Not particularly. Yes, it's going to be a new stadium, but it's replacing Giants Stadium, and I think it's going to have the same feel. I'd much prefer the Jets have their own facility. -X-
This is also silly. So a stadium that the Jets are paying for 50/50 and helping to design the look and feel of the thing, not to mention the stadium having different lighting and other features depending which team is playing, will have the same feel of a stadium that was built specifically for the Giants? This stadium will not have anything that will make either team feel like they are the superior owners.
A shared house is a shared house. The point of my post was to draw attention to the absurdity of all that posturing Jay Cross did about "The Jets belong in New York" and "The Jets deserve their own stadium," and precisely how quickly they abandoned all that when their real estate grab fell through. It was an insult to the intelligence of the fan base. Call me silly, but I have a feeling that whatever corporate entity sponsors this, it's going to be referred to as "the new Giants Stadium." -X-
I think the point he was making was that fans will refer to it that way. Not that it would be the official name.
Maybe at first, but who really cares. I'll call it by the name that's on the side of the stadium. If Giants' fans want to call it the "new Giants stadium", then let them, because that just shows their ignorance and them wanting to try to feel superior to the Jets. If Jets' fans want to call it the "new Giants stadium", then that also shows their ignorance.
I'll probably call it "the stadium" because calling it "Morgan Stanley - Citibank - JP Morgan Chase pro Park in NJ" or whatever it ends up being will just be too much work for me.
Joe Willie, I didn't say "new stadium" - I said "current situation" meaning Giants Stadium. You know, where we play now?
Oh. As opposed to Shea when the Jets were prime tenants. Or did you forget that the Mets were prime tenants in Shea and the Jets were treated like squatters. Through the 60's and 70's it was no Jet home games until baseball season ended, no grass on the infield until November, no revenues from parking or concessions ever, 50% of seats in the end zone, one of the smallest stadiums for football in the NFL, etc. Other than that, the Jets were treated like royalty at Shea.
If the Jets put an elite team on the field I would be happy watching them play on a lawn chair in Central park. It ain't the place, it's the team.
Joe Willie is correct across the board. The Jets were treated like sh-t by NY since the very beginning. Always second fiddle. Always the stepchild. Always the tenant even though they were the "New York" team and played in "New York." But New Yorkers were unwilling to honor the Jets with anything but a lease and a back seat to the Mets, and Hess got fed up with it and came to NJ. Now NYers are lamenting and whining about losing them and actually have the balls to belittle a stadium their "beloved NY team" is about to become 50% partners in? For the first time in the history of this "New York" franchise, they can actually own something and you're crying over this now? Do you guys know how unbelievably childish, uninformed and idiotic this stance appears to the rest of the world?
True. Every time I sit in Giants Stadium I never give it a second thought. I'm there to watch the Jets and I could care less if the seats are pink and purple. Anyone who thinks sitting in blue seats at Giants stadium deters from rooting for the team and detracts from the thrill of watching it has never been to a real game at the stadium. It's simply not an issue when the ball is kicked off.
Well while I agree with ur post the NYGs also played in NY until they moved to the M/lands so at one time BOTH NY FB teams played in NY
