Reality Check – Barclays Vs The NY Islanders per the NY Post

Reality Check – Barclays Vs The NY Islanders per the NY Post

barclaysisles1

 

You’d think we would be talking about the Isles second half rise in possession play and their offense. We would be talking about the Isles and Halak… The true #1 goaltender… Big 1-0 win versus the persistent NJ Devils as the Eastern Conference tightens as we start the last lap of the season.

Nope.

Instead, we have to field this cluster bomb dropped by the NY Post last night that cites that the Isles and Barclays are secretly looking for an escape to their deal.

I’m going to warn you now that if you want to believe this and want to hold a candle on a return to Nassau, then please stop reading this now. I welcome you to hold any dream. I get that this Brooklyn move is a hard adjustment on everyone. As I cited on the Isles Beat podcast just a few weeks back … This also goes the Islanders and Barclay’s working with one another as tenant and landlord, respectively.

Despite those issues, there was no reason to think there was anymore to this. They are working through it. Fact is, I will prove to you that this same information has also trickled to the NY Post, but has been poorly inflated and concluded to another fishy direction completely.

Let us go through their piece…

 

‘The lease includes a little-known out clause that kicks in after the fourth season that both sides could take advantage of, sources said”

 

Funny how the NY Post who declared that there was an out clause for Barclay’s last year suddenly has changed its tune. Now it is a “little-known” that kicks in after the fourth season that BOTH sides can take advantage of. Hmm.. Might that be the Mutual Opt Out Clause that I have been citing for years? It kicks in year 5… Which amazingly come right after year 4. Funny how that works.

 

As I have been citing: any opt-out must be mutual. Suddenly it seems some are trying to pretend that this has been known throughout. Really? Then why has this very newsworthy and important point it never been published?

 

No. What has been happening is just parroting wrong information from article to article.

 

Then in the Post piece is this nugget….

 

“I don’t think either side ever believed the full lease would be honored,” said a source briefed on the matter. “I just didn’t think we’d be talking about this the first year in.”

 

Source briefed on the matter? Is this because the writers are briefing the source on their working piece and fielding an opinion or is the source actually briefed on the secret ways that both are looking for a way out? Since I’m told by Isles sources that the latter is complete and utter fiction, I’m going to figure it is the former here. Also notice it is NOT an Isles source the Post is citing, nor Barclays. It is not even cited as an NHL source. It isn’t even cited as a source “close” to anything. The wording of how this source is fielded is very fascinating. And I think very important to this.

 

 

‘Although the Islanders own one of the NHL’s top home records, their fans have been quite sour about the move, complaining about obstructed-view seating, jacked-up ticket prices, the nixing of longtime team traditions and feeling like second-class citizens in a building monopolized by the NBA’s Nets.”

 

Long Island fans are certainly sour and going through one hell of an adjustment period, but we are only at the very beginning of a learning curve process that the owners and Barclays are going through. Secondly, it has been written and corroborated by Barclays and Brett Yormark himself that they have been pleasantly surprised by the season ticket sales of Long Island fans.

Why is so much onus on Internet, Twitter or social media drama? What really matters is money and ticket sales. That is the barometer of unhappiness or dissension. Rest is overrating the hype over the meat of the items.

 

 

“Jonathan Ledecky — who heads a group of investors set to replace Wang as the team’s majority owner July 1 — apparently is listening. A source close to the Islanders and other industry sources say he’s enamored with possibly moving the team to Queens or back to Long Island.”

 

This is the most interesting statement because of the glaring fact that Ledecky is not majority owner yet. So the supposition he is enamored with Queens or back to LI is rife with implications… And the biggest item of contention in getting Isles source reactions to the NY Post article. I am told this is not true at all. In fact, I am told anything that says Ledecky “leads” or “is listening” is suspect because fact it gives him too much influence. It shows a lack of understanding on how the ownership triad works, and ignores that they are working together already, and that Wang is still, and will remain, an influential voice.

 

As a source told me:

“….(Ledecky) not being “happy”? What does that mean… Are you always “happy” with wife? Kids? Does it mean you’re leaving? So stupid… And and and he isn’t the ownership group nor does he represent them… He’s one guy”

 

Exactly. And it seems the NY Post writers don’t seem to know this, or are conveniently ignoring this very fact.

