More delays for the Lighthouse Project
by James Mirtle on May 21, 2009 12:49 PM CDT
42 comments
Barring a dramatic turn of events, Charles Wang’s October 3 deadline for approvals on the Lighthouse Project is almost certain to come and go with little action from the Town of Hempstead. And when it does, the Islanders owner will have no other choice but to open conversations with other municipalities interested in Long Island’s National Hockey League franchise.
I don't think there's any question at this point that Wang's going to have to start shopping his NHL team around in the hopes that someone can take over, and I imagine that process starts when the team plays an exhibition game in Kansas City this fall.
Mario Lemieux used the threat of relocation to great effect with the Penguins, and it's getting to the point where that's Wang's only real option. Botta says the Isles will stay at Nassau Coliseum for 2009-10 and 2010-11, but given there's no way to turn a profit at the building, even with a generous television deal that stretches well into the future, an alternative will be needed shortly.
I wonder if Wang has Jim Balsillie's number.
My thanks to Neate Sager for the link.
0 recs |
42 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
The change of ownership on the island and picking Tavares at no.1 is just what the Islanders need. Wang’s personal decisions (Snow, Lafontaine etc) have shown that he doesn’t really know how to run the franchise. He seems to have interfered too much with the team, creating a distraction for both the players and the management.
This is also what concerns me about Balsillie – can some such charismatic and willing to fight give the team’s management and players the opportunity to do things their way.
http://breakoutpass.blogspot.com
by -V- on May 21, 2009 1:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The Islanders will not leave Long Island. Their TV deal will keep them there.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
by Chemmy on May 21, 2009 1:34 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
You are correct. Also, as one of those sports business expert quote machines said in a story a while back, no one leaves New York to go to Kansas City.
by chrtat on May 21, 2009 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They’ve got to at least threaten to move somewhere in order to get a building. Or build the rink elsewhere.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 21, 2009 7:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Long Island’s a decently big place. Looking at Wikipedia, there’s Queens, Brooklyn, Nassau, and Suffolk: surely there’s something somewhere in there that could work for them, other than Lighthouse, no?
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)
by Doogie2K on May 21, 2009 1:42 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes, three local options
1. Where they are. At this point, it’s not that the Lighthouse Project wouldn’t work, it’s that the local politician (and whatever forces are behind her) are stalling/standing in the way of it. They might just prefer the Isles move rather than redevelop the area around the Coliseum. A bit anti-development, a bit-NIMBY. There is an election in November; things will be clearer then. (The point of Botta’s post was essentially to affirm that despite Wang’s wishes, there won’t appear to be movement before the election.)
2. Brooklyn/Atlantic Yards, once seen in perennial limbo, cleared a major legal hurdle this month. If the arena is built there and the Nets move, that is one shining new opportunity for the Isles.
3. Queens – more of a longer shot, Queens politicians and business movers have been talking about luring the Islanders as part of development at Willets Point.
Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.
by Dominik on May 21, 2009 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry Charles… Gary Bettman’s NHL doesn’t run out on cities.
Down Goes Brown - Unapologetically nostalgic for the past. Brutally realistic about the present. Grudgingly optimistic about the future.
by Down Goes Brown on May 21, 2009 1:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Boy this is some lineup for our beloved sport eh? Yotes in a bankruptcy fight, Thrashers in an ownership fight and flagging attendance, Islanders threatening relocation and non-existent attendance, and the Dallas ownership possibly going under and looking for sellers. I admit at my fascination at the opening of the books of the NHL through the Yotes’ trials and tribulations but if 4 teams move/fold in the next 2 years, that is a big restructuring for NHL, Inc. and the game we love and possibly not for the better.
The population of Pominville keeps rising!
by Blackcapricorn on May 21, 2009 1:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think the Stars would find a buyer long before the others. A team with a history of on- and off-ice success is much more likely to draw investors than a team without anything positive of recent vintage to point to.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)
by Doogie2K on May 21, 2009 2:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely, they have a long pedigree of success. I was lumping them in there because of the “why” they might be on the block. Crazy times in NHL-land.
The population of Pominville keeps rising!
