Isles have big-money cable deal with MSG that runs at least another decade, so they'll have a hard time hiding things.

There's no question that if there's no new arena, the Isles are gone by 2015, if not earlier. No Isles, no Coliseum -- and no major league sports team ever comes back. Some people will regard that as a tragedy; others won't care. If the bond issue is rejected, the Coliseum will be a parking lot in a few years, and there will never be a major arena or facility in Nassau County again.

Neil's point about people using the money they'd spend on Isles tix/goodies is interesting in this case. Not sure about the $$ spent on hockey, but the concerts, family shows, etc. would disappear -- and likely go somewhere else. For example, Justin Bieber fans would go to Brooklyn or MSG, not just spend the money on something else.

I live in Nassau and will vote yes. Interesting to see how it turns out.

There's another aspect of this that is difficult to measure, but I think it's significant. All great areas have great public spaces. It could be a great urban space, like Central Park or the area near the Eiffel Tower. Or it could be something in suburbia that's not a mall; think of the Reston Town Center outside Washington. Beyond Jones Beach, Long Island has nothing like that. Now, try to estimate the value of a developing great public space that could include Nassau Community College; Museum Row; the new minor league baseball field; the Mitchell Field athletic stadium; a new Coliseum; and Hofstra University, in sort of a half-circle/crescent. But take out the Coliseum and stick in a private development. It's got apartments, maybe an office building, whatever, and it throws off money to the county. It's easily measured. But the economic value of a great public space disappears. I think this is lost in the discussion, because it's so hard to measure. But I think it matters. You don't find that in too many of these debates over stadiums, but on this one, I think it's a factor.

Neil;

I'm not sure what you mean by "internet" in the 11.5% of revenues calculation?

If that is intended to cover 'digital media', then I doubt the county will see any revenue from that. The NHL's new deal with NBC cedes all digital media rights to the network, I'm told.

Don: If Wang continues to own the team, I would agree that the Isles will move absent a completely new arena. The league would like to keep the Islanders in their present geographic area, though, so I wouldn't necessarily conclude that it's a done deal if this (or any other) arena plan isn't approved. Wang may simply choose to sell, as you said earlier. In that case, I would expect the new owners would look at all options (and may find dealing with the County easier than Wang has, or even work a reasonable deal with Ratner etc).

Wang could easily have done the deal that Prokhorov did with Ratner. If he wasn't doing his 'white whale' routine, CW could be preparing to move his moribund franchise even closer to the money & population centres of greater NY. Instead he continues tilting at windmills (or lighthouses).

Even an average deal with Ratner would likely be more profitable for him than a decent to good deal in Hempstead. Even if all he wants to do is sell the club, moving to Brooklyn is still his best option (sorry to those of you who live in Nassau county, but it's true).

He's missed the boat here, big time. Anyone think he'll get as much for the franchise in KC as he would in Brooklyn? I don't...

The writer of this blog should really check do better research before posting something containing more inaccuracies than truths.

For starters, there has only and always been one expense attributed to the cost of construction of a new Coliseum: $350 million. In fact, the New York Islanders are responsible for any cost overages per a contract they signed with Nassau County. The $400 million figure also includes $26 million for a minor league ballpark at Mitchel Field and $24 million to make other improvements to the immediate area.

Secondly, the revenue-sharing deal between Nassau County and the Islanders is one of the best such deals of any hockey franchise in the nation, experts say. The deal gives the County 11 ½ percent of the gross of every dollar spent at the new arena, plus extra sales, hotel and entertainment tax the new arena would generate.

Both Camoin Associates - a nationally recognized, independent economic research firm, and the sports/new stadium negotiator who structured the deal - estimate that Nassau County taxpayers will receive a profit of over $2 million annually once the arena is operation. These dollars grow with inflation and amount to $403 million in profits over 30 years. Revenues will clearly exceed the $58 a year cost, pay for the full costs of construction and provide this $403 million in profits to help hold the line on property taxes.

Both Camoin’s projections and the County’s deal with the Islanders, are transparent and available online for public inspection.

Whatsmore, the deal makes Islander’s owner Charles Wang the “leasee” of the 77 acres. It does NOT give him the development rights to the rest of it. The rights are maintained by the County so that taxpayers may further profit. County Executive Mangano has said that RFPs will be issued so that the remainder of the property may be developed, based on the recommendations of an advisory committee he created.

