The Brooklyn Nets

[NYguy]

NY Post...

PROGRESS WINS!

By STEVE CUOZZO

February 10, 2004 -- NEW York's genetically litigious, anti-development curmudgeons just won't learn. Having taken beating after beating since they scuttled Westway in the name of saving striped bass, the enviro-fascists must be going nuts to see the recently opened Time Warner Center and the soon-to-be-completed revitalization of Times Square.

Although it took time, most of the big new public-private projects around town managed to turn back court challenges - over traffic, pollution, tax breaks, shadows, condemnation and charges that their goal of replacing drug dens and porn shops with respectable uses amounted to elitism.

So what are the obstructionists doing now for fun?

They're throwing a hissy fit over Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards scheme in Brooklyn.

Take City Councilwoman Letitia James' column in these pages Sunday ("Brooklyn Dodge"). It regurgitated every discredited, ideologically driven fallacy that activists have sucked dry to try stalling needed development in the five boroughs.

This is doubly dumb because there are legitimate reasons to keep an eye on Atlantic Yards and Ratner - among them, how the project will be financed and how Ratner's 50-50 partnership with The New York Times in developing its new headquarters on Eighth Avenue affords him political clout beyond the dreams of any other real-estate baron.

But the boilerplate James invokes is downright embarrassing. What are we supposed to fear at Atlantic Yards? As James sees it, a project that "exceeds the city's density limits" without "community input."

"Monstrous" buildings that would "crush" surrounding neighborhoods and "strain the already stretched traffic and mass-transport capabilities of the area."

Look out for "environmental impact" and eminent domain to "expropriate" homes and businesses.

And, heaven forfend, "another 174,000 cars a day on already overcrowded streets."

Well, I'll happily take some extra congestion over the desolation that now characterizes a fair chunk of Ratner's proposed site and part of the area around it.

Despite James' tired objections, the fact is every large-scale development of the last two decades in the city has proven a boon to its surroundings, with few or none of the feared side effects.

* Remember the uproar in the 1970s when three Broadway theaters were razed to make room for the Marriott Marquis Hotel, a "monster" that would "overwhelm" smaller neighbors?

At the time, Times Square was too dangerous to traverse - except perhaps by armored car. Meanwhile, Broadway was reeling; clearly, it was time for the theaters to go.

What happened? The hotel - bulky for its time but now quite cozy among its new neighbors - pioneered the way for other hotels and office buildings that would not otherwise have had confidence to join the party. Would any sane person trade in today's safe and festive Times Square, home to media and financial companies, for the war zone of the '70s?

* In the 1990s, Upper West Side activists fought to block three mixed-use high-rise towers planned on Broadway south of Lincoln Center. They used every dirty trick in the book to derail perfectly legal variances.

Now that the buildings are up and thriving with stores, cinemas and hundreds of occupied apartments, has anyone fled because of congestion and traffic?

Of course not - the neighborhood is more desirable than ever.

* Riverbank State Park in Harlem was criticized as an excuse to build a pollution-treatment plant on the Hudson River. Activists called it an odor-producing, toxic nightmare that would not be inflicted on a more prosperous neighborhood. Of course, the much-feared stink failed to stop local residents from making the delightful park on top of the plant one of the most popular in any American city.

* Rezoning that was long resisted by factions obsessed with "scale" and the need to preserve manufacturing spawned a vibrant new residential and shopping corridor on Sixth Avenue from 14th Street to 28th Street. A few years ago, that stretch was quiet by day and threatening after dark; today it throbs with giant retailers tucked inside grand old "Ladies' Mile" department-store shells and successful new high-rise rental apartment towers.

Status quo ideologues resent these happy outcomes. Their unshakable conviction that America is fundamentally racist and corrupt requires that cities be full of crime, homelessness and abandoned buildings to make their arguments seem plausible.

Having lost on most big projects of late, they now increasingly turn their "congestion" pop-guns on smaller targets - which is why residents in Harlem and many other neighborhoods are still waiting for modern supermarkets and large stores.

