XL Center Makeover Comes With Hefty Price Tag | Page 2 | The Boneyard

XL Center Makeover Comes With Hefty Price Tag

Status
Not open for further replies.
ct06111 said:
I hope this happens, but it MUST be done right. I'm not 100% what "right" is ....
If it costs more than 250, do it, but audit, audit audit, no lipstick. It needs to = caliper of B1G and NHL.

This will be good for civic pride, national exposure, better for tv, recruiting, attendance, ST holders, our bladders, movement between half/periods, revenue for state and UConn, food variety, concessions, overall entertainment, the 5:00 escape, our NHL pipe dream, tournaments like NCAA bball, frozen four/regionals, nutmeg hockey tournament etc.

That said, I think they should maximize revenue and only have 16,500 - 17-500 seats. I'd rather have a really loud unique (not cookie cutter) arena that makes $ and sell out on a constient basis than a 18,000 arena that just doesn't work for hockey and bball ie barclAys
Expand ...
!6,500-17,500 won't bring a NHL team in here to even look at the place. Moat new NHL arenas are 20,000 so at 18,000 they are already behind the 8 ball.
 
Who Ha said:
18,500 is smack in the middle of the NHL. I have doubts about this market, even for UConn, but see this list

http://www.canada.com/mobile/iphone/story.html?id=c349931c-a5c2-4734-8bec-18a41138aaeb
Expand ...
That is from 2007...some of those numbers are wrong...
Console Energy Center in Pittsburgh holds 18,387 for hockey
MSG is now 18,006
Barclays Center 15,795
(the Islanders have a 5 year out in their deal to play at the Barclays Center...and the renovation of Nassau Coliseum requires that a AHL team play there when the work is done...the owner of the Nets just became majority owner in the company that is doing the renovation there and will run it after the project is done).
Nassau Coliseum is no longer a NHL arena. There is no way you get a NHL team to come to Hartford with seating capacity less than 18,000
 
Last edited:
FDNY99 said:
That is from 2007...some of those numbers are wrong...
Console Energy Center in Pittsburgh holds 18,387 for hockey
MSG is now 18,006
and Nassau Coliseum is no longer a NHL arena. There is no way you get a NHL team to come to Hartford with seating capacity less than 18,000
Expand ...

Hate to turn to Wikipedia. Again, I have doubts about this market, including a base that won't drive when 3 inches of snow fall

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Hockey_League_arenas#Current_arenas
 
Who Ha said:
Hate to turn to Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Hockey_League_arenas#Current_arenas
Expand ...
You should have put this up in the beginning instead of that article from 2007....that's fine....if you think the Phoenix Coyotes are gonna relocate to Hartford and a renovated XL Center that seats 16,500 I have a bridge to sell you over the east river in NYC. Same with the Hurricanes...read the report that has been posted around here by the architect they chose to do the job...you need 18,000 seats minimum to attract a NHL team.
 
FDNY99 said:
You should have put this up in the beginning instead of that article from 2007....that's fine....if you think the Phoenix Coyotes are gonna relocate to Hartford and a renovated XL Center that seats 16,500 I have a bridge to sell you over the east river in NYC. Same with the Hurricanes...read the report that has been posted around here by the architect they chose to do the job...you need 18,000 seats minimum to attract a NHL team.
Expand ...

You might be right. The plan leaves hockey capacity 400 short of the 18,000 seats. So why 250 million for mid major college basketball and a college hockey team that draws about 6000 and a minor league hockey team that draws even less?
 
.-.
FDNY99 said:
You should have put this up in the beginning instead of that article from 2007....that's fine....if you think the Phoenix Coyotes are gonna relocate to Hartford and a renovated XL Center that seats 16,500 I have a bridge to sell you over the east river in NYC. Same with the Hurricanes...read the report that has been posted around here by the architect they chose to do the job...you need 18,000 seats minimum to attract a NHL team.
Expand ...
From the article:
"The elimination of skyboxes, which would be converted to restaurants and clubs, and other changes throughout the structure could make room for another 2,000 or so seats, increasing the total to about 18,000 from the current 15,800."
Either way the current trend in pro sports is to have a building that caters to the market while maximizing the real money makers (luxury seating, retail, etc.) Winnipeg's arena seats 15k but is surrounded by a vibrant retail development. Even in baseball and football we're seeing teams eliminate nosebleeds in favor of fan bars and picnic decks. The days of 20k seat arenas outside of huge markets are long gone. Ability to keep the demand high and have the tools to squeeze money out of the fans are what the modern stadium will feature.
 
