If the Isles are serious about moving to Brooklyn, then there's a few years to try to make the arena more hockey friendly.
who is going to knock down an entire wall, extend the two walls, refoot the foundation, erect a new wall and to do this all, raze the property behind the arena, spending a ton on a BRAND NEW ARENA?
They have their money maker. The Isles are not of whom I speak.
who is going to knock down an entire wall, extend the two walls, refoot the foundation, erect a new wall and to do this all, raze the property behind the arena, spending a ton on a BRAND NEW ARENA?
They have their money maker. The Isles are not of whom I speak.
The arena could be alter without knocking down the entire end of the arena. The end zones wouldn't be proportionate, but changes can be made to make the layout not a horseshoe. It still wouldn't be perfect, but better than the layout they currently have for hockey.
The arena could be alter without knocking down the entire end of the arena. The end zones wouldn't be proportionate, but changes can be made to make the layout not a horseshoe. It still wouldn't be perfect, but better than the layout they currently have for hockey.
They sit new collapsible seats behind the end of the rink, they stil have a solid structure in the upper levels that have no view below. So 14,500 turns to.....15k?
If you're talking making the arena viable in that end, the arena needs expansion. No ways around that. And expansion, with support and concrete means it has to be made longer. That means a wall is knocked down and some major renovation.
The greyed out areas are unable to see the defensive zone almost in its entirety. You have to move that entire gray chunk to the left about 70 feet minimum.
That seating chart is pretty damning. Mark my words, Barclays Center will never be a long-term destination for the Isles or any NHL team without some kind of major modification, and anyone expecting modifications to an arena that they haven't even finished building yet needs to face facts... it ain't happening. Maybe they play there a season or two while a new arena is being constructed elsewhere, but the Isles moving permanently to Barclays Center is a pipe dream.
Then again, a Mickey Mouse organization like the Isles would look right at home in a Mickey Mouse arena, so who knows
Maybe they play there a season or two while a new arena is being constructed elsewhere, but the Isles moving permanently to Barclays Center is a pipe dream.
That's the only thing it's good for... It buys a little more time as they don't need more than a definite approved plan by 2015.
I think Kevin Schultz does a decent job over at IPB, but I am really, really annoyed at him for writing an extensive blog entry on the most circulated Islanders website on a topic that the guy literally doesn't have a clue about. Now he has set the entire online NYI/NHL community into a frenzy for posting drivel on a board that a ton of people read.
That seating chart is Barclay's way of playing it safe for a trial preseason game ensuring that everyone at the ticket has a great view and a positive experience, and they can get momentum going. Even the "limited view" seats on sale have only a small portion of the corner obstructed, hardly even the worst seats for NHL hockey. That chart is nothing like a regular season chart would be, and doesn't even begin to take into account the minor, low cost changes that could be made to the building that would increase capacity and make use of the poor end of the ice. For Kevin Schultz to imply that this would be the permanent seating layout should the NYI play in Brooklyn for more than an exhibition game, and put it on his heavily trafficked site with no architectural explanation to back it up is careless and stupid, one simply has to see the effect it had on his blog's comments, and all over here on HF.
Obviously, the building will never be ideal for hockey, that goes without saying, but I have been studying architecture for over half a decade now, specifically sports architecture, and I know the specifics of just about every North American NHL/NBA arena in use, under construction, or recently demolished like the back of my hand. Or in summation, I know a hell of a lot more about the mathematical specifics of this issue than Kevin Schultz does, and there is no way that would be the seating layout if the Islanders inhabited that rink on a full time basis, and what Schultz put there is to say the least, severely misleading.
Yeah, you definitely have to extrapolate a bit. But do you blame Kevin Schultz or the readers unwilling to extrapolate?
As you said, this seating chart shows what they'd have available for a single game, with absolutely no changes made. If a team is playing 42+ dates a year and you're charging $100 for a seat, there's an economic incentive to make revisions that is just not there for a one-shot deal. For instance, ask why the sections immediately to the left of sections 07 and 25 are white (no seating)? Those sections would have great views of the ice, but it's probably something to do with accessability or fire egress and Code. Obviously if the Isles were full-time tenants they'd figure out a way to sell those sections and also fit retractable seating into the areas going into the corners.
I think Kevin Schultz does a decent job over at IPB, but I am really, really annoyed at him for writing an extensive blog entry on the most circulated Islanders website on a topic that the guy literally doesn't have a clue about. Now he has set the entire online NYI/NHL community into a frenzy for posting drivel on a board that a ton of people read.
That seating chart is Barclay's way of playing it safe for a trial preseason game ensuring that everyone at the ticket has a great view and a positive experience, and they can get momentum going. Even the "limited view" seats on sale have only a small portion of the corner obstructed, hardly even the worst seats for NHL hockey. That chart is nothing like a regular season chart would be, and doesn't even begin to take into account the minor, low cost changes that could be made to the building that would increase capacity and make use of the poor end of the ice. For Kevin Schultz to imply that this would be the permanent seating layout should the NYI play in Brooklyn for more than an exhibition game, and put it on his heavily trafficked site with no architectural explanation to back it up is careless and stupid, one simply has to see the effect it had on his blog's comments, and all over here on HF.
Obviously, the building will never be ideal for hockey, that goes without saying, but I have been studying architecture for over half a decade now, specifically sports architecture, and I know the specifics of just about every North American NHL/NBA arena in use, under construction, or recently demolished like the back of my hand. Or in summation, I know a hell of a lot more about the mathematical specifics of this issue than Kevin Schultz does, and there is no way that would be the seating layout if the Islanders inhabited that rink on a full time basis, and what Schultz put there is to say the least, severely misleading.
