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
Tickets for the preseason Islanders/Devils game at the Barclays Center went on sale Wednesday. Here are the seating charts and some seat viewers C&P from the Isles board
Here you go. This is very interesting. I'm curious about the view from 201 and 231.
Quote:
Originally Posted by islesfan3991
If you go to the 3D view of the seats on the arena's website you can get an idea of what it would look like if you can imagne the hockey rink there. It looks like the end closer the sections 231 and 201 may be slightly obsturcted.
Yeah in the ticket thread their is another 3d view with all the seats retracted. It looks like you might be able to see the goalies head but probably wont see what goes on behind the net. The corner seats don't look that bad at that end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Law
Probably obstructed to varying degrees in the upper deck from Sec 227-231 and 201-205. Guessing the Isles will only shoot 1x down at that end.
Other question I have is where will the scoreboard be? For the Nets layout, center court is btwn Sec 8 and 24. In the hockey layout, that puts the scoreboard near the blueline. Not a huge deal, just going to look funny.
That was part of the fall out when they reduced the original $1.2B Frank Gehry design to the current $800M Ellerbe Becket one
Problem 1...don't hire a guy like Frank Gehry to desing your hockey rink. I mean, great architect...love his work, but do you really need a world renown architect to design a hockey rink. The guy designs opera houses and embassies, for god sakes!
I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the place is like as a hockey venue.... that being said, I know that it can be a major issue to watch hockey at a basketball arena not designed with hockey sightlines in mind.
The Indiana Ice of the USHL play a couple games each season in the formerly-named Conseco Fieldhouse, the home of the Indiana Pacers, and from everything I've heard it's a considerably worse place to watch a game then their much older and smaller Pepsi Coliseum because Conseco just wasn't built with hockey in mind.
Problem 1...don't hire a guy like Frank Gehry to desing your hockey rink. I mean, great architect...love his work, but do you really need a world renown architect to design a hockey rink. The guy designs opera houses and embassies, for god sakes!
Gehry wasn't just the architect of a hockey rink - he was the architect and master planner of a huge urban development. The Barclays Center was originally just a small part of a $5B Residential and Commercial development on the 22 acre Atlantic Yards site - 17 buildings, 4 residential towers, 2 commercial ones, the arena, and dramatic public spaces. Unfortunately the project was delayed three years and then scaled back due to lawsuits over the use of eminent domain, fights over affordable housing, and then the recession.
The Federal Highway Administration has removed a major obstacle to the Bloomberg administration’s plan to turn a waterlogged enclave of crumbling shops and sheds near Citi Field into a major development site.
In a decision long awaited by both supporters and opponents of the project, which is to cost about $3 billion, federal officials found that it would have “no significant effect on the human environment.”
Real estate executives say that the city has narrowed the field to three developers, including Related Companies and its partner Sterling Equities, a real estate company formed by Fred Wilpon and Saul B. Katz, the owners of the Mets. But the executives and some city officials also say it has been difficult to make the project financially viable.
I found this rendering of a concert stage set up at Barclays Centre..it shows the potential outline of an ice surface...
One end would basically have no ice level seating... but it could work..
It would be a less than ideal hockey building for sure, but it could, and likely will work due to its location. The arena is located directly atop the third largest transit mega-hub in New York City (#2 is Grand Central Terminal, and #1 is Penn Station with Madison Square Garden atop it) which has direct rail access from the front door of the arena to every neighborhood in New York City and Long Island. approx 18 million people are within a 90 minute train ride of one of the nearly 20 subway/rail lines that stop underneath the front door of the Barclays center, with downtown Manhattan being 7 minutes away, and midtown manhattan 20 minutes away. Contrasted with Nassau Coliseum which is only accessible via car, and although with no traffic is a 45 minute drive from Manhattan, rush hour traffic (before gametime) makes it a 2 hour drive from Manhattan, where most Long Islanders work. The fact that Barclays is a stones throw from so many millions of people via public transit will make it work, even with the views from one end of the arena being lousy. Islanders fans will learn to deal with the less than ideal hockey views when they come to realize that it keeps the team from moving, and likely improves the team's financial standing due to being in an ideally perfect location vs the Coliseum being in a logistical travel nightmare.