FartMan69 said:
From the article:
"The elimination of skyboxes, which would be converted to restaurants and clubs, and other changes throughout the structure could make room for another 2,000 or so seats, increasing the total to about 18,000 from the current 15,800."
Either way the current trend in pro sports is to have a building that caters to the market while maximizing the real money makers (luxury seating, retail, etc.) Winnipeg's arena seats 15k but is surrounded by a vibrant retail development. Even in baseball and football we're seeing teams eliminate nosebleeds in favor of fan bars and picnic decks. The days of 20k seat arenas outside of huge markets are long gone. Ability to keep the demand high and have the tools to squeeze money out of the fans are what the modern stadium will feature.
Expand ...

Exactly. Just the path the Red Sox took with a smallish ballpark
 
TNSE in Winnipeg with a 15,004 barn "is beyond anything the NHL could dream of".

Hopefully we can find a group like them and develop around the area. We should have gotten luccinio to take over da dunk and have AAA Red Sox team and really try and develop around the arena with the XL. Tribes with casino.

10k lower, 7k upper with another 500-1k luxury seating. (Club, loge, suites) = ~18k
UConn and state split everything involved with 30 UConn events
NHL ownership groups gets same kind of deal. No rent and gets ALL revenue from 41 game days. We give them NOTHING other than upkeep of arena and state and city benefit with people filling up downtown.
 
What is wrong with the current Civic Center? It has a basketball court, beer and seats. What else is needed?
 
.-.
Who Ha said:
Hate to turn to Wikipedia. Again, I have doubts about this market, including a base that won't drive when 3 inches of snow fall

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Hockey_League_arenas#Current_arenas
Expand ...

We were at the Gila River Arena about a month ago. A beautiful facility inside. Ample parking without sky high fees. Fantastic restaurant/ bar that you can eat and watch the game at the same time. We were in a luxury box which was very comfortable, well appointed and the bar well stocked. Gila River and the Coyotes actively work with businesses and other organizations to put packages together to put fannies in the seats. They have a very active marketing plan. The Coyotes may be bad, but the place was packed!

And I'm sorry to say, but the XL Center looks like a dump compared to the Gila River. The amount of money being bantered about to upgrade the XL Center will not make is close to a facility like Gila River.

And why should be even thing of this when the state is in dire physical straits. Makes no sense.
 
Who Ha said:
Exactly. Just the path the Red Sox took with a smallish ballpark
Expand ...

Not exactly. One of the key reasons that the prior owners of the Red Sox sold the team was because they wanted a new stadium and couldn't get it done in the face of the quagmire that Boston politics are. There were 2 legitimate proposals for a new Fenway - one right next door and a second in Seaport district. Today's Fenway Park is just about maxed out with respect to the number of seats and amenities that can be put into its footprint and 110+ year old frame. When the next stadium arms race launches, the Sox maybe stuck.
 
You can just tell this is one of those threads that's going to devolve into Cesspool-quality before it's over.
 
ct06111 said:
I love how you guys say "never" and ".000000000000000000000001" chance of NHL returning. It's makes you sound dumb. NHL needs 3 things. Arena, market, owner. Arena? Check if done right. This is going to be sold as UConn and NHL as cherry on top. Market? We are a better market than Carolina, Arizona, Florida, devils, and Columbus. Owner? There is a ownership group interested and not made public that is smart to remain silent and in the shadows until told to.

Arizona, Carolina, Florida, islanders, and possibly the Devils are in trouble. Winnipeg is a smaller market and smaller arena and "is beyond anything the NHL could dream of". If Quebec gets a team, why not fix Bettman's 20 year mistakes. We are proven NHL market and 20 years of absence would beat any enthusiasm created from Vegas or Seattle. How is KC or Houston a better NHL market than CT? Our TV contract alone would make ALL NHL owners $. The reduced travel costs would be a +. Conference alignment would be an issue, but you have at least 2 teams in the EC that are in trouble.

Do your NHL research if you continue to think "never" and .00000000000000001" chance. Enough of the blanket cynicism.
Expand ...
Sorry, this is entirely incorrect.
 