Atlantic Yards does deserve to be put under the microscope; real-estate developers are as profit-mad and ornery as popular imagination has it. But obstructionism for its own sake belongs on the ash heap of history - along with the old Times Square.

[billyblancoNYC]

THANK YOU GOD. Two fantastic articles that actually... make sense.

[TLOZ Link5]

God knows I don't always agree with Steve Cuozzo, but his article said pretty much everything I've ever wanted to say about NIMBYism.

[BrooklynRider]

Once Ratner commits to tearing down the horrendous Atlantic Center Mall and incorporates that greatest example of poor planning and urban blight into this project, he will have my support. (I'm sure he's tense in anticipation of my support).

[Clarknt67]

Once Ratner commits to tearing down the horrendous Atlantic Center Mall and incorporates that greatest example of poor planning and urban blight into this project, he will have my support. (I'm sure he's tense in anticipation of my support).

It is a very ugly mall. I'm always suprised when i'm there that you have to walk outside to get from some parts to other. What sort of retard designed it? Doesn't that defeat the WHOLE purpose of a MALL?

[Gulcrapek]

Atlantic Center will probably be torn down after the rest of the project is finished, it won't have any tenants and it won't make sense after that, with so much new competition.

[NoyokA]

No way will Atlantic Terminal be torn down, it was just built. :roll:

[Gulcrapek]

I said Atlantic Center. It's almost ten years old I think and it's having trouble keeping itself occupied.

[Clarknt67]

No way will Atlantic Terminal be torn down, it was just built. :roll:

He said Atlantic Center, the big ugly mall with an Old navy & Pathmark in it. Though it's being whispered that Terminal is a failure and being subsized by the local gov't renting offices Ratner can't lease.

[Gulcrapek]

?

The Terminal is almost fully leased by the Bank of New York...

[billyblancoNYC]

Plus don't they have a number of large retail tenants like Target already signed on?

[Clarknt67]

I tried to look up the source for the rumor I circulated. I believe it was in the Brooklyn Papers (which explains why I can't find it, they post their stuff mostly in PDF format on the web, which makes it hard to search via Google).

But the gist of the article was that Ratner's cozy relationship with Brooklyn's politians meant that many of the office space was being rented for gov't offices, which were really just a unnecessary space meant to subsidize the project.

The Brooklyn Papers are not a very objective source, however. They're rabid about the Downtown & the Nets plan and mostlyl just report the about the NIMBYs.

[Gulcrapek]

Yeah, but there were only like 50,000sf left to lease, like one floor. I don't know if it's been leased by now, last I read was months ago.

[billyblancoNYC]

BONY is moving 1500 employees into 300K sq ft. of space. I can't seem to find what the total is. Even the FCRatner website only lists the retail portion, which has a lot of boring, chain tenants.

[NYguy]

Newsday...

Stern: Nets Sale a Good Thing

By Barbara Barker

Los Angeles -- The sale of the Nets to Brooklyn real estate developer Bruce Ratner got an unofficial stamp of approval from NBA commissioner David Stern yesterday. At his yearly state of the league address on the eve of the All-Star Game, Stern said the league is eager to have the transaction done.

"We are anxious to have the sale approved because a certain cloud or malaise settles over a franchise that's in a state of flux," Stern said. "We think that [the sale] is a good thing, because we have seen some of the plans for the marketing, communications program, and we think that's going to be good for the franchise."

Ratner, who plans to eventually move the team from New Jersey to Brooklyn, submitted a winning bid of $300 million to purchase the team last month. The NBA's advisory finance committee is now studying the bid. It will then make a recommendation to the full board of NBA governors, which is composed of one owner or one owner's representative from each of the league's 29 teams.

To complete the sale, the Ratner group must get the approval of three-quarters of the board, at least 22 teams including themselves.

That now appears very likely.

"From everything we have heard and have begun to learn, is certainly well-suited to NBA ownership, along with the rest of his group," deputy commissioner Russ Granik said. "I think we are going to be telling the committee that at this point, all that they are focusing on is whether or not the Ratner group should be approved as owners of the now New Jersey Nets."

