HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Cost of Changing the Size of Ice Surfaces?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-23-2011, 08:42 PM
  #1
invictus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,244
vCash: 500
Cost of Changing the Size of Ice Surfaces?

Are there any trustworthy sources online about the true cost of refitting arenas to have ice closer to the international size? Everytime it comes up in discussions, a chorus of "it is too expensive!" starts up, but I've had trouble finding any sort of hard numbers.

invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2011, 09:12 PM
  #2
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 4,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by invictus View Post
Are there any trustworthy sources online about the true cost of refitting arenas to have ice closer to the international size? Everytime it comes up in discussions, a chorus of "it is too expensive!" starts up, but I've had trouble finding any sort of hard numbers.
Because it depends on the structure. Each arena is different.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2011, 09:22 PM
  #3
Killion
Registered User
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Village
Country: Wales
Posts: 29,905
vCash: 500
I dont know. Your talking about increasing the width from 85' to 98' with accompanying expansions to the corner radius's; the length, 200' staying the same. Losing 6.5' from the corners along both sides, wiping out the lower concourse paths & players benches, penalty boxes etc, pushing them all back into what is now in a lot of cases the foundations of poured concrete cantilevered seating stands is really pretty problematical. Electrical, piping, the configuration of all of the ice making laid into the floor would need to be re-configured, possibly higher capacity ice plants and all at no small expense. Then theres the loss of seat revenues however Im sure that could be recouped through creative means. Overall though, I dont believe its feasible strictly from an engineering/safety perspective without huge costs in any given building around the league, though Im neither a structural engineer nor an architect, an arena convenor nor am I a professional icemaker, beyond pushing a button in the fridge.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2011, 10:11 PM
  #4
Jonas1235
Registered User
 
Jonas1235's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,699
vCash: 500
Eric Francis said on HNIC hotstove last weekend, that it could cost over a million per arena to change ice surface. Plus, losing seats.

Could cost 40 million to change and then maybe 10 million a year in lost sales.

Jonas1235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2011, 10:57 AM
  #5
invictus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
I dont know. Your talking about increasing the width from 85' to 98' with accompanying expansions to the corner radius's; the length, 200' staying the same. Losing 6.5' from the corners along both sides, wiping out the lower concourse paths & players benches, penalty boxes etc, pushing them all back into what is now in a lot of cases the foundations of poured concrete cantilevered seating stands is really pretty problematical. Electrical, piping, the configuration of all of the ice making laid into the floor would need to be re-configured, possibly higher capacity ice plants and all at no small expense. Then theres the loss of seat revenues however Im sure that could be recouped through creative means. Overall though, I dont believe its feasible strictly from an engineering/safety perspective without huge costs in any given building around the league, though Im neither a structural engineer nor an architect, an arena convenor nor am I a professional icemaker, beyond pushing a button in the fridge.
True, but maybe it wouldn't have to be quite to that extent? Instead of 85 -> 98, halve it and go 91'-ish kind of thing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonas1235 View Post
Eric Francis said on HNIC hotstove last weekend, that it could cost over a million per arena to change ice surface. Plus, losing seats.

Could cost 40 million to change and then maybe 10 million a year in lost sales.
I am actually surprised it would only be a little over one million per arena, on average. I do think the lost sales thing could be overcome since there'd now be more seats closer to being "on the glass" and all that jazz.

If there is ever expansion, why not pay the $40,000,000 or so to change the arenas out of the expansion fees of new teams?

Maybe they should've told the RIM guy he could move whatever team he purchased, but only he if paid to convert all the arenas

invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2011, 11:11 AM
  #6
jigglysquishy
Registered User
 
jigglysquishy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,040
vCash: 500
I'm curious as to how they'll handle season tickets of affects seats. If you have 5 years worth of season tickets ice side are they just gonna tell you to pack your bags and go home?

jigglysquishy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2011, 11:51 AM
  #7
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 65,195
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigglysquishy View Post
I'm curious as to how they'll handle season tickets of affects seats. If you have 5 years worth of season tickets ice side are they just gonna tell you to pack your bags and go home?
Well, if you've been "sold out" of STH packages (and/or have a waiting list), it can be extremely problematic.

