New York Jets Thread - Page 20 - NFL UK Forums
NFL UK Mobile Logo
Go Back   NFL UK Forums > 32 NFL Teams > New York Jets

  #191  
Old 08.06.2005, 10:58 AM
allthegiants's Avatar
allthegiants allthegiants is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 15.02.2005
Posts: 2,798
Default Re:New York Jets Thread

[quote author=Woolley_Man link=board=1;threadid=8297;start=180#msg239992 date=1118228048]
As long as were full partners and not just tennets playing in the giants home,i wouldn't mind that.But it would be nice to actualy be in New York,all these New Jersey Jet jokes really bugs me.
[/quote]

Yeah I know. But at the end of the day, Meadowlands is within New York City limits, so we are in New York.

Apparently, if Jets decide to join the Giants, the state may look to pay for a retractable roof for the stadium.
Plus, they would use electronic boards so sponsers for the two teams can be displayed.
There is talk of using technology so that the stadium can become a home ground for both teams

http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/...amp;thispage=1

(you may have to copy and paste into the address line)
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 08.06.2005, 06:41 PM
jamllew's Avatar
jamllew jamllew is offline
Team Captain
 
Join Date: 04.09.2003
Posts: 342
Default Re:New York Jets Thread

[quote author=All The Giants link=board=1;threadid=8297;start=180#msg239997 date=1118228299]


Yeah I know. But at the end of the day, Meadowlands is within New York City limits, so we are in New York.


[/quote]

The Meadowlands is very much in New Jersey. East Rutherford, New Jersey to be precise!

The new stadium would almost certainly be sponsored, whether it is a Giants only, or a shared stadium. I'd like to see the Jets explore the prospect of a Queens stadium, but there isn't enough money for all the sports teams in NY to move into new homes to replace their out-dated venues.
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 08.06.2005, 10:00 PM
Woolley_Man's Avatar
Woolley_Man Woolley_Man is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 04.09.2003
Posts: 7,862
Default Re:New York Jets Thread

[quote author=jamllew link=board=1;threadid=8297;start=180#msg240292 date=1118256107]
[quote author=All The Giants link=board=1;threadid=8297;start=180#msg239997 date=1118228299]


Yeah I know. But at the end of the day, Meadowlands is within New York City limits, so we are in New York.


[/quote]
The Meadowlands is very much in New Jersey. East Rutherford, New Jersey to be precise!

The new stadium would almost certainly be sponsored, whether it is a Giants only, or a shared stadium. I'd like to see the Jets explore the prospect of a Queens stadium, but there isn't enough money for all the sports teams in NY to move into new homes to replace their out-dated venues.
[/quote]

I think the problem with Queens is that its ment to be hell getting into and out of Queens.Although at the moment it seems the Jets are still looking at a westside stadium,except they are now looking at a fixed dome stadium.

NYC Stadium Supporters Mat Try End Run With New Plan
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 08.06.2005, 10:04 PM
Woolley_Man's Avatar
Woolley_Man Woolley_Man is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 04.09.2003
Posts: 7,862
Default Re:New York Jets Thread

We've signed our first Draft pick,RB Cedric Houston.A good thing about Bradway is that he always gets our guys to camp on time.


Jets Sign Draft Pick Houston
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 09.06.2005, 05:34 PM
jamllew's Avatar
jamllew jamllew is offline
Team Captain
 
Join Date: 04.09.2003
Posts: 342
Default Re:New York Jets Thread

[quote author=Woolley_Man link=board=1;threadid=8297;start=180#msg240477 date=1118268045]

I think the problem with Queens is that its ment to be hell getting into and out of Queens.Although at the moment it seems the Jets are still looking at a westside stadium,except they are now looking at a fixed dome stadium.

[/quote]

From my (limited) experience, it's downright awful getting across to New Jersey particularly in busy perods. Traditionally, Long Island (Brooklyn & Queens) has been the Jets heartland, so it wouldn't be that much of problem building in Queens. For people living in Manhattan, where owning a car is a bit of pointless exercise, there are already existing subway links that would take you to the site of the new stadium.
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 09.06.2005, 07:54 PM
Craig#10 Craig#10 is offline
Starter
 
Join Date: 05.05.2005
Posts: 180
Send a message via AIM to Craig#10
Default Re:New York Jets Thread

Yea Queens good call on that one - hey maybe they could go back to Shea :-\ as much as id like to see them in Manhattan i think they are perfectly fine in New Jersey.
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 09.06.2005, 10:48 PM
Woolley_Man's Avatar
Woolley_Man Woolley_Man is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 04.09.2003
Posts: 7,862
Default Re:New York Jets Thread

[quote author=jamllew link=board=1;threadid=8297;start=180#msg240884 date=1118338480]
[quote author=Woolley_Man link=board=1;threadid=8297;start=180#msg240477 date=1118268045]

I think the problem with Queens is that its ment to be hell getting into and out of Queens.Although at the moment it seems the Jets are still looking at a westside stadium,except they are now looking at a fixed dome stadium.