Granik said the vote on whether the team can be moved to Brooklyn would be taken later.

"Everybody understands what their game plan is, but until such time as that it's really ready to happen, which even by best estimate is a year and a half or two years away, we are not going to get into the subject of relocation."

The separation of the votes is a key victory for Ratner. Only 50 percent of owners have to approve the move of a franchise.

Owners are very likely not to disapprove any move, because one day they may need someone's vote if they want to move their own franchise.

[NYguy]

Speaking of Queens...

NY Post

QUEENS POL TRIES TO MAKE A STEAL FOR NETS

By GERSH KUNTZMAN

February 19, 2004 -- Yes, in his back yard.

A Queens councilman showed up unannounced yesterday at a rally against a Brooklyn arena for the New Jersey Nets, and promptly offered his Long Island City district as the team's logical new home.

"We would welcome this team in Queens," said Councilman Eric Gioia, upstaging an announcement by Nets opponents that they had hired noted civil-rights lawyer Norman Siegel to fight Bruce Ratner's plans to build a $450 million arena for his newly purchased basketball team.

Ratner's plan would require the condemnation of several buildings and displace hundreds of people. Yesterday, many of those homeowners carried posters reading "Develop, Don't Destroy" and "Stop Illegal Eminent Domain."

Supporters of Ratner say opponents are simply suffering from the NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard - syndrome. But Gioia disagreed: "It's an awful burden to ask people to move out of homes and something you should only do if there's an extraordinary public need. A basketball arena is not that."

Gioia said he will ask city and state agencies to consider putting the Nets in an arena built over the Sunnyside rail yards or next to Shea Stadium in Flushing.

A spokesman for Ratner, Joe DePlasco, said, "We thank the councilman for his support, but we are confident that we have the best location possible in Brooklyn."

[NYatKNIGHT]

Didn't see that coming.

[TLOZ Link5]

This won't end well.

[NYguy]

The only problem with Queens is that Ratner has absoulutely NO interest in building there. His plan is about redevelopment at the site in Brooklyn, not the arena alone. Its just a pol who thought he would take a shot at it...

[Kris]

February 28, 2004

Move Looms, but Nets Fans Aren't Ready to Let Go

By STEVE POPPER

Frank Capece, a Nets season-ticket holder for 26 years, was trying to explain why he was still at Continental Arena, why he was still happily rooting for his team despite the announcement more than a month ago that the Nets were headed to Brooklyn. When words failed, he tried something else.

"Watch this," he said, turning quickly in his front-row seat toward the court, where the Nets were warming up for the second half of a game Tuesday night. He shouted, "Lu, Lu," to Nets guard Lucious Harris, who spotted him and tossed him a basketball. The 5-foot-7 Capece fired up a shot from the sideline that clanged off the rim as the rest of the players continued to warm up.

"See, that's why we love this," Capece said. "Can you do that in New York? Can you do that at Madison Square Garden?"

The only reprimand Capece got was from Harris, who chided him. "Don't you ever make the shot?" he said.

And that might help explain why, with the team set to desert New Jersey, the fans who have been there are still coming.

The Nets were 28th among the 29 teams in the N.B.A. in average attendance on Jan. 22, the day Bruce C. Ratner, who wants to make the Nets the centerpiece of a downtown Brooklyn development, emerged as the new owner of the team with a winning bid of $300 million. At that point, the Nets had drawn 14,158 fans a game through the first 20 home games this season, about 1,000 fewer than last season and almost 6,000 a game below capacity. The arena had sold out once, when LeBron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers came to town.

But the exodus of fans that some had forecast as the sale went through has not come. In the eight games since the announcement, the average home attendance has risen slightly, to 14,288, and the Nets have moved to 27th in the league. Those numbers should increase this weekend with an afternoon game today against the Miami Heat and a game tomorrow night against the Los Angeles Lakers.

Part of the explanation is in the team's play. A 14-game winning streak finally ended in Minneapolis on Wednesday night, and a lot of favorable publicity has been generated by the team's new coach, Lawrence Frank.

