View Single Post
12-30-2003, 07:55 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: na
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by dragonwyck
I'd have no problem with doing all 5 of those... though I'm not a big proponent of no touch icing.

BUT, I don't think the only lost cost of widening the surface is the loss of seat revenue. I don't know anything about what goes on under that ice surface, but I bet make the surface bigger would require a decent amount of construction.
It's not that big a deal. It would take a couple of weeks (at most) to do, and would involve an extension of the pipe system they use to pump the gasses that keep the ice cold. I recall one estimate for doing the work in Montreal (at the Bell Center) as being in the range of half a million dollars. When you consider whatthe Habs are paying Patrick Traverse, Karl Dykhuis and Donald Audette NOT to play in the NHL, it's just not that much money.

It's too bad, really, because this could've been done 13 years ago. A lot of people saw this coming in the early 90s, which is when the new buildings started going up. If the league had simply passed a by-law requiring any new buildings to have wider (but not necessarily Olympic sized) ice surfaces, something like 97% of the teams in the league would have them. I would think 205 x 95 would have done the trick. An extra 10 feet of width would create 2000 square feet of additional ice. It would really help.

JV is offline