Star Ledger: Jets/Giants Not Interested In Roof At Any Cost http://www.nj.com/sports/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-1/1185337615294500.xml&coll=1 Report: Roof Way Too Costly NJSEA open to idea, Jets, Giants aren't Wednesday, July 25, 2007 BY MATTHEW FUTTERMAN Star-Ledger Staff The Jets and Giants said yesterday they don't want a roof on their new stadium in the Meadowlands no matter how much it costs. The comments came after the state released a report that showed putting a roof on the $1.2 billion stadium would cost some $421 million. The teams have resisted enclosing their stadium all along, saying it would cost too much money and that they favor the home-field advantage in cold weather, but the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority wanted a formal accounting of the project. Yesterday, Alice McGillion, a spokesman for the Meadowlands stadium venture, said the Jets and Giants are committed to an open-air facility. "The ownership of the teams is not interested in a roof,'' McGillion said. "We had determined that this was not economically feasible." Carl Goldberg, the sports authority's chairman, said the $160,000 report was a worthwhile investment for the state to decide whether it wanted to spend money to enclose the stadium and perhaps try to land the Super Bowl. He said no final decision has been made. "There were a lot of people interested in the economic benefits of a retractable roof," said Goldberg, whose boss, Gov. Jon Corzine, was particularly curious about it. "If the decision is going to be that $421 million is not justifiable from the standpoint of an economic return, then so be it, but that wasn't clear until we had concrete information on the issue." The $421 million pricetag did not include heating or air conditioning the building, which is scheduled to open in 2010.
I said the same thing. The Jets/Giants said months ago that they did not want a roof. There was never any question about this. So what does Corzine's appointee do? He orders a $160,000 "study" to be done. It almost smacks of the state of NJ trying to force the Jets/Giants to pony up for a roof by bring it to the forefront again... that somehow public pressure would bring the Jets/Giants to their senses and foot the bill for a roof. Only thing is, it backfired on them because the price is way heavier than they ever thought it would be. So now, no one can blame the two teams for not wanting any part of it and the taxpayers are not going to stand for the state footing the bill. So let's hope this is the end of it now. No roof on the stadium and that's it.
Good. The only reason I was ever in favor of a dome was when there was still the possibility of the WSS. And only then because it would 1) allow for a Super Bowl in NY, and 2) so that we could generate income in the off-season. Since the WSS is not part of this, there should be no dome. When those candy-ass teal-and-orange jerkoffs come north in December, I want them to know they're in OUR house. You want your sports inside? Go watch basketball.
Exactly. And even with the WSS I was hoping they'd leave the roof open for all Jet games. I guess we won't have to worry about that, the whole area will open for decades to come.
I also think that finally getting the domed-roof issue out of the equation and off the table also considerably diminishes the possibility of PSLs being charged. It gets us back to square one again, with both organizations equally sharing only the basic construction costs while jointly pocketing the revenues. The roof would have single-handedly added one huge financial cost onto the final tab. Now, without the roof to worry about, both teams only have the basic construction costs while the state still has to bring in all the roads, infrastructure, rail facilities, etc., which will be huge expenses with even bigger over-runs in which we will not have to participate. This is a big win for us as ticketholders and attendees. In the unlikely event that both teams still decide to charge PSLs, they'd have a very difficult time explaining the necessity. This virtually eliminates any logical justification for charging PSLs. There is no way in hell that anyone, even non-football fans, would see such a move as anything other than sheer greed. Of course, both organizations can do whatever they want. Hell, they do it now. My ticket costs have escalated at a far higher percentage than the COLA index or any other local, reasonable benchmark of inflation. But what I'm saying is, the public outcry would be intolerable given that they don't have this one, huge expense to use as justification. The whole idea of the joint stadium, and this was right from the very start, was to share expenses and thereby save money in doing so. I therefore think that permanently eliminating the roof is a huge step in the right direction for us ticketholders in terms of possible PSLs.
The purpose of the study was to determine whether it was economically feasible for the state to foot the bill for the roof, or have the three parties split the bill with the state guaranteeing some sort of return on investment for the teams. The state can't force the Jets/Giants to pay for anything. If the state wanted to fully pay for the roof (even if the Jets/Giants didn't want it), they could still force the teams to have it. They could be a thorn in the side of the whole project and use their influence to make the teams accept the roof, as long as the state pays for it. It looks like it will never happen though, but I think the point of the whole study was to determine if the roof was feasible.
I suppose the "economic benefits" that a roof might possibly bring the state (concerts, other indoor events, etc.) justify the expense. I'm just glad it wasn't the two teams that had to foot the bill for the study and that it definitely won't be the two teams that have to foot any part of the bill for any subsequent roof, if that's what the state decides to do. Either way, this all means that the Jet/Giants won't be getting involved in any extra monstrous expenses.
Then you would like to hear how Corzine gave millions in grant money to the hospital that treated him after his accident as a thank you for their great service.
It's so stupid, they could make so much money by having the SB here every 5 years or so plus they'd get Final Fours and other huge events.
I'm not sure it's so stupid. Having received the results of the study, the state of NJ now needs to decide whether an additional investment of $421 Million (on top of what they're already investing in infrastructure, highways, rail head, etc.) will provide an adequate return on investment. And don't forget, with over-runs, the $421 will probably reach $550 Million or so, plus interest. The question is, can an occasional SB, Final Four or Willie Nelson Farm Aid concert generate enough to justify the additional expense? I think they thought it would come in somewhere around or slightly above the $200 Million originally speculated (on the WSS). Now it's more than double, and that estimate will probably climb. For the Jets and the Giants, it's a no brainer now: no roof. If NJ wants it, go for it.
Absolutely it ill be worth ti, we aren't talking 1 SB, we are talking a SB every 4-5 years and probably a FF every 5-6 years or so. That doesn't count theother big events, just those events alone would make it worth it and w/ 2 teams chipping in they should have built a retractable roof to begin w/.
but who wants to be there with no temperature control? and i don't want them closing the roof on gamedays when it rains or snows, that ruins the whole game environment
Don't forget, there are plenty of events and concerts in Giants Stadium now, without a roof. So, the economic question really becomes: "How long does it take to recoup an investment of $600 Million ($421 Million plus another, say, $180 Million for Climate Control and climate control ongoing expenses) by selling possible future SBs, FFs and any other events and concerts that can't be hosted without the roof."
I know I am in the minority, but I am in favor of a roof. The cost seems completely outrageous to me (they just built a brand new arena for the Devils in Newark for about $350M), but I am in favor of it if the parties can work it out. I personally don't like games where the weather plays a part in who wins or loses. To me, it's put your best 11 on the field and duke it out in fair conditions. Weather conditions not only affect the visiting team, they affect the home team as well. You can talk all you want about Miami coming here in December and the weather conditions playing a factor for them, but I would say that 90 - 95% of the players on the Miami squad have played in bad weather conditions before either in college or on another NFL team. Poor weather conditions makes teams more equal regardless of talent on those teams. I for one think we are one of the better teams in the league (and will be for the next few years) and the weather conditions might hurt us mroe than our competition.
