Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: The NJSEA Gives The Jets A Rent Reduction

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    6,975

    Arrow The NJSEA Gives The Jets A Rent Reduction

    And a plan B

    JETS NEAR PLAN B TO PLAY IN JERSEY

    By TOM TOPOUSIS

    May 19, 2005 -- While the Jets battle for a West Side stadium, team officials are close to signing a backup plan to play in a new stadium in New Jersey until 2018, sources familiar with the talks said last night.
    The pending deal, expected to be signed tomorrow, would slash the team's $7 million rent for its current Meadowlands location by one-third.

    It also would give the Jets the option to move to Manhattan at any time during their lease if and when a West Side stadium is built.

    "Number one, this effectively kills Queens as a stadium site," said one source.

    "Number two, if Shelly and Bruno wait 'til after New York is picked for the 2012 Olympics, there is no guarantee the Jets will pay all that money to build a stadium."

    Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno have said they want to hold off on approvals for a stadium until after the International Olympic Committee votes July 6 to pick a host city for the 2012 Games.

    The Jets have offered to cough up $1.4 billion as the team's share of a West Side Stadium.

    Bruno blocked this week's scheduled vote on the stadium by the Public Authorities Control Board.

    Gov. Pataki has rescheduled the vote for next week, but it will likely be postponed once again by Silver.

    The vote of the board, made up of Pataki, Bruno and Silver, is the last government hurdle in the team's four-year effort to build a $1.925 billion stadium over the MTA's West Side rail yards.

    Opponents of a West Side stadium have argued the city should instead build a football stadium at Willets Point in Queens, just east of Shea Stadium. That proposed stadium has also been touted as a site for the 2012 Olympics.


    "The Jets still want to be in New York and will work to be in New York, but this gives them a very viable plan B and it's not in Queens," said the source
    Last edited by 2009fatman; 05-19-2005 at 04:19 AM.

  2. #2
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    722
    Star Ledger

    More on Plan B...Come on NYS get Plan A done.....

    Jets near new lease at Giants Stadium
    10-year extension looms as West Side talks falter
    Thursday, May 19, 2005
    BY MATTHEW FUTTERMAN
    Star-Ledger Staff
    With hopes dimming for their $2 billion dream stadium in Manhattan, the Jets are closing in on a 10-year extension to the team's lease at Giants Stadium, state officials said yesterday.

    The new lease would firm up the Jets' right to remain in Giants Stadium until 2018, providing the team with a serious backup plan if its proposed West Side stadium project falls through. It also gives the team major leverage in upcoming talks with the Giants, who need the Jets' approval to build a $750 million stadium in the Meadowlands next to the existing one.

    Advertisement






    Carl Goldberg, chairman of the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority, the state agency that operates the Meadowlands, said the state viewed the lease extension as an olive branch to the Jets that would make it as easy as possible for the franchise to stay in New Jersey if it cannot reach a deal to build a stadium in New York.

    "We want them to stay in the sports complex," Goldberg said yesterday. "We thought this was a way to make them as comfortable as possible with playing in the current building or in the new Meadowlands football stadium."

    The Jets and the sports authority have been fighting a rent dispute in court for the past year. The new lease, which will reduce the Jets' rent to 10 percent of gross ticket sales from 15 percent and give the team the right to break the agreement if the franchise can build a stadium elsewhere, has virtually no downside for the Jets.

    It even raises the possibility that the team could ask to take over the existing Giants Stadium in return for giving the Giants permission to build their new facility. As a result, the sports complex could become home to two NFL stadiums.

    Three officials with knowledge of the negotiations said talks between the Jets and the sports authority heated up during the past two weeks as it became clear the Jets' proposed $2 billion stadium on Manhattan's West Side was running into a major roadblock. The stadium in New York would also be used as an Olympic stadium if New York lands the 2012 Summer Games.

    Late Tuesday, New York Gov. George Pataki called off a vote by the little-known Public Authorities Control Board because the panel was prepared to kill the project by rejecting some $300 million in state subsidies.

    The panel may take up the matter next month. But if the stadium does not win approval before July, when the International Olympic Committee is set to vote on the site for the 2012 Olympics, support for the project is expected to wither.

    And so all roads for the Jets may lead back to Giants Stadium, the team's home since 1984.

    Matt Higgins, a spokesman for the Jets, said despite the likely extension of the lease, the team "remains dead set on coming back to New York."

