Jump to content

"New Jersey" Giants and Jets?


nyk

Recommended Posts

My first question is when the Giants first moved to NJ, was this brought up? At that point it should have been addressed AND resolved. Is it a fact that it was "OK then, but not OK" now? I'm not totally familiar with the original move by the Giants. It is odd that now NY is doing the complaining, when they moved OUT OF STATE in the first place and were happy to still be "NY". So, there was happiness that the teams got to keep NY as a name at first, but now they want it changed. Obviously, I know different political people are involved. THAT is what makes this stupid.

Aside from all of the political nonsense, it is an odd situation. The teams play in a different state. I understand that it's a whole metro area in general. But, at the same time... it is a different state.

Example: If the Bengals and Reds built their stadiums across the river in Kentucky... they would have "moved to Kentucky" and would be known as the Kentucky Reds and Kentucky Bengals.

You have (had) the NO/OKC Hornets... they played in two states. It was aknowledged. Is this different becasue Texas and Arkansas border Louisiana and not Oklahoma?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

My first question is when the Giants first moved to NJ, was this brought up? At that point it should have been addressed AND resolved. Is it a fact that it was "OK then, but not OK" now? I'm not totally familiar with the original move by the Giants. It is odd that now NY is doing the complaining, when they moved OUT OF STATE in the first place and were happy to still be "NY". So, there was happiness that the teams got to keep NY as a name at first, but now they want it changed. Obviously, I know different political people are involved. THAT is what makes this stupid.

Aside from all of the political nonsense, it is an odd situation. The teams play in a different state. I understand that it's a whole metro area in general. But, at the same time... it is a different state.

Example: If the Bengals and Reds built their stadiums across the river in Kentucky... they would have "moved to Kentucky" and would be known as the Kentucky Reds and Kentucky Bengals.

You have (had) the NO/OKC Hornets... they played in two states. It was aknowledged. Is this different becasue Texas and Arkansas border Louisiana and not Oklahoma?

It's because New Orleans and OKC are two different metro areas and markets. States were not a concern.

If the Bengals or the Reds theoretically moved to Covington, I think they'd still go by Cincy (shoot, the airport's in Kentucky). It's the same metro area, which should trump state boundaries.

Bill Would Ban Teams Playing In N.J. From Using 'New York'

HACKENSACK, N.J. -- Normally it is Jersey fans who gripe that they don't get any respect from pro sports teams that play at the Meadowlands in East Rutherford but have "New York" in their names.

But three New York assemblymen recently sponsored a bill to stop football's Giants and Jets and soccer's Red Bulls from using the Empire State's name or abbreviation because they don't play their home games in New York.

"At the very least, the location of the place where a team plays should be accurate, and reflect where they actually play their home games," Assemblyman Ivan Lafayette, of Queens, writes in the bill, as reported by The Record of Bergen County in Saturday newspapers.

The legislation wasn't started here, but it seems to have some supporters in the Garden State.

"That bill does sound like a Jersey thing, which is ironic considering that over here we basically seem to have given up on this," George Zoffinger, head of the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority told the newspaper. "But I think with all the money we give these teams, they should be called 'New Jersey."'

So far the bill -- co-sponsored by Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz of the Bronx and Felix Ortiz of Brooklyn -- only applies to sports teams.

Officials from the three teams have adamantly said that they aren't going to change their names.

Are these the same assemblymen who voted down public funding for stadia in New York State that would allow said teams to play within the state's boundaries?

And why should the public have to pay for a stadium the would only benefit the billionaire onwers of the teams who could easily afford to build it themselves?

I hope they lose the right to call themselves "New York." Serves them right for being such greedy bastards.

So the politicians can have their cake and eat it too, but the football team can't?! The fact of the matter is that if they were so hellbent on having a New York football team play in New York, the opportunity was there and presented itself. (And ultimately, it is expected that new stadia will have some public funding nowadays).

