Is there any chance that the City of New York can demand that "New York" be dropped from the official name of both the Giants and Jets?

Having seen the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim ordeal, I think the Jets and Giants could play in Delaware and still claim the New York name. Although rooting for the New York Jets of New Jersey would be fun.

Keep the name New York Jets and change the New York Giants name to New Jersey Giants.

Why whould the Jets get to keep the NY name when no part of their organization is located in NY after the completion of the new stadium?

Here's an interesting Idea:

If The Giants/Jets really want a retractable roof

- Would it not make sense to borrow $200 Million

From the NFL and repay the loan on an

annual $50 million fee ? - That way everything

would be payed for by the time the stadium is

built.

You could actually repay a $200 million loan at about $25 million a year over 20-30 years (unless the NFL is a bigger loan shark than I thought). But even so, why would the Jets and Giants want to spend $25 million a year on a retractable roof? It's not like fans will be willing to spend an extra $25 million a year on tickets just so they can leave their coats in the car.

With The Giants & The Jets as Partners - Why not

have a 3rd partner in the stadium ownership ?

Vincent Kennedy McMahan ( owner of The WWE ) -

With his multibillion dollar business , he would

have more than enough to help the teams build an

Allianz Arena type of stadium with a retractable

roof. With this kind of a complex - It would be

the ultamate setting for all sorts big time

sporting events like the Superbowl, NCAA College

Basketball, WWE SummerSlam, NO-WAY-OUT,

Unforgiven, Even WRESTLEMANIA - not to mention

World Cup Soccer etc. With football season only

taking about 25% percent of the season, Mr.

McMahan will be able to use 75% percent of the

year to draw some substancial revenue to this

stadium complex for years to come - Therefore it

stands to reason with a shared partnership and

revenue between The Giants, The Jets, and The

WWE, nobody would have a reason to say no. The

Jersey Meadowlands could end up becomming the

best sports complex ever and probably the most

profitable.

With The Giants & The Jets as Partners - Why not

have a 3rd partner in the stadium ownership ?

Vincent Kennedy McMahan ( owner of The WWE ) -

With his multibillion dollar business , he would

have more than enough to help the teams build an

Allianz Arena type of stadium with a retractable

roof. With this kind of a complex - It would be

the ultamate setting for all sorts big time

sporting events like the Superbowl, NCAA Final

Four, WWE SummerSlam, NO-WAY-OUT,

Unforgiven, Even WRESTLEMANIA - not to mention

World Cup Soccer etc. With football season only

taking about 25% percent of the season, Mr.

McMahan will be able to use 75% percent of the

year to draw some substancial revenue to this

stadium complex for years to come - Therefore it

stands to reason with a shared partnership and

revenue between The Giants, The Jets, and The

WWE, nobody would have a reason to say no. The

Jersey Meadowlands could end up becomming the

best sports complex ever and probably the most

profitable.

As far as I know, the Allianz Arena in Munich does not have a retractable roof, just a roof covering the stands in the stadium, not the actual pitch (playing fielf for you yanks). Most European stadiums have a roof covering the supporters in the stands, but not the players on the field. But you did bring up 1 interesting point. With the Metrostars moving to a 25, 000 stadium in Harrison, NJ in 2007, what will the soccer status be at the new NFL stadium? Will the Metrostars lure all international and World Cup Qualifiers games to Harrison, or will some of the bigger games that can guarantee an 80, 000 seat sellout take place at the new NFL stadium. Does Neil have any inside ino on this?

I haven't heard anything about soccer at the NFL stadium, no, but it makes sense that the Jets and Giants would want to book international soccer matches if possible, to raise revenue. Come to think of it, have the NFL teams said what kind of field surface they'll be using?

When the Jets were planning their Manhootan shindig, they proposed having European soccer matches fill some summer dates. Obviously that plan is scuttled. Would the Metrostars actually own the territorial rights for international soccer games through either AEG or SUM? The thought of the G's and J's having to purchase the rights to host a soccer game at their new NFL stadium is intriguing. And I would imagine that field turf would be the choice for the new NFL stadium. The old Giants groundscrew argument that soccer was messing up the grass field and not the Giants and Jets was assinine.

