Tag: Nassau Coliseum

Minnesota Wild v New York Islanders

PHT Morning Skate: Saying goodbye to Nassau Coliseum, plus the making of NHL ’94


PHT’s Morning Skate takes a look around the world of hockey to see what’s happening and what we’ll be talking about around the NHL world and beyond.

NHL.com’s Sunday Long Reads series continues with a look at the New York Islanders’ final season at Nassau Coliseum. (NHL.com)

Want another lengthy, interesting look at a piece of hockey history? This is some great stuff on the making of the classic hockey video game NHL ’94, and really the origins of EA Sports’ beloved series in general. (Read Only Memory)

Editor’s Note: Play one-day fantasy hockey tonight! Pro Hockey Talk’s partner FanDuel is hosting a $25,000 league for Monday’s NHL games. It’s just $2 to join and first place wins $2,000. Starts Monday at 7:00pm ET. Play Now!

Maybe these NHL rivalries are really working out, huh? (The Hockey News)

The Edmonton Oilers signed Kyle Platzer to an entry-level contract. Apparently he has some golf-course prowess to go with his hockey skills.

Quite an interesting moment as a goalie doesn’t realize a shootout attempt begins, yet makes the save anyway. Click here for the story behind it.

Task force proposes $346.5M renovation plan for Nassau Coliseum

New York Islanders Management Wait for New Arena Voter Referendum Results

While the on-ice future of the New York Islanders seems promising (unless you look at gambling odds), the team is still in limbo when it comes to their arena. Voters shot down a plan for a new arena on August 1, which seemed to curb a last-ditch effort to keep the team in Long Island.

As it turns out, that might not be the last trick locals have up their sleeves, though. Randi F. Marshall of New York Newsday reports that a task force revealed a $345.6 million plan to renovate Nassau Coliseum and its surrounding area (reportedly 77 acres) into a “sports-entertainment complex.” Here’s a quick rundown of what the proposal would entail, according to Marshall’s report.

  • A private developer would spend $100 million to renovate Nassau Coliseum. The goal would be to literally raise the roof of the arena by 25 feet, which could boost the maximum attendance from about 16,000 fans to between 17,000 and 20,000 seats. (This would obviously maximize the profits that the Islanders could generate if they become a bigger draw again.)
  • As far as the surrounding area, the plan would call for a minor league ballpark, a large parking garage, a new indoor rink intended for practices/the public and 70,000 square feet available for other businesses.

Francis Corva – one of the architects who helped put together the proposal – believes that it would be a good move for the area.

“It would be an economic boost for Long Island,” Corva said. “This is vitality being brought to a site which has none at the present time, which is something we will need.”

So far, Newsday reports that government officials are divided (or not commenting) on the issue. Here’s how Islanders owner Charles Wang reacted to the report.

Wang, who has said the Islanders will not play in the current arena after the team’s lease expires in 2015, said, “If somebody comes up with anything definitive, we will obviously look at it. I can tell you one thing very definitively. Oct. 8 the puck drops. And we will have a hell of a season.”

The idea is obviously in its earliest stages, so there’s no telling if it has legs. It would certainly be interesting to dramatically alter Nassau Coliseum to avoid building a new arena altogether, although renovated arenas haven’t always worked out so well for teams in struggling markets.

It might be a while before the proposal gets in front of government and Islanders officials, so we’ll keep an eye on the situation. If nothing else, it’s great to see that locals aren’t giving up on the concept of keeping the team around.

(H/T to Puck Daddy.)

Arguing against publicly funded arenas

New York Islanders Fan Rally With Performance By Blue Oyster Cult

Perhaps this might not be the case for New York Rangers and New Jersey Devils fans,* but most hockey fans probably feel a bit bad for New York Islanders fans right now. A lot can change between now and 2015 – when the team’s lease with the decrepit Nassau Coliseum finally expires – but engineering voting on a low turnout day still couldn’t nab public funding for Charles Wang’s new arena referendum. There have been a variety of escape routes discussed around the Internet, but the outlook appears to be pretty bleak for the Islanders’ chances of staying in Long Island.

That’s a shame, but the lukewarm response indicates that the Islanders aren’t important to enough people. That’s not to say that they are without hardcore fans and people nostalgic for the days of Mike Bossy, Bryan Trottier and Billy Smith. It’s just to say that memories haven’t been enough to gloss over a long span of losing and limited hope for significant change.

That being said, Arctic Ice Hockey makes a strong argument against public funding for arenas even if the Islanders did hold a stronger place in the heart of fans in the region. Let’s take a look at the four-point argument against public funding for arenas.

1. Economic studies show that the impact is minimal

The economic impact of sports teams on an area ranks as one of those arguments that are too complicated for sports writers. That’s why the author points to two studies (here and here) to back up that point. I don’t think many would argue that there is no impact at all, but those studies point to the fact that the benefits probably don’t outweigh the drawbacks in most (if not all) cases.

2. If it was a good investment to increase property value, owners would want to use all their own money.

The second one also rolls into Point 1: if building an arena in an area would make that area flourish so much, they wouldn’t a deep-pocketed businessman (like that team’s owner) want to jump on the opportunity?

3. Subsidies reward poor financial management

The funny thing about publicly funded arenas is that you don’t exactly see those lucky owners giving money back to the taxpayers. Maybe there are plans in which some kickback does take place (and not just based on the hypothetical increase in property values) but when owners don’t have to fork over their own money, one of their biggest costs is taken away. That allows them to continue to make the mistakes that probably got them in that predicament in the first place: spending their money on the wrong players or giving good players too much money.

4. If a team can’t survive in a market, it shouldn’t be there.

One other bitter pill to swallow in that failed referendum on Monday was the tepid turnout (and the fact that it was designed to take advantage of lower voting numbers). If you’re confident that a market couldn’t stand the idea of losing its team, wouldn’t you call on a vote at the busiest time possible?

Nassau Coliseum has been derided for its condition, but the bottom line is that sports fans will sit in uncomfortable seats (often with bad sight lines) if it means they get the chance to root for a good team. Maybe a new arena would help them earn more money from the tickets they sell, but the tenor of the arguments would be about maximizing profits rather than mere survival if the Islanders were a contender.


Ultimately, these arena deals often come down to leverage. Jerry Jones received plenty of help in building his absurd stadium because Arlington wanted to attract the Dallas Cowboys. The Pittsburgh Penguins got Consol Energy built because of Sidney Crosby and their image as a rising team. It would be a shame if the Islanders relocate, but right now, not enough people care to make something happen. That’s the sad bottom line.

* – Unless they’re worried that their teams won’t get to beat up on them anymore.