Anyway, its not like this law will stick-isn't it illegal to forcibly legislate the name of a business?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first question is when the Giants first moved to NJ, was this brought up? At that point it should have been addressed AND resolved. Is it a fact that it was "OK then, but not OK" now? I'm not totally familiar with the original move by the Giants. It is odd that now NY is doing the complaining, when they moved OUT OF STATE in the first place and were happy to still be "NY". So, there was happiness that the teams got to keep NY as a name at first, but now they want it changed. Obviously, I know different political people are involved. THAT is what makes this stupid.

Aside from all of the political nonsense, it is an odd situation. The teams play in a different state. I understand that it's a whole metro area in general. But, at the same time... it is a different state.

Example: If the Bengals and Reds built their stadiums across the river in Kentucky... they would have "moved to Kentucky" and would be known as the Kentucky Reds and Kentucky Bengals.

You have (had) the NO/OKC Hornets... they played in two states. It was aknowledged. Is this different becasue Texas and Arkansas border Louisiana and not Oklahoma?

It's because New Orleans and OKC are two different metro areas and markets. States were not a concern.

If the Bengals or the Reds theoretically moved to Covington, I think they'd still go by Cincy (shoot, the airport's in Kentucky). It's the same metro area, which should trump state boundaries.

Bill Would Ban Teams Playing In N.J. From Using 'New York'

HACKENSACK, N.J. -- Normally it is Jersey fans who gripe that they don't get any respect from pro sports teams that play at the Meadowlands in East Rutherford but have "New York" in their names.

But three New York assemblymen recently sponsored a bill to stop football's Giants and Jets and soccer's Red Bulls from using the Empire State's name or abbreviation because they don't play their home games in New York.

"At the very least, the location of the place where a team plays should be accurate, and reflect where they actually play their home games," Assemblyman Ivan Lafayette, of Queens, writes in the bill, as reported by The Record of Bergen County in Saturday newspapers.

The legislation wasn't started here, but it seems to have some supporters in the Garden State.

"That bill does sound like a Jersey thing, which is ironic considering that over here we basically seem to have given up on this," George Zoffinger, head of the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority told the newspaper. "But I think with all the money we give these teams, they should be called 'New Jersey."'

So far the bill -- co-sponsored by Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz of the Bronx and Felix Ortiz of Brooklyn -- only applies to sports teams.

Officials from the three teams have adamantly said that they aren't going to change their names.

Are these the same assemblymen who voted down public funding for stadia in New York State that would allow said teams to play within the state's boundaries?

And why should the public have to pay for a stadium the would only benefit the billionaire onwers of the teams who could easily afford to build it themselves?

I hope they lose the right to call themselves "New York." Serves them right for being such greedy bastards.

So the politicians can have their cake and eat it too, but the football team can't?! The fact of the matter is that if they were so hellbent on having a New York football team play in New York, the opportunity was there and presented itself. (And ultimately, it is expected that new stadia will have some public funding nowadays).

And you don't see a HUGE problem with that? I'm actually glad that NYC asserts the fact that it is NYC and refuses to be bullied into paying for stadums knowing that no team would ever leave the metro area.

If any team wants so badly to play in NYC, they have more than enough money to build the stadium themsleves. I'm not buying the idea that these evil politicians ran the poor billionaire-owned teams out of town.

Anyway, its not like this law will stick-isn't it illegal to forcibly legislate the name of a business?

Actually, I don't think there's any precedent for this either way, which is what makes this so interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, its not like this law will stick-isn't it illegal to forcibly legislate the name of a business?

Actually, I don't think there's any precedent for this either way, which is what makes this so interesting.

The only thing I can think of is an old Texas law I heard of that prevented the name of a town from being used in a company's name. Hence, Nokona Baseball Gloves (located in Nocona, TX) used a "k" instead of a "c" in the company name initially - and still does for ball gloves. However, at this point, you may be correct that there is no precedent about forcing a company to change an existing name - especially one that isn't planning a move (unlike the 49ers situation)...

Moose

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the politicians can have their cake and eat it too, but the football team can't?! The fact of the matter is that if they were so hellbent on having a New York football team play in New York, the opportunity was there and presented itself. (And ultimately, it is expected that new stadia will have some public funding nowadays).

Anyway, its not like this law will stick-isn't it illegal to forcibly legislate the name of a business?