    George Zoffinger, the sports authority's chief executive, who is handling the talks and has been in direct daily contact with Jets Chief Executive Jay Cross, declined comment on details of the ongoing discussions.

    "I'm very optimistic we're going to continue having a good relationship with the Jets, and hopefully that will result with their continuing to play here," Zoffinger said.

    A two-stadium plan for the Meadowlands would likely face major obstacles -- first and foremost the Giants, who signed a deal with the state last month to build a new stadium on 75 acres at the sports complex. That deal called for the demolition of their current home once the team finishes the new one.

    John Mara, the Giants' chief executive, said yesterday two stadiums simply could not fit at the sports complex.

    "If we go ahead with the new building, the plan is to take the old one down," Mara said. "We need the space for parking and the ancillary facilities like our offices and a training facility."

    Acting Gov. Richard Codey, the driving force behind the deal with the Giants, echoed those sentiments, saying he would oppose a two-stadium plan.

    "I just don't see how you do it with the parking needs," Codey said. "The current stadium sits on about 30 acres. That's a lot of parking spaces."

    For the Jets, there are several motivating factors to stay in their current home in the Meadowlands. The first is the lease, which already included an option to remain in Giants Stadium until 2018. The extension being negotiated would prohibit the Giants from tearing down the existing 29-year-old stadium without reaching an accommodation with the Jets' owners.

    The second factor is money, and the Jets would make plenty more of it if the team essentially "bought" Giants Stadium by agreeing to pay the remaining debt -- some $120 million, or about $1 billion less than the team is currently prepared to spend on its stadium in New York.

    Right now, Giants Stadium makes about $20 million a year. If the Giants move, the revenue would fall by about $5 million. But industry experts say the Jets would likely be able to make up for that loss if the team controlled every penny spent in the building on hot dogs, tickets and signs, plus 118 luxury suites, which it could package with advertising deals.

    The state stands to save roughly $100 million if the Jets agree to "buy" Giants Stadium by taking over the remaining debt payments while keeping the revenue. Zoffinger and other politicians have criticized the deal with the Giants because it saddles taxpayers with those debt payments. The problem is that once the new stadium is built and the old one is demolished, there will be no revenue to cover the payments on the old stadium.

    Goldberg, however, said he would work to try to bring the Giants and Jets together on the new stadium project.

    "The Jets do obviously have the right to stay in the building," he said. "But I think two NFL stadiums next to each other is a bit redundant. It's more reasonable to try to work with the NFL and find a way to settle any dispute that might arise between the teams."

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    6,975
    I have to give credit to the NJSEA for giving this win win extention to the Jets. Although I'm sure the lawsuit had something to do with it, It still helps the Jets in knocking down the Queens location. Jets can now move to Manhattan whenever they want and cuts their rent to be equal with the Giants.
    Last edited by 2009fatman; 05-19-2005 at 07:43 AM.

  4. #4
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530

    Obvious money quote of the year

    "Goldberg, however, said he would work to try to bring the Giants and Jets together on the new stadium project."

    As good an idea as the West Side may be, it's silly and wasteful to build 2 75,000-seat football stadiums 8 miles and 1 tunnel apart.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Founding JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    10,198
    This was very smart on NJ & the JETS part now the JETS have some leverage back ,I just wish they`d stop calling it GIANT stadium especially when speeking about the new facility ,cause i`ll tell you right now thats a deal breaker WOODY`s never agreeing to giant stadium and there better be a plan to include 3 sets of locker rooms if the JETS & GIANTS join forces in one facility again 1 for both home teams + the visiting team...This is the 2nd best option if manhatten falls through

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    6,975
    It won't be called Giants stadium no matter what happens. The Giants have said they are selling the naming rights to the highest bidder.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida, United States
    Posts
    12,867

    Cool

    The NEW YORK JETS belong in NEW YORK, on the WS, not in GIANTS STADIUM as second class citizens forever! We have been destiny's step-child since the JETS were born. ENOUGH is ENOUGH!

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,777
    Why is this a better option than Queens? It has become very obvious that one of two things are at play:

    1) They were after Manhattan only (and didn't give a damn about moving back to NY)

    2) They didn't look at other options (they assumed this would be a slam dunk).

