The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Nets GM makes pitch for NYI to play at Barclays Center
I imagine the ultimate endgame here is for Prokhorov and Ratner to assume full or partial ownership of the Islanders and use them as a loss leader. It makes far too much sense... the alternative is them allowing a new arena to be built in Queens or Nassau that could potentially draw business away from Barclays. Better to have the hockey team taking up dates in Brooklyn than taking away concerts and conventions in Queens. And I imagine they could charge a bit more than they do now in Nassau due to the location and number of suites to make up for the drop in capacity.
That makes sense... that is, if Wang doesn't see light at the end of the tunnel or doesn't have the patience to make it to that light.
That makes sense... that is, if Wang doesn't see light at the end of the tunnel or doesn't have the patience to make it to that light.
For several yrs Wang claimed to be losing $20m per season.
Days before ex-County Exec Souzzi left office about 1 and 1/2 yrs ago , he gave Wang control over Coliseum events.His opponents howled and Botta called it a windfall for Wang.
Last yr , Forbes reported Wang lost $4.5m.
Isles have never qualified for revenue sharing.Bill Daly had a interview with Botta on Pointblank in Dec. 2010.Daly says that the Isles , Ducks and Devils have been lobbying the last few yrs , for the cba to change the rules for revenue sharing.An article about Columbus getting a full share of revenue sharing said that check could be worth as much as $10m.
I doubt Wang sells before 2015.He'll give Nassau County every chance to come up with either a new arena or major renovations on the current arena.
He has league low attendance,a low payroll and the oldest arena in the league.
Fortunately,his lease expires in 3 more seasons.
Or do you expect Wang to sign another long,money losing lease in 2015?
I expect him to move to Kings County NY and stop the games. The Lighthouse is dead. Move to Barclays. The Isles draw flies right now so this 14.5k seating thing is a bunch of media fodder.
I expect him to move to Kings County NY and stop the games. The Lighthouse is dead. Move to Barclays. The Isles draw flies right now so this 14.5k seating thing is a bunch of media fodder.
A new owner would have the same option of moving to Barclay's that Wang has.
So the argument that Repole or Peltz would not want the team because they lose too much $ doesn't hold up.
But if Wang could do that himself why would he sell then?
Wang is telling the press he does not want to sell the team.
Someone in the thread suggested he sell to a Canadian buyer.
I was pointing out that he has 2 local buyers interested and a new arena in Brooklyn as options.
Wang is telling the press he does not want to sell the team.
Someone in the thread suggested he sell to a Canadian buyer.
I was pointing out that he has 2 local buyers interested and a new arena in Brooklyn as options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie
I imagine the ultimate endgame here is for Prokhorov and Ratner to assume full or partial ownership of the Islanders and use them as a loss leader. It makes far too much sense... the alternative is them allowing a new arena to be built in Queens or Nassau that could potentially draw business away from Barclays. Better to have the hockey team taking up dates in Brooklyn than taking away concerts and conventions in Queens. And I imagine they could charge a bit more than they do now in Nassau due to the location and number of suites to make up for the drop in capacity.
If the Barclays arena hadn't cut corners during construction to save money, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Unfortunately, it did happen.
Barclays has only 14,500 hockey seats
some of those 14,500 may have questionable sightlines
a big chunk of LOWER BOWL (i.e. desireable) basketball seats are removed to accomadate hockey
they're going to have to charge more than the Winnipeg Jets do, with inferior overall seating
unlike the Jets, who are "the only game in town" during Winnipeg winters, the Islanders have to compete for entertainment dollars against 2 other NHL hockey teams, and 2 NBA basketball clubs, and Broadway, etc
Sorry folks, but there's a difference between "loss leader" and "economic suicide".
And given today's economic climate, even if the Town of Hampstead had a change of heart, and told Wang he could build his big monstrous development, it still wouldn't be done. Wang should probably send them a big cheque, thanking them for stopping him from doing a "Westgate II" just in time for the recession. Barclays Center doesn't have anything to fear from new 17,000+ seat hockey arenas in the foreseeable future. So that rationale for Barclays Centers' management buying the Islanders does not hold water.
First of all, who said the arena will only be able to accommodate 14,500 for hockey? I know the figure has been bandied about for a while now, and I did find a New York Times article about Barclays Center stating to the effect to "sources say the arena will seat 14,500 for hockey". What I'm getting at is who's the source?
Secondly, who made the claim that the hockey seating layout will result in severely compromised sightlines? I get the impression that someone, actually several people, have stated "it was redesigned from the original Gehry design to be a basketball-centric arena, therefore to accommodate a hockey rink a bunch of the seats will have to be obliterated at one end to fit the extra length." Basically the same situation that was the case in America West Arena in Phoenix.
As you can see the seating in the lower level on the left side of this photo is designed to separate and be removed to accommodate the ice sheet, leaving the people at that end in the second deck of seating in the lurch because they're hanging over the end of the boards and can't see that goal.
