HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

NHL Arena for 30,000 fans. Why, Why Not?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-09-2007, 01:44 PM
  #76
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterplan View Post
The additional construction costs for an additional 5 to 8 thousand seats is exponentially more then many of you predict. Yes, it can be built, however, if you're counting on $5 tickets to off set the extra costs, a quick payback calculation will quickly tell you this is not a good business model. Hence I don't see this a likely option.
It is most likely more economically effective to have luxury suites in the extra area instead.

mooseOAK* is offline  
Old
10-09-2007, 01:45 PM
  #77
The n00b King *
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Scatbox-less :(
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zach - #1 Canes Fan View Post
Here's a picture taken from the very back of Commonwealth Stadium during the Heritage Classic



I would think that, once you get above 23000-25000 seats that it would be very hard to view the ice. I wouldn't spend more than a few bucks on nosebleed tickets from that far back, same with most other fans
this shot is misleading because the zoom used make things closer look closer then they are and things farther look further then they are.

just to be a bit more descriptive, just look at where the vantage point is. It's in the upper right corner of the shot. You can even see the buildings curving towards the outside of the picture. Which tells you that the image sort of stretches outwards, therefore making it appear as if everything is further away.

The n00b King * is offline  
Old
10-09-2007, 01:51 PM
  #78
STA
Registered User
 
STA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killiecrankie View Post
cause youd make less money with a 30,000 seat arena
Explain plz

STA is offline  
Old
10-09-2007, 01:54 PM
  #79
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotwheels View Post
That's extremely poor design. If you are going to shell out millions to build an ice rink, the firm should know what the hell they are doing, like sight lines. This isn't something we learn in our final year for architecture (and design), this is like semester 1 stuff.

The Bolts arena is a nice one though, i doubt the fans are as rude as they are at the habs arena, went to 1 game there to watch the habs play while i was visiting MTL and wow...you'd think the fans bought tickets to go and boo all game long.
its not surprising. just read the habs board.

Fish on The Sand is offline  
Old
10-09-2007, 01:57 PM
  #80
Live in the Now
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Live in the Now's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: LA
Country: United States
Posts: 31,070
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by STA View Post
Explain plz
More toilets, more concessions areas, higher maintenance cost, cost of having to buy more land for the arena, more supplies to build the arena...all for 5 dollar seats. I'm sure there is much more that would come for adding 10,000 people to an arena.

Live in the Now is offline  
Old
10-09-2007, 01:59 PM
  #81
DevFan-RU-
Registered User
 
DevFan-RU-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Morristown, NJ
Country: Poland
Posts: 11,057
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DevFan-RU-
I think the solution would be to add "viewing areas" to the arena. Small movie-theatre type seats with massive HDTV screens that have live feeds from the game. But are also open to the arena's ambience. This could be done very cheaply and these seats would be the cheapest in the house. But you always have a great view, and HD quality footage. In addition to this, the arena's in-house broadcasts can provide stat updates on players, and even replays.

You can also fit these places under the arena's bowls in its bowels.

DevFan-RU- is offline  
Old
10-09-2007, 01:59 PM
  #82
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sedongo View Post
I would think that any Canadian team could do this. Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto especially.
what happens when vancouver starts to suck and start drawing flies like they did in the late 90s?

Fish on The Sand is offline  
Old
10-09-2007, 02:01 PM
  #83
CanadianCommie
Cold North Comrade
 
CanadianCommie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sherwood Park, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,566
vCash: 500
it's probably one of those eventualities in some of the bigger markets, but at the moment it seems to far out of reach for most of the teams, even the Canadian teams. The Canadian teams will be in the 21K to 25K range sooner rather than later, and the newer arenas are all cracking the 20K mark anyways.

CanadianCommie is offline  
Old
10-09-2007, 02:03 PM
  #84
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute View Post
Yes, you will. Every team has giveaways. Including the Oilers, though the chart from last year said they gave away the fewest.

As far as the largest arena goes, Tampa holds that distinction as well. They had 22,717 in there for game 7 of the finals in 04.
tampa doesn't have the largest arena.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Pete_Times_Forum

The top 3, in order, are

Bell Centre
United Center
Joe Louis Arena

those aso happen to be the only venues with capacity over 20, 000


Last edited by Fish on The Sand: 10-09-2007 at 02:09 PM.
Fish on The Sand is offline  
Old
10-09-2007, 02:09 PM
  #85
Killiecrankie*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by STA View Post
Explain plz
Every NHL has made a model/matrix of seats/cost/prices/taxes \.... EVERYTHING.

It has nothing to do with construction at all, Maintenance is also minimal.

Think of it as a price matrix, like a bell curve. Say at 18,000 seats you can charge 45$(average a ticket). Say you add a seat what is the increase/decrease in price. Say for 18,500 you can charge 42$, or 22,000 you can charge 30.



