The Devils' owner is trying to stiff the city of Newark. Now THAT is really class. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/the_devils_hockey_team_does.html I prefer Ratner.
I don't know what happened, but everyone knows Newark hasn't proven to be fiscally responsible. They just got a 45 million dollar bailout in August on top of 100 million they usually get. Unfortunately because the Nets aren't there the arena is just not going to be as successful, at least not initially, as it could have been if they were there. That's what pisses me off the most, besides the fact that the new Meadowlands Stadium won't have a roof on it. If the Nets were at the Rock (at least until they move), and the new stadium had a roof on it, New Jersey would reap the benefits.
OT The stadium costs went through the roof. No pun intended. So even with 2 tenants, it made the project too expensive. Plus i think it was agreed that using the Northeast weather would be to their advantage.
Did you read the article? The Devils need to be paid by the Housing Authority first. Sounds like Newark signed a crappy contract. Here's one more reason that cities should not be involved in big business deals. Brooklyn should take notice.
It has always been a shoe-string operation. It needed MASSIVE public help--Newark used more than a quarter BILLION dollars it got from the Port Authority for back taxes on the airport and Port Newark to build it. Then, construction costs soared and Vanderbeek overextended himself. All this babbling about the Nets moving to Newark is being pushed through the system by Vanderbeek and Cory Booker, because they know that the Rock is simply not fiscally sound. The claim that the city owes Vanderbeek money is not realistic. It's merely his attempt to establish a position to negotiate a compromise on what he owes the city. We're not talking about New York City here. We're talking about one of the poorest cities in the union.
As a long-time Giants fan, I would have been really pissed if the new stadium had a roof on it. Football is supposed to be played in the elements...
I get the impression NI would love nothing more than to see Newark fail. I don't know what pleasure comes from that. I understand if someone rather see the team in Brooklyn, but rooting for Newark to fail is not good for the city, the state, or the people that live there.
I have to disagree. I am a 20y season ticket holder to the Jets and I think a retractable roof would have been fine. As far as the costs for the roof being too much, You have a Super Bowl there and a final four and maybe a wrestlemania and you make up the costs for the roof.
Obviously, those who did financial analysis thought otherwise. If they thought it would have been cost effective, they would have done it. Also, anything built in the New York/New Jersey area costs more than it does anywhere else in the US, for a lot of reasons. Final Four at best is a once-every-15-years event. Super Bowl, the same. Might have helped the concert business, but not a lot of winter concerts anyway.
