Dan2330 Posted December 8, 2006 Report Share Posted December 8, 2006 NFL owners OK $300M for new Giants-Jets stadiumESPN.com news servicesNEWARK, N.J. -- The New York Giants and Jets will receive $300 million in funding help from NFL owners for their new stadium at the Meadowlands.The ballpark is projected to cost between $1.1 billion and $1.2 billion.The owners approved the league stadium financing request, a loan, at the NFL owners meeting in Frisco, Texas, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said.The vote was 30-2 for stadium funding, with the Bills and Bengals dissenting"It's absolutely important to have a world-class facility in the No. 1 market for the NFL," commissioner Roger Goodell said after the meeting. "In New York, there's a lot of competing facilities being built, and it's important for us to keep up with the other sports in the New York area."The teams are jointly financing the stadium, which is expected to open in 2010 and seat between 82,500 and 84,000. Construction is expected to begin next spring.Jets owner Woody Johnson applauded his fellow owners for approving the loan."They all recognize the importance of having a modern facility in the largest media market in the world," Johnson said from an airport in Texas after attending the meeting. "They voted for the league."Johnson said the vote was "almost unanimous" and described it as a "vote of confidence from the other league owners."In a statement, Johnson and Giants owners John Mara and Steve Tisch said their goal is to create a new stadium that will revolutionize and enhance the experience for the fans."This modern and technologically advanced stadium will bring about a new excitement for football in the region and throughout the league, and be a showcase for the grandeur and fun that NFL gamedays offer," the two said.Final design plans are expected in January, said Alice McGillion, a spokeswoman for New Meadowlands Stadium Corp., a company that represents the team owners.Thursday's vote helps keep the construction schedule on track, said Carl Goldberg, chairman of the board of the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority, which owns the Meadowlands.The owners also approved a $42.5 million loan for renovations of Arrowhead Stadium, home of the Kansas City Chiefs.The moves marked the end of the stadium financing program, called G3, but the league will be working on creating a new stadium-funding mechanism, Goodell said."It's the end of the G3 program in the sense that we have exhausted the funds allocated for the G3 program," he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazkal Posted December 8, 2006 Report Share Posted December 8, 2006 Did we get help from the NFL for PBS? kinda wish we hired the people who designed the cardinals stadium myself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripes Posted December 8, 2006 Report Share Posted December 8, 2006 Did we get help from the NFL for PBS? kinda wish we hired the people who designed the cardinals stadium myself Domes blow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edogger Posted December 8, 2006 Report Share Posted December 8, 2006 Did we get help from the NFL for PBS? kinda wish we hired the people who designed the cardinals stadium myself Domes blow.Yeah, but we could have hosted a SB with a dome. Added revenue for the city. I can't believe we voted against this too! This was the same result (30-2) of the barginning agreement, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjakq27 Posted December 8, 2006 Report Share Posted December 8, 2006 Did we get help from the NFL for PBS?I don't think we did. I know the sales tax increase is still in effect in Hamilton County.I also don't have a problem with Mike Brown or the Bills voting no on this. It looks like each team would have to kick in $10 million for the project. To me it is a bad trend to start if your stadium (see PBS, Heinz Field, Cleveland Stadium) has already been built and you are unable to get any benefit from this program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasher Posted December 8, 2006 Report Share Posted December 8, 2006 In matters of revenue sharing and generation, it is pretty well documented where the Bills and Bengals are at.I would not expect them to want to contribute from their revenues for a NY stadium when the current agrement is at the disadvantage of the small market teams, the Bengals did not get any help from the NFL and there is not anything on the horizon to correct the situation.Just my opinion. Since I am not an insider, I will not presume to know or understand all the forces at work and all the issues underlying the situation, but given the recent track record, I would hesitate to accuse the Bengals of being cheap. Five years ago? Yes. Now? No. But that is just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMC Posted December 8, 2006 Report Share Posted December 8, 2006 Did we get help from the NFL for PBS? kinda wish we hired the people who designed the cardinals stadium myself Domes blow.Yeah, but we could have hosted a SB with a dome. Added revenue for the city. I can't believe we voted against this too! This was the same result (30-2) of the barginning agreement, right?You honestly think Cincinnati could host a Super Bowl? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalboomer7 Posted December 8, 2006 Report Share Posted December 8, 2006 At least they aren't holding taxpayers hostage to get a new stadium. I'm not against Mikey voting against this, I'm glad the NFL is taking care of it instead of the citizens of New York Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMC Posted December 8, 2006 Report Share Posted December 8, 2006 Did we get help from the NFL for PBS? kinda wish we hired the people who designed the cardinals stadium myself Domes blow.Then they stop, and blow again.....They were proposing an open air stadium for Minnesota. I like that owner..