There is literally thousands of variables (all different for each market). And you have to enter them into the market model. The amount of seats to price is generally like this in the shape of a upsidedown U.


I could make a quick model on excel but I am too lazy. Basically price rises as you add seats, then stagnates, then lowers as you add more.

Killiecrankie* is offline  
Old
10-09-2007, 02:23 PM
  #86
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Blues View Post
Corporate wise, MSG could absolutely do it. Toronto and Montreal could probably do it given sheer demand from fans.

Given construction limitations [available space, ADA requirements, safety concerns] it'll never happen in New York; considering neither arena is 10 years old, it'll never happen in Montreal and Toronto. [Never mind the fact that limited supply = higher price = higher revenues = higher profits.]
So more tickets = less money? Wow. Why didn't MLSE think of that? They should just reduce it to 10,000 seats and watch profits skyrocket!

Think about it. the 20,000 who are already there will pay just as much as they are now. There may be lesser demand for the additional 10,000 seats, but you can still charge something for them. 10,000 X something = a lot.

seventieslord is online now  
Old
10-09-2007, 02:26 PM
  #87
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
what happens when vancouver starts to suck and start drawing flies like they did in the late 90s?
I think you need to look up the meaning of that cliche.

seventieslord is online now  
Old
10-09-2007, 02:38 PM
  #88
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
So more tickets = less money? Wow. Why didn't MLSE think of that? They should just reduce it to 10,000 seats and watch profits skyrocket!

Think about it. the 20,000 who are already there will pay just as much as they are now. There may be lesser demand for the additional 10,000 seats, but you can still charge something for them. 10,000 X something = a lot.
Actually, as the supply curve shifts to the right and assuming demand doesn't change at all, the equilibrium point drops. At some point, adding too many seats will create a surplus and force overall prices down just to break even.

Regardless, the profit matrix is a bell-curve. Starting with zero seats and increasing, profits will rise will rise, then continue to rise at a rate of diminishing returns. Eventually those returns are negative and costs will outweigh revenues.

I can guarantee every arena built has gone through a profit matrix to determine the number of seats that will maximize profits.

Crease is offline  
Old
10-09-2007, 02:53 PM
  #89
Masterplan*
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Promise Land
Country: Croatia
Posts: 5,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
Actually, as the supply curve shifts to the right and assuming demand doesn't change at all, the equilibrium point drops. At some point, adding too many seats will create a surplus and force overall prices down just to break even.

Regardless, the profit matrix is a bell-curve. Starting with zero seats and increasing, profits will rise will rise, then continue to rise at a rate of diminishing returns. Eventually those returns are negative and costs will outweigh revenues.

I can guarantee every arena built has gone through a profit matrix to determine the number of seats that will maximize profits.
Crease > seventieslord

Masterplan* is offline  
Old
10-09-2007, 02:55 PM
  #90
sticknrink
Registered User
 
sticknrink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,710
vCash: 500
It would be pointless with the seats growing away from the rink. However if they built an arena with seats in the upper concave like thus:

-------
------
-----
----
---
--
-

You could probably pack a few thousand more. I don't know how structurally rigid you would have to make a roof to support that much weight.

sticknrink is offline  
Old
10-09-2007, 02:58 PM
  #91
sticknrink
Registered User
 
sticknrink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
Actually, as the supply curve shifts to the right and assuming demand doesn't change at all, the equilibrium point drops. At some point, adding too many seats will create a surplus and force overall prices down just to break even.

Regardless, the profit matrix is a bell-curve. Starting with zero seats and increasing, profits will rise will rise, then continue to rise at a rate of diminishing returns.
In Toronto, Montreal, even Vancouver, demand is highly or perfectly inelastic and not a curve.

Those cities could pack an arena of 30k seats easily. Even without elasticity, remember the definition of demand.

sticknrink is offline  
Old
10-09-2007, 03:01 PM
  #92
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
Actually, as the supply curve shifts to the right and assuming demand doesn't change at all, the equilibrium point drops. At some point, adding too many seats will create a surplus and force overall prices down just to break even.

Regardless, the profit matrix is a bell-curve. Starting with zero seats and increasing, profits will rise will rise, then continue to rise at a rate of diminishing returns. Eventually those returns are negative and costs will outweigh revenues.

I can guarantee every arena built has gone through a profit matrix to determine the number of seats that will maximize profits.
Not necessarily. I understand exactly what you're getting at, but in a city where the demand is that high, there is more demand for tickets. Just picture yourself as a lower-bowl season ticket holder at the ACC. Are you going to give up your seat or expect to pay less if the arena gets bigger?