Again, contrary to the uninformed and misled belief of the writer of this blog, the County does not make money from the existing Nassau Coliseum, because it costs so much to maintain the 38-year-old building – the oldest un-renovated NHL arena in the nation.

The Islanders will become the operators of the new Coliseum, but Nassau County taxpayers will own the arena and the minor league ballpark which Mangano seeks to build nearby. The ballpark operator will also be required to share revenue with the County.

In other words, both the Islanders and ballpark operator will be paying for the new Coliseum through a generous revenue-sharing plans that contain a minimum payment that accounts for most of the debt service on the construction bond.

The "substitution effect" has less of a role here than might be seen in other locations. The Nassau Coliseum is one of the only attractions to draw customers from other parts of the New York region -- Queens and Suffolk primarily -- into Nassau county, and a good percentage of the building's attendance does come from those other areas. That's aside from the absurdity of comparing movie tickets ($10 to $15, or so) to concert tickets($30 to $250). Even your example is unintentionally funny. If that couple from Ronkonkoma did buy those movie tickets, Nassau county would see not a penny, since Ronkonkoma is in Suffolk.

Suffolk County has movie theaters now? They really are coming up in the world!

As for Nassau County owning the building, that's actually a negative so long as the Islanders own all the revenue streams (less 11.5%). I do agree, though, that this is a better lease deal than most, since the team would actually pay rent — whether it's actually a *good* lease deal is a closer call.

Because Nassau is small (geographically), a lot of the Coliseum revenue does come from non-county residents (the Isles market themselves as Long Island's team, not Nassau's team). If they leave, that money will indeed stay/go somewhere else.

Gary Bettman has already said publicly that Isles won't stay in an unrenovated Coliseum one minute more than they legally have to. If the voters say no on Aug.1, the Isles are a dead team walking (skating?) the next day.

Wang has correctly diagnosed that he needs to control the building, not just be a tenant. He actually did get a lot more control (check out islandersentertainment.com, the result of a gift from outgoing county exec Tom Suozzi). It's why he doesn't want to move to Brooklyn and be a tenant.

The only thing (aside from the lease, which could be bought out) that has kept the Isles at the Coliseum is the TV deal with MSG, which is one of the most lucrative in the NHL. I'm not sure that a market like Kansas City, Quebec or anywhere else could generate enough $$, even with a fabulous lease, to overcome the disparity in TV money. Wang may look for another solution in the local area, but aside from Brooklyn, he's not likely to find one, since neither Suffolk nor Queens show any signs of building an arena.

How come every time we talk about the Islanders, there's always one or two schmucks who continually fail to realize that Brooklyn closed the door on the Islanders when they abandoned the Gehry design for the Barclays Center?

Brooklyn will be getting a pretty new arena, sure, but it won't configure properly for ice hockey (think Key Arena in Seattle, US Airways Center in Phoenix, etc.).

I think one of the most revealing things about this deal, is the lack of strong opposition to it. A little bit from the Democrats, and even less from the Review Board and the Town of Hempstead NIMBY's. Even Neil is not as opposed to it as he was against certain projects (Yankee Stadium, Atlantic Yards, etc). Which tells me, that this plan is reasonable to all major parties involved (Charles Wang, the County, and the Town of Hempstead), and for that reason, stands an excellent chance of not only passing when the vote comes up, but actually being completed. One factor that also works in its favor is this: There are very few new projects that cost $100m or more that are being started up (I mean shovels in the ground between now and January 2013 (After Election Day, and the Holiday Season)). It does not matter if it is Goverment, private industry or both, it just isn't happening. You can argue if it is related to politics, economics, and/or timing, and what and/or who is to blame, but it is what it is, stuff is not being built. In the sports realm, right now, you have the Penn State Ice Hockey Arena & the Haymarket Arena in Nebraska, projected to start Construction between now and 2013, and that is it. The lack of jobs (Construction and others) issue is huge, and that will be the issue (Coupled with the lack of opposition), that quite likely gets this project completed.

As a Suffolk resident, the only time I spend money in Nassau county is when I go to Islanders games. That also includes restaurants, etc. No more Islanders, no more of my $$$ in Nassau.

Looks like Nassau County execs found this website. Rest assured that with this deal, the County will end up paying. If they want the arena, let the Isles pay for it themselves!!!