Mr. Conehead said:
Not exactly. One of the key reasons that the prior owners of the Red Sox sold the team was because they wanted a new stadium and couldn't get it done in the face of the quagmire that Boston politics are. There were 2 legitimate proposals for a new Fenway - one right next door and a second in Seaport district. Today's Fenway Park is just about maxed out with respect to the number of seats and amenities that can be put into its footprint and 110+ year old frame. When the next stadium arms race launches, the Sox maybe stuck.
Expand ...

Nobody, other than maybe Will McDonough, would argue Frank McCourt was up to anything legitimate.
 
Mr. Conehead said:
Not exactly. One of the key reasons that the prior owners of the Red Sox sold the team was because they wanted a new stadium and couldn't get it done in the face of the quagmire that Boston politics are. There were 2 legitimate proposals for a new Fenway - one right next door and a second in Seaport district. Today's Fenway Park is just about maxed out with respect to the number of seats and amenities that can be put into its footprint and 110+ year old frame. When the next stadium arms race launches, the Sox maybe stuck.
Expand ...

The Red Sox are in a great position given where the world is giong. They basically turned all the streets around Fenway into a concourse. I think total fan attendance is over rated. The falling attendance numbers for most sports bare that out. The HD TV viewing experience at home vs. the crap seats at a stadium... the HD experience wins out. I'd say concentrate on building an incredible 16k arena and charge a premium for attendance. Going to a game has to be an incredible experience outside of just the game. Baseball bares this out... Going to a Red Sox game is an experience... it's more than just sitting and watching the game. They did Fenway exactly right. Part of that might have been a necessity... but it looks much better to have a packed 30k than a half empty 50k stadium. I mean look at what jokes the Blue Jays and Tampa Bay are during the regular season. They'd both be much better served with 35k stadiums. Winnipeg tickets are an absolute premium. There's absurd demand, part of that is Canada but part of that is the arena, if there were another 3-5k of nosebleeds... you wouldn't have quite the rabid demand.

The Flyers have to scratch and beg people to fill in the top of their arena. They're full of youth hockey teams and group sales. My kids hockey teams gets offers to play games on the ice at the Wells Fargo Center all the time for the cost of 100 crap seats. No actual charge to use the ice. Just the price of tickets @ $35 a pop. This isn't during the game like the little kids that play between periods. This is on off days or 5 hours before the game on game days. No one wants to go and sit at a game 1000 miles from the action. I say cut out those seats. Charge a premium for the seats you have and stuff the place with amenities and you'll have a successful model.
 
.-.
If the state of Connecticut were serious about attracting an NHL team, they would build a quality arena from scratch next to the Rent in East Hartford, and allow developers to put a restaurant/bar/entertainment complex nearby. Easy parking and access to a sports and entertainment complex. Building on parking lot would give them a much better facility and reduce costs. The Phoenix arena cost $278 mn (http://www.therichest.com/sports/hockey-sports/top-5-costly-nhl-arenas-without-strong-attendance/), not far off the remodeling cost of $250 mn.
 
pj said:
If the state of Connecticut were serious about attracting an NHL team, they would build a quality arena from scratch next to the Rent in East Hartford, and allow developers to put a restaurant/bar/entertainment complex nearby. Easy parking and access to a sports and entertainment complex. Building on parking lot would give them a much better facility and reduce costs. The Phoenix arena cost $278 mn (http://www.therichest.com/sports/hockey-sports/top-5-costly-nhl-arenas-without-strong-attendance/), not far off the remodeling cost of $250 mn.
Expand ...
The Phoenix arena is also a disaster, primarily because of its horrendous location. East Hartford wouldn't be nearly as bad, but bringing the arena out of downtown into an area that's not walkable, has no public transit, and would be more difficult to access from the western part of the state which has more youth hockey teams and fans would be an interesting decision.

The problem with respect to the NHL is that the league does not want a team there. Not to mention the Bruins and Rangers would be opposed to another team coming in, I believe they may even have a right to vote against it or veto it in some regard since it would be a competing market. Bettman is steadfast against a team being in Hartford. The league wants a team in Las Vegas, that is going to happen. Whether it's a move or expansion remains to be seen. That said, with the success of Winnipeg, there is a LOT of groundswell to go back to Quebec - that would happen before Hartford. There is a lot of support for a team in Seattle as well, though they have some arena issues. But were an arena to be built there, they would be ahead of Hartford on the list. There's also Kansas City, who has a facility built and ready to go. I'm not positive on where they stand, but it would be difficult to see them behind Hartford. 06111's list of teams in trouble is faulty - the Devils aren't going anywhere. The Islanders aren't going anywhere except back to Long Island. AZ, Carolina, and Florida are in trouble but you can cross Carolina off the list of teams going to Hartford. That's just not going to happen. If AZ moves, it'd be to Las Vegas or Seattle to keep conference balance. Florida is an option, but again, with Quebec there - an ACTUALLY proven NHL market - they'd be well in front of Hartford.

