My Record colleague John Brennan has a story up on the paper's Web site tonight in which Devils' owner Jeff Vanderbeek calls for Izod Center center to be closed and torn down.
This seems to be related at least indirectly to Vanderbeek asking the fans last week to show support for Prudential Center by telling their friends how nice it is.
Here's the link.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/aroundnj/Devils_owner_calls_for_Izod_Center_to_close.html
Is it ness. for vanderbeek to say this? We all know why he wants it closed, so he can get more business down in Newark. I think overall he has been a good owner for the devils, but this just seems a little ridiculous.
Posted by: Jim B | May 30, 2009 at 09:55 PM
TG...crazy error in the headline. It's Izod not..'Idod'
2 words..fix that. :P
Posted by: Professor Zorin | May 30, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Asked if he would rather the Nets move to Brooklyn or to Newark, Vanderbeek replied, “Personally, I guess I would marginally rather see the Nets in Newark.”
Seriously, who honestly want the dang Nets at the Rock? Vanderbeek wants to send letters to ticket holders about helping the team, promoting the rock, etc, etc...I will hold a vote at the draft party and maybe Jeff will see that Newark and Nets might marginally be a good thing for you, but for your NJD fans it will not.
Posted by: Zorin | May 30, 2009 at 10:53 PM
i am not really sure how moving the Nets to the rock would hurt us? could you explain that one?
Posted by: KU Chris | May 30, 2009 at 11:34 PM
I dont understand how that would be bad either, I understand the problems with getting games on the weekend, but people would go to the Nets, basketballs is probably going to be more popular in a NE city like NEwark then hockey is, so people would go to the games. Makes money for the Arena and the Devils
Posted by: Jim B | May 31, 2009 at 01:34 AM
It wouldnt hurt us, but we have an arena to call our own. I would prefer to walk in there and not see Nets players on the walls.
Posted by: Phil | May 31, 2009 at 01:49 AM
Not to mention the Ice would become garbage. I'd be furious if it became a hockey rink/basketball arena
Posted by: Speedz | May 31, 2009 at 03:30 AM
Nets at the Rock makes sense....$$$$$$. Can only help the club and the City itself. Speedz...furious...chill!
Posted by: mckay21 | May 31, 2009 at 08:59 AM
So if the Rock has to compete with the sh!thole Izod Center for concerts and loses some business there, why would they want a brand new, awesome arena in Brooklyn that would be MORE attractive to other events than Izod and would take MORE business away from the Rock?
I hate having to share and what the turnovers do to the ice quality but from a business standpoint, I think they'd want the Nets in Newark.
Posted by: Pat | May 31, 2009 at 09:22 AM
HOKEJ.SPORT.CZ: reports New Jersey Devils center Petr Vrana has signed with Vitkovice of the Czech Extraliga. He considered himself fortunate to play with stars like Patrik Elias but said he never got much room on the Devils roster.
Posted by: Unknown | May 31, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Izod is eventually going to cost more to maintain than its worth to run.
Look at what happened with the Spectrum in Philly, and I know its not the same considering both those buildings had the same owners.
When the Izod name deal is up and the Nets go wherever they end up going (Kansas City Please), I'd imagine that would be the time.
Posted by: Mike M | May 31, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Bad job by me. I've corrected it.
Posted by: TG | May 31, 2009 at 10:38 AM
I don't want to see the Nets at Prudential center. There would scheduling issues to consider, the ice surface could suffer, I like the idea of Prudential Center being dedicated to the NJD and NJ hockey only. There are plenty of other events that could take place at Prudential center and bring in money.
Izod center should close down because it's old, outdated and an eyesore. The Nets should move to Mars...who the hell would miss them?
I personally do not want the Nets in Newark...
Whomever said thatan arena in Brooklyn would take events away from Prudential center, I don't agreee...not as much as Izod Center would take, any big concert is either going to take place in MSG or not at all as far as NYC is concerned, we've done fine in the past competing with MSG and Nassau Dumpasium for events...so I'd rather see Izod gone and the Nets in Brooklyn or anywhere else for that matter.
Posted by: Scratch | May 31, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Have we all forgotten that the ice surface at the Rock has always been hit-or-miss since it opened?
The Nets at the Rock makes too much sense for it not to happen, assuming that the team stays in New Jersey. And since the building is owned by the Devils, it makes the team money.