Most of the home owners here in Nassau don't waste their time posting on msg boards and instead will show their opposition to this proposal by voting NO on August 1st.
The majority of the people I've talked with are adverse to any otherwise avoidable tax increases and the assumption of such a large debt in this bad economy.
If Mr. wang wants a new arena so badly let him lease the property from Nassau and build it himself, we'll be happy to just collect the rent and taxes from him.

My neighbors and I are all voting No on August 1st.

I do not live in Nassau County, I am just a fan. I became a fan of the Islanders in 1977. My parent�s family lives in Nassau so we would visit and catch a game 3 to 5 times a season. Currently I live in Jersey and I take my kids to about the same spending around $300-$400 a trip. I pay around 15k a year in taxes so I feel your pain in LI. However I get being against school administrators making 200+K a year because that money invested is gone. This tax would be different. I have read the proposal all 46 pages and I think it�s fair. This deal is unprecedented in sports and the county residents need to be properly informed and stop believing what articles say about it and read it for themselves. We are all smart enough no? If you find fault that is legit than scream it from the top of the hills.

@Tony I have to say you must not have been paying attention the last 10 years. If Wang leased the land and built his own building guess who would technically own the building according to NYS leasing laws? You guessed it NYS.

My aunts, uncles, and cousins are all voting yes not because they are Islanders fans but they understand the consequences.

I too have read the lease terms extensively and while compared to some other taxpayer supported sports complex buildings ..it still stinks.
Darn near every taxpayer subsidized sporting venue has god awful terms and taxpayers have historically been srewed royally..this deal is no different (with fantasy projections of attendance and revenues that in no way shape or form compare to reality). There is absolutely NO valid reason Nassau taxpayers have to become owners in a sports facility in a time of economic hardships. We currently own the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum and time has shown us that taxpayer ownership does NOT work. Our County ..one of if not the HIGHEST taxed counties in America is currently dealing with a budget deficient. One so large that NIFA had had to step in and assume oversight over all of Nassau Counties finances.
Hey that's nice that you and your pals come and blow that kind of money when you come and visit to attend games of such a crappy 3rd rate team (pardon my cynicism but your post sounds like some shill for Mr. Wang or Mangano) but you and your pals would be the exception.. most of the 11,000 or so people who regularly attend the games are locals.
I'm sure with State legislative approval Mr. Wang could assume a long term lease on either the building or the immediate parcel said building sits on and either renovate or rebuild a new facility on his own dime.
Again I will reiterate that most of the well informed people I know are going to vote NO come April 1st.

The Islanders have been here for 39 years and I've been a fan since 1975. Nassau County has been a politcal nightmare since before I was born and I too hate the high taxes and the idea of paying more to finance this. But having a team with as much history as the Islanders (the reason they've been a crappy 3rd rate team is no good players want to come here ... see Pittsburgh Penguins before they got funding for their areana) would be a crime. It's great to be able to drive 15 minutes to see a professional sporting event and be home by 10:15PM. Try doing that for a Jets/Giants game or Yankees/Mets game.

If you're not a sports fan, don;t have kids who like the circus or tweens who want to see the Jonas Bros, you'll vote NO. I'm voting yes.

BTW - how was Jones Beach Theatre funded?

Tony S: Wang is not going to build this himself. You add nothing to the conversation by advocating an outcome that is not going to occur. So to add a more constructive voice to the conversation, I think you need to say what you think should be done with the property after April 2015, when the Islanders will depart. There would be no money for renovation and there would be no major tenant. You are clearly opposed to the county spending any money on the site, and clearly, there isn't anything the county can spend money on there that would bring back more revenue than the Coliseum....unless the whole thing is just turned over to the private sector, and gets developed as apartments, strip mall, office building, etc. In short, eliminating the public space envisioned in the idea for the Hub. So I'm going to ask you, as I've also asked all opponents: what are you in favor of? Don't say Wang paying for it all by himself; it won't happen. So what are you in favor of after the Islanders leave and the Coliseum is torn down? Let's hear it; we're all a little bit sick of people who are very vocal about what they're opposed to, but aren't real big on saying what they're for.

John Kingston: You have asked the correct question -- what happens when the Isles leave? The building is a dump now (to be fair, it's actually less of a dump than it was under the previous owners). No approval of the bonds for the arena, no Islanders; if the proposal fails, they're gone ASAP (maybe as soon as next year).

And Tony, Wang offered to build the arena himself as part of the Lighthouse Project. Wouldn't have cost you (or me, a Nassau homeowner) a dime. Ask Kate Murray (Town of Hempstead supervisor) why she wouldn't go for it.

