Can the Nets afford to move to Brooklyn?

The Nets expect to lose about $40 million in the just-completed season, with similar red ink expected annually for the basketball franchise's foreseeable future at the Izod Center [in New Jersey].

At the same time, the estimated cost of their proposed new building — the Barclays Center in Brooklyn — has soared to $950 million, or more than twice the price of any pro basketball or hockey arena ever built in the United States.

At this rate, the Nets can't afford to stay in the Meadowlands — but can they afford to move to Brooklyn?

And where in the world would they find much of the money to build that arena?

Europe, it turns out.

Nets Chief Executive Officer Brett Yormark has just returned from London and Turin, Italy, where he has begun attempts to entice foreign companies into becoming major contributing sponsors for the new Brooklyn arena... [Full article.]

Those who dream in New Jersey know the rumors that developer Ratner bought the Nets only to sweeten the appeal of the development project. The reverie is that if Brooklyn falls through, a coalition of New Jersey buyers (led by the New Jersey Devils hockey team, perhaps?) would take the Nets off Ratner's hands. Then the Nets would move into the shiny new Prudential Center, which the Devils built with the city of Newark. Whether the financing of the Newark arena made sense (the city put up the lion's share), it's built and it draws tons of fans via mass transit. The arena here was originally planned as a home for the Nets, and that's where the team belongs.

What stands in the way of the dream? Well, there's Ratner. "Newark is not even a consideration. We're moving to Brooklyn," said a spokesman for the builder and the team. They are planning to break ground this year. They say.

Apart from whatever Ratner may be dreaming, there is the stumbling block of a clause in the Nets' contract with the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority, which owns the Izod Center. If the Nets leave to play anywhere other than Brooklyn, the team must pay the authority a penalty that starts out at $12 million a year.

That clause was generally considered to be anti-Newark. Considering that the authority is a state agency, the provision seemed as hideous and out of place as a giant, psychedelic Ferris wheel in a swamp.

Something has happened. The hateful clause is being explained as a nonhostile means of preventing the Nets from pitting the Meadowlands against Newark. It was meant to avoid a bidding war for a short-term contract while the Brooklyn arena was built.

In fact, sources have told The Star-Ledger editorial board that if the Nets sign a long-term deal to play in Newark, the sports authority would waive that clause and happily cooperate with the Prudential Center for the greater glory and profit of both New Jersey venues.

If the authority is beginning to see the light, who knows what else might happen?
...

Full editorial.

Newark option gets more realistic, even as Nets seek Euro companies for Gehry arena

...Even if the Nets consider the Newark option--and surely they must have a spreadsheet detailing potential new revenues, new costs, and the limits of being the tenant in someone else's arena--Newark doesn't become realistic until and unless Atlantic Yards finally implodes.

So, if the Nets move to Newark, as the commentary suggests, it will because they are sold to some local investors...

Full article