Giants and Jets have good attendance right? They don't suffer from the jersey stigma
Stadium Discussion
- Thread starter Gene
- Start date
It's not so much that there's a Jersey stigma as that the Giants and Jets are both New York teams and always have been. They started in New York, they played in New York, and they only moved to New Jersey because it was much cheaper and easier to build a stadium (or two) there. They're New York teams, and they play within sight of midtown.
They're also NFL football teams, which makes a difference as well.
The problem with the Red Bulls is that they've always been in New Jersey and never in New York. They have no history in New York, never played in New York. They started out life playing in Giants Stadium as the New York/New Jersey Metrostars at a time when nobody cared about soccer, so New York never really gave them any notice. Then they rebranded as the Red Bulls and dropped the New Jersey part of their name. That didn't really help as they were still that New Jersey team that still didn't get paid much attention.
So it's not anything in particular about a Jersey stigma, it's just that the team never had much to do with New York to begin with. And that's also why the Giants and Jets do well there, because it's not so much about physically playing in New Jersey as it's about being a New York team. And the Red Bulls were *never* that.
I totally agree with everything you said. I was talking about the Jets' motivation to move away from metlife
Not so fast, as I've said in other threads the NFL and Tottenham are teaming up to do this and it looks amazing.
The pitch is retractable so there's two different surfaces, natural grass and turf.
There legally can't be NFL stuff up during PL matches due to sponsorship deals so everything is on electric boards that's obviously switched. As for the high up seats, those first few rows are also retractable so as to give the NFL more room.
It can be done right but it will cost A LOT. You can half ass it and get a stadium like you said, which wouldn't be great for soccer. Here's looking at Seattle, Vancouver and future Atlanta. Something tells me CFG can spare the change to make it the best stadium in the United States.
The idea that teams that abandon NY to play in the Meadowlands are allowed to call themselves NY, but a brand new team that starts out playing in the Meadowlands cannot, has always baffled me. And yes I know how hard it was for the Giants and Jets to build in the city, so people give them a pass. But then to condemn the Metrostars, who had far less money, far less political clout, and far less everything, for not being able to do what the Giants and Jets could not is kind of absurd.
I guess the best way to describe it would be like someone who grew up in NYC but then moved to NJ for college and stayed there saying they're a New Yorker as opposed to someone born and raised in New Jersey saying they're a New Yorker.
I'm not condemning the Metrostars at all. (I might be condemning the Red Bulls a bit, but that's a different topic.)
I think if the Metrostars played at Shea, say, MLS might've had a different history. One problem with playing in Giants Stadium is that it was impossible to get to without driving. If they played at Shea they might've gotten a lot more casual fans going a lot sooner. Also, having the huge stadium be almost totally empty didn't help either. (Which is another reason I'd prefer a soccer specific stadium for NYCFC.)
All I'm basically saying is that being in New Jersey hurt the Metrostars. It did not affect the NFL teams because they were already immensely popular, as is NFL football in general, so people will go regardless.
ktdNYCFC
Registered
If it means getting a stadium in one of the boroughs then I would be okay with sharing with the NFL. Like you said, every logo would have to be digital, which might actually give it a really nice, modern, "times square" feel. With the way the MLS and NFL schedules are laid out, its almost a perfect scenario. We would dominate the venue for most of the year, and then let Gino come in and throw interceptions for a few months in the winter. It would maximize usage of the stadium throughout the year as well.
I'd definitely prefer a MLS specific stadium, but we are dealing with NYC here. I say sharing with the Jets is a fair tradeoff to getting out of the outfield sooner than later.
Weak analogy, because the MetroStars only started in NJ because the Giants left NY. If the Giants worked with the Yankees on rebuilding the Stadium in 1973 instead of going off on their own, there would have been no Meadowlands. The MetroStars would never have built a Meadowlands, nor a new stadium in Harrison way back. They would have piggybacked wherever they could have in NYC. Then they'd be grandfathered in on the same basis as the Giants and Jets, and folks would come up with some new made up reason to be mad at them. I think the RB branding is as ridiculous as the next guy, and never followed the MetroStars, so this is not a big issue for me. It is actually more that I was always annoyed at how the Giants left NY and Yankee Stadium, and chances are I'm being unfair to them, which is what fans do. I'll leave it at that. Feel free to put in the last word if you like.