If The NY Jets can afford to spend $1.6billion

of their own money for a westside stadium

with a retractable roof in New York, How is it

possible that they cannot afford to spend the

same amount in The Jersey Meadowlands ?

If either The Giants or The Jets were to play

well enough to draw a sell-out crowd through out

the entire season this year, host and

win a wild-card in the playoffs - would that not

put them in a position where they could build

enough revenue to be able to afford a

retractable roof to their new stadium ?

The New York Times have written an article

indicating that The New York Jets Do Not Want a

retractable roof to the new stadium. Is there any

truth to that story ? (if so - why not?)

1) The Jets weren't going to pay for the retractable roof in New York, the state and city were. 2) Woody Johnson could probably afford to pay for a retractable roof with the interest on his checking account, but what's in it for him to do so? It wouldn't make him any extra money.

Good point - But Just Remmember, The Jets are not

a very good cold weather football team in the

month of December. Having the R-roof can make a

big difference in the many years ahead in how

many times The Jets can make the play-offs by

at least one or two games. That might be reason

enough for Woody Johnson to consider it.

All I know is that if a retractable roof is not

built, no matter what kind of luxery is put into

this stadium - It just wouldn't be that much

better than the current Giants Stadium. As a

matter of fact - they can add luxury seats to the

stands, extend the restaraunts, and add a Hall of

Fame to it. It still would not be any different

than a whole new stadium altogether. They can

even rename it "Giants and Jets Stadoum."

So what's the point in wasting time and money

on a whole new stadium ? Will it draw that much

more revenue ? Can it make the cold weather in

Metro New York any easier to take ? Can it

ensure any real chance of any SUPERBOWLS or NCAA

Final Four events ? Can it bring any real chance

of the summer Olympics ?

Face the facts - Without a retractable roof to

the new stadium, It just won't have any real

massive appeal to the future - unless they

consider the idea of building a stadium with

the same construction setting of The Allianz

Arena. At least it would be a stadium that

would work with revolutionary lights, Otherwise

what's the point ? What's the real difference

between a greatly improved Giants Stadium and

a new open air stadium ?

I'm finding this a little late, but as an admittedly biased Giants fan, living 10 minutes away from GIANTS Stadium -bias made me caps it- I am of the belief that a Jets home stadium built ANYWHERE else would be terrific. In fact, maybe the outfield of Shea is available? And the name change from NY to NJ for the Giants would be something I'd like to see personally. Sharing has gone on for long enough, but I suppose it could continue, as long as we remember whose name is shining in big blue letters at night.

That's my biggest concern though. I just don't want the corporate beings who seem to corrupt everything to rename/name a new stadium Tampax, Viaga, Preparation H, etc. stadium, and steal the beauty that is GIANTS Stadium.

I am of the beleif that the Giants should be sharing the outfield of Yankee Stadium..... but then again.... they USED to be a NY team.

Let's put an end to the arguement to the

retractable roof issue once and for all before it

becomes a bigger problem than it's worth.

I've just found out from a recent

article of The Star Ledger,

According to Mara - Paul Tagliabue has made it

clear that he would allow the teams $300 Million

Funding from the League. That will more than

pay for a retractable roof plus start up

construction costs. If The Giants and Jets take

full advantage of it, They'll have no excuses

for not having a retractable roof on the new

stadium on opening day. With that being the

case, it is more likely than not the teams

will have that retractable roof. With any luck,

They might not even need to sell naming rights

to the stadium. Maybe they WILL end up calling

it "GIANTS and JETS Stadium"

That $300m is already slated for stadium construction costs, pre-roof. The teams have made eminently clear that they don't want to pay for a roof with their own or league funds.

Forget the retractable roof. It's a dumb idea anyway. But how about a roof covering the supporters in the stands much like the beloved Allienz Arena in Munich?

No way the retractable roof is a dumb idea, and

I'll tell you why. If you would recall some time

in the mid-Late 90's there were some problems

concerning snow in the stands during a Giants

game and people where throwing snowballs all over

the place including on certain members of the

visiting team, all because of the result of the

grounds crew that didn't do their job in clearing

the snow. one guy was arrested for it. It caused

alot of problems as a result of it. If they

don't get the retractable roof, What's to stop

other problems just like it from occering in

the future ?