The problem isn't the curve you're talking about, it's more about practicality than anything. I think they'd have made the ACC bigger if it coudl have still been a good place for 25,000 people to watch hockey.

seventieslord is online now  
Old
10-09-2007, 03:02 PM
  #93
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterplan View Post
Crease > seventieslord
LOL.

seventieslord is online now  
Old
10-09-2007, 03:12 PM
  #94
jimbojones123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 182
vCash: 500
Why not a Mini-Dome?

jimbojones123 is offline  
Old
10-09-2007, 03:13 PM
  #95
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sticknrink View Post
In Toronto, Montreal, even Vancouver, demand is highly or perfectly inelastic and not a curve.

Those cities could pack an arena of 30k seats easily. Even without elasticity, remember the definition of demand.
I think it's fair to say some cities at the moment have relatively inelastic demand towards hockey tickets (e.g. Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, New York City). However, there are so many variables that go into determining supply and demand of sporting tickets that it would be almost impossible to control the "ceteris paribis" assumption.

In the end there are two major factors in price-determination.

1.) Cost of supply
2.) Demand

With more seats, cost of supply goes up, thus ticket prices go up.

With more seats, tickets become more available, thus the value of those tickets decrease and ticket prices decrease.

The key is determining which factor is stronger.

Crease is offline  
Old
10-09-2007, 03:13 PM
  #96
Tom Servo
Space Truckin'
 
Tom Servo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: SOL
Posts: 920
vCash: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
tampa doesn't have the largest arena.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Pete_Times_Forum

The top 3, in order, are

Bell Centre
United Center
Joe Louis Arena

those aso happen to be the only venues with capacity over 20, 000

Wiki is wrong St.Petes Time forum seats over 22K

Tom Servo is offline  
Old
10-09-2007, 03:22 PM
  #97
Tom Servo
Space Truckin'
 
Tom Servo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: SOL
Posts: 920
vCash: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sedongo View Post
I would think that any Canadian team could do this. Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto especially.
Vancouver had trouble putting 10k in the Pacific Coliseum back in the the 80's when the Canucks sucked, good luck even filling half the seats in a 30k building if they ever start to suck again.

More seats means less demand and lower ticket prices, which may be ok if the team is doing well, but if the team does poorly....

Tom Servo is offline  
Old
10-09-2007, 03:30 PM
  #98
Skyblaze
Registered User
 
Skyblaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 740
vCash: 500
Seeing how the absolute worse seats in the Bell Centre still have a very decent view of the game, they could conceivably build an arena with a similar design adding a few thousand more seats (maybe go up to the 25k-26k range). Any more than that though and you're really stressing it unless the engineers can come up with a radically new seating design (or you do away with the corporate boxes, haha yeah right!).

Even if it's doable, those new seats would have to be considerably cheaper because, again using the Habs as the example, with the current trend of increasing ticket prices, the nosebleed seats are rapidly becoming a bad cost/experience ratio compared to watching it at home or in a sports bar.

As the HD broadcasts become more widespread and the large screen TVs become more affordable, it becomes a rather poor choice to pay as much money as some teams are charging to watch from the nosebleeds and the choice would get considerably worse with seating beyond the 22k mark.

You could argue that "true fans would rather watch it in the arena" and "better experience yadda yadda" and while I agree that watching the occasional game from the nosebleeds is fun and all, you certainly wouldn't get me to pay for season tickets that far from the ice.

Skyblaze is offline  
Old
10-09-2007, 04:00 PM
  #99
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Not necessarily. I understand exactly what you're getting at, but in a city where the demand is that high, there is more demand for tickets. Just picture yourself as a lower-bowl season ticket holder at the ACC. Are you going to give up your seat or expect to pay less if the arena gets bigger?
But is that demand depends on the price and quality of the ticket. If the cost of building and maintaining five to ten thousand more seats is higher than what fans will pay to sit that far away, then they won't be filled. Lets say that the cheapest seat in arena X is 45 dollars. You then add 6,000 seats that are higher and farther away, but the only way to make a profit of those seats (both in terms of construction and infrastructure) is to charge $40. Are fans really going to pay that much to sit in a seat that is far away from the ice? The demand for the previously existing seats will remain the same, but the demand for the new seats may be significantly lower.


I think the only way to make this work is if you designed the seating to be radically vertical, perhaps even with higher decks overhanging lower ones. That way you might be able make the viewing experience from those higher decks nice enough to warrant the prices that you would have to charge.


Last edited by xander: 10-09-2007 at 04:08 PM.
xander is offline  
Old
10-09-2007, 04:14 PM
  #100
STA
Registered User
 
STA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Live in the Now View Post
More toilets, more concessions areas, higher maintenance cost, cost of having to buy more land for the arena, more supplies to build the arena...all for 5 dollar seats. I'm sure there is much more that would come for adding 10,000 people to an arena.
In Vancouver, Montreal or Toronto, those seats would be a lot more than $5.

and "More toilets, more concessions areas, higher maintenance cost, cost of having to buy more land for the arena, more supplies to build the arena" could be used as an argument against any increase in the number of seats, why not just make all arenas with 10 000 seats then, if fewer seats is always so much more advantagous.

STA is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:59 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.