As you can see there is significant temporary courtside seating at each end and along the length of the court. These are the seats that would be removed to make room for the rink. Would more be required to fit the 200 ft length of the rink? Maybe. But I find it hard to believe it would require 3,500 seats to be lost.
knorthern knight makes the point "a big chunk of LOWER BOWL (i.e. desireable [sic]) basketball seats are removed to accomadate [sic] hockey". To me that's just a red herring. Every arena that hosts hockey and basketball does the same. The basketball court itself is smaller: of course the arena operator fills in the gap between the court and the edges of the permanent seating. That's inescapable, so it's pointless to say the economic viability of Barclays Center to host the Islanders is reduced because 'desirable' (a.k.a. 'courtside') basketball seats are 'removed'. You could say the same about MSG with respect to the Rangers and Knicks. (Seating capacity for Rangers games: 18,200. Seating capacity for Knicks games: 19,763. Oh noes!!1!)
There's no doubt 18,000 is on the low end for an NBA arena. If I'm not mistaken this will make Barclays Center the second or third smallest arena in the NBA. Obviously this means it'll have a pretty small capacity for hockey too, but I find the assertion that they'll lose 3,500 seats in the conversion from basketball to hockey spurious. By comparison the difference between Devils and Nets capacities at Prudential Center is 1,086. The difference between Knicks and Rangers capacities at Madison Square Garden is 1,563. Even America West Arena's difference between Suns and Coyotes was 2,212. How the hell is the gap at Barclays Center 3,500?! Logically it just doesn't jive.
14,500 capacity for Islanders games sounds atrocious and, well, crazy, but 16,000-16,500 seating for Islanders games (incl. club seats? not incl. club seats?) doesn't sound so bad...
What I don't understand is why you wouldn't place center ice right at the middle of the arena and slice a bit off both ends. Sure, then you wouldn't have anybody pounding the glass at each end, but it would ruin the sightlines for fewer people overall.
If the Barclays arena hadn't cut corners during construction to save money, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Unfortunately, it did happen.
Barclays has only 14,500 hockey seats
some of those 14,500 may have questionable sightlines
a big chunk of LOWER BOWL (i.e. desireable) basketball seats are removed to accomadate hockey
they're going to have to charge more than the Winnipeg Jets do, with inferior overall seating
unlike the Jets, who are "the only game in town" during Winnipeg winters, the Islanders have to compete for entertainment dollars against 2 other NHL hockey teams, and 2 NBA basketball clubs, and Broadway, etc
Sorry folks, but there's a difference between "loss leader" and "economic suicide".
And given today's economic climate, even if the Town of Hampstead had a change of heart, and told Wang he could build his big monstrous development, it still wouldn't be done. Wang should probably send them a big cheque, thanking them for stopping him from doing a "Westgate II" just in time for the recession. Barclays Center doesn't have anything to fear from new 17,000+ seat hockey arenas in the foreseeable future. So that rationale for Barclays Centers' management buying the Islanders does not hold water.
And yet developers in both Nassau and Queens continue to bid on major projects like Willets Point and the Nassau County Hub.The Willets Point article is from Oct. 2011.The Nassau County Hub article is from today or yesterday.
And yet developers in both Nassau and Queens continue to bid on major projects like Willets Point and the Nassau County Hub.The Willets Point article is from Oct. 2011.The Nassau County Hub article is from today or yesterday.
1.Current owner does not want to sell.
2.Current lease expires in 3 more yrs.
3.NJ Nets co-owner and their CEO are trying to lure them to Brooklyn's new arena.
4.Pols in Queens are trying to interest the isles in either playing at the National Tennis Center or a proposed arena that would be built at Willets Point.
5.Isles have $425m-$475m left on a lucrative, local cable deal they don't want to lose.
6.Two local billionaires have said tey want to buy the isles.
7.Nassau County pols, haven't given up on getting a new arena or renovated arena built by developers.
No one has said anything about Willets Point having an arena, and it is not likely at this point to be honest.
Why is an arena in Queens unlikely?
In Oct. 2011 ,the press reported some pretty big developers are interested in the Willets Point project.
I posted a link a few posts above this one.
Both Bloomberg and Queens pols have publicly expressed interest in the isles moving to Queens.Two plans have been floated in articles:building a new arena near Willets Point or putting a retractable roof on the National Tennis Center.
Isles could play an extra 1-2 yrs at Nassau or sign a short term lease at Barclay's Center , while waiting for the Queens arena.
Why is an arena in Queens unlikely?
In Oct. 2011 ,the press reported some pretty big developers are interested in the Willets Point project.
I posted a link a few posts above this one.
Both Bloomberg and Queens pols have publicly expressed interest in the isles moving to Queens.Two plans have been floated in articles:building a new arena near Willets Point or putting a retractable roof on the National Tennis Center.
Isles could play an extra 1-2 yrs at Nassau or sign a short term lease at Barclay's Center , while waiting for the Queens arena.
