x $26 = $7800 in lost revenue per game.
41 home games per year x $7800 = $319,800 in lost revenue per year!!!!
 
So now we are up to $1,303,800 in lost revenue per year!!!!
 
Lastly:
Construction cost remove these 3 rows!!  (Again, I'm no builder or architect...but this sounds like a couple million at least).
 
In your statement about adding more premium glass seats....maybe some, but not that many.  Having 100 more seats that you can charge $30 more per seat (again...Math: 100 more premium seats x $30 more per seat...$3000 per game....$123,000 season....this doesn't offset the $1,303,800 you lost in achieving this + building costs!!!).  Hell, you could add 200 more premium seats and the economics STILL don't work.  Any why, because the fans want it.  I'm not sure if you were around the last 6 months of the lockout, but the owners don't have a huge respect for "what the fans want".  They are business owners first, hockey people second.  Dude...I'm no Bill Gates....but you're the one who might want to think this out.  Booya.



Too low. Youre right. 28 lower sections. Lets say average 10 seats a section. X 3 rows. = 840 seats. Lets call it 1000 to make math easy. And lower back rows are closer to 125 avg around the league. So 125,000 + 25,000 in food = 150,000 per game lost. X 41 = 6.15 million lost. Add 10 ads to the boards and 4 more to the ice at 250,000 a pop = 3.5 mil. Now we got 2.65 mil left. Increase average ticket prices by 3 bucks a ticket and average concession sales by 1 dollar per person. 4 x 17,000 = 68,000. X 41 = 2.79 mil. Ding ding ding.

#25 Rivalred

Rivalred

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,315 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:03 AM

Wonder if it would increase or decrease scoring
D-Fence Avatar Win-O-Meter 8-1

#26 St. Michael (the Red Wing)

St. Michael (the Red Wing)

    Heavenly With the Puck

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,822 posts
  • Location:Mankato, MN

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:53 AM

I say no to this. However it wouldn't surprise me that sometime in the future it happens.



#27 Learn2LuvIt

Learn2LuvIt

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 566 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:24 PM

Add 10 ads to the boards and 4 more to the ice at 250,000 a pop = 3.5 mil. Now we got 2.65 mil left. Increase average ticket prices by 3 bucks a ticket and average concession sales by 1 dollar per person. 4 x 17,000 = 68,000. X 41 = 2.79 mil. Ding ding ding.

Okay, now we've gone from an economic model that doesn't work, to absurd random guessing at an attempt to win an economic debate.  10 more ads on the boards?  Don't think there would be enough space to add 10 more ads, plus and a good portion of the current sponsors are involved in bigger bundled packages that include TV (Belle Tire, DMC), Vendor Participation (Miller Lite, Molson, FoxSports), or are non paying/net revenue sponsors (Little Caesars) so it's not just about throwing up an ad on the boards, there has to be companies willing to pay that money$...but let's focus on the bigger absurdities.  4 more ads/sponsors on the ice....there are only two sponsors (4 ads ) right now??  Where would you put these ads???  I don't get it.

 

Okay, moving on.  Raise the ticket prices across the board $3 and raise the average concession prices by $1??  Not to throw reality into your thought process, but you can win ANY economic debate by raising revenue/income to whatever random level achieves your number$.  Our economy is failing....just raise the GDP$ to whatever number$ that makes our economy look like it's not failing??  BTW...raising the ticket prices and concessions actually puts your product/attendance in some jeopardy...there is only so much consumer disposable income and amount they will pay.  This actually may reduce your numbers because people can't afford to attend the games.  There is a price of diminishing returns with any price bump.

 

But IF, IF, IF they were to attempt to do all of which you state....they would only breaking even with their old revenue model!!  Why would owners do this?  Put their attendance at risk to make the ice surface bigger??  They just proved to us throughout the lock out that the actual game of hockey is secondary to how much money they make as a business.

 

And then there is the parking revenue lost for those 1000 attendee's.  Granted, not all would park at parking garages/spaces where Olympia Entrtnmt derives revenue, but some/good portion would.

 

And
then there is the actual cost to overhaul the building(s) to make these changes.  Throwing out random numbers$ on this is silly cause I don't even know "ball park" figures, but I'm guessing it's not cheap at all.  I would however bet it's a couple of million dollars at least.  But I may be way off.