Building this arena on the premise that an NHL team will come here is foolish. That doesn't mean they shouldn't do it and shouldn't build an arena that would be capable of hosting an NHL team - they should - but politicians and developers trumpeting how Hartford is in a good position to bring back the Whalers is either disingenuous or they all simply have their heads up their ass.
 
Mr. Conehead said:
Not exactly. One of the key reasons that the prior owners of the Red Sox sold the team was because they wanted a new stadium and couldn't get it done in the face of the quagmire that Boston politics are. There were 2 legitimate proposals for a new Fenway - one right next door and a second in Seaport district. Today's Fenway Park is just about maxed out with respect to the number of seats and amenities that can be put into its footprint and 110+ year old frame. When the next stadium arms race launches, the Sox maybe stuck.
Expand ...
That was in the late 90's, times have changed. They've renovated the park, added high priced seating and combined with the historical element Fenway will be packed no matter how bad the team is and they make money hand over fist. As long as that park is structurally sound they wont be looking for a new park.
 
brasssbonanzaa said:
The Phoenix arena is also a disaster, primarily because of its horrendous location. East Hartford wouldn't be nearly as bad, but bringing the arena out of downtown into an area that's not walkable, has no public transit, and would be more difficult to access from the western part of the state which has more youth hockey teams and fans would be an interesting decision.

The problem with respect to the NHL is that the league does not want a team there. Not to mention the Bruins and Rangers would be opposed to another team coming in, I believe they may even have a right to vote against it or veto it in some regard since it would be a competing market. Bettman is steadfast against a team being in Hartford. The league wants a team in Las Vegas, that is going to happen. Whether it's a move or expansion remains to be seen. That said, with the success of Winnipeg, there is a LOT of groundswell to go back to Quebec - that would happen before Hartford. There is a lot of support for a team in Seattle as well, though they have some arena issues. But were an arena to be built there, they would be ahead of Hartford on the list. There's also Kansas City, who has a facility built and ready to go. I'm not positive on where they stand, but it would be difficult to see them behind Hartford. 06111's list of teams in trouble is faulty - the Devils aren't going anywhere. The Islanders aren't going anywhere except back to Long Island. AZ, Carolina, and Florida are in trouble but you can cross Carolina off the list of teams going to Hartford. That's just not going to happen. If AZ moves, it'd be to Las Vegas or Seattle to keep conference balance. Florida is an option, but again, with Quebec there - an ACTUALLY proven NHL market - they'd be well in front of Hartford.

Building this arena on the premise that an NHL team will come here is foolish. That doesn't mean they shouldn't do it and shouldn't build an arena that would be capable of hosting an NHL team - they should - but politicians and developers trumpeting how Hartford is in a good position to bring back the Whalers is either disingenuous or they all simply have their heads up their ass.
Expand ...
I could be wrong but I believe Jeremy Jacobs has said he wouldn't be opposed to a team in Hartford for travel cost benefits or something like that. Territory rights don't extend to Hartford either as I believe its a 50 mile radius from the home arena. If Quebec and Vegas get expansion I'd say Hartford has a tiny chance to even be considered a relocation destination. That is of course if owners take a renovated 40 y/o building seriously.
 
pj said:
If the state of Connecticut were serious about attracting an NHL team, they would build a quality arena from scratch next to the Rent in East Hartford, and allow developers to put a restaurant/bar/entertainment complex nearby. Easy parking and access to a sports and entertainment complex. Building on parking lot would give them a much better facility and reduce costs. The Phoenix arena cost $278 mn (http://www.therichest.com/sports/hockey-sports/top-5-costly-nhl-arenas-without-strong-attendance/), not far off the remodeling cost of $250 mn.
Expand ...
I'd have to think cost of labor is a bit higher here plus the demolition of the XL would factor as well.
 
brassbonanza, I agree with most of that. NHL wants franchises not so close together and spread into major media markets to promote growth; Hartford is too close to Boston and NY; might get vetoed by those owners; it makes only marginal financial sense at best, less than Seattle or Quebec City, about as much as KC or Vegas; and to me, I'd rather see UConn remain the focus of Connecticut sports fans and build up hockey and football the way basketball was grown; also I think it's foolish for the state to waste so much money on arenas. So I oppose building an NHL caliber arena.