And taking it from someone that attends every NYI game, the barclays center is more than likely the route that this saga is going to take. Over the past 2 months at home games, the Barclays center has been heavily advertised on the Nassau Coliseum LED ribbon board. Obviously the idea of one arena donating substantial advertising time to a competitive venue 30 miles away is completely ridiculous, unless of course the owners of the tenant of the Nassau Coliseum feel that there would be an advantage to getting their customers used to going to Brooklyn for hockey games and events. In 3 years time, the Barclays Center isn't going to be a competitor anymore, that's the only logical business reason you would advertise it.
Maybe someone can shed some light on this for me.
...
Wow. Forget everything I said in that post a few pages ago. This is the stupidest ****ing layout I've ever seen. Barclay's is at best a temporary home until another facility is built.
They are not selling all seats with an acceptable view for this game. There are quite a few sections that are not on sale that would offer an unobstructed view, or a view with slight corner obstruction, like seating at MSG. Anyone that thinks that this would actually be the layout for a regular season game is kidding themselves.
That sounds a bit high. Some arenas are built for that much alone. Does that figure include other buildings also downscaled as part of the larger project?
Hmm, so they won't even sell the really obstructed seats
Theyre not selling a lot of seats that would be sold if it was a regular season game. The "limited view" seats have a portion of the corner missing from view, NOT the net, or the immediate area around the net. Anyone that has been to MSG knows these seats are sold at full price. There are various sections in the lower bowl that are not even on sale that would offer a full view of the ice with only a small portion of the corner missing as well. Furthermore, if the team were to move to that building full time, there is sufficient room to add approximately 13 rows of temporary seating under the existing lower bowl on the end of the ice where the seating is "weird".
In short, the layout would be drastically different with a full time move, and the only seats that would offer a view with an obstructed net are those 4 sections in white in the upper bowl, which concievably could still be sold as cheap walkups, if demand warrants it. But it would be a far, far cry from the layout advertised for this game, with a large portion of usable seats out of use.
They are not selling all seats with an acceptable view for this game. There are quite a few sections that are not on sale that would offer an unobstructed view, or a view with slight corner obstruction, like seating at MSG. Anyone that thinks that this would actually be the layout for a regular season game is kidding themselves.
Still feels like a bad attempt at leverage. Good location, shiny and new, but still a basketball arena that we would be shoe-horning into and renting from the owner.
Still feels like a bad attempt at leverage. Good location, shiny and new, but still a basketball arena that we would be shoe-horning into and renting from the owner.
Who cares? It has a functioning 200X85 sheet of ice, 15,000 seats, and enough revenue streams to keep the team on very solid ground financially, unlike their current home. It looks a bit funny, and it won't be a hockey palace, and I couldn't care less. Due to it's location, its a building that the Islanders can more than survive in financially, they can thrive in it. I'll make that trade off for a funny looking end of the building any day of the week and not think twice.
Who cares? It has a functioning 200X85 sheet of ice, 15,000 seats, and enough revenue streams to keep the team on very solid ground financially, unlike their current home. It looks a bit funny, and it won't be a hockey palace, and I couldn't care less. Due to it's location, its a building that the Islanders can more than survive in financially, they can thrive in it. I'll make that trade off for a funny looking end of the building any day of the week and not think twice.
Unless Wang is selling to Ratner, still don't see why he would go there. Location and new building improves some things (mass transit, media coverage, corporate support, etc), but still doesn't address other isses, especially revenue related ones. Being a tenant and not seeing the revenue from concessions, concerts, other events, etc doesn't seem to make this a viable option. Cutting out 1/3rd of the most profitable seats in the arena can't help either (and that's assuming Wang is allowed to receive all the hockey related revenue anyway, not sure that's a given).
Unless Wang is selling to Ratner, still don't see why he would go there. Location and new building improves some things (mass transit, media coverage, corporate support, etc), but still doesn't address other isses, especially revenue related ones. Being a tenant and not seeing the revenue from concessions, concerts, other events, etc doesn't seem to make this a viable option. Cutting out 1/3rd of the most profitable seats in the arena can't help either (and that's assuming Wang is allowed to receive all the hockey related revenue anyway, not sure that's a given).
You're presupposing that the Islanders would not see concession revenues. That may end up being true (and generally is for most non-primary tenants in most arenas), but it all depends on what's agreed upon in the lease.
As for cutting out the most profitable seats, I would imagine that the lost revenue from the seats that don't exist or can't be sold could be offset by slightly higher prices elsewhere in the arena - New York is one of the few markets that can get away with to charge more for less