Options:
You can just "push" folks up by rows. You can make it a free for all in all effected sections, given priority to STH tenure and let folks choose new seats. You can reassign lost seat STHers to wherever you please.

You may have to replace group sales reserved seats with STH.

Net: lost seats, upset STH. Perhaps fewer group sales seats.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2011, 12:10 PM
  #8
go_leafs_go02
Registered User
 
go_leafs_go02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Langley, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,261
vCash: 50
In most arenas, the entire concrete lower bowl would likely need to be reconfigured to permit a steeper grade of seating to ensure there isn't a lip at the bottom because the ice is widened. Plus, many upper decks are angled so you don't even see the lower deck beneath you, but rather your eyesight is aligned with the edge of the rink boards.. The upper deck COULD instantly become "obstructed visibility" across the majority of the upper deck on the sidelines.

It's too late to do this, 1990-1995 would have been the time to grandfather in the wider rink. Now, even rinks being built in the 1990s seem like modern marvels that aren't going anywhere anytime soon, and are being renovated rather than replaced...

That $1 million estimate per rink feels extremely low to me - if that were the case, it wouldn't be bad at all to do such.

go_leafs_go02 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2011, 01:04 PM
  #9
Killion
Registered User
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Village
Country: Wales
Posts: 29,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by invictus View Post
True, but maybe it wouldn't have to be quite to that extent? Instead of 85 -> 98, halve it and go 91'-ish kind of thing?
Well, if your going to do it do it right & standardize it with European/International surface size, not some new hybrid "in-betweenie". Im assuming you think it would be a good idea, more room opening up the game, particularly with the increase of XXXL players flying around out there?. The counterpoint to your suggestion is this; with more room & even greater speeds, absent a center ice red line, guess what?. You'll see even more concussions & devastating career ending hits than you do now unless combined with the larger ice surfaces theres also a complete sea change in players attitudes from Tyke to Major Junior.... then theres the little matter of the 1000's of existing community & private arenas' all over the US & Canada that measure 200' X 85', many in fact narrower & shorter. Anarchy my friend...

Quote:
Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02 View Post
In most arenas, the entire concrete lower bowl would likely need to be reconfigured to permit a steeper grade of seating to ensure there isn't a lip at the bottom because the ice is widened. Plus, many upper decks are angled so you don't even see the lower deck beneath you, but rather your eyesight is aligned with the edge of the rink boards.. The upper deck COULD instantly become "obstructed visibility" across the majority of the upper deck on the sidelines.

It's too late to do this, 1990-1995 would have been the time to grandfather in the wider rink. Now, even rinks being built in the 1990s seem like modern marvels that aren't going anywhere anytime soon, and are being renovated rather than replaced...

That $1 million estimate per rink feels extremely low to me - if that were the case, it wouldn't be bad at all to do such.
Ya, thats another problem, and a big one. The wider ice surfaces would push site-line gradations steeper in a ripple effect, obstructing views the higher you went up, along with problems in the lower bowl corners with a wider radius. So yes, I agree, the time to have started it wouldve been about 20 years ago. Its' simply impracticable now to even consider, and Id bet that $1M figures so low as to be laughable....

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2011, 04:25 PM
  #10
invictus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Well, if your going to do it do it right & standardize it with European/International surface size, not some new hybrid "in-betweenie". Im assuming you think it would be a good idea, more room opening up the game, particularly with the increase of XXXL players flying around out there?. The counterpoint to your suggestion is this; with more room & even greater speeds, absent a center ice red line, guess what?. You'll see even more concussions & devastating career ending hits than you do now unless combined with the larger ice surfaces theres also a complete sea change in players attitudes from Tyke to Major Junior.... then theres the little matter of the 1000's of existing community & private arenas' all over the US & Canada that measure 200' X 85', many in fact narrower & shorter. Anarchy my friend...
No, not at all. I honestly don't care either way. It was more just a curiosity thing. I realized long ago that professional sports leagues are going to do whatever they want, regardless of what Invictus on a message board thinks

invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2011, 04:41 PM
  #11
Killion
Registered User
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Village
Country: Wales
Posts: 29,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by invictus View Post
I honestly don't care... sports leagues are going to do whatever they want,
regardless of what Invictus on a message board thinks
I see...