But ... IF they did build an NHL-appropriate arena ... East Hartford near the Rent would be cheaper and better. Hartford mass transit is not like the NYC subway; it is poor and no fun to ride. Everyone who can afford to attend NHL hockey in Connecticut drives. (Downtown residents could walk or bike to the Rent, or take Uber. Make a walkway/bike path from downtown to the Rent.) You say the Islanders should move from Barclays to the Long Island suburbs -- if NYC mass transit doesn't matter, then Connecticut mass transit certainly doesn't.
 
.-.
ct06111 said:
I love how you guys say "never" and ".000000000000000000000001" chance of NHL returning. It's makes you sound dumb. NHL needs 3 things. Arena, market, owner. Arena? Check if done right. This is going to be sold as UConn and NHL as cherry on top. Market? We are a better market than Carolina, Arizona, Florida, devils, and Columbus. Owner? There is a ownership group interested and not made public that is smart to remain silent and in the shadows until told to.

Arizona, Carolina, Florida, islanders, and possibly the Devils are in trouble. Winnipeg is a smaller market and smaller arena and "is beyond anything the NHL could dream of". If Quebec gets a team, why not fix Bettman's 20 year mistakes. We are proven NHL market and 20 years of absence would beat any enthusiasm created from Vegas or Seattle. How is KC or Houston a better NHL market than CT? Our TV contract alone would make ALL NHL owners $. The reduced travel costs would be a +. Conference alignment would be an issue, but you have at least 2 teams in the EC that are in trouble.

Do your NHL research if you continue to think "never" and .00000000000000001" chance. Enough of the blanket cynicism.
Expand ...

You realize that the Devils play in the NYC DMA right? You know, the No. 1 ranked media market in the country?
 
NYUConn said:
You realize that the Devils play in the NYC DMA right? You know, the No. 1 ranked media market in the country?
Expand ...
Don't respond to him on any hockey-related topic, it'll just give you a headache.
 
brasssbonanzaa said:
Don't respond to him on any hockey-related topic, it'll just give you a headache.
Expand ...

Fair point.

What he wrote about the Devils actually made me pass out from the stupidity.

Also, the Islanders from that same small NYC market.
 
NYUConn said:
Fair point.

What he wrote about the Devils actually made me pass out from the stupidity.

Also, the Islanders from that same small NYC market.
Expand ...
It's more blind loyalty to everything that is potentially positive for UConn and CT. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, and a lot of people on these boards could serve to learn a thing or two in that regard, but ignoring obvious realities and facts derails everything.
 
https://m.soundcloud.com/the-whaler-guys/shut-yer-blow-hole-pc8

Listen to 27 minute on. That is where I got it from. Plus this:

http://nhl.nbcsports.com/2014/08/16/report-devils-to-lose-money-in-2014-15/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoza...-devils-being-crushed-by-230-million-of-debt/

230 million in debt. It's not all about the DMA, MSA, market, tv etc.
The islanders play in a 15,795 (60 more than XL) in a glorified AHL rink. 13,000 or so are acceptable to watch hockey. How Bettman allows this..... I don't get it.

Attendance so far:
http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance

Out of the teams I mentioned In the prior post, who are in the bottom 5?
 
FrostyNuggets said:
Nobody, other than maybe Will McDonough, would argue Frank McCourt was up to anything legitimate.
Expand ...

McCourt's plan was the Seaport, which, putting aside, McCourt himself, would have been a great idea, just think of the success the Giants have had with their waterfront park - AT&T. Its no longer feasible though as most of the land it was going on has been taken-over by the Convention Center and real estate prices in that part of Boston are insane.

Harrington is the one who wanted a new Fenway built next to the current one. It would have been slightly bigger at 41,000, included many of the 'streetscape' ideas that the old Fenway Park uses today and it has a lot of support, except for certain politicians. That plan's time has also passed as the Fenway neighborhood has been transformed since then.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,336
Messages
4,565,487
Members
10,467
Latest member
Eil Rule


Top Bottom