I thought Bloomberg said he had an intrest and move the team to the city? That could just mean Barclays. Why should NYC taxpayers pay for an arena for one team? At least Barclays was built privatly. Plus Wang has not said anything publically.
I thought Bloomberg said he had an intrest and move the team to the city? That could just mean Barclays. Why should NYC taxpayers pay for an arena for one team? At least Barclays was built privatly. Plus Wang has not said anything publically.
Bloomberg called for them to move to Queens.At that time ,Nets officials weren't interested in the Isles.
The pols in Queens want a sports complex built around the Mets , U.S. Open and the Isles.
If they put a retractable roof on the National Tennis Center , that would save having to build a new arena.
Bloomberg called for them to move to Queens.At that time ,Nets officials weren't interested in the Isles.
The pols in Queens want a sports complex built around the Mets , U.S. Open and the Isles.
If they put a retractable roof on the National Tennis Center , that would save having to build a new arena.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Nat'l Tennis Center was never really a serious consideration or option, more a line that someone threw out a few years ago as a suggestion.
But supposing for a moment that it was a legit option, it can hold a basketball court...
...but I don't believe the lower bowl seating is retractable. It would require extensive renovations just to fit a rink in there -- and that's before we even get to adding a roof, scoreboard, etc.
First of all, who said the arena will only be able to accommodate 14,500 for hockey? I know the figure has been bandied about for a while now, and I did find a New York Times article about Barclays Center stating to the effect to "sources say the arena will seat 14,500 for hockey". What I'm getting at is who's the source?
Secondly, who made the claim that the hockey seating layout will result in severely compromised sightlines? I get the impression that someone, actually several people, have stated "it was redesigned from the original Gehry design to be a basketball-centric arena, therefore to accommodate a hockey rink a bunch of the seats will have to be obliterated at one end to fit the extra length." Basically the same situation that was the case in America West Arena in Phoenix.
As you can see the seating in the lower level on the left side of this photo is designed to separate and be removed to accommodate the ice sheet, leaving the people at that end in the second deck of seating in the lurch because they're hanging over the end of the boards and can't see that goal.
As you can see there is significant temporary courtside seating at each end and along the length of the court. These are the seats that would be removed to make room for the rink. Would more be required to fit the 200 ft length of the rink? Maybe. But I find it hard to believe it would require 3,500 seats to be lost.
knorthern knight makes the point "a big chunk of LOWER BOWL (i.e. desireable [sic]) basketball seats are removed to accomadate [sic] hockey". To me that's just a red herring. Every arena that hosts hockey and basketball does the same. The basketball court itself is smaller: of course the arena operator fills in the gap between the court and the edges of the permanent seating. That's inescapable, so it's pointless to say the economic viability of Barclays Center to host the Islanders is reduced because 'desirable' (a.k.a. 'courtside') basketball seats are 'removed'. You could say the same about MSG with respect to the Rangers and Knicks. (Seating capacity for Rangers games: 18,200. Seating capacity for Knicks games: 19,763. Oh noes!!1!)
There's no doubt 18,000 is on the low end for an NBA arena. If I'm not mistaken this will make Barclays Center the second or third smallest arena in the NBA. Obviously this means it'll have a pretty small capacity for hockey too, but I find the assertion that they'll lose 3,500 seats in the conversion from basketball to hockey spurious. By comparison the difference between Devils and Nets capacities at Prudential Center is 1,086. The difference between Knicks and Rangers capacities at Madison Square Garden is 1,563. Even America West Arena's difference between Suns and Coyotes was 2,212. How the hell is the gap at Barclays Center 3,500?! Logically it just doesn't jive.
14,500 capacity for Islanders games sounds atrocious and, well, crazy, but 16,000-16,500 seating for Islanders games (incl. club seats? not incl. club seats?) doesn't sound so bad...
I think that 14,500 figure will be total unobstructed salable seating, not total available seating. Looking at the seats 3d model, a center floor rink won't work. The view on the end balconies gets cut off about 85 feet from center court. That's a 170 foot rink, and I don't think that will fly. So now you have to shift the ice to one end to preserve the views from the opposite end balcony. At America West Arena in Phoenix, there were only 13-14,000 clean views of the ice in that building; the 16,000 number included lots of obstructed views (taking that into account, the early attendance figures for the Phoenix Coyotes were really good). I can't see how that would be any different here. What a shame it wasn't designed to even offer a possibility for the Islanders.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Nat'l Tennis Center was never really a serious consideration or option, more a line that someone threw out a few years ago as a suggestion.
But supposing for a moment that it was a legit option, it can hold a basketball court...
...but I don't believe the lower bowl seating is retractable. It would require extensive renovations just to fit a rink in there -- and that's before we even get to adding a roof, scoreboard, etc.
The Isles playing home games at the National Tennis center was discussed in several press articles.
The retractable roof idea has been around for several yrs because of games washed out during the U.S. Open.
I've no idea what it would cost to turn the Center into a home arena for the isles.I have to think it'd be much cheaper then a new arena though.