This isn't a case of having the status quo if the bond issue is rejected; it's a case of new arena or no arena. A lot of people may be OK with no arena -- the Coliseum area would create a brawl for development rights, since there's almost no land left for development in the county. But that's the decision the voters have to make -- how much is an arena and a major pro sports team worth; is it worth the possibility that your taxes could go up?

Folks, I shouldn't even be commenting on this, I know little about the Islander issues. My field of schemes is in Sacramento (the Kings arena) and its a shambles of greed and deceit. But I'm seeing the same thing over and over in every field of schemes, so I thought I'd mention it.

There is something fundamentally wrong with every picture on building sports complexes. If anything in any part of the national economy ought to be an entirely private affair, it is the offerings of the sports-entertainment industry. I can think of nothing with as much reason to be totally related to the marketplace than our diversions - as passionate as we may be about them. No one dies from missing a sporting event. No wars are started, no families starve, no people are murdered, no basic cultural repository (libraries, museums) are demolished. So why are these sports-baggers entering our cities through the back-doors of our city councils? Why do these strictly private market calculations become some urgent call for cities to turn over their assets and treasuries to what ought to be a market calculation? Either a sports plan and its facilities will be supported by the marketplace and provide a suitable return for its investors, or it will not. Private business is very good at making such calculations, and it either does or does not invest on those things that show a good potential for profit. That's private business and basic capitalism 101. What has unlocked this special drawer of manipulations and sales hype by which sports capitalists march up to the coffers of municipal governments and sell them some bill of goods? Why are they not treated like any other private business - go to the real estate office and buy some land; submit your plans to the planning commission and other code enforcement agencies for review and approval. Then do your business (and pay your taxes), like any business. You help the town, fine. And the marketplace helps you in return. That is how it is supposed to work in good old capitalist U.S.A.

Forget all this 'economic good of the community' razzamataz. Those benefits were simply meant to be the consequence of the interaction of having a business that succeeded and of being a community which shopped and worked at and around the business. The towns were supposed to profit because the businesses profited - and vice versa. The rest of this is market-violence. Distortions of that basic relationship by which one entity preys upon the other. Yes, there are still wrinkles. Cities competing against one another and being held hostage to the manipulations of franchises. Miscalculations in tax, services and other features of a particular adventure. But, as we have seen time and again, this is not resolved in the charade of 'private-public partnership' - it is only intensified to the advantage of a greedy few, and often to the ruin of the public interest - no matter what the original intention. We can examine every case on field of schemes, and take them case by case - some good, some bad. But the fundamental weakness remains. Until there is absolute separation of sports and state, the problem will remain. The bottom line of private business will always drive it to minimize its risk by shifting it elsewhere (this is what happened in the country's financial meltdown - unacceptable risk was ignored, or even welcomed, and then shifted to the public treasury for the sake of profit). There is no golden goose for our cities. The sports industry (indeed, private enterprise) is designed to not only own the goose and want to keep all of the eggs; but to find ways of doing that regardless of the consequences to others, as long as it is others who pay the price. That is how business works - at its best and at its worst.

end of sermon. - red slider, steward; The CEAV Project

Red Slider, thanks for your comments, but there's one thing here that I think is significantly different from other projects. This is county-owned land. If this project is not built, an alternate needs to be developed. Given the geographic layout of the site, sandwiched in between a row of museums, the very big county community college, county-owned athletic facilities and the quasi-public space of Hofstra University, it is understandable that the county doesn't want to just turn this site over to the highest bidder and have it developed strictly as a private development. You can still be conservative and believe in public spaces. And quite frankly, I think that even if you polled the "no" voters on this referendum, and asked them "Do you want this developed for some other public purpose?" the answer would probably come back "yes." So any discussion of an alternative would need to deal with that fact. And what alternative that provides some sort of public use is going to be financially more lucrative to the county than the new Coliseum, the ballpark and other development to come? I have yet to hear a single opponent say "Just sell the damn land and be done with it." And I guarantee you...none will.

