Discussion in 'Conference Realignment Board' started by Drew, Feb 1, 2016.
Exactly. Ask Kansas City when their NHL team is going to start playing at the Sprint Center.
Which is exactly my belief that UConn should build an on-campus facility for both hockey and basketball. It addresses a major issue for UConn, does not rely on Hartford nor the NHL to fix problems, and, while not the best solution, saves some money via a dual arena.
I'm a Hartford guy so I'm biased, but KC doesn't have UConn men's and women's hoops to play a significant number of games at their arena. Their arena also allows them to be considered as an NCAA tournament site. Look where the other top hoops programs play and it's clear UConn deserves that type of 18,000+ modern facility that would be suitable for major events and/or potential tenants.
There really aren't many teams in large modern buildings, actually. I can really only think of Louisville (at least in cities in which the school doesn't also share the facility with a pro team). Most of the newer buildings are small, Gampel size, arenas. Most of the big buildings are older, from the 80s or older.
I want UConn to play in a first rate facility just because I want the best for UConn, but when you compare our place in the arms race, we really aren't far off.
Yup let's isolate our basketball program to the least populated part of the state. #6thborough
You are right that they are older but most have undergone recent upgrades. That's what the XL needs. Some programs that we like to compare UConn to:
UNC arena seats 21,000, Kentucky arena seats 23,500, Kansas arena seats 17,000, UofL arena seats 21,000, Ohio St. arena seats 18,800.
I actually think Kansas City is a fairly accurate comparison for Hartford. Having been there last fall (as well as multiple other times when I lived in St Louis) I'll say that what separates KC and Hartford is something like the power and light district and the amount of youth living in/around the area. If Hartford was able to build a new arena in the Downtown North area by the baseball stadium and new apartments that attracted a young, large clientele it would be awesome for the city. Problem is Hartford is losing the ability to attract anyone let alone young people and the city is going to be almost a BILLION dollars in debt by the end of 2017. FWIW the College Basketball Hall of Fame is also attached to the arena in KC
Just like we would have to expand the rent to get into p5, im sure it will probably be a contractual requirement to upgrade the XL.
Oil tycoons and rich businessmen from TX and OK will probably not accept sitting in skyboxes 500 feet away from the action. NCAA/UConn/and whatever conference will want to maximize revenue. It's not happening @ current XL.
I'm sorry, sports are a business and I'm sure big wigs @ UConn care more about increasing revenue streams from sporting events than catering to students and fans of on-campus facilities. The XL needs drastic renovations to Bring in a major tenant like a power 5 conference
They just signed a 20 year LOI to stay in Hartford if the upgrades happen. Their spending 10 million to fix gampel roof.
Ticket surcharge made no mention of hockey barn. Only baseball, softball, soccer facilities. I'm sure it will be also used for on-campus barn, but it was not mentioned in articles I read.
I've read somewhere that the KC arena has actually been a money maker even without a tenant. Too lazy to look it up.
I'd rather see a separate hockey barn rather than have them play in oversized BBall arena.
Hartford’s XL Center set to get $250M facelift | New York Post
This was posted in non-key tweets, but I thought it deserves discussion here.
I found out SCI is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BBB.
Yes, it's the NY post, but I'm intrigued by the: "talks have accelerated from private investors, sources said"
With the talks of CR with UConn, I could see some private investors actually being interested. We have to address the aging XL center in the near future no matter what happens. If private $ could take on even 1/2 of the renovation price tag, it will be much easier for the public to hop on board. It's a state owned building so I'm not sure how it will work. But, the public needs to support this. We may lose Aetna. We have to invest in our cities the right way. We lost GE because we care about our towns way more than our cities. The future generations want to live in cities and want stuff to do downtown. We're late to the party and it's showing. I think the ballpark and a renovated XL will help tremendously. Just without all the need for bribes and kickbacks. Please stay away centerplan
I want to like this three times. Yes, this could be smoke regarding our conference affiliation future. In addition, spot-on discussion about improving the XL center specifically and changing the mindset about the importance of cities in 21st Century demography in general. Also, my wife works for Aetna and I do not want to move
Aetna is trying to have zero real estate. They have moved people home for years. Even if they 'move', the building will still have thousands of people in it and she can just work from home more often.
Actually, she is working from home a lot now, when she is not visiting clients. You are right about that.
If they can pay their employees to sleep more than 7 hours, then they can pay the "real estate" and stay in Hartford.
Not quite sure the point you are trying to make.... the company started moving people home starting in about 2005-2006 - it certainly hasn't hurt the stock price....
Since Aetna really started moving people home - the stock is up 120% and they bought two of their six biggest competitors.
All I'm trying to saying is; if they can pay their employees with a perk like sleeping for more than 7 hours a night, then they can pay to keep offices in Hartford . I don't work for them, so I have no idea how their daily operations work. I'm sure tons of work can be done from home, but don't leave Hartford where you've been for decades. Buildings are probably already paid for. I'm just being a homer and don't want more companies leaving Hartford for selfish reasons in which in reality, I'm sure their doing quite fine. I'm sick of the requirements of shareholders requiring 20 -30% profits each quarter at the expense of hard workers and a great city. Decades ago 5-10% each quarter was acceptable.
They wouldn't leave Hartford. They would move the headquarters.
Help me understand the "if they can pay their employees to sleep more than 7 hours" and the "perk like sleeping for more than 7 hours a night" thought process? They should make them work longer hours?
I saw this on the nightly news on Friday:
Aetna is Paying Employees Up to $300 a Year to Sleep Well - NBC News
Yes as a company that sells wellness programs to employers - they pilot things on their employees.
There is no shortage of data showing employee health leads to an ROI for their employers.
Ahhh - at least I can understand where the comments came from, even though I don't agree w/ your correlation.
While Aetna has committed to retaining a workforce in Lousville as part of their proposed Humana acquisition and I see the continued shift to remote workers with people coming into the office when needed via 'hoteling' arrangements (Accenture has been doing that for years, its also big with the Big 4 accounting firms now and even JP Morgan is jumping on that train in NYC), I can't see them moving their headquarters, especially to Boston. Boston has a strengths in education, health sciences, investments, and high tech; but, not health insurance. There are 3 health insurers in Boston, all are midsize and only 1 reaches outside of the Boston market (Harvard Pilgrim in RI, NH & CT). Thus, they don't have a workforce with experience with large health insurers. Hartford is the HQ or has very large operations centers for each of the truly 'national' health insurers in the US - UHC (Hartford), Anthem/Wellpoint (Wallingford), Aetna (Hartford - HQ), and Cigna (Bloominfield - HQ). That is something that is very hard to ignore.
Not sure how this discussion migrated from the XL Center to a debate about Aetna, but I'll chime in anyway. Sounds like you are one of our politicos who mocked GE back in January when they indicated their unhappiness with our CT tax and anti business environment and said they were bluffing.. I understand why our politicians want to say it isn't the tax situation, our run a way budget and pension deficits as well as our anti business environment that caused Aetna to look elsewhere. . They are now saying GE moved because of the high tech environment in Mass. At least Malloy seems to have recognized the tax issue but it really goes further than that. We are right behind Illinois in tax rate and unfunded government pensions. When we have a US Senator who vilifies insurance companies combined with the general anti business atmosphere why wouldn't Aetna consider its options. I want them to stay, I want CT to return to health , but lets at least be honest with ourselves and be part of a change in direction.
Separate names with a comma.