    I have said it before and I will say it again: If they stay in Jersey, Cross should be fired.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    6,975
    The Jets will be on the west side, all this extention does is help the Jets with their leverage with the state, cuts their rent to that of the Giants, and more importantly lets them leave whenever they want. I'm sure the Jets were on the verg of winning their lawsuit against the NJSEA for NJ to give up so much to the Jets. The Giants cant build their stadium now without the approval of the Jets.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Founding JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    10,198
    because Queens doesn`t want them either & NJ does thats why NJ is a better option (B) queens has been fighting this since LEON wanted to build a stadium there...

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    6,975
    Meadowlands-WABC, May 19, 2005) The Jets reportedly are close to signing a new ten year lease at Giants Stadium. It's the latest sign that the team's dream of a new West Side Stadium is in serious trouble.


    Eyewitness News reporter Lisa Colagrossi is live at the Meadowlands at more.

    Governor Pataki's battle to build a West Side Stadium comes down to a critical vote. Now rescheduled for May 25th.

    The Jets two billion dollar dream stadium depended on a vote yesterday by the State Public Authorities control board. A vote that never came. The governor rescheduled, backing down in the face of a solid "wait-and-see" attitude from Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno.

    Both men said they weren't ready to commit $300 million taxpayer dollars to a Jets stadium.

    The two legislators want more briefings over the next week leading up to Wednesday's vote.

    A new lease with the Sports Authority in New Jersey would firm up the Jets current right to remain in Giants Stadium until 2018.

    The Jets say they're still dead-set on coming back to New York. But a new deal on Giants Stadium could be a real money maker.

    If the Giants build a new stadium,the Jets could buy the old stadium for about $120 million dollars.

    That's a billion dollars less than what the Jets might spend building a new stadium of their own on the West Side.

  12. #12
    NJ is playing this very smart here. By doing this they are making certain the Jets plan on staying in NJ if the WSS gets blown up, it has little to do with law suits. Extend an olive branch to the Jets and get the 120 million back that they are owed on Giants stadium, if the Jets chose to purchase it, is pretty slick any way you cut it. It also keeps the Jets hopes alive in Manhattan(since apparently everyone desperate for the Jets in NY will only consider that spot) giving an out to everyone when they lose the Olympics to still be working on cutting a deal for 2016 or more likely 2020. Being that the Giants need the Jets permission to build their new stadium, it also becomes a much easier negotiation when the Jets say you dont knock down the stadium for parking we let you do what you want. And Im sure they could come up with some deal to figure out a parking situation if they are desperate for more spots.

  13. #13
    All League
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    3,320
    Quote Originally Posted by newjakecity
    Why is this a better option than Queens? It has become very obvious that one of two things are at play:

    1) They were after Manhattan only (and didn't give a damn about moving back to NY)

    2) They didn't look at other options (they assumed this would be a slam dunk).

    I have said it before and I will say it again: If they stay in Jersey, Cross should be fired.

    Excellent post. This is awful news for the Jets. Woody should've had backup plans for Queens and Nassau before ever considering a return to **** Stadium in the Meadowlands.

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,534
    Quote Originally Posted by Toooon
    Excellent post. This is awful news for the Jets. Woody should've had backup plans for Queens and Nassau before ever considering a return to **** Stadium in the Meadowlands.
    Spoken by someone who doesn't understand politics. As long as queens was a theoretical option and jersey was an unlikely third choice, stadium opponents could legitimately compare the cost of building in manhattan v. the cost of building in queens and ask whether the added cost to the state was more than offset by the added revenue to the state from having the stadium in manhattan. (I.e. whether the state would profit MORE by having the stadium in queens). Now, the only question is whether the revenue from the stadium outweighs the cost (i.e. whether the state will profit AT ALL from having a stadium in manhattan).
    In other words, with queens as an option you could vote against the WSS and still claim that you weren't voting to keep the stadium in NJ and out of NY, because you would support a queens stadium. With the Jets' new deal with NJSEA, that's no longer a defensible claim. A vote against the WSS is now a vote to keep the jets in NJ, with all that means for the state's financials.
    Now, I don't know whether a stadium in manhattan DOES make financial sense for the city and state - I'm no economist - but that's now the only question that matters (or should). That wasn't the case before this deal.

  15. #15
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,637
    Quote Originally Posted by 2009fatman
    I have to give credit to the NJSEA for giving this win win extention to the Jets. Although I'm sure the lawsuit had something to do with it, It still helps the Jets in knocking down the Queens location. Jets can now move to Manhattan whenever they want and cuts their rent to be equal with the Giants.
    They can also leave NJ at any time without breaking the lease. Woody Johnson wants to make the Jets a world franchise like the NY Yankees or Manchester United, playing in one of the greatest stadiums in the world in one of the great cities of the world.

