What’s more likely to happen in an arena deal: An NHL team moving in or an NHL team leaving?
That’s a good question, says Michael Zadrozny, an analyst with the Sports Business Journal.
“An NHL team can leave and it doesn’t look like that’s going to be a problem,” Zadroszny told NHL.com.
“If it is a problem, it’s a big one.
If it’s just a temporary thing, like they could move, or it’s something permanent, like a stadium, then it’s not a huge deal. “
It would have a very big impact on the NHL.
If it’s just a temporary thing, like they could move, or it’s something permanent, like a stadium, then it’s not a huge deal.
But if it’s going on for a long time, like five, 10 years, it could be a big deal.”
Zadrowski said that if an NHL franchise moved, it would likely look to relocate in the NHL’s second-tier cities in Canada.
If that team is relocated, it likely would have the resources to pay for a new building.
“You’re going to have to make sure that it has the resources and the willingness to pay the money to move,” Zadszny said.
“Because the arena market is so big in the U.S., you’d be looking to move the franchise in a city that has a hockey team.
If you’re asking, ‘How much is it going to cost to build a new stadium?’ and they say, ‘Not much,’ it would be a good answer. “
The question is what are the other costs?
It’s all economics.” “
That’s what it’s all about.
It’s all economics.”
So what would an NHL arena deal look like?
In the NHL, a team has a majority vote on any arena project.
That means that a new NHL arena proposal could include a large number of proposals, from a single arena to multiple, Zadrynski said.
The most likely scenario is that the proposal would include a single proposal, said Zadyszny.
“I don’t think you’d necessarily have to build two arenas.
It depends on what you’re looking for in a deal,” he said.
A potential arena deal could include an arena that could be used for home games, such as a new practice facility.
“What you could do is you could have an arena in which you have a lot of hockey fans who are going to go to a new rink, or maybe you could use that arena for a home game, and you’d bring in a new venue,” Zadirosz said.
Zadowski said it could even include a new, expanded ice rink that would include an outdoor arena, which is not a part of a current NHL team’s lease.
“As an arena owner, you want to have your own arena, and that’s the thing that makes an arena a valuable asset,” Zaddroz said, adding that there are a lot more teams that have had arenas that have gone to other cities and not been used.
“A lot of those teams that had arenas are not really successful in terms of revenue because of that, and if you bring in an indoor arena, you’re going do that because you want it to be there for the long term.”
That means if a team was to move and wanted to move to a larger city, they would need to find a new facility, Zadsza said.
In that case, they could consider the possibility of building a new indoor arena on a larger site.
“We can imagine the potential of building that [an indoor arena] as an arena, with some type of outdoor structure,” Zodrosz explained.
“Or, you could bring in some type, like some type or combination of indoor and outdoor rink, and build a different arena.
It would have that additional amenity that a hockey arena doesn’t have.”
The NHL’s NHLPA also has a vote on an arena proposal, but it does not have a majority.
If an NHL deal was made, it is possible that a team would need at least five of the team’s owners to approve it.
That is because a majority of the owners would have enough votes to approve the deal.
Zadiysz said the NHLPA has not seen a team move in nearly 10 years because the owners have voted to not make any changes to the existing arena.
That’s because the current ownership structure is very similar to the one the league had when it first went to Atlanta for the 2009 Winter Olympics.
“They’re a very loyal group,” Zady said.