by Blackcapricorn on May 21, 2009 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I see. In that case, might as well toss the Canadiens on the barbie with them, since Hicks’ buddy Gillette is in similar trouble from what I understand.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)
by Doogie2K on May 21, 2009 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not quite. Gillette just took out a huge amount of loans using the Canadiens as leverage, so he has the money now to make his payment. Hicks is still in trouble. Gillette had the Habs debt free in 2006, but now the Habs are heavily in debt as a result of this. So Gillette is motivated to sell, but he doesn’t need to do so to raise up the money for his Liverpool FC ventures. He’s already robbed Peter to pay Paul, and supposedly has a lot of money to take majority control from Hicks if neccessary and get out of that messy partnership.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on May 21, 2009 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gotcha. Now that I think about it, we haven’t heard much about the Habs’ potential sale since the news first broke a couple of months ago.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)
by Doogie2K on May 21, 2009 4:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s a lot of bids being tabled. It’s not clear whether Gillett will sell managing control over the team or not, but he will sell a significant amount of the team if not all of it (and the Bell Centre). He’s let 4 different groups have a look at the books, two from in Quebec and 2 from outside. The parties involved look to be Serge Savard’s group, Quebecor Media, Graeme Rouston of Bauer Hockey and an unknown (at least to me) American investor(s). Rouston to me is my personal favourite, he has deep pockets and excellent hockey business accumen, plus he’s a Sherbrooke native looking to come home after making his big money in the US. He also was part of the group of businessmen who lobbied to bring the NHL to San Jose. I hope to God it’s not Quebecor that wins out, that’s for sure.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on May 21, 2009 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, yes, I remember being impressed with Rouston when I read about his bid, though I didn’t know about his involvement with SJ. Thanks for reminding me of all this.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)
by Doogie2K on May 21, 2009 5:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The organization’s been told to keep the sale process pretty quiet, from what I’ve heard.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 21, 2009 7:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would make sense. With all the public drama they’ve had over a couple of sunbelt teams, imagine how much fuss would be kicked up over the Montreal Canadiens. I think we’d wind up on some sort of media-hype event horizon.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)
by Doogie2K on May 21, 2009 11:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn’t Hicks own the Stars? I find it hard to believe a man who would sign a baseball player to a contract worth as much as the franchise would go bankrupt.
by Jibblescribbits on May 21, 2009 2:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he owns a part of a soccer team and the loans regarding that are the problem – if he sells the Stars he can use the money to pay off the loans in England, or something like that.
I wish I had enough money to have that kind of problems.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on May 21, 2009 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He owns 50% of Liverpool FC and has a July deadline to refinance almost 350M (pounds) in loans.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on May 21, 2009 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I almost feel worse for Islanders fans than I do for myself.
I mean, at least with the Coyotes you can use the fact that they were taken out of Winnipeg, the fact that they’re in a new hockey market that, for all its potential, is still years away from being successful, and the idea that they’ve only been here 12 years.
The Islanders are a Stanley Cup-winning team (a long while ago, sure, but still) with a huge hockey history that are saddled with an owner who wants out, a terrific struggle to get a good venue to play in, and a GM that has basically set the team up to fail for the past couple of years (not to mention a goalie on a long-term contract who hasn’t played a full season since signing it). Not to mention being a sort of odd-man out in a hugely saturated New York sports market.
Here’s hoping something gets done for the Isles so they stay where they are – sorry, Kansas City.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on May 21, 2009 2:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Wang
I’m not sure Wang wants out. Didn’t he buy the team to try and keep it on Long Island? I think the real culprit here is the local government officials who aren’t willing to negotiate an arena deal at all.
From what I understand (and Dominik will correct me if I’m wrong) Wang is even willing to pay for the entire arena, he just needs the local government to grant permission to build it, and they just won’t do it.
by Jibblescribbits on May 21, 2009 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
political machines
I thought they were supposed to be corrupt, but at least be efficient. I know they were in Chicago in the 70’s, at least – if you wanted something done you knew who to talk to. Corruption and inefficiency is the worst of both worlds.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on May 21, 2009 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought they were supposed to be corrupt, but at least be efficient.
That gave me a belly laugh. I guess they’d say their machine is perfectly efficient at keeping things exactly as they are.
Jibblescribbits is right: Wang and his development partner are the ones bankrolling it, and Wang has lost money (ext. $20 million per) just to keep the team in place this long. The Town has pretended that renovating the arena alone is an option, which is insane. No idea whether Wang would still want ownership if the club was in Queens or Brooklyn, but Botta (who used to work for Wang with the Isles) suspects he’d try to keep the team local first.
Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.
by Dominik on May 21, 2009 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
hey is the town or county being asked to contribute any money to do this, or are they just stalling on like zoning and stuff?
by passive_voice on May 22, 2009 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can't believe
James didn’t link the more obvious fact that the Islanders are having their training camp next year in Saskatoon as Wang doing a “showcase” for a future market for the franchise. Kansas City? Pftt…
Though the thought of a team called the “Islanders” in either Saskatoon or Kansas City is equally hilarious.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on May 21, 2009 3:31 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Though the thought of a team called the "Islanders" in either Saskatoon or Kansas City is equally hilarious.
Utah Jazz. :)
(Some names just aren’t meant to be mobile.)