A world class arena like the Prudential Center should not be dark 3/4s of the year. Devils games account for 41 dates, plus three or four preseason and (lately) three or four postseason games. Throw in SH basketball, the lacrosse team, and the indoor soccer team and you're still only at 100 dates or so. Concerts so far add another 10-15 dates and family shows maybe 25-30? (These are all estimates, and please correct if I'm way off)...the total dates that the Rock is open for business can't stand at much higher than 130-150. Adding the Nets puts it much closer to the originally projected 200+ nights.
Not to mention the benefits for local business and the city itself. The Nets in Newark would make perfect sense, quality of ice be damned.
Posted by: Josh | May 31, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Why are fans taking the bait from these money gauging million/billionaires and engaging in this dispute? Politicians and sports owners do not make decisions that are in the best interests of a fan base. So far it has cost NJ taxpayers over $300 million dollars in public funds for an arena in Newark that has dramatically increased ticket prices, in some cases doubled the face amount from comparable seats in the Meadowlands.
Is the Rock a better facility to enjoy a game? Without question its light years ahead of the old arena. Remember pre lockout 2004, the weak argument was, lower nhl salaries equals lower ticket prices? Average team payroll at the end of the 2007-2008 season was actually lower than the pre lockout season of 2003-2004, yet ticket prices have steadily increased.
A lower bowl ticket at the Meadowlands used to be $90 dollars, at the Rock between the blues its $250. Not to mention that I can't spend $8.50 for a beer in the Fire/Ice bars unless I have that $250 ticket. To the Devils credit there are segments in the lower bowl priced at $79.
Who really cares if the Izod center remains open? Only the political/business elite that have a financial stake will benefit.
Posted by: Mugsy | May 31, 2009 at 12:12 PM
I don't want the ice to suffer from it being switched over constantly from a basketball court. I'm not consider with the finances, I feel it would be awful to share with the Nets. It's a hockey rink first
Posted by: Speedz | May 31, 2009 at 01:11 PM
Speedz, have you forgotten that the Rock is the BASKETBALL COURT for the Seton Hall Pirates? Secondly, I agree with Josh. The ice has been hit-and-miss ever since the opening (granted we get to watch Clarkson and Gionta fall all over the place all the time). Somehow other arenas manage to balance ice quality with other events being held. I have no problem with the nets at the Rock.
Posted by: Guy | May 31, 2009 at 01:22 PM
vanderbeek asked what i can do as a fan of the devils...i don't see how bringing the nets to the rock has anything beneficial to the devils...so his question to all us fans that responded seems misleading
Posted by: embo slice | May 31, 2009 at 01:28 PM
I can understand the Rock is the Devils arena. As a fan I want the Devils to play in an arena that doesn't bleed money. Would the Nets playing there help? Probably. I would still say the chances of the Nets playing at the Rock are slim to none, considering they are hell bent on getting out of NJ.
Posted by: Guy | May 31, 2009 at 01:33 PM
Let them in if they lower ticket prices.
Posted by: Pat | May 31, 2009 at 01:42 PM
This whole discussion is pointless, because the Nets are moving to Barclay's Center. The groundbreaking ceremony will happen this summer. It is a done deal.
Posted by: jonathan | May 31, 2009 at 03:04 PM
anyone else hear vrana signed a contract in europe?
Posted by: YEAHw/e | May 31, 2009 at 03:33 PM
I'd rather just see the Nets go to Brooklyn. I don't think there's any benefit to the average Devils fan to bring them to Newark. I like how the arena is dedeicated to hockey & wouldn't want to see that change. It's not like ticket prices would come down & the team would be stuck playing on less desirable dates. It'd be nice to see Vanderbeek making more money, but that doesn't really affect the team at the moment since they're able to spend up to the cap anyway. Rather just see him get the bump from additional concerts once they close the Izod.
Posted by: HBK27 | May 31, 2009 at 03:38 PM
Hell, package the Islanders and Nets and send them to the Sprint Center Arena in KC. http://images.wikia.com/openserving/sports/images/1/13/Sprint_Center_-44_copy.jpg Place looks like the Terror Dome from GI-Joe...lol
This way, the Rock stays away from the Nets and nonsense and the Islanders will stop pushing the NJD games onto a non-HD channel when all three teams are playing on the same night. Win-Win for all of us, the fans!
Posted by: Zorin | May 31, 2009 at 03:57 PM
I was just killing time at NHL.com, looking at recent drafts and who was drafted where, and I came across the 2002 draft. We took Tallackson 53rd overall, right after him the Hawks took Duncan Keith, and at #58 the Wings took Jiri Hudler. This stuff fascinates me....
Posted by: Grand High Exalted Mystic Halo Moe | May 31, 2009 at 05:58 PM