There is also a belief that after 23 seasons in the Meadowlands, 4 seasons at Rutgers in Piscataway and even humbler beginnings at the Teaneck Armory, the Nets will somehow remain in place. "I think our best ally is that nothing ever gets done in New York," Capece said.

The team has also sent out mailings for playoff tickets, and according to the team president, Rod Thorn, the reaction has been good. Thorn believes the loyalty of longtime fans in New Jersey has kept them in place, even if the team may not stay.

"We've got people that have been with us the whole time, people that have been here — 15, 20 years," he said. "They have come to like the Nets or N.B.A. basketball. They're loyal, hard-core fans. I would think that those people, unless it's totally inconvenient, even with the move, will stay with us."

He added, "And we have a good product."

The product — one of the league's most entertaining teams, with Jason Kidd leading a fast-paced offense — has never been enough to draw big crowds to Continental Arena, even though the Nets are the league's ninth-best draw on the road.

"That has become just a fixture," Kidd said of the empty seats at Continental Arena. "We understand that's just part of it. That's what makes us even more special. We don't play for people. We play for each other."

He added: "I think the crowds have been pretty good of late. If they can figure out different ways to get people to come, we'll be fine."

Mike Kozlowski, who works in advertising and on the side started a Nets fans Web site, organized a protest at the first Nets home game after the awarding of the franchise to Ratner. With temperatures just above zero, Kozlowski and about 30 die-hards voiced their gripes outside the arena. He is trying to keep up the fight, hopeful that the move to Brooklyn will fall apart and the Nets will remain where they are.

"When it happened, we got off-the-cuff, angry reaction," Kozlowski said of the initial e-mail messages to his Web site. "It was, `I'm done,' and `I'm turning in my tickets.' Then they hit the streak and Byron Scott was out, which a lot of long-timers wanted. Now people are finding it hard to disengage. My philosophy is that it's not over till it's over, and Ratner's got to prove he's going to get all the approvals."

Kozlowski is soliciting fans to stage another protest, this one in better weather, which he hopes will help draw a better crowd. But it has always been hard to draw a crowd here for anything but a Bruce Springsteen concert.

Obstacles may eventually prove to be troublesome in Brooklyn, where land acquisition and tax dollars, as well as the N.B.A. board of governors, may stand in the way of the $2.5 billion project. In New Jersey, there is the promise, still, of a rail line to the arena as well as the development of the Xanadu entertainment complex. In the meantime, there are games to be played and a belief that a title may still land in New Jersey.

"I guess we're just not going to let the future destroy the current," Capece said. "The sense is that it's so far down the road that we're not focusing on it. It doesn't seem relevant to our lives."

He added: "We're having fun now. In New York, they've got their celebrities. Here, we've got Gary the investment counselor, Danny the Israeli builder, Ed the frozen food king. And you look up, and Kenyon Martin is actually smiling at the crowd."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Clarknt67]

I'm sorry, I tried searching but didn't find the answer, are the NJ Devils definately staying in NJ? At one point the plan was for the arena to house both the Nets & the Devils, but I haven't heard a word in a while about the Devils.

[JCMAN320]

Everyone calm down the Devils are stayin. They agreed for an 18,000 seat arena in downtown Newark.

[Gulcrapek]

Yar. I hope that plan actually materializes. If I had a nickel for every time a Newark arena plan was cancelled or disappeared, I'd have like... 20 cents or something. Maybe fifteen. But not enough to buy even decent candy.

[STT757]

I'm sorry, I tried searching but didn't find the answer, are the NJ Devils definately staying in NJ? At one point the plan was for the arena to house both the Nets & the Devils, but I haven't heard a word in a while about the Devils.

The Devils were never part of the move to Brooklyn for two reasons,

1.) Unlike the NBA NHL teams can veto moves, the Rangers and Islanders would have surely vetoed a Devils move to Brooklyn.

2.) The Owners of the Devils are the ones who are championing the Newark arena the whole time, Raymond Chambers who owns the Devils and was partners with the Nets grew up in Newark and he's trying to revitalize the City.