I totally agree, but that's not the only type of

problems life without a retractable roof has

caused life in The Meadowlands. In recent years

the field had to be changed from time to time.

Why ? - because every now and then when football

season ends and the heavy part of the snowy

winter season passes through - certain parts of

the field gets dammaged from time to time, which

makes it nececcary to replace it. Replacing a

football field every so often is very expensive.

At least if they had a retractable roof - they

would have something to protect the field during

the off season - which would guarantee they

would end up saving a fortune in the 99-year

long run. When you really think about it you

realize the money spent on a retractable roof

is not much in comparison to how much money that

can be saved by not having to change the field

every so often for all the years ahead. So what

it really comes down to is with or without the

retractable roof there's going to be a heavy

price to pay. If you were a smart business

man/woman you'd rather pay a big price now then

be forced to pay a bigger price in the long run.

I think you've hit the nail right on the head

with that point. Don't forget - 2 years ago The

Giants, The Jets and other teams have suffered

alot of injuries as a result of the hard part of

the icey fields to their stadiums especially The

New York Giants which just goes to prove that

it makes perfect sense to build a retractable

roof on all cold weather NFL cities.

American Football is a fall / winter sport. Get over it.

The English football fields do allright exposed to the elements after 25 or so home games a year.

Maybe the Englishmen may not mind being stupid

enough to injure themselves without protection

in football, soccer or even Australian football,

But I happen to think those people are 100%

right. What does it take to open your eyes ?

Eli Manning breaking his ankle and suffering a

career ending injury in the month of Janurary ?

I just don't think it's worth it. God forbid

it should ever happen but one wrong step in the

wrong place at the wrong time and he could be

gone just like that.

Granted - Cold Weather is meant to be a part of

football, but who says that the risk of career

ending injuries to young promising players has

to be ?

If a retractable dome can help avoid most

injuries from a winter harden field - I'm all

for it. At least it gives the options of

playing cold weather football when opened and

still keep the field well proteceted during the

off season when it's closed - and it guarantees

the benefiets of big events and more revenue.

retractable dome stadiums are made to last

forever, regular open air stadiums are not.

once a retractable roof stadium is built the

teams would never have to worry about spending

big money on another stadium ever again. Can the

same be said for an open air stadium after

99 years ?

You made some good points Kane. I don't think

there's ever been an opnen air stadium that has

ever lasted that long without wearing out.

Think about this Mr.Olman. If you think a

retractable roof stadium is expensive now -

Imagine how expensive it will really be to pay

for an open air stadium 99 years from today with

the price of land on the rise every year.

There is zero evidence to support the argument that open-air stadiums "wear out" faster than roofed ones. If anything, all the moving parts required for a retractable roof are likely to require replacement, or at least expensive maintenance, far sooner - anyone here familiar with a little debacle called Stade Olympique?

Aside from some nasty earthquakes and WWII, the Roman (outdoor) Colliseum has lasted over 1, 000 years. Granted it's not in perfect condition, but I would offer a guarantee, that had the Colliseum been properly maintained every year during this past millenia, it would still be in very good condition. The point being, there is ZERO proff that a stadium with a retractable roof lasts any longer than an outdoor stadium. I would argue that the outdoor stadium is even stronger than a stadium with a retractable roof (though I don't have proof either way). All I'm saying is that if the best stadium in the world is the Allienz Arena according to the other posters on this thread, than surely the new NFL meadowlands stadium should have a roof covering the supporters in the stands. What a noble concept, protect the paying customer from the nasty elements. And btw, do you really think that because the Giants and Jets signed a 99 year lease means that the stadium will last that long? HA! I'll give that new stadium 20 or 30 years before it comes down as well in favor of a 1960's retro stadium for NFL and MLB. Neil knows the deal.

Granted - There is no proof that retractable

roof stadiums can last longer than open air

stadiums or vice versa - But there is history of

evidence that proves that the fields of a

retractable roof stadium can outlast the fields

of an open air stadium, therefore saving bigtime

revnue in the long run not having to replace

them from time to time.

When is the last time the field of any

retractable roof stadium had to be replaced

for any reason what-so-ever ? If the fields can

last longer odds are the stadium probably will

too.