[/quote]

From my (limited) experience, it's downright awful getting across to New Jersey particularly in busy perods. Traditionally, Long Island (Brooklyn & Queens) has been the Jets heartland, so it wouldn't be that much of problem building in Queens. For people living in Manhattan, where owning a car is a bit of pointless exercise, there are already existing subway links that would take you to the site of the new stadium.
[/quote]

I'd imagine Queens would be better than the medowlands so it would be an improvement.Aren't the Mets building a new stadium in Queens(or are they just renovating Shea)?That could cause some problems but i'm sure it would be easier than putting it in manhatten.

Speaking of the West side stadium,seems there is some hope.Thisis an artcle from the NYsun.

Quote:
West Side Stadium May Yet Be Built

BY JULIE SATOW

Staff Reporter of the Sun

June 9, 2005

The Jets have been swamped with calls from developers and investors looking to become partners in building a stadium over the Hudson Rail Yards, real estate insiders familiar with the situation said yesterday. If the stadium is built, however, it might be unsuitable for the Olympic Summer Games in 2012.

"People are coming out of the woodwork," a Jets official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told The New York Sun.

"I've heard that some of my members have called the Jets," the president of the Real Estate Board of New York, Steven Spinola, said. He declined to say which of his members might be interested.

The board of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which owns the 13-acre rail yards, awarded the Jets development rights in March for a bid of $250 million. The team planned to build a 75,000-seat stadium on a platform over the rail yards, which are operating. The plan was dealt what many thought was a mortal blow Monday when a little-known state board did not approve a $300 million state contribution to the stadium, formally known as the New York Sports and Convention Center. The Public Authorities Control Board, controlled by Governor Pataki, Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, needed a 3-0 vote to approve the development, which was denied when the two legislative leaders instructed their representatives to abstain.

Supporters of the stadium are now considering obtaining approval for the $2 billion-plus project through city government instead. The rail yards would have to be rezoned to allow construction of the stadium, which could be completed through the city's Uniform Land Use Review Process, under which the community board, the Manhattan borough president's office, the City Planning Commission, and the City Council would all review the proposal.

Mr. Spinola said the process could be completed in four to seven months, instead of the 12 months usually required, because the Jets have already completed an environmental impact statement for the stadium.

Getting the stadium approved through the city process "is an option that needs to be considered," the deputy mayor for economic development, Daniel Doctoroff, said yesterday.

Approval by the City Planning Commission and a majority of the 51-member City Council is considered likely, though both the council speaker, Gifford Miller, and the Manhattan borough president, C. Virginia Fields, who are candidates for the Democratic nomination for mayor, have opposed the stadium proposal rejected in Albany this week. The community board also opposes the project but lacks the authority to veto it.

"City approval is a definite possibility," the chairman of the council's finance committee, David Weprin, said.

"If it goes through Ulurp, I think it will pass," the Queens Democrat said of the city's review process.

Then, presumably, the proposed stadium and convention center could still benefit from a $300 million city subsidy for construction of the immense platform on which it would be built. The Jets' problem is that approval through the city process would not qualify the stadium for the $300 million in state money and the millions of dollars in state tax breaks that the Jets expected to receive if the control board approved their plan.

"If they don't need the $300 million from the state, then why didn't they say so last week?" the executive director of the Fiscal Policy Institute, Frank Mauro, asked yesterday. "It sounds ridiculous to me that now the Jets say they can get private financing, when all along they said they had to have the subsidies."

The likely scenario, the Jets official said, would be that the $300 million retractable roof originally planned for the waterfront stadium would be replaced by a significantly cheaper roof that was not retractable.

A retractable roof would have allowed conversion of the football stadium and convention venue into an Olympic stadium, but because it now seems unlikely New York City will be selected as host of the 2012 Olympics, the retractable roof is no longer seen as critical.

The cost to the Jets of building the stadium would also be held in check by the participation of private investors.

One developer reached by The New York Sun said he had considered calling the Jets to help them cover the more than $300 million in lost state subsidies but decided against the move because it was not a real estate play.

"We thought to ourselves that this whole thing is falling apart because of a lousy $300 million, can't we think of a way to save it?" the developer, who declined to be quoted by name, said. "I'm sure every developer in town had that thought, but we're not interested in getting into a sports investment."