[NYatKNIGHT]

It's still not a done deal, but if the Newark deal never materializes the most likely outcome will be that they stay in the revamped Meadowlands - Xanadu and rail link.

See this thread on the Newark Arena (http://forums.wirednewyork.com/viewtopic.php?t=2026).

[Kris]

July 3, 2004

Ratner Offers Plan to Keep Nets Intact

By STEVE POPPER

Bruce C. Ratner is still a few weeks away from taking over as the owner of the Nets, but he said yesterday that he intended to keep the team and its management intact.

Ratner, the 59-year-old president and chief executive officer of Forest City Ratner Companies, had been silent about his plans while waiting for the National Basketball Association's Board of Governors to approve his purchase of the team, which is expected to happen Friday. But he met individually with reporters from several newspapers in his office in Brooklyn yesterday because he was concerned about recent reports that he wanted drastic cost-cutting that would rip the team apart.

"The cost-cutting is totally exaggerated," he said. "Look, every team makes decisions as to what are the best players for this particular group to work together, play together, and how do you do that in a cost-effective way? Sometimes that means trading someone much more needed by another team, you know, and saving some money so we can keep other players."

Outlining his plans, he said:

¶He hoped to retain the Nets' three key players - Jason Kidd, the free agent Kenyon Martin and Richard Jefferson.

¶The Nets' chief executive officer, Rod Thorn, and General Manager Ed Stefanski would remain the decision-makers, with ownership providing a final word but submitting to the consensus of the basketball staff.

¶He was willing to take a financial loss next season to keep the team intact.

¶He believed the Nets would be a profitable enterprise when the team eventually moves to Brooklyn, where he plans to build a new arena as part of a complex that will also include offices and housing.

The most immediate concern is Martin, who is fielding inquiries from other teams and seeking a deal worth $85 million over six years. If he gets it, the Nets could match the offer and keep him, but they would have to cut other salaries to fit within their budget.

"We'll do the very best we can to keep all the best players, especially the core three or four," Ratner said. "I love to watch Kenyon, love to watch Jason Kidd, Jefferson, all of them."

The Nets traded their first-round draft pick in last week's draft to the Trail Blazers for $3 million and guard Eddie Gill, whose contract is expiring. The Nets also learned Thursday that Rodney Rogers did not submit paperwork to pick up the option for a final year of his contract, saving the team $3.35 million.

Ratner repeatedly spoke of his respect for Thorn and his willingness to entrust the basketball decisions to the management team that lifted the Nets out of their long malaise.

He said the Nets, as constituted, would be subject to a dollar-for-dollar salary luxury tax that is expected to kick in at about $54 million. But the tax would affect the Nets for only one year because the $14.27 million owed Dikembe Mutombo and the $5.4 million owed Alonzo Mourning will come off the team's cap after this season.

"This is a team that is not making money," said Ratner, who would not discuss the actual losses he said the team has incurred. But, he said, "we also understand the importance to both ourselves, to fans and obviously to players to fielding a winning team."

Ratner, a self-described newcomer to basketball, said one of the most meaningful moments in his brief association with the team occurred when he went into the Nets' locker room after their Game 7 loss to the Detroit Pistons in the Eastern Conference semifinals.

"It was one of the most moving moments, honestly, of my life, and that's the truth," he said.

"I saw what these players had put into the effort, how disappointed they were, and how down they were about not winning. I really understood.

"For me it was a real eye-opener to how much these players really care and how professional they are. For me, it put the very personal into it as opposed to simply professional, this is a job."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Kris]

Originally posted by krulltime.


FLEEING BACKERS MAY FOUL UP NET PLAN

By BRADEN KEIL and FRED KERBER

August 3, 2004 -- Incoming New Jersey Nets owner Bruce Ratner has been dealt a setback in his quest to buy the team, after several backers suddenly pulled out, The Post has learned.

The investors, most of whom are partners in the investment banking giant Goldman Sachs, bailed out late last week.

