Sign in to follow this  
Whalevolution

"We know we need the building to be 'NHL-ready'....."

Recommended Posts

Uconn would never go for a 14k arena either. You're not hosting NCAA regionals etc. with something that small.

 

When the new arena was pitched to the legislators for Karmoron (and approved BTW pending the ponytailed loser signing a long tern lease) I think the number was something like 17k capacity. Much more realistic figure for this state. 17 stagnating years later and we still are questioning the viability of the building? Please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I came away from that article that the arena would either be expandable in the event that an nhl tenant came to be or that it may be a smaller building but it would have premium seating areas that would make up for the lack of seats. A building should cater the market. It doesn't have to have 21000 seats to make money. The new building in Edmonton will reportedly have 18000 seats with as low as 300 of those seats being premium. While Barclays center has 14600 with a higher % of those seats being luxury boxes. Pittsburghs building only has 66 lux boxes. Total seats and number of premium seats will depend on what the market would be better suited for. There is more than one way to skin a cat . Seeing that the two newest buildings in the league have less than 16000 seats we shouldn't freak out over total capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jerseydiehardwhaler wrote:

> Thanks plainville, and biggie, he clearly states they want to be nhl ready liar..

> Your being your usual self here. This article clearly and I say clearly shows Hartford

> and Connecticut want to be nhl ready.. You are an arse, it's really clear as day..

> I'll be there when the NHL comes home.. Stupid

 

You miss my point. How can a building be NHL ready, but not be the size the NHL wants the arenas to be? The arena in Quebec is 18,482, Vegas is around 20,000, Seattle was going to be around 18,000. The article states, ""You could conceivably build 12,000, 13,000, 14,000 seats with the ability to add on from a 270 (degrees) to achieve the NHL revenue mark if needed," Freimuth said. "Whatever we do, we've got to make sure UConn is happy. UConn is critical." So, they would have to build the rest of the arena to be within the NHL's standards for revenue. I don't see how the NHL would even entertain the idea of an arena that small, even if it could be upgraded in the **ture. Also, if they did only build an 270 degree arena, then by definition it wouldn't be "NHL-ready". They would have to add the 90 degrees to the arena to be "NHL-ready".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

will5059 wrote:

> I came away from that article that the arena would either be expandable in

> the event that an nhl tenant came to be or that it may be a smaller

> building but it would have premium seating areas that would make up for the

> lack of seats. A building should cater the market. It doesn't have to have

> 21000 seats to make money. The new building in Edmonton will reportedly

> have 18000 seats with as low as 300 of those seats being premium. While

> Barclays center has 14600 with a higher % of those seats being luxury

> boxes. Pittsburghs building only has 66 lux boxes. Total seats and number

> of premium seats will depend on what the market would be better suited for.

> There is more than one way to skin a cat . Seeing that the two newest

> buildings in the league have less than 16000 seats we shouldn't freak out

> over total capacity.

 

Exactly and I'm fine with that. Go ahead and make a 14k arena. Just make it expandable for when the NHL does come knocking. Shouldn't take to long to expand an already brand new arena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggie1083 wrote:

> You miss my point. How can a building be NHL ready, but not be the size the NHL wants

> the arenas to be? The arena in Quebec is 18,482, Vegas is around 20,000, Seattle was

> going to be around 18,000. The article states, ""You could conceivably

> build 12,000, 13,000, 14,000 seats with the ability to add on from a 270 (degrees) to

> achieve the NHL revenue mark if needed," Freimuth said. "Whatever we do,

> we've got to make sure UConn is happy. UConn is critical." So, they would have

> to build the rest of the arena to be within the NHL's standards for revenue. I don't

> see how the NHL would even entertain the idea of an arena that small, even if it

> could be upgraded in the **ture. Also, if they did only build an 270 degree arena,

> then by definition it wouldn't be "NHL-ready". They would have to add the

> 90 degrees to the arena to be "NHL-ready".

You do realize that Barclays center is basically a 270 degree set up , under 15000 seats and going to be an nhl building in 2015, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you will, biggie forgets that Brooklyn and Winnipeg are both the same.. Biggie stop bending the truth, it's is clear as day now, nhl ready is not just in case, it's nhl ready.. I'm really starting to think this is how you humor yourself..and let's get one more of your so called obstacles put of the way, in any case they will ultimately need a new bldg/arena, he has given you more than one option available compared to your where are they gonna put it saga.. Biggie, your beat, Hartford is thinking nhl, and clearly our governor and freimuth, are speaking much clearer now, so go watch the pack for another season than bye bye.. And yes I left hartford, I am man enough to say it, but I did attend several whale games to support the return of the whalers, not to support that crap they play by now,yes it was the same but it was different.. Bye bye liar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggie1083 wrote:

 

> You miss my point. How can a building be NHL ready, but not be the size the NHL wants

> the arenas to be? The arena in Quebec is 18,482, Vegas is around 20,000, Seattle was

> going to be around 18,000. The article states, ""You could conceivably

> build 12,000, 13,000, 14,000 seats with the ability to add on from a 270 (degrees) to

> achieve the NHL revenue mark if needed," Freimuth said. "Whatever we do,

> we've got to make sure UConn is happy. UConn is critical." So, they would have

> to build the rest of the arena to be within the NHL's standards for revenue. I don't

> see how the NHL would even entertain the idea of an arena that small, even if it

> could be upgraded in the **ture. Also, if they did only build an 270 degree arena,

> then by definition it wouldn't be "NHL-ready". They would have to add the

> 90 degrees to the arena to be "NHL-ready".

 

Read Wills post. Arena's fit the market. There clearly isn't a set point of number of seats required as with Winnipeg and Brooklyn we now have arenas ranging in 14k to 21+. Also the article said and you even quoted it "with the ability to add on" meaning the can add seats if needed. To me though that is irrelevant because they are not going to build an arena that barely seats more than Gampel or the Casino that is unless UConn want's to stay in the **** that is the AAC (They don't) and Hartford wants to stay irrelevant in the AHL (only you do)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

will5059 wrote:

> You do realize that Barclays center is basically a 270 degree set up , under 15000

> seats and going to be an nhl building in 2015, right?

 

The Barclays was only 270 for the preseason game. They list on their website that the Barclays will have 15,813 seats for the Islanders games starting in 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PlainvilleWhale wrote:

> Read Wills post. Arena's fit the market. There clearly isn't a set point of number of

> seats required as with Winnipeg and Brooklyn we now have arenas ranging in 14k to

> 21+. Also the article said and you even quoted it "with the ability to add

> on" meaning the can add seats if needed. To me though that is irrelevant because

> they are not going to build an arena that barely seats more than Gampel or the Casino

> that is unless UConn want's to stay in the **** that is the AAC (They don't) and

> Hartford wants to stay irrelevant in the AHL (only you do)

 

No NHL arena has 14,000 seats. The smallest building is the MTS Centre at 15,004. The article states that UConn has had zero discussions with the Big Ten.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

will5059 wrote:

> You do realize that Barclays center is basically a 270 degree set up , under 15000

> seats and going to be an nhl building in 2015, right?

 

Shows the power of mid-level suites. If we had plans for a 20k arena made of Gold he'd tell us that is too much and the NHL only likes silver. I'll give it to the guy he is persistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggie1083 wrote:

 

> No NHL arena has 14,000 seats. The smallest building is the MTS Centre at 15,004. The

> article states that UConn has had zero discussions with the Big Ten.

 

1. Barclay's

2. Jeff Jacobs would have no clue who UConn/B1G are talking too.

3. Maryland and Rutgers were added with barely any prior public knowledge.

4. It state's they need to cater to UConn, who coincidentally is desperate to get out of the AAC hence why this new arena is being discussed. (hint: a 14k seat arena isn't what they want)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggie1083 wrote:

> I wish they were discussing a 20,000 seat arena, but they aren't. The are

> talking about a 10-14,000 seat arena.

 

Yup because UConn wants 2 Gampel Pavillions..... Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok then , let me clarify biggie because per usual , he's only half right: Barclays center was built as a basketball venue. You can only view both goals unobstucted from 14600 seats. From about 270 degrees of the building. If you're sitting behind the visitors goal your will not be able to see it, because the deck will almost over hang the ice surface. So it's for all intents and purposes a 270 degree set up. Now if they want to now count those 1200 or so obstructed seats and not be the smallest building in the league that's their prerogative . Those seats will have to be sold at a big discount and will probably go unsold until they are consistently competitive. After all those warts the Barclays center is still going to be an nhl building because the 300 or so suits ,premium seating areas and improved , high end concessions throughout the building will make serious cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggie1083 wrote:"The are talking about a 10-14,000 seat arena."

 

Biggie please be honest. In all sincerity, do you really believe that Hartford would build a brand new arena with a 14,000 seat capacity; thereby leaving it just thisclose to being acceptable to both the NHL & UConn?

 

Do you actually think that that would be a possibility? And if so, why?