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinneymulleT Posted December 8, 2006 Report Share Posted December 8, 2006 This is a bunch of crap. The largest richest city in america needs help from others to build them a world class stadium? I am so tired of seeing NYC get all this special attention when they dont need it. Where was our 300 million, which is about how much it costs to build pbs? No we had to pay for it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edogger Posted December 8, 2006 Report Share Posted December 8, 2006 Did we get help from the NFL for PBS? kinda wish we hired the people who designed the cardinals stadium myself Domes blow.Yeah, but we could have hosted a SB with a dome. Added revenue for the city. I can't believe we voted against this too! This was the same result (30-2) of the barginning agreement, right?You honestly think Cincinnati could host a Super Bowl? It was more like wishful thinking... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgilgris Posted December 8, 2006 Report Share Posted December 8, 2006 The way i read the article is that it was a loan that would be repaid...Correct? Loans dont bother me but if we had to actually pay for another teams facilities that is some B.S.. Great idea make the smaller market teams start paying for the larger market teams facilities, yea great that would make a ton of sense ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC_Bengals_Fan Posted December 8, 2006 Report Share Posted December 8, 2006 Did we get help from the NFL for PBS? kinda wish we hired the people who designed the cardinals stadium myself Domes blow.Yeah, but we could have hosted a SB with a dome. Added revenue for the city. I can't believe we voted against this too! This was the same result (30-2) of the barginning agreement, right?You honestly think Cincinnati could host a Super Bowl? If Jacksonville and Houston can get one, why the hell not?Personally, I think only NO, SD, MIA, and LA should ever get it. Or Vegas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PMThor Posted December 8, 2006 Report Share Posted December 8, 2006 Did we get help from the NFL for PBS? kinda wish we hired the people who designed the cardinals stadium myself Domes blow.Yeah, but we could have hosted a SB with a dome. Added revenue for the city. I can't believe we voted against this too! This was the same result (30-2) of the barginning agreement, right?You honestly think Cincinnati could host a Super Bowl? It was more like wishful thinking...If Detroit can host a Super Bowl, Cincy can host a SB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckj414 Posted December 8, 2006 Report Share Posted December 8, 2006 Here's the way the loan works. For the duration, the league owns the rights to the away team's share of income from certain seats in the new stadium. Thats how the loan is repaid. As a Giants fan, I'm thrilled. Can't really blame the teams that voted against it, but this really is for the good of the league. And better for my boys too...its pretty sad that a team in the largest market in the country had one of the least lucrative stadium deals (Giants Stadium was antiquated)...believe it or not, since PBS, the 'small-market' Bengals have had more cash to work with than the Giants or, not counting Woody's billions, the Jets. T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMC Posted December 8, 2006 Report Share Posted December 8, 2006 Did we get help from the NFL for PBS? kinda wish we hired the people who designed the cardinals stadium myself Domes blow.Yeah, but we could have hosted a SB with a dome. Added revenue for the city. I can't believe we voted against this too! This was the same result (30-2) of the barginning agreement, right?You honestly think Cincinnati could host a Super Bowl? It was more like wishful thinking...I hear ya! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinneymulleT Posted December 9, 2006 Report Share Posted December 9, 2006 Here's the way the loan works. For the duration, the league owns the rights to the away team's share of income from certain seats in the new stadium. Thats how the loan is repaid. As a Giants fan, I'm thrilled. Can't really blame the teams that voted against it, but this really is for the good of the league. And better for my boys too...its pretty sad that a team in the largest market in the country had one of the least lucrative stadium deals (Giants Stadium was antiquated)...believe it or not, since PBS, the 'small-market' Bengals have had more cash to work with than the Giants or, not counting Woody's billions, the Jets. THow is this for the good of the league? Most if not all revenue generated by a stadium is not subject to sharing (seats, box, food and drink). This benefits the owners and the whiners of NYC only! Not to mention a low rate loan could be worth 50 million bucks or more! Talk about cartel and anti trust issues! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronburr Posted December 9, 2006 Report Share Posted December 9, 2006 Here's the way the loan works. For the duration, the league owns the rights to the away team's share of income from certain seats in the new stadium. Thats how the loan is repaid. As a Giants fan, I'm thrilled. Can't really blame the teams that voted against it, but this really is for the good of the league. And better for my boys too...its pretty sad that a team in the largest market in the country had one of the least lucrative stadium deals (Giants Stadium was antiquated)...believe it or not, since PBS, the 'small-market' Bengals have had more cash to work with than the Giants or, not counting Woody's billions, the Jets. TAnd the rich get richer.Are you really expecting us to believe that the largest media market in the world can support two professional football teams, two professional baseball teams, two professional basketball teams, and two professional hockey teams, but can't afford to build a modern stadium without help from the NFL? Next you'll be telling me Daniel Snyder needs a housing allowance because it's expensive to live in D.C.If the Giants and/or Jets were threatening to leave the area then maybe you could make the argument that this helps the league. But then we haven't had a team here in L.A. for 10 years and the league seems to be doing just fine.Don't know enough about the CBA to have a strong opinion on it, but considering it was the same vote talley for this idiotic manuever, I'm starting to think Mikey was on the right track. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West Coast Bengal Posted December 9, 2006 Report Share Posted December 9, 2006 What a seriously interesting topic to come home to from the bars. I'm serious! Thanks guys, I read through the whole thing. Gnarly topic to discuss with a fan base that pays more in their taxes so they can have one of the best stadiums in the NFL while the largest city in the union is borrowing money. Not to mention, one of the teams' owners is phuckin loaded! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted December 9, 2006 Report Share Posted December 9, 2006 The Giants and Jets had every right to request G3 financing help. Why not?As for why Mikey voted no, I'm sure its because he believes that the overall revenue boost from a huge new stadium will drive up the salary cap numbers, but since not all that revenue is shared, it will add to the "unfair" imbalance between large and small market teams.Goodell was working on a deal with the player's union to limit the cap impact of the new stadium to a max of $2 million per team. Don't know if that was ever finalized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesterLyles Posted December 9, 2006 Report Share Posted December 9, 2006 The Giants and Jets had every right to request G3 financing help. Why not?As for why Mikey voted no, I'm sure its because he believes that the overall revenue boost from a huge new stadium will drive up the salary cap numbers, but since not all that revenue is shared, it will add to the "unfair" imbalance between large and small market teams.Goodell was working on a deal with the player's union to limit the cap impact of the new stadium to a max of $2 million per team. Don't know if that was ever finalized.Guys, resident Jets fan here. The Bengals indeed DID benefit from a similar NFL loan. All new stadiums have benfitted in fact. The difference is that each team including Cincy and t/f each stadium including PBS was entitled to $150 mm. The NYT issue went to vote, though, b/c there are 2 teams involved and t/f the NY teams argued that they should recieve a combined $300 mm instead of only $150 mm. From what I read the primary reason the Bills and Bengals voted against it is b/c the new stadium will significantly increase revenues, which will significantly increase the salary cap, which according to Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson, puts their respective team at a disadvantage. I read that the Mara family (owner of the Giants) made a big plea to the owners saying that their father Wellington was largely responsible for the league's revenue sharing structure that is curently in place. When you think about it, Wellington mara sacraficed a lot for the better of the league w/ revenue sharing yet he pushed hard for it. T/f one theory is that yesterday's vote was a "thank you" and "we owe you one" from the league to Wellington and the Giants organization. I guess Mike Brown didn't feel too grateful...kind of bushleage if you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinneymulleT Posted December 9, 2006 Report Share Posted December 9, 2006 Do you have citation, link or reference for your assertions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalboomer7 Posted December 9, 2006 Report Share Posted December 9, 2006 I wish I lived in a world where voting no on a $300million "thank you" is considered bush league Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted December 9, 2006 Report Share Posted December 9, 2006 Guys, resident Jets fan here. The Bengals indeed DID benefit from a similar NFL loan.As far as I know, that isn't true. There was no money from the league's G-3 program involved in building PBS. The Bengals put up a relatively small amount -- I think it was on the order of $30 million -- and the rest was paid by the taxpayers. Getting some money from the G-3 program after the fact was something that city councilman/gadfly Todd Portune tried to do in a lawsuit a few years back, but that went nowhere.From what I read the primary reason the Bills and Bengals voted against it is b/c the new stadium will significantly increase revenues, which will significantly increase the salary cap, which according to Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson, puts their respective team at a disadvantage.Yup. On one hand, I see Mikey's point...on the other, as I've said for years, the NFL is today what it is today, and it's clear that Mikey's views have faded into a distinct minority. He may be absolutely right that the NFL is headed over a financial cliff of sorts, that smaller market teams will become increasingly less competitive, etc. And he may be completely wrong. But few of the other owners are interested in listening to him, even, it appears, most of the other small market owners. So he can either do what he has to do to stay in the game...or he can sell the team and ride off into the sunset. But trying to turn back the clock isn't an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjakq27 Posted December 9, 2006 Report Share Posted December 9, 2006 As far as I know, that isn't true. There was no money from the league's G-3 program involved in building PBS. The Bengals put up a relatively small amount -- I think it was on the order of $30 million -- and the rest was paid by the taxpayers. From what I read the primary reason the Bills and Bengals voted against it is b/c the new stadium will significantly increase revenues, which will significantly increase the salary cap, which according to Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson, puts their respective team at a disadvantage.Yup. On one hand, I see Mikey's point...on the other, as I've said for years, the NFL is today what it is today, and it's clear that Mikey's views have faded into a distinct minority. He may be absolutely right that the NFL is headed over a financial cliff of sorts, that smaller market teams will become increasingly less competitive, etc. And he may be completely wrong. But few of the other owners are interested in listening to him, even, it appears, most of the other small market owners. So he can either do what he has to do to stay in the game...or he can sell the team and ride off into the sunset. But trying to turn back the clock isn't an option. I think the Bengals chipped in around $40 million of which most if not all was from the sale of seat licences (COAs), clubs suites and luxury boxes.People also need to understand that NO votes are sometimes made as a symbolic gesture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.