I can't kill Schultz for that. He probably just didn't know. He's been pretty fair, objective and positive about Barclay in Brooklyn. Unlike some.
There's nothing to be positive about. For the Islanders it's the worst possible scenario across the board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert Marshall days
Staying in nassau and sucking forever without enough revenue is the worst possible scenario.
As the last 20 years have proven.
Yeah seriously. Pardon me for preferring a building that while looking "funny" would give the Islanders enough revenue to compete with the upper market teams in the NHL instead of signing Jay Pandolfo every summer over a better hockey building that ensures that the only way the Islanders can ever have success is a miracle circa the 1973 Mets.
Yeah seriously. Pardon me for preferring a building that while looking "funny" would give the Islanders enough revenue to compete with the upper market teams in the NHL instead of signing Jay Pandolfo every summer over a better hockey building that ensures that the only way the Islanders can ever have success is a miracle circa the 1973 Mets.
Pardon me for preferring a building that while looking "funny" would give the Islanders enough revenue to compete with the upper market teams in the NHL instead of signing Jay Pandolfo every summer
The on ice product is in no way shape or form a result of the Coliseum.
The on ice product is in no way shape or form a result of the Coliseum.
where are we in profit/loss? Not important. No. We were expected to sell the building out with Rolston's offensive flair and our players playing the game Gandhi dreamed of.
Bottom line: if we used the money we spent on Mottau, Rolston, Staios, Reasoner, Eaton and Pandolfo on three nice players, reupped CHEAP Pandolfo and played Haley all year, we're FAR, FAR better. Same price.
It's the building.
Oh, we play better and hit and play better, more seats, more money and more NET revenue.
In the same building. But we can't blame management, can we? Garf doesn't even WEAR asbestos.
simple as this.. the nvmc building is falling apart but if they were a playoff team, they would be close to selling out every night, and definitely on weekends..the average attendance this year was up 2K per game over previous year to over 13K per game. This after no playoffs for 5 years and 20 years of futility. This team didn't need to move, they just needed a better product and a new building..IF they move it should only be to a state of the art arena built for hockey.. ownership will do what they will but there is no compelling argument why barclays is a good fit. With no playoff series wins in 20 years and an archaic building, most teams would have serious attendance issues. Also, unfortunately, local fans in NY had another local alternative which they would not have in most nhl cities. Get the players, build a building, get the fan base back.. a real building.
who is going to knock down an entire wall, extend the two walls, refoot the foundation, erect a new wall and to do this all, raze the property behind the arena, spending a ton on a BRAND NEW ARENA?
They have their money maker. The Isles are not of whom I speak.
If we are labeling him then, maybe it would be better to say he is the person from western suffolk who is stating the obvious. One whole end of the arena and corners appear to be either blocked out or limited view
your previous comment said that MAJORS in architectural engineering have said it could be fixed without structural change.. Please tell me you meant seasoned professionals and not college students.. I am not an engineer, but have not seen one article saying this, nor seen one building where this was done .. I have seen people here with biases for or against brooklyn giving opinions and saying they are experts and it can be fixed but take that with a grain of salt. Unless I see a example or a statement from the parties involved about larger seating, I will believe it holds 14.5K total. Bottom line, not good if we want to become a quality franchise somewhere in the future..
simple as this.. the nvmc building is falling apart but if they were a playoff team, they would be close to selling out every night, and definitely on weekends..the average attendance this year was up 2K per game over previous year to over 13K per game. This after no playoffs for 5 years and 20 years of futility. This team didn't need to move, they just needed a better product and a new building..IF they move it should only be to a state of the art arena built for hockey.. ownership will do what they will but there is no compelling argument why barclays is a good fit. With no playoff series wins in 20 years and an archaic building, most teams would have serious attendance issues. Also, unfortunately, local fans in NY had another local alternative which they would not have in most nhl cities. Get the players, build a building, get the fan base back.. a real building.
There can be no arguing that a better on ice product would lead to a larger revenue stream.
But long term Nassau faces two huge challenges.
The first, and probably the one that moves the team from Nassau is the undeniable fact that Nassau county is broke. No matter how you slice it Nassau would have to fund some of the building and that is simply not going to happen in the next 10+ years. Just pay attention to the news. Nassau continues to borrow to pay its bills while no new tax base grows. The burden continues to be put on the homeowner. A publicly financed arena, even one that is only partially financed with tax dollars, will never fly in Nassau county. Never.
For all the talk of renovation on this board the fact is that the one thing both the county and the team agree on, based on a study completed by Bowne, is that renovating the NVMC would cost the same, if not more, then constructing a new arena.
Now some will argue for some small time renovation but without many luxury boxes, club seats, bars and restaurants along with the corporate support to use these areas the Islanders will still fall short on the kind of revenue needed to compete in today's game.
If anybody still thinks Wang has any interest in winning they are either not paying attention or are in denial. This is all about real estate and the HUB. We should all hope that Wang runs out the lease and then sells the team. This is the best case scenario.
Yeah, that cash cow known as NVMC allows NYI tons of revenue to be great on ice. The results since 1994 are all an illusion.
Do you believe that Charles Wang would run the team any differently if he had more revenue from a new building?
Do you believe that the man who held onto Mike Milbury way too long, signed Alexei Yashin and Rick DiPietro to ridiculous contracts, hired and fired Neil Smith in one off-season, fired Peter Laviolette and Ted Nolan while commmitting to a coach like Jack Capuano would all of the sudden become a competent owner?