"These were the principle guys in the deal," said a Nets insider. "This changes the scorecard significantly."

Ratner had assembled 50-plus investors to help raise the money needed for the purchase.

The exodus comes after multiple delays in finalizing the $300 million deal — which was originally scheduled in June — between Ratner's group and the present owners who are selling their shares.

Ratner agreed in principle to buy the team last January, with a June 30 deadline to seal the deal. But the NBA Board of Governors has yet to receive the necessary paperwork in order to approve the sale.

"The financing is in place and we're confident that the deal will be closed as anticipated," said spokesman Bruce Bender, executive vice-president of Ratner's development company, Forest City Ratner.

Meanwhile, Ratner is running the operation as if he's already the official owner. The developer, who wants to construct a new stadium in Brooklyn, has already lowered the team's salary cap from $62 million to $47.5 million.

Copyright 2004 NYP Holdings, Inc.

[NewYorkYankee]

Owners back $300 million sale of Nets

By Steve Zipay
Staff Writer

August 5, 2004, 3:49 PM EDT


The long-awaited $300 million sale of the New Jersey Nets to an investment group headed by developer Bruce C. Ratner, who has vowed to move the team to Brooklyn, is expected to be approved by the NBA next week following a unanimous recommendation by a league owners' subcommittee.

"The subcommittee has recommended unanimously that the full board approve the sale," Mike Bass, an NBA spokesman, said Thursday.

He said the information would be forwarded to the 30 owners in the next few days. An affirmative vote from 23 of the 30 clubs is required for approval.

It would be highly unusual for a subcommittee recommendation to be turned down, league sources said, especially when NBA Commissioner David Stern has supported the deal.

Approval would be another step in Ratner's plan to relocate the team to a proposed $435-million arena in downtown Brooklyn that would be part of a $2.5-billion commercial and residential redevelopment project along Flatbush Avenue. The redevelopment plan has drawn opposition from community activists. Ratner did not have an immediate comment yesterday afternoon .

Ratner, the president and CEO of Forest City Ratner Cos., was awarded the team last January after a bidding war with New Jersey developer Charles Kushner, who wanted to keep the team there.

The Nets, who lost to the Detroit Pistons in the NBA's Eastern Conference Finals last season, recently traded two of the team's starters, Kenyon Martin and Kerry Kittles, in an attempt to cut payroll, an.

Great News! :D

[billyblancoNYC]

Unanimous??? The Knicks voted yes?

[ntduva]

....don't you think its a bit unfair for us Jersey fans? A developer comes in, buys our team, and says "we're moving to brroklyn" just to get more money out of it. You guys already have the Knicks-can't that be enough?

[ZippyTheChimp]

The Nets moved from Long Island to New Jersey. I believe it was because they thought they could make more money.

[milleniumcab]

I think it is a move designed to hit two birds with one stone, more money from the Nets and developing the site..

But tell me something. I thought the name was going to be changed to Brooklyn Rats...:D Did I read wrong?:rolleyes:

[JCMAN320]

Nets were orginally from New Jersey and called the New Jersey Americans and came back after 9 seasons in NY called the Nets....nough said they are New Jersey's team.

[ZippyTheChimp]

In 1967, the New York Americans couldn't find a place to play in NYC. They settled on the Teaneck Armory and changed their name to the New Jersey Americans.

They played the 67-68 ABA season there, and went to the playoffs, but the Teaneck Armory had booked the circus, so the game was played in Commack Arena on Long Island.

That summer, Arthur Brown, the owner, decided the team couldn't make it in NJ, so he moved the team to the Commack Arena and renamed it the New York Nets.

The Nets played nine years in New York, winning two championships. In 1973, the Nets traded for the original Doctor, Julius Erving (Dr J). He was to the ABA what Joe Namath was to the AFL.

http://www.remembertheaba.com/NewYorkMaterial/ErvingFloatIssel.jpg

After 4 ABA teams (including the Nets) merged withe NBA, the Nets moved to New Jersey, and spent the next 25 years doing nothing.

