| 0 |
Subject: What's the big deal with a new arena?
Posted by: The Left Wings
- [1910392717] Wed, Dec 20, 2006, 22:21
If the people in Pittsburgh don't show up for the Penguins' games now, what makes them so sure people would show up at the new arena? I mean, perhaps once or twice to check out a new place like a tourist, but why would a new arena create any more revenue than the cost of the arena itself?
I don't understand it. |
| 1 | CanadianHack
ID: 31645103
Thu, Dec 21, 2006, 06:44
|
Luxory boxes for Corporate America
|
| 2 | CanadianHack
ID: 31645103
Thu, Dec 21, 2006, 06:45
|
Luxory boxes for Corporate America
|
| 3 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 15023167
Thu, Dec 21, 2006, 09:07
|
I don't know anything about Pittsburgh's current arena versus their new arena, but sometimes things such as a lack of parking, bad neighborhood, lack of "good" seats, poor concessions, poor bathrooms, poor amenities, poor seating, etc. can be fixed with a new arena.
A lot of people simply assume that it's just the team that attracts the people to a game, but that's not entirely true. Sure, people want to see a winner, but they also want to enjoy where they're going.
To make a comparison, I will often times drive an hour (each direction) to see a highly anticipated movie, like Lord of the Rings. The reason is because that theater comes with stadium seating, surround sound, comfy chairs, good concessions, plenty of bathrooms, etc. My only options in town are theaters that haven't been updated in 30 years. Despite the travel cost and the extra cost of the ticket, it's just a much better experience and I enjoy it far more.
I think the same can be said for watching sports.
|
| 4 | Perm Dude
ID: 171110219
Thu, Dec 21, 2006, 10:20
|
New arenas do tend to bring in more revenue. In addition to KKB's points, the new places are often sold as municipal pride points and often people come to see a game or other event in the place because it is new, and they just want to see it.
Also, newer arenas tend to be able to often newer and better entertainment of other sorts, like concerts and other shows that an older arena might not be able to accompany.
That all said, typically a new arena is paid for by tax dollars and is therefore paid by everyone in the community whether they go to an event or not, and is never paid back. In essence, the community pays for a new workplace for a wealthy person's sports team, and often faces higher ticket prices and concession costs as a result. But look--they've got tiramisu!
|
| 5 | Trip
Leader
ID: 13961611
Thu, Dec 21, 2006, 10:56
|
Luxury boxes
|
| 6 | Perm Dude
ID: 171110219
Thu, Dec 21, 2006, 11:25
|
Luxury boxes are only the most visible sign of what happens when a new arena gets built. All the revenue from luxury boxes go to the owner (and since the municipality pays for it, it is almost all pure profit), so they push very hard for the new arena.
|
| 7 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 15023167
Thu, Dec 21, 2006, 11:57
|
Also, newer arenas tend to be able to often newer and better entertainment of other sorts, like concerts and other shows that an older arena might not be able to accompany.
Actually, this is a VERY valid point.
Here at UVA, we got a new basketball arena and suddenly it seems like the place is booked every night with something. We went from having just basketball to having a George Strait concert, Ringling Brothers circus, Red Hot Chili Peppers concert, Dave Matthews Band concert (go figure, he RARELY played in his home town before the new arena), Billy Joel concert, Blue Man Group, Justin Timberlake concert, and more.
None of this happened with the old arena. In fact, when DMB actually WOULD come to Charlottesville, they'd only play in the football stadium and it was kind of lame.
|
| 8 | R9
ID: 99392020
Thu, Dec 21, 2006, 16:53
|
In the case of Pittsburgh, all these points are magnified x10. Mellon Arena is without a doubt the ugliest, smallest, most run-down arena in the league. It is arguably the worst sports venue in any of the 4 major sports, and I put it behind the Big-Uh-Oh that the Expos used to play in here in Montreal. For anyone aware of just how awful our concrete disaster looks, feels and functions, that should really say it all.
Pittsburgh has one of the better NHL markets, and their attendance was 92% of capacity last year, despite a horrible record and putrid building. They could undoubtedly fit in another 5-6 thousand per game if the seats were there.
Pre-cap, one could argue that a small market team gaining some ticket sales was meaningless. In a cap world, its the difference between meeting the bills and having to move.
but why would a new arena create any more revenue than the cost of the arena itself?
And this is the problem. If the Pens have to pay for it, there's no way it makes sense. The offer on tap was that a casino would build them a new arena for free, for concessions in the slot licence that would let them easily make that money back long-term.
Without knowing the details, the city's choice seems rather dumb. They're now trying to find a mix of Pens money, casino money and taxpayers money to build the arena, something two of those parties cannot or will not do. My simple math of slots from Isle of Capri + Penguins staying for free seems a ton better then slots from some Detroit casino and the Pens leaving...
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|