Blue Jackets arena in a state of disrepair? No, that's dramatic. Just needs some work

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

I for one cannot wait to see which lame country act we select for the opening of the arena.

We can have ten Garth Brooks shows, and no we won’t hang a banner for it.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by getbak

When the Saddledome opened in 1983, only 4 of the 20 other arenas in the NHL were less than 10 years old, and only 2 were less than 5.

Edmonton opened in 1974, Hartford in 1975, Detroit in 1979, and New Jersey in 1981. Washington (1973) and the Islanders (1972) were the only other teams playing in buildings from the 70s.

At the time the Saddledome opened, 6 teams were playing in arenas that were more than 40 years old and 5 were in buildings that were at least 50.


The Saddledome was the newest NHL arena for a full decade. The next new arenas opened in 1993 -- San Jose and Anaheim. Also in 1993, Tampa moved into "The Thunderdome" (now Tropicana Field) and the Panthers started play at the Miami Arena. Neither were new buildings, but both were newer than the Saddledome.


The arena in Glendale, Arizona opened in late 2003. In the decade from 1993 to 2003, 23 new NHL arenas opened. The 9 expansion teams from the '90s were all in new arenas. The 4 teams that relocated in the '90s had all moved into new buildings after playing some seasons in temporary locations (Arizona being the last in 2003).

Of the remaining 16 teams that existed when the Saddledome opened in 1983, only New Jersey, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Edmonton, the Islanders, and the Rangers did not open new buildings during the 1993-2003 building boom. Except for the Rangers, they have all opened new buildings since (and MSG was massively renovated from 2011-2013 to the point where it was essentially a new arena inside an old shell).

When the Thrashers moved to Winnipeg, they went from a building that opened in 1999 to one that opened in 2004.


The Delta Center (1991) is now the 3rd oldest building in the league, behind MSG and the Saddledome, but the Smiths are promising significant renovations to bring it up to modern NHL standards.

Thanks for the details - the period I was remembering was 1993-2003. Thought it was a shorter timespan -- but 23 new arenas in 10 years is wild. It took the Saddledome from new to has-been in an awful hurry.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Saddledome also had significant renovations in 1996. Only 12 years after opening.

[White Out 403]

I think the last time there has been a very big change in general design philosophy for arenas was the 90s. New arenas have smaller outside the edge changes imo

[GirlySports]

Move the team to Quebec, make Johnny move to french Canada

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

T-Mobile was built in one of the biggest entertainment and tourist centres on earth. Calgary isn't that.

The Bell Centre was built in a metropolitan area of 4 million people. Calgary isn't that either.

There is no economic case for building an arena to NHL standards in a city like Calgary with private money. Either the public sector puts up money or it doesn't get built.

That's not really a relevant data point. There are sports teams in cities bigger than Las Vegas and Montreal that have begged for money (Atlanta, Chicago and Washington DC are the first that come to mind). It can be done privately but they don't do it. And to counter Erick's point, the economic benefit of vehicle production in Canada is going to be easily greater than any sporting complex.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

That's not really a relevant data point.

It absoutely is. Your argument below doesn't even address the reason.

There are sports teams in cities bigger than Las Vegas and Montreal that have begged for money (Atlanta, Chicago and Washington DC are the first that come to mind). It can be done privately but they don't do it.

Yes, cities that size could produce a positive ROI on an arena built with private money – but they get a much more attractive ROI if the government kicks in part of the capital cost.

A city the size of Calgary can't do it with private money alone. The ROI would be severely negative.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by cam_calderon

Edwards can afford to build his own rink, though. He doesn't need the public money. Do you disagree with that?

We just spent $800 million here building a new rugby/soccer stadium in Sydney. I am a way above average consumer of sport and I do not like the fact my taxes went towards it.

Some people don't understand how these people got wealthy in the first place

[Locke]

Their cannon is embarrasingly small. It just cant get the job done.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

Saddledome also had significant renovations in 1996. Only 12 years after opening.