A rich Garden State legacy. :)

[milleniumcab]

Your knowledge is impressive Zippy. Thank you for clarifying that for us...;)

[ablarc]

Memories...

[MikeW]

Apparently, the new mayor of Newark, Cory Booker, is not happy with the deal that was cut for the new Devil's arena. They might be in play again. With the new Nets arena going up on Flatbush....

[milleniumcab]

Apparently, the new mayor of Newark, Cory Booker, is not happy with the deal that was cut for the new Devil's arena. They might be in play again. With the new Nets arena going up on Flatbush....

I don't think New York City and suburbia can support a third hockey team. Devils are staying in New Jersey..

[MikeW]

First off, New Jersey (at least that part of it), is NY Metro, which is already supporting three teams.

Second, I didn't say this is going to happen, but if Booker starts making things difficult for the Devils, it is certainly a card they could play. It would also better utilize the new arena.

I don't think New York City and suburbia can support a third hockey team. Devils are staying in New Jersey..

[milleniumcab]

You don't have too many NYC fans rooting for the Devils. But I get your point, it is card to be played by the Owners..

[ZippyTheChimp]

Unless there's been a change, by NHL rules, the Rangers would have to approve a Devils move to Brooklyn.

That's why the Devils weren't included in the Nets move to Brooklyn.

[MikeW]

The biggest (and, well, only) Devil fan I know live on the LES

You don't have too many NYC fans rooting for the Devils. But I get your point, it is card to be played by the Owners..

[MikeW]

Didn't the whole Newark thing happen before Ratner bought the Nets and announced the plans to move them to Brooklyn?

Unless there's been a change, by NHL rules, the Rangers would have to approve a Devils move to Brooklyn.

That's why the Devils weren't included in the Nets move to Brooklyn.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I don't know, but in 2003, both the Nets and Devils were under the YankeeNets umbrella, and Steinbrenner wanted to break the relationship. There were several possibilities at the time, including the Nets going back to Long Island.

Anyway, it doesn't change what I said. The Rangers must approve a move by the Devils into NYC.

[Marv95]

The Devils aren't going to NY people. They'll move to Kansas City before that happens. And their arena project can't be stopped. The Devils know it, Sharpe James knows it, even Booker deep down knows it. If anything, the Nets might even move in WITH the Devils should this RATner deal fall through, which wouldn't be surprising. It was reported in the Sunday Star Ledger that Booker wants an NBA team to move into EWR with the Devils "to make a bad deal look better."

[milleniumcab]

The biggest (and, well, only) Devil fan I know live on the LES

Exception to the rule...:D

[OmegaNYC]

I think the Devs are going to stay in Jersey. The fans and this state will have an all out war to keep this team in good ol' Jersey. New Jersey is more of a baseball, football, and hockey state. Basketball really doesn't fly, not like how it is in lets say NYC, Chicago, or Boston.

[BPC]

Right now every local sports tam has plans for a new stadium, and yet NONE of these plans is 100% firm. Here's a challenge: rank all the local sports teams in order from most to least likely to get the stadium currently being proposed for them. Here's my list:

(1) Jets and Giants in East Rutherford
(2) NY/NJ Red Bulls (yuck) in Harrison
(3) NY Mets in new Shea
(4) NYYankees in new Yankee Stadium
(5) NJ Devils in Newark
(6) NJ/Brooklyn Nets in Brooklyn
(7) NY Knicks/NY Rangers in new MSG

Anyone disagree?

[OmegaNYC]

You think the Mets will have a new stadium before the Yanks? :)

[BPC]

Yes, there is a community fight heating up in the Bronx. NOBODY seems to be opposing the new Shea (which of course won't be called that).

[NYatKNIGHT]

I'd rank the Devils Arena #1 since it is half built and none of the others have started yet.

[Anarchy77]

Yes, there is a community fight heating up in the Bronx. NOBODY seems to be opposing the new Shea (which of course won't be called that).

They'll probably rent out the corporate naming rights for the Mets stadium, so you'll end up with names like Chase Bank Stadium, or Goldman Sachs Stadium.