 

Then the kicker....you are just considering Detroit and Joe Louis Arena.  HockeyTown.  One of the premier hockey markets in the NHL.  How in the world would the above go over in shaky hockey markets like...Columbus, FLA, Phoenix, Carolina, Long Island, Nashville, etc!!!!!????  "Hey Coyote fans!!!...Hang on to your hats cause we've got some great news....although you barely come out and see the games now and the status of IF we actually will exist as a hockey team tomorrow is in constant limbo...we're gong to raise prices on tickets and concessions so you can potentially more exciting hockey on a bigger ice surface!!!!" 

 

Again....Not happening.  Booya - Ding!


ENJOY THE RIDE

#28 Nhurdi

Nhurdi

    #16

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 740 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, B.C.

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:18 PM

It's such a fundamental change that I myself cannot see it occurring. It's not just the arenas of the NHL cities, it's the arenas of all North American Hockey rinks that would come into question. Yes it's true that CHL, AHL, WHL and even pewee hockey rinks wouldn't have to change but a new pressure would be put on them to change.

 

If we are considering outlandish ideas to create more space, why not simply drop the amount of skaters to 3 forwards and 1 D for a total of 4 per side. Heck 2 forwards and 2 D, I don't care..... and yes i'm kidding.



#29 The Axe

The Axe

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,379 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:18 PM

Okay, now we've gone from an economic model that doesn't work, to absurd random guessing at an attempt to win an economic debate.  10 more ads on the boards?  Don't think there would be enough space to add 10 more ads, plus and a good portion of the current sponsors are involved in bigger bundled packages that include TV (Belle Tire, DMC), Vendor Participation (Miller Lite, Molson, FoxSports), or are non paying/net revenue sponsors (Little Caesars) so it's not just about throwing up an ad on the boards, there has to be companies willing to pay that money$...but let's focus on the bigger absurdities.  4 more ads/sponsors on the ice....there are only two sponsors (4 ads ) right now??  Where would you put these ads???  I don't get it.
 
Okay, moving on.  Raise the ticket prices across the board $3 and raise the average concession prices by $1??  Not to throw reality into your thought process, but you can win ANY economic debate by raising revenue/income to whatever random level achieves your number$.  Our economy is failing....just raise the GDP$ to whatever number$ that makes our economy look like it's not failing??  BTW...raising the ticket prices and concessions actually puts your product/attendance in some jeopardy...there is only so much consumer disposable income and amount they will pay.  This actually may reduce your numbers because people can't afford to attend the games.  There is a price of diminishing returns with any price bump.
 
But IF, IF, IF they were to attempt to do all of which you state....they would only breaking even with their old revenue model!!  Why would owners do this?  Put their attendance at risk to make the ice surface bigger??  They just proved to us throughout the lock out that the actual game of hockey is secondary to how much money they make as a business.
 
And then there is the parking revenue lost for those 1000 attendee's.  Granted, not all would park at parking garages/spaces where Olympia Entrtnmt derives revenue, but some/good portion would.
 
And
then there is the actual cost to overhaul the building(s) to make these changes.  Throwing out random numbers$ on this is silly cause I don't even know "ball park" figures, but I'm guessing it's not cheap at all.  I would however bet it's a couple of million dollars at least.  But I may be way off.
 
Then the kicker....you are just considering Detroit and Joe Louis Arena.  HockeyTown.  One of the premier hockey markets in the NHL.  How in the world would the above go over in shaky hockey markets like...Columbus, FLA, Phoenix, Carolina, Long Island, Nashville, etc!!!!!????  "Hey Coyote fans!!!...Hang on to your hats cause we've got some great news....although you barely come out and see the games now and the status of IF we actually will exist as a hockey team tomorrow is in constant limbo...we're gong to raise prices on tickets and concessions so you can potentially more exciting hockey on a bigger ice surface!!!!" 
 
Again....Not happening.  Booya - Ding!


Initial costs would be HUGE. 2 mil is way under. Id say upwards of 10 to 20 mil. The complexities of the plumbing underneath the ice and the angles of the seating would only leave an option to raise the level of the ice surface. Big time process to do that. Not to mention all the revenue losses the arena would incur for concerts, etc. Its obvious that new arenas are the only ones that could get the bigger surface. I think its necessary for the game, tho.





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users