Tackling the Chance

With the Jets blocked from Manhattan, New Jersey seeks to seize opportunityEast Rutherford

Now that the New York Jets? plan to build a football stadium on the West Side of Manhattan has been stymied, officials on this side of the Hudson River are celebrating the prospect of a super stadium that could surpass all others in terms of size and amenities.
?This is a real opportunity for New Jersey,? says George Zoffinger, CEO of the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority. ?We have an opportunity to take both teams, put them in a domed stadium and then attract events like the Super Bowl and the Final Four? in college basketball.
Acting Governor Richard Codey says New Jersey benefits from New York state?s refusal to approve funding toward a $2.2 billion stadium in Manhattan because the Jets could partner to build an equally monumental stadium at the Meadowlands with private funds, and split the bill with the Giants. ?It?s a big win for us clearly and for the history of professional sports in the state of New Jersey,? says Codey.
The acting governor already plans to pursue the 2010 Super Bowl, which the NFL conditionally granted to the Jet?s proposed West Side stadium. ?It?s hanging there and I?m going to try to grab it,? says Codey.
A partnership between the Giants and Jets would be promising because the two teams could hedge their investments and share operating expenses such as the marketing of luxury suites and attracting non-sporting events. But a partnership would raise questions ranging from who would manage the stadium to who would pay for a $200 million retractable roof that the state is pushing for but that neither team really seems to want.
There would be no modern precedent for co-ownership of the stadium. While the two National Football League teams have shared Giants Stadium in the Meadowlands for 20 years, the facility has been owned and operated by the Sports Authority.
Zoffinger and Codey?who had clashed over a deal that allows the Giants to build a $750 million stadium at the Meadowlands Sports complex?are pushing the Giants to alter their plans and invite the Jets to be equal owners of the new stadium.
Under the deal the Giants struck with New Jersey in April, the team would pay for the new 80,000-seat stadium in exchange for control of the facility, including revenue from non-football events. While Giants executives say they would welcome the Jets to the stadium, they have never made clear whether the invitation would be to come as co-owners or tenants.
Pat Hanlon, vice president of communications for the Giants, says having the Jets at the stadium would require detailed negotiations between the two teams and would trigger increased payments to the Sports Authority under the Giants? deal with the state. ?We?ve said all along, when the Jets want to have a conversation about staying here in New Jersey we will at that point discuss every conceivable possibility in terms of partnering or whatever the nature would be,? says Hanlon. After the collapse of the New York City deal last week, the two teams held discussions.
One provision of the Giants-Sports Authority deal would give the state a share of monies a sponsor would pay to put its name on the stadium if the Jets played there too. The Sports Authority could keep a third of any naming-rights payments over $12 million, with a cap of $3 million on how much the state could pocket.
Carl Goldberg, the Sports Authority chairman, says both teams would have equal amenities in the new stadium. Moreover, the Jets would no longer have to fret about playing in a structure called Giants Stadium because the new stadium would be named for a sponsor. ?Right now the primary goal is to create a circumstance so the Jets understand they are welcome to a partnership with the Giants and the sports authority for the foreseeable future,? says Goldberg. The Jets and Giants already agree on one matter: Neither wants to pay $200 million for a retractable roof. ?We want to play outdoor football and we don?t think it makes financial sense to pay for the cost of a retractable roof,? says Hanlon, the Giants spokesman. ?Now obviously if someone else wants to put a retractable roof on the stadium, that?s a whole different scenario.?
Codey hopes the teams would agree to install a sliding roof on the stadium because it would help attract events such as the Super Bowl and political conventions. But he says the state won?t cover the cost. ?$200 million toward a retractable roof is not happening,? says Codey. ?That?s a call the teams would have to make on their own.?
One thing seems certain: There are a lot of benefits to having two teams in one stadium. ?They can build the finest sports facility in the country because you have teams sharing it and sharing the cost of construction,? says James W. Hughes, dean of the Edward J. Bloustein School of Public Policy at Rutgers University. ?Maybe with a roof it will cost 50% more than the average stadium, but it is still cheaper on a per-team basis.?
At the same time, he adds, ?The stadium would concentrate the nonfootball events?concerts, conventions?in one place, rather than have stadiums in New York and North Jersey competing for shows.?
E-mail to [email protected]