You cannot argue with cold hard facts. New York

Yankees, Minnesota Twins, Minnesota Vikings,

Dallas Cowboys, Indiannapolis Colts, and Arizona

Cardinals all have plans on building

retacableroof stadiums. why ?!-Because they all

understand the values of protecting the fields

during the off season. The Giants and Jets have

made it clear that they too will have thier

stadium construction design to fit a retractable

roof in case they do raise the funds to pay for

it. If a retractable dome stadium is not all

it's cracked up to be then why are so many

teams between Baseball and Football buildng them

these days ?

I Totally agree. Look at Rogers Centre

(The Skye Dome) in Toronto. A retractable dome

Stadium that's been around since 1989 and it's

every bit as good a condition now as it was

when it was first built. If that stadium stands

the test of time chances are it's a much better

stadium than most people ever gave it credit

for.

Thankfully, the Yankees are no longer considering a retractable roof stadium. And just because other teams are considering one doesn't exactly make it the better option. I personally think the better option is to look at stadiums like the new Wembley, Emirates Stadium, and yes the Allienz arena. The will be class stadiums with perfect grass fields with ample roof coverage for the fans. MLB and NFL teams are lining up for retractable roof stadiums because for the most part, they do not have to pay for it. Either the city or state is. The Giants and Jets will be paying for their new stadium, thus they are suddenly backing off and their plans for the retractable roof.And the purpose of the new retractable roofs is not to protect the turf. That's bullocks. It's to make additional money for the team when they are playing a home game (concerts, etc.). Not hard to figure out.

First of all it has not yet been made official

on weather or not the teams have completly given

up on the retractable roof. They only decided

not to include it in the plans for now. It will

really depend on alot of things. Like how much

they can really get for naming rights, If the

teams can make the post season with home field

advantage this year, If either team is good

enough to win the Superbowl, what kind of

business deals they can make with the Xanadu,

expanding the sales of their merchandice etc.

All of this combined may be a longshot-But not

impossible.

Woody Johnson might be willing to spend a good

part of his money if he thought for one minute

he and his team could profit from the

investment. Even if he said he wouldn't, Just

remember - He made a stronger vow earlier this

year that he would never consider bringing his

Jets to Queens, Because of his foolish pride

concerning The NY Mets, and just before making

the deal with Mara he came within an eyelab of

considering the deal for the Corna Park area.

It just goes to show anything is possible.

and lastly if you really know that retractable

roofs are made for creating higher revenue for

the teams because of the would be big events,

than you cannot deny that it's really a better

investment because it's more profitable.

I agree - Whats the point in making any kind of

investment to any stadium if the teams are not

going to be in a position to get the most out of

it ?

That's pretty much what it really comes down to.

If The Giants and The Jets really are looking

to get Top Revenue from their new stadium, Then

a retractable roof is a MUST.

Keep in mind that it already has been established

that as long as Cody is in office,New Jersey

tax payers won't pay one red cent for this

stadium - But come election day the new Governer

might consider using some of the tax dollars

just to pay for the retractable roof.

I'll say it again: Retractable roofs will increase your revenue, but nowhere near enough to pay for themselves. (They'd need to generate an additional $20 million a year or so to do so - that's an awful lot of concerts.) Building one to boost your revenues is like buying a Hummer so that you can drive to a supermarket that has tunafish at ten cents less per can.

With the Retractable Roof it will attract more

than concerts. It will be a regular stop for

the Superbowl. Don't you realize that with 7

Superbowls, 3 World Cup Soccer Tournaments, and

1 Summer Olympic season, as well as the Concerts

withen the 99 year period - It would more than

pay for the retractable roof and then some.

Don't forget to include The NCAA Final Four

with that list along with The Giants and Jets

home games. That too will help more than pay for

the retractable roof.

If you get either a Super Bowl, a Final Four, or a World Cup once every three years (which is optimistic), then you'd need $60m per event to break even. There's no way any of those events pay $60m in rent to the hosting team.