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on May 21, 2009 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Minnesota Lakers to Los Angeles worked somehow. Don’t know how many lakes there are in Los Angeles? ; )
I find sometimes it's easy to be myself
sometimes I find it's better to be somebody else
by Fauxrumors on May 21, 2009 3:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nor are there many grizzlies around Memphis. The NBA is just plain lazy.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on May 21, 2009 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Come to think of it, going right back to the start, how many NHL teams haven’t changed nicknames when they moved? The Stars, kinda, and the Flames are the only ones I can think of. Hell, there’ve been more no-move name changes (Toronto Arenas/St. Pats/Maple Leafs, Detroit Cougars/Falcons/Red Wings, New York/Brooklyn Americans who never actually played in Brooklyn, California/Oakland/California sometimes-Golden Seals, Anaheim formerly-Mighty Ducks)
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)
by Doogie2K on May 21, 2009 5:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
also
keeping “stars” and “flames” worked in the cities they were moving to.
by passive_voice on May 22, 2009 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, yes, that’s what I’m driving at. NHL teams don’t get lazy and keep the same nickname, irrespective of the amount of sense that it makes. If it still works, sure, but if not, change that sucker.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)
by Doogie2K on May 22, 2009 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Thunder nickname is proof of that too…
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on May 21, 2009 5:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Saskatoon’s a good burgh, but it has zero chance of getting an NHL team.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on May 21, 2009 7:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
1) Anyone who believes another buyer would do any better than Wang is fooling themselves. Has he erred (significantly) with regard to the Yashin/Dipietro contracts keeping Milbury on WAY too long, and firing Neil Smith after a few weeks??- Dam right he has. BUT no one, and we mean NO ONE else would be willing to lose millions and millions waiting for the politicians, moving like molasses in winter, to approve his plan to renovate the arena, etc.
2) We can’t see the Queens or other NY scenarios working IF KC is available(assuming the Coyotes aren’t there first. Those other areas would have their own red tape and take years to build. Meanwhile Wang would continue to lose millions. Its not gonna happen. Approve the Lighthouse or its KC here we come!
I find sometimes it's easy to be myself
sometimes I find it's better to be somebody else
by Fauxrumors on May 21, 2009 3:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Agree
Wang has done everything he possibly could to avoid even bringing up relocation, but local politicians just haven’t budged at all. It’s really his last, and only, resort.
by Jibblescribbits on May 21, 2009 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am unclear why anyone thinks a commercial real estate project is going to be the core of arena development. I think it’s going to be a long time before that market heats back up. Then again, it often seems like bankruptcy is an integral part of every developer’s business model.
by J. Michael Neal on May 21, 2009 10:11 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
a real “build it and they will come” mentality. i guess it’s easier to sell to retard municipal politicians if you say “allow/help me to build an arena that will become a vibrant entertainment hub and put our shitty little suburb on the national map” i’m pretty sure this project is older than the current recession.
by passive_voice on May 22, 2009 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, lots of true and “not true” things written on this thread. Let me straighten things out:
1) Wang grew up in New York (near Willets Point, where the NY Mets baseball team currently play). He bought the team to keep them in NY, and the Lighthouse project would have made the area around the Isles barn a year round attraction
2) Long Island politicians are the one’s stopping this project.
3) Wang has been losing money every year he’s had the team. He openly admitted that if he had to do it again, he would not have bought the team. The only saving grace he would have is if his Lighthouse development project would be approved…allowing him to make money on a year round basis.
4) Nearby Queens county (25 miles west of the Nassau Colesium) would like to develop an area of property next to the brand new NY Mets ballpark (Citifield). New York City council members, as well as the borough president, have already gone on record as saying they would welcome using the property to help build a stadium for the Islanders. There was even rumor at one point that the US Tennis Center (also in the area) would be converted to accomodate the Islanders.
5) The area where a new stdium would be built ALREADY has access to a major airport, a highway and mass transit. A key feature which Kansas City, or even the Lighthouse, does not have.
6) Queens County – along with the rest of the NYC Metro area – is MUCH more heavily populated than the Kansas City area. Not to mention access to the largest media center in the world. Not to mention NHL HQ is also nearby.
7) The Brroklyn Railyard project (which was intended to house the NJ Nets in thier move to Brooklyn) has been delayed to the point where everyone in the NY Sports media agrees it will not be contructed.
So, with Long Island out and Kansas City not being a better option than New York, the Islanders, more than likely, will simply move to Queens county…only 25 mile west of thier current location.
Will the team be profitable once they move? That’s anybody’s guess. But with Tavares comming, they may be on track to be a contender in 5+ years. Right when the new stadium comes into existence.
by NYCGoalie on May 22, 2009 12:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Anyone who thinks a team is leaving the NY city area is nuts. As is, it’s probably close to being an underserved market, though certainly not anything like on the scale Toronto is. I think that moving in, to where there’s a mass transit connection, is absolutely essential, though. I can’t imagine why Wang is trying to make it work farther out on the Island when he has that option.
by J. Michael Neal on May 22, 2009 4:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on From The Rink
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