I find it more relevant that one's identity comes from where you have spent the most time, or where one has made a name for themselves. For instance, the San Diego Chargers where once the Los Angeles Chargers, who only played their inaugural season in LA. No one, and I mean no one, considers the Chargers an LA team. Why would they? Also, the LA Dodgers, who now have played more seasons in LA than in Brooklyn, have all that history from their days in Brooklyn. The "B" logo is still being produced on caps and sold by the team.
While one can argue that the Giants and Jets actually play in another state, who here really thinks 8 miles out form midtown Manhattan, is anything but part of the New York City metropolitan area. Hell, even the TV channels are all New York City. I use to chastise Jets fans for this when I was younger until I learned how silly it was when you consider all the factors. Make no mistake, the Jets and Giants are New York teams.
Conversely, the NJ Red Bulls can never lay claim to New York, because they were never New York. It is as simple as that. In fact it took our team to exist for the Red Bulls to play any sort of meaningful game in NYC. When you think about it, that in and of itself says a lot.
While one can argue that the Giants and Jets actually play in another state, who here really thinks 8 miles out form midtown Manhattan, is anything but part of the New York City metropolitan area. Hell, even the TV channels are all New York City. I use to chastise Jets fans for this when I was younger until I learned how silly it was when you consider all the factors. Make no mistake, the Jets and Giants are New York teams.
Conversely, the NJ Red Bulls can never lay claim to New York, because they were never New York. It is as simple as that. In fact it took our team to exist for the Red Bulls to play any sort of meaningful game in NYC. When you think about it, that in and of itself says a lot.
Last edited:
ds6
Registered
I still don't know how I feel about the NFL in the UK. Spot games a year were fun there, but a potential permanent team? I'm still not sold. If we can bring the UK into American football can we bring the US into European football, i.e. Champions League? (Seriously)
Maybe that's something for another thread, so back to the stadium stuff I guess (though I'd love to hear thoughts).
Dual sport stadium? Sharing is caring (just not with baseball). But if there is a partnership with an NFL team, let's associate with the Giants - not those stinkin' Jets
I agree with this. Real estate is NYC is challenging. The pro to this is sharing with the Jets would give us a larger stadium. The talks of us getting a soccer specific stadium have all been around 25k stadiums which I think NYCFC will outgrow sooner than later. Now matter how bad the JETS may stink in any given year, NFL teams pack stadiums, so they are built larger.
Could you imagine the ruckus hat would ensue if a UK based NFL franchise ever won the superbowl
im still confused as to why there is a push from the NFL to do this. yes wembley sells out but thats because its only two three games a season its kinda of an event for expats and curious brits to attend but im not sure how well supported they will follow a team in a regular season, not to mention the crazy travel involved for say west coast teams.
i mean i feel the british fans are fans of an actual NFL franchise but not sure how they will support a london based one, and i cant remember how well they supported the nfl europe team.
The London Monarchs are back!Could you imagine the ruckus hat would ensue if a UK based NFL franchise ever won the superbowl
My wife is from Queens. I asked her what she would think of someone from Queens going to Rutgers and staying in NJ still calling themselves a New Yorker.
She said it depends on how long since they graduated.
I said 10 years.
She said that's okay but getting to the outer limits.
I asked her what she'd think of someone born, raised and lived their whole life in NJ calling themselves a NYer.
She said they'd be a poser, a tool and a moron.
She said it depends on how long since they graduated.
I said 10 years.
She said that's okay but getting to the outer limits.
I asked her what she'd think of someone born, raised and lived their whole life in NJ calling themselves a NYer.
She said they'd be a poser, a tool and a moron.
Similar threads