Regarding World Cup soccer (qualifiers, friendlies, etc..), FIFA prefers that they are played on outdoor grass fields. World Cup '94 saw the only ever World Cup game to be played indoors (Detroit). FIFA also mandates that all new stadiums that host the World Cup Finals must provide shading (IE roof over the stands) for at least 60% of the supporters. In the United States, there are very few games that will draw enough people on a consistent basis to warrant being played indoors. USA vs Mexico will sellout wherever it's played, roof or no roof.

Who says that the new stadium would need to host

the big events every 3 years. They can host them

once every decade along with the Concerts and

home games. You take the revenue on all of them

combined and there's a good chance The Giants

and Jets could raise over $20Million every 10

years throughout the 99 year term, and that

would just about pay for the retractable roof.

If they're lucky enough to host at least one

season of the Summer Olympics - That would insure

it.

You've really been suckered into the beleif of a 99 year lease haven't you. You say.... "Who says that the new stadium would need to host the big events every 3 years. They can host them once every decade along with the Concerts and home games." I say... "You've now lost any justification for a retractable roof by only hosting big events once a decade." Bad business model, therefore no retractable roof. Build a partial roof just covering the stands and off you go.

You just don't get it do you? Let me explain this

step by step so you understand. They don't

necessarally have to guarantee hosting them only

once every decade but hosting once or twice on

certain decades, For example let's say they

get the roof and have the events. They can get

The Superbowl twice in 6 decades and once on 4,

And the same for the NCAA Final Four along with

The World Cup Soccer Tournament. With ticket

Prices being what they are - (slowly on the rise)

This will all pay for the roof and slowly create

profits along the way. Do the Math. With the

Retractable Roof costing $200Million, raising

over

$20Million once or twice every decade will pay

for it by the time the 99year term is half over.

From there it's nothing but

full speed ahead in higher revenue with a

Paid in Full retractable roof. The Concert

revenues from time to time will make it that

much easier. There's no guarantee The Giants

and Jets home games revenue would even be

affected by the pay off.

When you put it that way, it seems like The

Giants and Jets have nothing to lose. You're

right about the rising costs of tickets - I

didn't even realize that until you mentioned it.

Ticket prices do go up roof or no roof. If fans

are going to pay more in the future, They might

as well get the most out of it. If a retractable

roof can give them that - Then so be it. That's

reason enough to get it at any cost.

I can't argue with you on that. Look at The

Packers situation in Green Bay. They have a

complete outdoor stadium and they don't easily

have sell out crowds during some of the coldest

winter games, And as a result they end up losing

revenue - Proof positive that cold weather NFL

cities should have retractable roof stadiums.

That's true Lena and when ticket prices go

higher - They will end up losing even more

revenue in the Future. Sooner or later the folks

of Green Bay will be begging The Mayor for a

retractable roof stadium. They can go on kidding

themselves all they want saying they love the

cold, But sooner or later reality is bound to

catch up to them.

I Agree - If they really do love cold weather

in Lambaeu Field - Why don't they show up for the

games ? Alot of people say they love cold weather

football, But how many of them can honestly say

they would love to go to a cold weather football

game in an open air stadium in Minnesota ?

If you are going to accuse the Acme Meat Packing Company fans of not showing up for games during the cold weather, I'd like to see some evidential numbers please.... And the USA does not have a chance of hosting the World Cup finals tournament until 2022. 2006 is in Germany. 2010 is in South Afrika. 2014 will be in South America (Brazil). 2018 will be somewhere in Europe (England). 2022 will be an open slot for the USA to bid on. However if you are referring to Wolrd Cup Qualifying games and international friendlies, then yes, but certainly don't expect that to pay for the $200 million roof. What is sad though is that you continue to cite the fact that a 99 year lease will be face value. Building a $200 million retractable roof and then expecting to pay for it through ticket sales of future events 4 decades down the road..... well then.....now that's some good capitalistic logic.....

You want logic - I'll give you logic. Let's look

at this from all sides. The Main Reason any team

from any sport builds a retractable roof stadium

is to build higher revenue with big events,

It would save a fortune in the long run not

having to keep changing the damaged feilds from

weather condition from time to time. It certainly

would make it a more comfortable setting for

fans and players. It would have Concerts

more comfortably there rather than small arenas.