Let’s not ignore the spanky new scoreboard coming this year!

[Locke]

What they need is one of these babies!!



Yeah! Fire that bitch off and that'll put the fear of God into your enemies!

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

This gets so old. Same recycled argument every time a new facility is brought up anywhere. Do you want professional sports or not? If you don’t like the scam then stop watching and supporting. It’s really simple. You don’t get a professional sports team without a facility and owners and cities both know what they are getting into with these marriages. I get that some taxpayers don’t like it but don’t be hypocritical and keep watching and supporting if it bothers you so much. As a sports fans I’m tired of hearing the whining in sports threads by the hypocrites. Go whine on Reddit or something.

No the whining should be here.

If all municipalities got together and said no there would still be professional sports teams. There is sufficient revenues in all these leagues to pay for a new stadium every year and cycle through each team on a 30 year basis. The cap is 80 million. A 50 million cap and a 1 billion per year arena fund. It doesn’t even impact the owners profits just the players.

The government permits collusion and anti trust activities within these leagues that aren’t permitted in other industries. The current tax payer subsidized arena program is a problem of all municipalities collectivelies own making.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GGG

No the whining should be here.

If all municipalities got together and said no there would still be professional sports teams. There is sufficient revenues in all these leagues to pay for a new stadium every year and cycle through each team on a 30 year basis.

The leagues don't collect those revenues, and the leagues don't own the teams. Most of the money belongs to the rich teams, which have already built their own arenas with their own money. They aren't interested in subsidizing small markets by paying for their buildings.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

“Disrepair” seems dramatic

It’s no discombobulated.

[OldDutch]

Skibidi Ohio Bro

To think my kids are some sort of philosophical geniuses

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The leagues don't collect those revenues, and the leagues don't own the teams. Most of the money belongs to the rich teams, which have already built their own arenas with their own money. They aren't interested in subsidizing small markets by paying for their buildings.

There would be no need for further subsidies then already exist today. There is currently a 65 million dollar cap floor and an 83 million dollar cap. There is plenty of room for each individual team to pay their own 30 million a year regardless of their financial position simply by renegotiating the split of revenues between players and ownership.

This would instantly happen if all municipalities refused to pay for arenas.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GGG

There would be no need for further subsidies then already exist today. There is currently a 65 million dollar cap floor and an 83 million dollar cap. There is plenty of room for each individual team to pay their own 30 million a year regardless of their financial position simply by renegotiating the split of revenues between players and ownership.

So it's as simple as getting the NHLPA to accept a 40% pay cut? Gee, I wonder why they haven't already done that.

[McG]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

We can have ten Garth Brooks shows, and no we won’t hang a banner for it.

Let’s have 11 shows and the banner. We should also have frivolous banners like “best internet team” and “7th player” and 50 sellouts or whatever.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by McG

Let’s have 11 shows and the banner. We should also have frivolous banners like “best internet team” and “7th player” and 50 sellouts or whatever.

Reminder to self:

Before I die, I must sneak into Rogers Place and hang an orange and blue banner that says ‘PARTICIPANT’.

[SutterBrother]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

It's not hard to find this info. Look at what Vancouver was required to build for the IOC in 2010 versus what Milano will need to built in 2026. Look at the massive criticism they got for the costs and wasted infrastructure of Sochi and Rio. It's a massive difference to how the bid process goes today. Way less catering to the IOC's whims and excesses. Way less building for the sake of building.

IOC just killing it!

Olympic officials try to crush U.S. probes of China doping, threaten Salt Lake Games

The China scandal involves 23 swimmers who tested positive for banned performance enhancing substances on at least two occasions prior to the Tokyo Summer Games in 2021.

WADA officials have acknowledged keeping the test results secret until they were revealed by journalists this spring.

Eleven of those athletes are expected to compete again in Paris.

Edit - not trolling you - just saw the headline and it reminded me of the post - IOC doing IOC things in my opinion.