John Kingston: Back in the 70's we paid for the construction of the Nassau Veteran's Memorial Coliseum and here we find ourselves 40 years later and proponents of this project are looking for another taxpayer funded sports facility.
The owner of the Islanders Charles Wang claims he's losing $10 Million a year on his team. Nassau County currently finds itself financially broke and our County Government under the control of NIFA a bi-partisan state mandated budget over-site committee.
The proponents of this project claim that it will pay for itself and bandy about inflated attendance numbers and sales figures in their financial projections. These same proponents are the above mentioned County executive Mangano (who can't balance the County's budget) and Charles Wang (who's Islander team is losing $10 Million yearly) so pardon me if I have a hard time believing their pie in the sky financial projections.
As far as future use The Coliseum most certainly can and will be used for concerts and shows (regardless of what information has been spread by this projects proponents) if the Islanders decide to relocate. If it does eventually come down to a non-viable Coliseum I would tend to agree with you proposition about a great public space. A public park and garden area would be low in cost to build and maintain and its benefits to the surrounding area and communities would be immeasurable. Think Central Park or The Parc du Champ de Mars.
There are a world of possibilities that don't include a sports arena and which would benefit the people of Nassau as a whole and that is what the Federal Government intended for this property when it sold it to Nassau County.

Tony, the opponents are demanding that no public money be spent over there. My view is that a redeveloped Coliseum site, with further development to come, can be part of a great public space that also entails private development. But you're arguing strictly for public expenditures to develop this public space. You can't go on about how the county is broke, and then say "but we should use public funds to build a public park and garden area." And these things are never low to maintain; that's a myth. To do something like that correctly, it takes a LOT of money. I want there to be a public-private partnership to do it correctly; you just want public money. One other question: are you suggesting that an Islander departure would result in the Coliseum still standing and still attracting concerts? Dream on. Virtually all the improvements made over there in the past 10 years were made by Wang. He pulls out, and it's over. The losses balloon because of the absence of a 40+ dates per year tenant, and there's no money to fix it. Face it: this vote fails, and the Coliseum is doomed.

John: I NEVER said "but we should use public funds to build a public park and garden area."
DON'T misquote me or put words in my mouth!

A public private partnership to develop the Area is what I mean when I mentioned a public space. Think BRYANT PARK a wholly publicly owned park but privately managed and maintained. In fact Bryant Park is the heaviestly used park anywhere in the world and it manages to be self sustaining and enjoyed by everyone. The adjoining business district profits as well from it's existence and the on site restaurant, cafe, garden shop, and children's activities (carousel) all are money generating enterprises.
It's a solution which would benefit the people of Nassau as a whole, provide them with a beautiful park and public area and is exactly what the Federal Government intended for this property when it sold it to Nassau County.. "for the benefit and enjoyment of ALL the citizens of Nassau County".

My neighbors and myself will NOT be railroaded or conned into supporting a bond that is nothing more than a welfare project for a wealthy sports team owner. We're VOTING NO on August 1st.

John: I NEVER said "but we should use public funds to build a public park and garden area."
DON'T misquote me or put words in my mouth!
I'm sure that concerts and other events will continue at the Nassau Veteran's Memorial Coliseum regardless of what happens on Aug. 1 contrary to the propaganda campaign from Mangano and Wang.
A public private partnership to develop the Area is what I mean when I mentioned a public space. Think BRYANT PARK a wholly publicly owned park but privately managed and maintained. In fact Bryant Park is the heaviestly used park anywhere in the world and it manages to be self sustaining and enjoyed by everyone. The adjoining business district profits as well from it's existence and the on site restaurant, cafe, garden shop, and children's activities (carousel) all are money generating enterprises.
It's a solution which would benefit the people of Nassau as a whole, provide them with a beautiful park and public area and is exactly what the Federal Government intended for this property when it sold it to Nassau County.. "for the benefit and enjoyment of ALL the citizens of Nassau County".

My neighbors and myself will NOT be railroaded or conned into supporting a bond that is nothing more than a welfare project for a wealthy sports team owner. We're VOTING NO on August 1st.

Tony
Great idea and a much more appropriate use of that land at the HUB.
I too will be voting NO come Aug. 1.
Mangano has done nothing but lie to us here in Nassau. The guy can't balance a County budget and we're supposed to believe his lies and propaganda regarding a $400+ million bond issue. It's not ever happening. These crooked politicians think we taxpayers are endless sources of money they come to whenever they please and we're not! We're being bled dry.