Retractable roof stadiums can even hold

Conventions. It would be ideal for hosting The

Olympics. Corperate companies would pay more for

naming rights.

Now let's look at it from the other side. why

wouldn't teams want a retractable dome ? Some

teams live in a warm and steady climate on the

west-coast or sunny Florida. They cannot afford

it. Some teams like cold weather. From here

that's basically it. No matter how you look at

it - There are more reasons to say YES to the

retractable roof then there is to say NO, But

the biggest of all is the higher revenues, and

that usually makes the difference. The Giants

and Jets may not be able to afford it for now,

But that doesn't mean they're giving up on it.

There are certain possibilities - For example Woody

Johnson has money to pay for a retractable roof,

But what's in it for him ? The Giants could

probably find a way to make some kind of a deal

with him. Governer Cody won't allow tax payers

to pay for it, But with Election

day around the corner - The new Governer might

have other ideas, Especially if he knows what

a retractable roof means to The Garden State.

Those possibilities may be a long shot, But

there might be other possibilities we may not

be aware of that could surface at anytime.

Don't count The R-Roof out.

"Do the Math. With the Retractable Roof costing $200Million, raising over $20Million once or twice every decade will pay for it by the time the 99year term is half over." Um, no, because you're forgetting interest. Even if a bank would give you a 99-year mortgage (they won't), at 6% interest you'd need to make annual payments of ... let's see, fire up Excel ... $12m a year. A more reasonable 30-year loan would cost $14.5m/year at 6%.

Well people I'll say this: The Future of the new

Stadium will depend on what the design will be.

If Mara had it his way The Giants and Jets would

build an Allianz Arena type of stadium with the

Added demension of the retractable roof instead

of a roof that just covers the fans. That would

be unique. It would also make it possible for

The World Cup and other big event to make

regular stops here as well as any other place.

If Paul Tagliabue Likes the idea of such a

stadium being built, He might consider allowing

the teams to fund an extra $200-$300Million

from the

league to make it possible, And that would put

an end to all arguments. Two things do work in

the teams favor as far as their chances are

concerned. Taglaibue is a fan of retractable

roof stadiums, And he was impressed with the

technology of The Allianz Arena every bit as much as

Mara was. Some things have way of taking a

surprising twist in future developments and this

would be as good as any.

I have to admit - With or without the retractable

roof it would be great for the league to have

at least one NFL city to build a stadium with

that kind of technology. That would be reason

enough for the league to put up the extra money.

I don't think the league will GIVE that money

away, But the teams coud get a lone from either

the bank or the league. If The Giants and Jets

could each pay two and a half million

every month for 4 years beginning in

January, That would amount to the full

$200Million

plus $40 million in intrest. In this case,

If they can afford to do at least that much-

The retractable roof should be fully paid off

by the time the stadium is built in 2009.

Is there a link to an article somewhere that states that Mara was impressed with the Allienz Arena in Munich ? Just curious....

YES - Look in the Article of The North Jersey

Media Group - Written by John Brennan on June 21,

2005. It's right there - You can't miss it.

I think it's titled Stadium for Giants and Jets.

I made an Error - It's Titled "Stadium Makes Two

Teams Feel at Right Home"

Sorry Error in wording - "Stadium Makes Two

Teams Feel Right At Home"

I've seen that article, It's in the sports

section. If you would like to contact Brennan to

find out more E-Mail - Brennan@NorthJersey.com

I Like your Idea Emmanuel about The Giants and

Jets each Paying two and a half million every

month to pay for the retractable roof. I did the

math on that and it adds up to

to excactly $240 Million within 4 years time.

From the way it totals up neither The League or

The Bank would have any reason to turn down

the teams for a loan, So what it all comes down

to is - Can both teams really afford to pay

two and a half million dollars each on a monthly

basis for the next 4 years ?

I would say odds are the answer is YES because

the rent of the current Giants Stadium has been

lowerd considerably for both teams. The Real

Question is can they really build an Allianz

Arena type of stadium ?

All of you keep talking about the Allienze Arena as a model for the new NFL stadium for the Giants and Jets, but keep in mind that the Allienz Arena has no retractable roof. Just a roof covering the supporters in the stands.........