Well, as Mac pointed out earlier, NY can pass all the laws it wants. As teams based in NJ, the Jets and Giants aren't subject to NY State law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why should the public have to pay for a stadium the would only benefit the billionaire onwers of the teams who could easily afford to build it themselves?

I hope they lose the right to call themselves "New York." Serves them right for being such greedy bastards.

So the politicians can have their cake and eat it too, but the football team can't?! The fact of the matter is that if they were so hellbent on having a New York football team play in New York, the opportunity was there and presented itself. (And ultimately, it is expected that new stadia will have some public funding nowadays).

And you don't see a HUGE problem with that? I'm actually glad that NYC asserts the fact that it is NYC and refuses to be bullied into paying for stadums knowing that no team would ever leave the metro area.

If any team wants so badly to play in NYC, they have more than enough money to build the stadium themsleves. I'm not buying the idea that these evil politicians ran the poor billionaire-owned teams out of town.

I guess I have less faith in politicians "doing the right thing" than you...

I have no problem with them not spending money on a stadium.

I DO have a problem with them not spending money on a stadium and then telling a team what name it can have. In other words, if they forfeit interest in having the team based there, they forfeit interest in what name the team takes.

Anyway, its not like this law will stick-isn't it illegal to forcibly legislate the name of a business?

Actually, I don't think there's any precedent for this either way, which is what makes this so interesting.

If I were to take an (uneducated) legal stab at it, it flies straight into a violation of corporate personhood (i.e., just as the government can't tell you what name to have, they can't tell a company what name to have.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the politicians can have their cake and eat it too, but the football team can't?! The fact of the matter is that if they were so hellbent on having a New York football team play in New York, the opportunity was there and presented itself. (And ultimately, it is expected that new stadia will have some public funding nowadays).

Anyway, its not like this law will stick-isn't it illegal to forcibly legislate the name of a business?

Well, as Mac pointed out earlier, NY can pass all the laws it wants. As teams based in NJ, the Jets and Giants aren't subject to NY State law.
I suspect all that can be done is that they may not call themselves the New York Giants and New York Jets when doing business in New York. For instance, when the Jets make their annual trip to Buffalo, they might not be allowed to be called the New York Jets for that game.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the politicians can have their cake and eat it too, but the football team can't?! The fact of the matter is that if they were so hellbent on having a New York football team play in New York, the opportunity was there and presented itself. (And ultimately, it is expected that new stadia will have some public funding nowadays).

Anyway, its not like this law will stick-isn't it illegal to forcibly legislate the name of a business?

Well, as Mac pointed out earlier, NY can pass all the laws it wants. As teams based in NJ, the Jets and Giants aren't subject to NY State law.

If this were true then the majority of corporations in the United States would not have to follow the laws of any state other than Delaware. We could argue that the Giants/Jets are privately owned subsidiaries of the NFL (a corporation) which has its corporate offices in New York City making them a "citizen" of NY (since corporations can have two domiciles. We could also argue that the Giants/Jets do a enough business in NY to make them subject to New York State law.

However, it's nice to know that the esteemed New York State Assembly has no other issues pressing the state then to come up with this assinine bill proposal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever been to Watertown, New York?

I have.

And once I was there, I asked myself this one question:

WHERE'S THE WATER???

heh, I aint ever been to Watertown, NY, but I did spend three semesters at the U of Wisconsin Whitewater. Accordingly, campus is nowhere near the lake that bears the town's name, so I figure folks goin there still ask that question a lot :D shoot, my mom asked that very question once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a similar note: I think SC cannot be the home of the SF 49ers, but someone else does (SC is a burb of SJ, but the whole thing is one giant metro [the bay area] with 3 big cities)...Golden State 49ers?

If it really becomes a problem, my solution would be for them to become simple the 49ers, in the same vein as the MetroStars. It avoids this whole [uniquely American] problem altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever been to Watertown, New York?

I spent a week up there one afternoon..... :D

Please tell me someone got that.

