Giants, Jets: Retractable roof could kill deal NEWARK, N.J. (AP) -- The owners of the New York Giants and New York Jets say they will kill an agreement with the state for a new Meadowlands stadium if they are forced to pay for a retractable roof. Their comments come less than a week after Gov. Jon S. Corzine said he wanted to review the agreement, expressing concerns about the financial terms of the deal, brokered by his predecessor, and about whether building a stadium without a roof limits its use. Giants co-owner and chief executive John Mara and Jets owner Woody Johnson made the rounds at New Jersey newspaper editorial boards Friday. They said they disagree with state officials who say a roof would boost profits and aid in attracting events like the Super Bowl or major political conventions. "I will walk away from this project rather than put a roof on it," Mara told The Star-Ledger of Newark for Saturday's newspapers. Alice McGillion, a spokeswoman for New Meadowlands Stadium Corp., a company that represents the team owners, said they were not available to comment on Saturday. In a memorandum of understanding signed last September, the Giants and Jets agreed to jointly finance a $1 billion stadium at the Meadowlands Sports Complex in East Rutherford. The stadium is expected to open for the 2010 season and seat about 81,000. But the governor said he is reviewing the financial terms of the deal made by his predecessor. He'd like to the stadium to generate extra revenue through uses other than football. "I'd love to see this be useful 365 days a year," Corzine said. Corzine spokesman Anthony Coley declined to comment Saturday on the team owners' statements, but said the state treasurer is still reviewing the deal. The potential cost of the retractable roof hasn't yet been established. Mara told The Star-Ledger that the cost would be about $300 million, while Carl Goldberg, chairman of New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority board, estimated less, between $175 million and $200 million. Andrew Zimbalist, a sports economics professor at Smith College, estimated about $200 million. He said the additional use of a domed stadium would be closer to 50 days during the year, and that's not enough to justify state support. "The Super Bowl once every 20 or 30 years, the Final Four with roughly a similar frequency, and the occasional rock concert would hardly generate enough additional demand and output to justify a substantial public investment in a retractable dome," Zimbalist said. "In my view, the dome would only work if the teams put up the lion's share of financing." A retractable roof could bring economic benefits to the state, said George Zoffinger, chief executive of the New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority, or NJSEA, which operates the Meadowlands Sports Complex. He said he was surprised with the teams' response that the roof could potentially kill the deal. "It's obviously disappointing, but we're going to have to see what the benefits are and maybe try to convince them," he said. He has said public money should be limited in the stadium deal. "Everyone wants a new stadium," Zoffinger said. "We want to work toward that goal and we're 90 percent there and we ought to finish it. We're going to work hard to try to do that." Carl Goldberg, NJSEA chairman, said he hasn't yet formed an opinion if the state should chip into the potential cost of a retractable roof. He said if the roof could generate uses like the Super Bowl or NCAA Final Four games, "then you may be able to rationalize an economic equation that suggests that the additional costs are easily amortized by the additional economic activity." Another potential sticking point of the deal concerns property taxes for East Rutherford, the borough where the stadium is located. Mayor James Cassella wants the teams to pay property taxes on new development the teams are proposing to build around the stadium _ about 520,000 square feet for restaurants, entertainment and retail space. Under the agreement, the teams would pay a flat $1.3 million annual fee, which is based on the amount currently paid by the sports authority. Cassella argues teams should pay more. He says the borough is considering legal action to resolve the property tax issue. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/nfl/03/11/bc.fbn.giantsjetsstadiu.ap/index.html
The Jets and Giants have the upper hand here. They are staying in NJ on their terms. Even the comments by both parties reflect that.
It is done. NJ is trying to change the deal. Fortunately, the deal will hold. It is good for NJ and for the two teams. It will all fall into place in a month or two when Corzine realizes he has no bargaining leverage. NJ will not jeopardize losing the stadium and these two teams over a few million dollars in taxes. Sorry LI and Queens residents, but the Jets are staying home in NJ.
if we have learned anything throughout this...nothing is etched in stone. i will believe it when i start seing construction. not that great of a deal for NJ either in my opinion. so what, they get a new stadium with no added benefit. time for Queens to come swooping in.
they both have they heads to far up their asses to do anything. They'll sit back and enjoy the states new found team the buffalo bills. Who are really the only New York team and have been for 20 years.