WE KNOW - We've known that all along - we're

just talking about the possibilities of an

Allianz Arena type Stadium with the half roof

replaced by a retractable roof - which would

make it better than the original Allianz Arena.

You have to admit - Something like that shining

in the Jersey Meadowlands would make it by far

The Greatest Stadium in Sports History.

It would be ideal for ANY big corperate company

to want to spend big revenue for naming rights

for. You just can't go wrong building a stadium

like that.

The Teams represent New York - Which happens to

be the one city where people are paying the

highest bills and taxes than any body on the

planet, And that gives them the right to expect

the best of everything in sports and everything

else. If a stadium with revolutionary lights

AND a retractable roof can insure the best

stadium ever - Then they are intitled to it, Even

if it IS across the hudson in New Jersey.

The teams represent New Jersey as they pay all of their TAXES to New Jersey starting in 2007 when the Jets move their HQ from LI to NJ.

Are You trying to tell me that the teams will

finally be named after New Jersey in 2007 ?

They should be. What taxes and economic benefits will the Giants and Jets bring to New York City or State after 2007? Both the Giants and Jets will have their HQ's in New Jersey, thus paying taxes to the State of NJ.

I Agree - New York had every oppertunity to bring

The Jets to the West Side, But turned them down.

Even if they were able to build them a stadium

in Queens, There's just no guarantee a Queens

stadium would have been built in the form of a

Sports & Convention Center. Odds are it would

have been a plain open air stadium. With the

New Mets Stadium being built in Flushing and

The Olympic Village developing in Hunters Point,

placing a football stadium in the middle of it

all would have made the traffic on the west side

of the Queens Borough a little too tight anyway. It's

better this way - New Jersey deserves a chance

at greatness in the sports scene, And having 2

New Jersey teams sharing a revolutionary lighted

stadium with an added demension of a retractable

roof is the best place to start.

Assuming that all this is done for New Jersey -

Where does that leave New York ?

New York doesn't really deserve to have the teams

because the never really acted like they really

wanted them to begin with. They had 2 chances

to bring The Jets to home and they blew it, And

before The Giants resigned with New Jersey-

They never really made John Mara any offers.

New York will either be left without a team or

somewhere down the line they might consider

getting an expansion team and build them a

stadium in either Yonkers or Long Island.

New York doesn't really deserve to have the teams

because they never really acted like they really

wanted them to begin with. They had 2 chances

to bring The Jets to home and they blew it, And

before The Giants resigned with New Jersey-

They never really made John Mara any offers.

New York will either be left without a team or

somewhere down the line they might consider

getting an expansion team and build them a

stadium in either Yonkers or Long Island.

NYC doesn't deserve an NFL team because the Jets tried to hold them hostage with a $2 billion stadium plan which would have crippled NYC finances? HA! Love it! And the Jets were not really considering FMP in Queens. it was propoganda to get a better deal in Jersey, and Bloomberg knew this. If the Jets gave 2 sh!ts about their supposed fanbase of Queens and Nassau...... but they obviously don't, telling them to essentially f@ck off twice. And no I am not a bitter Jets fan.... But I see it for what it is. And no NYC is not EVER getting an NFL expansion team. Seriously. MLS yes. NFL now. And the only way for the Giants to come back to NYC would be for a 2$2 Billion stadium paid for by NYC, ala the Jets plan. NYC made the wise financial decision. Is it odd that NYC doesn't have a world class 80, 000 seat stadium? Sure it is. But the finances of the deal would have been horrible for NYC. We had a world class 80, 000 seat stadium in the 1920's though......

Personally - I Think if the teams are going to

have some association with both cities, They

should be named after both cities

(NY/NJ GIANTS and NY/NJ Jets) - This way it's

fair to everyone, Otherwise just give the teams

to New Jersey all the way.

The Metrostars dropped the NY/NJ moniker after 2 seasons because everyone hated. The name of the city/state on your shirt should be the name of the city/state you pay taxes to. If socialists like myself understand this, why can't capitalists pigs like yourself do the same? :-)

There's no need to be nasty. It's not really fair

to compare the NFL teams to The Soccer team,

Because it's 2 different sports. What's wrong

for one may not be wrong for the other. As far

as the tax payers are concerned - Who do you

think payed for the offices of the teams in

New York ? The Jets may be moving their offices

from Long Island to New Jersey, But The Giants

offices remains in Manhattan - At least for now.