 

Forget the Rangers, the Wolf*Pack & even the Whalers. Why would spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build a 14,000 seat arena make any sense whatsoever at all to Connecticut?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't make any sense but they are the ones considering it. They are also considering keeping the XL Center, and maybe even "going dark". That means no hockey, no basketball, no concerts, and no events at all in Hartford while they gut and redo the building. That really makes no sense at all, but they're thinking about doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggie1083 wrote:

> It doesn't make any sense but they are the ones considering it. They are

> also considering keeping the XL Center, and maybe even "going

> dark". That means no hockey, no basketball, no concerts, and no events

> at all in Hartford while they gut and redo the building. That really makes

> no sense at all, but they're thinking about doing it.

"Going dark" makes perfect sense if at the end of it we come out of it with a state of the art building that could house an nhl team. It's not rocket science. I don't see why you can't grasp the concept. Spin this how you wish. You fool no one here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seating is irrelevant. Friemuth said two interesting things.

 

We need to know what is needed to make the building NHL ready

 

We need to know how many suites because that's what corporate investors really like because it drives revenue

 

Why talk about investors and the NHL if it is never happening?

People forget that in Ct Politics NHL was a dirty word no one ever said it but in the last 6 months

Its been said more than any other time since the Whakers left.

 

They never even mention the AHL at all in these preliminary plans. They didn't say the AHL is critical to a new building?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hymh sounds like the voice of reason here. Some one posted that UConn hates the XL and wants a better facility. What will UConn do for the city and state? Another reason I hate UConn and all college sports is when they think that they're major league . With a NHL commitment 17,000 or forgetaboutit. Ps I don't care if UConn wins the NCAA every yr. It's still college ball. When schools pay coaches Millions of state $$, it's time for people to wake up. Please don't quote Calhoun's rant about how much $ he makes for UConn. College sports will continue to bring excitement to their fans with much lower salaries. GO HABS!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether you agree or not, top level NCAA sports ARE professional level revenue machines and generate as much--if not more--revenue than the NHL would here. Don't con**se your hatred of UCONN hoops with the truth about the amount of revenue it can generate.

 

If the new arena was built to "NHL and UCONN/NCAA specs" like they are saying then the potential for hosting a round of the NCAA Tournament would bring a ton of money here along with national exposure in a completely different capacity than hockey would. UCONN would also most likely have a s-h-o-t at a better conference invite which opens the doors to seeing much higher caliber competition in the new building which brings more TV exposure & revenue. With the NHL, having NBC Sports here in CT makes it cost effective for them to do games right out of a "home arena" and cut down on traveling as much. Theoretically they could even just set up a permanent situation in the arena and that keeps a remote truck off the road. It also could be leased out to CBS for basketball coverage maybe.

 

It's quite simple: NHL being one hand, UCONN basketball being the other allow both hands to wash the face: Hartford/Connecticut as a whole.

 

Can the state get it together and roll the dice on bigger concepts and the idea that taking this chance might net larger reward along with civic and economic growth? That, more than anything is the question of the century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too don't watch basketball but, as far as the big picture, UConn basketball is going to be a huge force in getting this new arena built. And if that's what leads to a ground-breaking ribbon-cutting ceremony in Hartford, so be it.

 

& it's a good tradeoff, too. With a new arena, all sports fans in the market benefit. UConn basketball fans would probably get to see them play in a better conference,(as Jimmy said) & also have a much better chance of seeing some key NCAA tournament games.

 

And we would have the NHL here. THAT would be awesome.

 

Can you imagine the positive possibilities of what Hartford could become with a new state-of-the-art arena this time around?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of us on the same page supporting a new facility, Does anyone think a seating capacity under 17,000 for hockey is smart or prudent? Like my Dad used to say "If you're going to do it, do it right or don't do it at all." Just keep in mind the match box facility on campus that was an obvious mistake as was the Civic Center for a myriad of reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it will happen and happen faster than we can imagine. I hate stupid cliche sayings but I think Malloy and company realize that, "you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs"(as he proved in rebuilding Stamford as mayor). And as much as we love and miss our Whalers, the idea of UCONN fading into obscurity in NCAA hoops would be the final nail in the coffin here. If they lose the foothold they have now and cease to grow both the basketball and football programs, thereby gaining access to a major conference, you might as well pack up CT and sell it to NY. There'd little to no reason to be here any more. So, pull for UCONN to be a major player. Hope that Kevin Ollie continues to succeed here and the university is invited to a major conference with the promise of a new facility attached. That, in turn will grow the football program and allow governance to push hard for NHL relocation to our little city.

 

Why not? Does it seem embarr*****ing to anyone else that ESPN, NBC Sports, and YES are here in CT and yet we have NOTHING huge but UCONN hoops to brag about? Does not compute. Does not compute. Danger. Danger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this