Jets Vs. Giants: Teams At Odds Over Planned Stadium

Disagreements Between Jets, Giants Could Delay Opening Of Stadium

The Jets and Giants are “at odds over nearly every detail” of the shared stadium planned at the Meadowlands, “including its design and cost,” according to six industry execs cited by Matthew Futterman of the Newark STAR-LEDGER. While the teams want to open the stadium in 2010, one exec said, “You’re getting to the point where they could be in danger of losing another season. There is too much at stake for this not to happen, but every month that slips by, they are losing more and more money.” Giants President & CEO John Mara “acknowledged the teams are at odds over some important matters but said he remains confident a new shared stadium will be ready for the 2010-11 season.” Mara: “This is such a complicated process — and there are so many decisions to be made, it’s inevitable you’re going to have some disagreements.” Jets Owner Woody Johnson did not return calls seeking comment. The execs said that the disagreements “boil down to a fundamental difference over stadium design.” The Jets “favor a high-tech glass and steel structure similar to the one they wanted to build on the West Side of Manhattan,” while the Giants want a “more traditional — and less expensive — stadium where the focus is on football rather than advertising opportunities.” Estimates for six sets of preliminary stadium designs are all around $1B; one design favored by the Jets was placed at nearly $1.2B, “far more than the Giants had hoped to pay when the team entered the partnership last year.”

GAME CONFLICT: Futterman notes relations between the teams “have gotten so bad, lawyers ended up in arbitration last month over which team would get to use” Giants Stadium on the Thursday night before Labor Day for their final preseason game this summer. Both teams listed an August 31 home game on their Web sites and “the matter went to the NFL commissioner’s office.” The league sided with the Giants “because they were the first to file their contract.” Mara said that the argument was “not indicative of what remains a solid working relationship (STAR-LEDGER, 8/9).