Who's being nasty? I even included an "internet smiley face" above...... Where is the Giants HQ in Manhootan? I was led to beleive that their HQ was actually located at Giants STadium.

Just teasing about the nasty :-)

Their Main office HQ IS at Giants Stadium - But

They also have an office in Manhattan. I'm not

sure where, But I've seen it written in one of

the articles a few months ago. Don't ask me

which newspaper it was, All I know is that IT

WAS written.

How about the East Rutherford Giants and East Rutherford Jets. And let's not stop there...how about the Landover Redskins, Orchard Park Bills and Irving Cowboys.

Unfortunately, it's not the state or city that you play in, it's the "TV" market that rules. So much for home town pride.

And for Bertell Ollman...get a life...only in New Jersey would they pay $130 million to keep two football teams that belong to NYC. How ignominious is that...Keep ranting all you want about where taxes are paid or whatever. Remember, it has been, and always will be, NEW YORK Giants and NEW YORK Jets. I don't like it either, but that's the way it is.

If you do not like it, then do not accept it. That's what Coporate Amerika depends on, your acceptance of what is offered to you. It will only stay the way it is if you are complacent about it. Complacency is what a coporation such as the NYG and NYJ expects from its consumers (fans, supporters).

I've read some the things you people talked about

on the stadium retractable roof issues and I have

to admit - You've all presented some pretty good

arguements on the matter, However - When you

consider all the facts - The Teams, The State,

and The NJSEA all want the retractable roof,

But nobody really wants it for a $200-M price.

Paul Tagliabue and The NFL are willing to fund

$300-M and chances are the teams will use it to

pay for the roof anyway and whatevers left will

help pay for other construction cost. Why else

would The Giants and Jets design the new stadium

to fit a retractable roof ?

Personally - I don't think they really need a

new

stadium. What's wrong with the current Giants

Stadium anyway ?

Unless they really want a stadium WITH the roof

spending revenue like that is nothing more

than a pathetic waste of time money.

The only stadium that really needs to be built in the state of New Jersey will be located in the city of Harrison, across the Passaic river from Newark.

When you put it that way Carlito it's hard to

really guarantee that there won't be a

retractable roof to the new stadium. Keep in

mind The Giants and Jets are paying $400 Million

each. and if the League funds as much

as $300 Million - That puts them very much in

a position to pay for an $800 Million stadium

WITH a $200 Million retractable roof with

enough left over to pay off the intrest. The sale

of naming rights to pay for starting

construction cost will make it that much easier,

Therefore - It may only be a matter of time

before the retractable roof is made official.

Maybe it's just me, But does anyone really think

that it's fair for one NFL city to get a $300-M

from the league knowing that others usually get

no more than $150-M ?

I see no reason why it isn't. We are talking

about 2 teams in 1 stadium. Plus the fact that

Building a stadium in Metro New York is more

expensive than it is in most Areas. They

practically need the extra revenue just to break

even with the rest.

Lena's right. Although building 1 stadium is less

expensive than 2, Paul Tagliabue is in the right

to allow the teams to fund $300 Million just to

insure both their needs.

To put it more plainly - If a stadium is going

to be built to serve the needs of 2 teams,

They'll need to double the league funds just to make it

work.

At least they'll have the option on choosing to

use it to pay for a retractable roof.

In any case I agree that if

a new stadium IS going to be built - It SHOULD

include a retractable roof. The reason is simple.

There are so many ways to improve on the current

Giants Stadium and make it compatable with other

World Class Stadiums - It practically makes

building a new open-air stadium pointless. What

would be the difference between a greatly

improved Giants Stadium and a new State of the

Art open air Stadium ? Answer - "ZERO" unless

they have plans to build an Allianz Arena type

stadium, Otherwise they should just pay for an

$800-Million Stadium and use the $300-Million

league money to pay for the roof, Pure and

simple.

I don't think you'll get an arguement

Carlito. It's simple, it's practical, and it

makes perfect sense, and like I said - The

sale of naming rights to pay for start up

construction costs will make it that much

easier.