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2011, 04:48 PM
  #12
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,572
vCash: 500
i would have been in favor of it 2 decades ago before almost everyone got new rinks. Now if the costs were truly only a million dollars per building i would be in favor of that, but i highly doubt that's the case.

Motown Beatdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2011, 08:39 PM
  #13
jol
Registered User
 
jol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Miami Beach, Florida
Posts: 1,690
vCash: 500
The size of butts

The size of people's butts might be a bigger threat to NHL than playing in international size of ice sheet (or even without that).
People becoming fatter, i.e. butts growing, when it will become time to start redesigning arena seats. For example nation wide ferry system, coast guard raised the estimated weight of the average adult passenger to 185 pounds from the previous 160 pounds nationwide, ferries are carrying less people than before.
When it's going to happen in ice hockey arenas, people start complaining about uncomfortable seats. What would be teams' response, "buy two seats" or redesign, less, bigger seats, increase ticket prices?
On the other hand teams will be getting more revenues by selling more food in arenas, so maybe there will be no worries for teams.

JOL

jol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2011, 09:43 AM
  #14
Killion
Registered User
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Village
Country: Wales
Posts: 29,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jol View Post
The size of people's butts might be a bigger threat to NHL than playing in international size of ice sheet (or even without that). People becoming fatter, i.e. butts growing, when it will become time to start redesigning arena seats.JOL
Hah!.Thats funny... I never considered it but your absolutely correct. Not un-like the amusing situation one finds oneself in in Europe with older houses', pubs etc; low ceilings as when they were built, the average height of the population was about 5'6"'s. Built for Hobbits or what?!...I remember back in the late 60's when Harold Ballard gutted the Gardens in order to increase seating capacities, creating the Gold Section in what were formerly the Reds & pushing those up, actually narrowing the seats in order to increase capacity. There are also amusing stories (Norris with his Boxing promotions) of owners fudging declared seating capacities, the first 5 rows, the Premium Seats if you will not counted & sold under the table, never acknowledged...

If the purpose to consider larger ice surfaces is to mitigate the nasty syndrome of concussions thats laying waste to a lot of players, then I would propose that rather than going to so an extreme and completely impracticable a solution as that we simply go to full time 4 on 4 hockey. In its earliest days, the game was played with 7 aside, reduced to 6 (including the goalie) as the game developed, got faster, the introduction of the forward pass. Today, with players being a lot faster & bigger with incredible fitness & skills, I really think its time for a radical re-think on this, change required. Remove the Trapezoid & let the goalies play the puck, without decreasing roster sizes youd have 4 revolving forward lines and or 4-5 defensive pairings along with Swing players who could play up-front or 'D'. You could even narrow the ice surface from 85' to 78' or so & add seating. Im no fan of over-time, but I think most enjoy the 4 on 4, and penalty situations of 4 on 3, 4 on 2 or 3 on 2 yes?.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2011, 12:07 PM
  #15
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 45,372
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
I remember back in the late 60's when Harold Ballard gutted the Gardens in order to increase seating capacities, creating the Gold Section in what were formerly the Reds & pushing those up, actually narrowing the seats in order to increase capacity.
The one game I went to MLG, I was shocked at how narrow the Greys were. I'm pretty average in height and weight, even considering 1920s standards, and found them uncomfortably small. I doubt they would have held someone with a 40-inch waistline.