Tony: your comparisons continue to come up short. You talk about Bryant Park and the surrounding business district. There IS no surrounding business district near the Coliseum site. So you plop down gardens and other public spaces, and they're sure to get used on Saturday and Sunday. But there are already plenty of spaces like that, including Eisenhower Park, right down the road. We need the type of spaces that attract housing, that attract business, and that work in tandem with the assets that are already there, like NCC and Hofstra, and do it 7 days a week, all year long. Nothing you are recommending does that. What you're proposing is just another park, which is going to cost money to build, cost money to maintain, will provide no tax revenues and won't throw off any associated revenues. (And will have effectively zero value in the winter.) And the Coliseum is falling apart. It is going away without the Islanders, and the opponents of this plan who continue to deny that are simply living in fantasy land. So your view of financial responsibility is a) spend money to build a park b) spend money to maintain a park c) grow the losses at the Coliseum after losing 40+ Islander dates d) effectively take the site off any future tax rolls. And though you don't say it, you're going to need millions of dollars of county money to repair the place after Wang leaves and stops paying for the repairs out of his pocket. This is not fiscally responsible.

Has anyone done a serious study of what it would cost to update the Coliseum? "Falling apart" is such a stadium/arena cliche, it's hard to take seriously — I'd like to see a price tag, and from someone without a stake in the outcome.

From what I remember, the Nassau Coliseum had pretty good sightlines, far better than the Meadowlands, say. Of course, I'm pretty sure the last time I was there was to see Pink Floyd in 1988, so my memory's probably even rustier than the building.

Neil, The sight lines at the Coliseum are incredible as are the audiences that attend there for shows.
That is the primary reason (that and the ability for acts to charge top dollar for tickets there) that Concerts are a big draw there and still after all these years the music business still considers Nassau as a must play venue.
The only recent study that was done on renovating the Coliseum was part of Wang's Lighthouse project.
That would have entailed much more than a simple renovation (additional prestige and corporate boxes, bars and restaurants, training rinks, etc.) but I'm certain that its cost would be a fraction of what the proposed $350,000,000.00 new venue that is being discussed would cost.

I'm certain that with intelligent planning and good presentation a new proposal could be worked out that would be amiable to Wang and virtually zero cost to the residents of Nassau. A plan that incorporates a garden park like setting with small businesses (eateries and lite entertainment situated around it's periphery, nearby a newly refurbished Coliseum (one being leased to and renovated by Mr. Wang at his expense instead of being built by the taxpayers). We escape the burden of ownership and the danger of floating a massive bond at a time when the County can not assume such a risk.
If Mr. Wang decides it's a none starter then allow him to leave when his current lease is up. The dates his team used to play there can be filled by shows and attraction that formerly had to pass because of the conflict of having a hockey game.
The Sprint center in KC hasn't had a anchoring sports team ever yet it has managed for years to make a profit on Concerts, shows and other attractions. A properly managed Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum can do the same.

The cost of renovating MSG is more than $900 million. You're claiming that the cost of renovating the Coliseum would be a fraction of $350 million. Even if that fraction is 50%, that means it is $175 million. So renovating the Garden -- which already had been renovated in the 90's, so it was in far better shape at the start of the process -- is going to cost 5-6 times the cost of renovating the Coliseum? These are fantasy numbers.

I'd like to see the profit numbers of the KC arena. Are the costs to build the damn thing in there too? Or is that in some off-budget calculation? Because if you're suggesting that an arena without a basketball or hockey tenant can turn an operating profit AND service the debt, that would be the first time.

And finally, where you came up with the idea that Nassau is a "must play" venue is beyond me. This year, they've been getting a good run of concerts, because of the MSG renovation. But in recent years, because of the poor state of the arena, you'd see so many artists come to NY and play MSG, play the Meadowlands and then the Rock, and skip Nassau completely. Billy Joel...the great Long Island musician...still lives on LI...you know when the last time he played the NVMC? 1998! Doesn't sound like a "must play" joint to me.

No, the Sprint Center is not paying back its construction costs:

www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2009/09/3850_is_the_sprint_c.html

As for MSG, that's more of a gut-and-rebuild than a straight renovation. I'd be interested to see the numbers for a more modest reno of the Coliseum, both on the cost and the revenue end.

Really, that's the biggest problem with this arena deal, like most: The team says it needs a new building to get new revenues, yet nobody is revealing what the new revenues would be, or what pieces of the puzzle would be responsible for generating them (more concessions areas? nicer backstage amenities to draw more concerts?). As in so many cases, it's a take-it-or-leave-it offer where there's no way of telling whether there's a better alternative.