 

Though we can probably say: Ledecky isn’t happy after reading the Post piece this morning.

 

Now though I have heard Isles not 100% happy with current setup, this is a far cry to what the NY Post is reporting. I have corroborated this with other writers who have heard the same. Most chalk it up to the learning curve of two organizations working with one another. If we follow this out a few more years and more butting heads, we have a story. What the NY Post has written is piecemeal, not properly vetted or drawn out, and irresponsible.

 

As for any shades of Long Island, a Source wraps this up the best with this:

 

“…Charles was “not happy” for years in Nassau county losing money, and new ownership would not be happy losing money in Nassau county now, or having value of team drop leaving nyc”

 

 

“The Islander deal was forced from the start because the club was hemorrhaging so much money playing on Long Island … and had to bail,” another source said. “Now you’re left with this weird situation where Barclays’ folks pay the Islanders to play there — but aren’t getting the bang for the buck they desired, not to mention all the crap they’re getting from Islander fans who are finding every little fault they can with being in Brooklyn

 

This is a silly sourced item because this is now a pure conjecture on Barclays themselves… Which the authors are using as an extra item to cement their loose piece to now give Barclays reason to opt out. But as we will see below in Barclays own response in that very piece, not the case.

.

“On the Islanders’ end, they might be better off financially than at Nassau Coliseum. But under the current deal, I think they realize they’ll never be able to have the type of revenue coming in to compete with other big-market teams to sign top players.”

Barclays Center seats 15,795 for hockey — including about 1,500 with obstructed views that have sold poorly despite discounted pricing.

 

This is completely incorrect.

1. Isles make much more money now, as was indicated earlier in their own piece in their guaranteed money from Barclays each year ($52+ million), plus their TV deal, merchandise and NHL. They are no longer encumbered by the killer SMG lease that sucked them into debt.

2. Money to sign top players is irrelevant to this because they are already upwards and contingent to the NHL salary cap. The statement ignores any hockey operations acumen or expertise. This is not the old NHL and the Isles at the cap floor.

The Islanders declined comment, but Barclays Center CEO Brett Yormark on Friday denied his arena wants out of the deal early.

 

“We are enjoying the first year of hockey in Brooklyn,” he told The Post. “We are looking forward to a heated playoff run and a long future and partnership with the Islanders.”

So how accurate is the NY Post and the writers? We will let the following tell the tale here…

 

Well, we have this by one:

http://nypost.com/2016/01/13/female-hockey-player-plans-to-sue-nhl-following-spinal-injury/

 

Oops wrong. And had to write the opposite item later on….

http://nypost.com/2016/01/17/hockey-player-will-not-sue-nhl-over-spinal-injury/

 

Then we have this winner…

http://nypost.com/2015/06/30/arizona-coyotes-to-move-to-las-vegas-under-new-owner/

 

Or we can all remember this one back in 2012…

http://nypost.com/2012/10/01/ex-islander-lafontaine-contacted-by-investors-to-buy-team/

 

 

There are more, but I think we get the point here.

 

One more thing. If you think about this rationally, if you contemplate leaving Barclays you either…

 

  1. need your own arena with huge local development rights to offset costs (an option with no discussion, no plan and no certainty at all EVER)… And then you’re still completely at mercy of attendance (remember, right now you are guaranteed a fixed revenues in Brooklyn)
  2. OR you sell team to highest bidder (Seattle or Quebec) and make a quick profit and walk away.

 

So which is more likely to be available in 3+ years?

 

So I think fans better be very careful of what they hope for here.

 

I think one thing is absolute–until a shovel in ground for new nhl arena (in Queens only) all of this is stupid… And since none is even being discussed, no less proposed or planned, it is clearly a deliberate attempt to opiate the masses who are fiending due to the pain of change.

 

The truth is far simpler. This will continue despite the games played by press to click bait or act like they knew all along.

 

Jerks.

 

 

If you missed our podcast…

 

About B.D. Gallof

2 comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

twenty + sixteen =

Skip to toolbar