    He won't move to Queens or be a co-tenant with the Giants in any stadium.

    He could also leave for Los Angeles for the 2006 season while his new stadium was being built without breaking his new lease.

    I believe it will come down to a Westside Stadium or a Los Angeles Stadium. The NFL meets next week to finalize and award one of four groups in Los Angeles who want to buld the new NFL Stadium. The NFL will pay for the Stadium with the new franchise repaying the NFL for the cost of the new stadium when they begin play in 2009. The team that moves can play for a few years at one of the local stadiums like the Titans did in Tennessee.

    Here's the favorite:

    http://football.ballparks.com/NCAA/P...C/newindex.htm

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,534
    Quote Originally Posted by rajensen088
    They can also leave NJ at any time without breaking the lease. Woody Johnson wants to make the Jets a world franchise like the NY Yankees or Manchester United, playing in one of the greatest stadiums in the world in one of the great cities of the world.

    He won't move to Queens or be a co-tenant with the Giants in any stadium.

    He could also leave for Los Angeles for the 2006 season while his new stadium was being built without breaking his new lease.

    I believe it will come down to a Westside Stadium or a Los Angeles Stadium. The NFL meets next week to finalize and award one of four groups in Los Angeles who want to buld the new NFL Stadium. The NFL will pay for the Stadium with the new franchise repaying the NFL for the cost of the new stadium when they begin play in 2009. The team that moves can play for a few years at one of the local stadiums like the Titans did in Tennessee.

    Here's the favorite:

    http://football.ballparks.com/NCAA/P...C/newindex.htm
    Jets will not move to LA. They are far too tied into NY, and too well supported by their fan base here

  17. #17
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Huntington, NY
    Posts
    8,704
    Quote Originally Posted by rajensen088

    I believe it will come down to a Westside Stadium or a Los Angeles Stadium. [/url]
    Then you should get your head out of your a$$.

  18. #18
    Board Moderator
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,751
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it
    Now, the only question is whether the revenue from the stadium outweighs the cost (i.e. whether the state will profit AT ALL from having a stadium in manhattan).
    In other words, with queens as an option you could vote against the WSS and still claim that you weren't voting to keep the stadium in NJ and out of NY, because you would support a queens stadium. With the Jets' new deal with NJSEA, that's no longer a defensible claim. A vote against the WSS is now a vote to keep the jets in NJ, with all that means for the state's financials.
    that's true, but it also comes at a cost for woody - 2 come to mind off the top of my head:
    - he's now established that even his 'firm' statements are not firm at all - he said he would never be a 'renter' again, this shows that renting is his second preference.
    - the plain fact of the matter is that he may have been better off in queens than as a co-tenant in NJ. that's a real possibility- if not immediately, certainly long term. now he won't have that option.

  19. #19
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    722
    Quote Originally Posted by isired
    that's true, but it also comes at a cost for woody - 2 come to mind off the top of my head:
    - he's now established that even his 'firm' statements are not firm at all - he said he would never be a 'renter' again, this shows that renting is his second preference.
    - the plain fact of the matter is that he may have been better off in queens than as a co-tenant in NJ. that's a real possibility- if not immediately, certainly long term. now he won't have that option.
    I think this could also be a ploy so NY politicians think it's only Manhattan or NJ. There is a supposedly a out clause in the NJSE proposed lease extension that would let the Jets leave if they built a stadium somewhere else. This keeps the Queens option alive in theory.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    13,518
    Quote Originally Posted by isired
    that's true, but it also comes at a cost for woody - 2 come to mind off the top of my head:
    - he's now established that even his 'firm' statements are not firm at all - he said he would never be a 'renter' again, this shows that renting is his second preference.
    - the plain fact of the matter is that he may have been better off in queens than as a co-tenant in NJ. that's a real possibility- if not immediately, certainly long term. now he won't have that option.

    But the new deal with NJ is that the Jets have the option to buy Giants Stadium. Therefore giving them the opportunity to not be a renter even if the WSS doesn't go through.

    Personally, I'd prefer a stadium in Queens, but with all they've invested in the WSS, and leaving Queens open as an option gives opponents ammunition.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us