If I lived in Nassau County, and I were an Islanders fan, would I vote for this thing on the grounds that hey, even if it costs me a few tens of millions in tax money, that's a risk I'm willing to take? Maybe. But I'd feel a lot better about doing so if I knew that it was the best deal possible, not just the only deal offered. Transparency on revenues would go a long way towards that.

Neil Thanks for that link to your article. Very enlightening and informative. I had previously read the Sacramento Bee article and the KC Star and was mislead concerning city's annual $13.8 million in construction bond payments. I also had no hard info on arena bond payments until I checked the pitch blog link you provided. Talk about a convoluted and confusing financing plan. Anyway I stand corrected and feel more now than ever that voting no is the intelligent and prudent thing to do. Nassau doesn't have the convenience of having a decent economy at this time (as did the Sprint Center when it was built) nor does it have any 3rd parties offering to step in and contribute to shouldering some of the sizable financial burden this plan would entail. Lastly as you pointed out KC will never actually turn a profit on building the Sprint Center, and it would stand to reason neither would Nassau County on it's proposed new coliseum.
Thanks again for your links. New sports complex construction is just a bad business model.

Neil, I think it should be pointed out that most of the opponents are saying that Wang should built it himself. But that's not going to happen. So the opponents are basically arguing that yeah, we should have a sports arena, but then their suggestion on how it should get done is not a viable solution. This is what really bothers me about the opponents; they've said what they're against, but not said what they're for, except for unrealistic choices. I said in an earlier post that I am waiting for somebody to declare that it should just be sold to the highest bidder. Not a single person that I've seen-- in bulletin boards, comments to Newsday, etc. -- has suggested that.

Here John I'll say it for you and make you happy.

Sell the current building to the higgest bidder.
But retain the land on which it sits as County property and lease that land to the new owner (this doesn't include the 77 acres that Mangano has currently included in the new lease..that's a very suspect move). Besides it being a centrally situated building in the very heart of Nassau County as an additional incentive maybe create a short term tax break to get this sold and get improvements done on the building but in no way give the lease on the property away as had been done back in 1978 on other Mitchell Field land.
Perhaps Wang will bite or a savvy developer will step up and maybe the Islanders will stay or maybe not but at least the taxpayers won't be on the line for hundreds of millions of dollars of debt.

The trouble with Nassau County is that criminality and corruption have too long been a part of the status quo in the County Government. The residents deserve better.

That is a cop out, Tony. You are continuing to engage in the fantasy that there is an economically profitable way to keep the current building, fix it up, lose the Islanders and have no main tenant, and operate it profitably as a circus/concert/Sesame Street live place. There isn't. The Islanders are not staying under those circumstances, and there isn't a single person who has followed this who thinks that. If the county is going to continue to own the land, which you are arguing should happen, that redone Coliseum is not the most profitable use. To the contrary, it will be a money-losing cesspool, and the taxpayers will very much be on the hook for the losses.

U guys don't understand that Nassau County is doing so bad that with the money that the NVMC provides it still doesn't make any money. so, now take that into accoun. the NVMC will LOWER ur taxes for 30+ years!!! So pick 30+ years of lower taxes (of ur current taxes) or every year it gets higher and higher cause the coliseum is still thei!! (Until 2015) if u votew yes it will stay at one spot until 2015 then it will start to go down VERY fast!!

@John Kingston

The Forum in Inglewood lost both of its tenats and is currently being sold to Madison Square Garden Inc.

Explain how an arena older than the Coliseum is able to re-renovated and brought up to modern amenities but not the Coliseum?

PF, just saw this. I saw the story on the Forum. They are just trying to bring it up to the level for a concert venue, not one for a professional sports team. Expenditures on the refit are expected to be less than $100 million, but it doesn't get you a venue for a sports team. Secondly, the Coliseum was shoddily done from day one, and they were talking about it needing huge renovations within 10 years after its opening.

PF, just saw this. I saw the story on the Forum. They are just trying to bring it up to the level for a concert venue, not one for a professional sports team. Expenditures on the refit are expected to be less than $100 million, but it doesn't get you a venue for a sports team. Secondly, the Coliseum was shoddily done from day one, and they were talking about it needing huge renovations within 10 years after its opening.

PF, just saw this. I saw the story on the Forum. They are just trying to bring it up to the level for a concert venue, not one for a professional sports team. Expenditures on the refit are expected to be less than $100 million, but it doesn't get you a venue for a sports team. Secondly, the Coliseum was shoddily done from day one, and they were talking about it needing huge renovations within 10 years after its opening.