Personally, I think it's a shame that they have such a rigid standard for rink dimensions. I'd like to see a looser standard where rinks can be, say, 190-220 feet long and 85-100 feet wide, but must maintain a ratio of around 2.2:1 with proportionate zone sizes. So, your rink can be 190x85 on the small end or 220x100 on the large end. Make it a little more like baseball where teams can be built to favor a small (Boston) or large (Detroit) rink and play a style that suits them at home.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2011, 12:42 PM
  #16
Killion
Registered User
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Village
Country: Wales
Posts: 29,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
The one game I went to MLG, I was shocked at how narrow the Greys were. I'm pretty average in height and weight, even considering 1920s standards, and found them uncomfortably small. I doubt they would have held someone with a 40-inch waistline.... Make it a little more like baseball where teams can be built to favor a small (Boston) or large (Detroit) rink and play a style that suits them at home.
Ya, Ballard & Smythe increased capacity practically every year from about 62 onward, one of the lingering mysteries & questions being if the actual announced capacity was even correct, maybe 1000 or more seats off the charts & thus the books altogether. It wasnt that unusual back in the day and indeed a practice that was liberally employed by arena operators & promoters for other events pretty much globally. As Conn Smythe remarked much later after all of the additions, reno's and seat shrinkages, "Only a young man could sit in them and only a rich fat old man could afford them".... And as for the latter, wouldnt that be kinda "unfair" tarheel?. Giving well managed & coached teams an even greater advantage?...

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2011, 12:59 PM
  #17
cutchemist42
Registered User
 
cutchemist42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,582
vCash: 500
I just say any new arena should be built to international size. MLB makes due with 30 different field sizes, I'm sure the NHL could survive with 1-5 rinks being international sized.

cutchemist42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2011, 01:06 PM
  #18
go_leafs_go02
Registered User
 
go_leafs_go02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Langley, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,261
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by cutchemist42 View Post
I just say any new arena should be built to international size. MLB makes due with 30 different field sizes, I'm sure the NHL could survive with 1-5 rinks being international sized.
In a way, it's just the outfield that is different. Pitcher throws from the same distance to home plate everywhere, you run to first base a set distance. Yes, other factors such as wind and sunlight can affect baseball, but the dimensions of ballparks have some impact on a baseball game, minimal usually, while different dimensions for a hockey game would have a much larger impact than baseball's impact is.

go_leafs_go02 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2011, 02:39 PM
  #19
KzooShark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post

Personally, I think it's a shame that they have such a rigid standard for rink dimensions. I'd like to see a looser standard where rinks can be, say, 190-220 feet long and 85-100 feet wide, but must maintain a ratio of around 2.2:1 with proportionate zone sizes. So, your rink can be 190x85 on the small end or 220x100 on the large end. Make it a little more like baseball where teams can be built to favor a small (Boston) or large (Detroit) rink and play a style that suits them at home.
I'd love this.

KzooShark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2011, 03:18 PM
  #20
nyrmessier011
Registered User
 
nyrmessier011's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Charlotte/NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,354
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to nyrmessier011
my take on the "too expensive" chorus:

It's a league option, and alternatively, mandatory when moving into a new building or having major construction. See NHL board thread:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=1060995

nyrmessier011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2011, 01:29 PM
  #21
kward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 100
vCash: 500
Hmm...

Spend millions retrofitting 29 perfectly good buildings OR reduce overhead, AND make the game safer by reducing the size of rosters down to 17.

Tough one.


kward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2011, 01:30 PM
  #22
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,416
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
Hmm...

Spend millions retrofitting 29 perfectly good buildings OR reduce overhead, AND make the game safer by reducing the size of rosters down to 17.

Tough one.

THE NHLPA will love your idea!

EagleBelfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2011, 01:37 PM
  #23
wjhl2009fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,042
vCash: 500
tarheelhockey
So if a team built a arena that is the smallest and it means alot of 1-0 games you would have no issues with that?

wjhl2009fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2012, 04:55 PM
  #24
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,930
vCash: 500
Why not make the international ice the same size as the NHL ice instead of the other way around?

Tommy Hawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2012, 05:03 PM
  #25
kward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleBelfour View Post
THE NHLPA will love your idea!
They won't, but it's still the best solution.

kward is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 12:27 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.