Your juvenile humor does not work here, and is not even worth an internets b!tch slap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the politicians can have their cake and eat it too, but the football team can't?! The fact of the matter is that if they were so hellbent on having a New York football team play in New York, the opportunity was there and presented itself. (And ultimately, it is expected that new stadia will have some public funding nowadays).

Anyway, its not like this law will stick-isn't it illegal to forcibly legislate the name of a business?

Well, as Mac pointed out earlier, NY can pass all the laws it wants. As teams based in NJ, the Jets and Giants aren't subject to NY State law.

If this were true then the majority of corporations in the United States would not have to follow the laws of any state other than Delaware. We could argue that the Giants/Jets are privately owned subsidiaries of the NFL (a corporation) which has its corporate offices in New York City making them a "citizen" of NY (since corporations can have two domiciles. We could also argue that the Giants/Jets do a enough business in NY to make them subject to New York State law.

However, it's nice to know that the esteemed New York State Assembly has no other issues pressing the state then to come up with this assinine bill proposal.

While most of what you posted is a good point, the first part is incorrect. If those companies do business solely in Delaware, then they would be subject to Delaware and US law only. In reality, those Delaware-based companies do business across state lines, and that's why they're subject to the laws in each individual state as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why should the public have to pay for a stadium the would only benefit the billionaire onwers of the teams who could easily afford to build it themselves?

I hope they lose the right to call themselves "New York." Serves them right for being such greedy bastards.

So the politicians can have their cake and eat it too, but the football team can't?! The fact of the matter is that if they were so hellbent on having a New York football team play in New York, the opportunity was there and presented itself. (And ultimately, it is expected that new stadia will have some public funding nowadays).

And you don't see a HUGE problem with that? I'm actually glad that NYC asserts the fact that it is NYC and refuses to be bullied into paying for stadums knowing that no team would ever leave the metro area.

If any team wants so badly to play in NYC, they have more than enough money to build the stadium themsleves. I'm not buying the idea that these evil politicians ran the poor billionaire-owned teams out of town.

I guess I have less faith in politicians "doing the right thing" than you...

I have no problem with them not spending money on a stadium.

I DO have a problem with them not spending money on a stadium and then telling a team what name it can have. In other words, if they forfeit interest in having the team based there, they forfeit interest in what name the team takes.

I don't know what you mean by "doing the right thing." I'm pretty damn cynical about the US Government as it is. But I have even less sympathy for billionaire sports owners who bilk cities out of tax dollars claiming their stadiums benefit "all" even if "all" can not afford a ticket.

The NYC government (and ultimately, the people of NYC) does have an interest in the teams as long as they carry the "New York" name... whether or not that interest is enough to make anything they pass legally stick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the politicians can have their cake and eat it too, but the football team can't?! The fact of the matter is that if they were so hellbent on having a New York football team play in New York, the opportunity was there and presented itself. (And ultimately, it is expected that new stadia will have some public funding nowadays).

Anyway, its not like this law will stick-isn't it illegal to forcibly legislate the name of a business?

Well, as Mac pointed out earlier, NY can pass all the laws it wants. As teams based in NJ, the Jets and Giants aren't subject to NY State law.

If this were true then the majority of corporations in the United States would not have to follow the laws of any state other than Delaware. We could argue that the Giants/Jets are privately owned subsidiaries of the NFL (a corporation) which has its corporate offices in New York City making them a "citizen" of NY (since corporations can have two domiciles. We could also argue that the Giants/Jets do a enough business in NY to make them subject to New York State law.

However, it's nice to know that the esteemed New York State Assembly has no other issues pressing the state then to come up with this assinine bill proposal.

While most of what you posted is a good point, the first part is incorrect. If those companies do business solely in Delaware, then they would be subject to Delaware and US law only. In reality, those Delaware-based companies do business across state lines, and that's why they're subject to the laws in each individual state as well.

Which is what I was trying to say to the post I initially replied to when the poster said "As teams based in NJ, the Jets and Giants aren't subject to NY State law."

I was arguing that using that logic then any major corporation in the US (most of which are incorporated in Delaware) would not be subject to the laws of any other state which is clearly not the case. I was trying to find a way to get NY law to apply to both the Giants and Jets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.