The only way an investment in the Jets would be profitable for real estate investors, that developer said, is if the MTA awarded priority to investors in the purchase of the valuable "transferable development rights" that would be created by a rezoning. When the Jets submitted their winning bid three months ago, a half dozen developers joined in the bid. Given a rezoning of the rail yards, those developers - Brodsky Organization, Glenwood Management, Rockrose Realty, Donald Zucker Company, the Related Companies, and Jack Resnick & Sons - planned to use those excess air rights to construct taller buildings elsewhere.

At the time, the MTA decided to retain ownership of the desirable TDRs, as they are known, with an eye toward eventually selling them to raise money - which it desperately needs to maintain and expand the mass-transit system.

A call to the MTA yesterday was not returned.
And it didn't take long but the Jets are already in talks with the Giants about the possibility of joining in on their new stadium.
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 10.06.2005, 10:33 AM
ukjetsfan ukjetsfan is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 27.08.2004
Posts: 1,178
Default Re:New York Jets Thread

[quote author=Woolley_Man link=board=1;threadid=8297;start=195#msg241048 date=1118357299]
The likely scenario, the Jets official said, would be that the $300 million retractable roof originally planned for the waterfront stadium would be replaced by a significantly cheaper roof that was not retractable.
[/quote]

Hmmm, the Jets in a dome. Wouldn't that be like putting birds in a cage?

I suppose a Field Turf playing field was probably inevitable at the new stadium anyway, but I just prefer grass. Difficult in the New York climate I know, but at least a dedicated Jets stadium would have less wear and tear than the current shared stadium, where the grass turf they tried from 2000-2002 was a mess.

A dome completely removes grass from the equation and might also make the Jets a 'soft' team, when they need to win in Buffalo and New England, often in bad winter weather - not to mention teams like Pittsburgh in the playoffs!

And a thought has just popped into my head - in 1999 the Jets were tipped to win the Super Bowl, before Vinny wrecked his Achilles on Astroturf at Giants Stadium. In 2003 the Jets were tipped to go to the Super Bowl before Chad wrecks his left wrist on FieldTurf at Giants Stadium. In between? Three seasons of great, hard-nosed football on natural grass!

To quote the great John Madden: "Big ol' arms, stuff hanging out, mud on the thing!'

I have very little idea what he was talking about, but it sounds like real football to me!
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 10.06.2005, 02:17 PM
nickmanning's Avatar
nickmanning nickmanning is offline
Starter
 
Join Date: 05.10.2003
Posts: 133
Default Re:New York Jets Thread

Hahaha Yeah put the Jests in a dome!! That's the funniest thing I've heard all day - really cheered me up!

That happens and I see the Dolfags and the Snot fighting to be bottom of the div every year!!

Damn - football is an outdoor sport....
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 10.06.2005, 03:38 PM
Woolley_Man's Avatar
Woolley_Man Woolley_Man is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 04.09.2003
Posts: 7,862
Default Re:New York Jets Thread

[quote author=ukjetsfan link=board=1;threadid=8297;start=195#msg241191 date=1118399629]
[quote author=Woolley_Man link=board=1;threadid=8297;start=195#msg241048 date=1118357299]
The likely scenario, the Jets official said, would be that the $300 million retractable roof originally planned for the waterfront stadium would be replaced by a significantly cheaper roof that was not retractable.
[/quote]

Hmmm, the Jets in a dome. Wouldn't that be like putting birds in a cage?

I suppose a Field Turf playing field was probably inevitable at the new stadium anyway, but I just prefer grass. Difficult in the New York climate I know, but at least a dedicated Jets stadium would have less wear and tear than the current shared stadium, where the grass turf they tried from 2000-2002 was a mess.

A dome completely removes grass from the equation and might also make the Jets a 'soft' team, when they need to win in Buffalo and New England, often in bad winter weather - not to mention teams like Pittsburgh in the playoffs!

And a thought has just popped into my head - in 1999 the Jets were tipped to win the Super Bowl, before Vinny wrecked his Achilles on Astroturf at Giants Stadium. In 2003 the Jets were tipped to go to the Super Bowl before Chad wrecks his left wrist on FieldTurf at Giants Stadium. In between? Three seasons of great, hard-nosed football on natural grass!

To quote the great John Madden: "Big ol' arms, stuff hanging out, mud on the thing!'

I have very little idea what he was talking about, but it sounds like real football to me!
[/quote]

I reckon Chads injury was more down to the akward landing than the pitch itself,although considering the fact that the Westside stadium would also house conventions and concerts i'm sure the Field turf was going to happen with retractable roof.

I'm not really against a dome,i would prefer to play outside but the whole dome teams aren't tough thing is really just down to the fact that the Colts and the Rams can't play defense.As long as we didn't decide to change our game towards an air it out,outscore the other team style offense,i reckon we would be fine.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +0. The time now is 08:19 PM.