It's a very easy thing for me to blog spending Charles Wang's money
for him. I wrote, and gave him total support in past entries.
I absolutely do now.
Put this entry in the policy-wonk category.
I would like to hear something from Islanders senior VP, Michael Picker, who was at the meeting Feb 14th 2012 at the Nassau legislature eight months (before the seven month negotiation began with Brooklyn), and said Islanders Want To Stay At Coliseum Nothing's Changed.
Picker showed up when he was not even scheduled, and spoke, making clear it had to happen this year, which Kevin Law/other did as well.
Everything that goes through this team has always gone through Picker for comment. He was not photographed or mentioned at the Brooklyn press conference that seemed to catch the entire hockey media world off guard off what Wang said was an agreement done at 7am.
It was almost as stunning as the announcement given on the shortest notice ever. Nothing this franchise has done for a decade happens without everyone claiming to know days in advance, yet Bloomberg, Bettman were all there.
I wish to know more about the iron-clad, no opt-out lease or how this makes Charles Wang more revenue than he made under conditions of his sublease at the Coliseum where he got revenue from all events next to his hotel. Did he opt out of his sublease?
For that matter when the day comes that Wang sells, do those same iron-clad, no opt-out terms apply to a future owner?
Do I expect those answers? Absolutely not, however they are big questions--- fair to ask here.
Howie Rose recently gave thirty seconds to the Isles, and felt there was no reason it would not turn out like Pittsburgh where they would stay longer than their lease, while a new facility was finally agreed on at the last minute in March, April, May 2015.
I shared that view, and wrote the framework from the referendum would happen with or without Mangano sooner or later behind closed doors.
It's easy for Rose, myself, any New York Islander fan to say the same thing writing Wang could have waited a few years at the Coliseum after an agreement was done which was obviously not getting closer.
What's another six years, it's not our money? Wang was doing all the work. Sure he likely had enough
of the political football, he kept his word not to issue threats or play it out in the media. When
the time came he made his decision.
Having written that we were not the ones getting told no since 2002, while everyone else got a new building via taxpayers or was getting exemptions. Would I have blamed Wang for washing his hands of everything, getting every penny he could out of town? No.
If everything is iron-clad for all future owners the game with the Dolans is over, no cable contract buyout, who knows if that played out at all?
Mangano put this referendum out, he played the will of the people card which is a joke because all that did was take the pressure off him which NIFA never would have approved.
Charles Wang absolutely shocked me last summer. Every other day this 67 year old multimillionaire was running into NYC to go on Manhattan television stations at 7am, to ask five percent of the people watching from Nassau to vote YES like someone half his age.
The agreement he signed last summer gave him nothing near the revenue or outright payments that Phoenix/Edmonton offered to those teams.
It begs the question Michael Kay asked. Why? .
The last two summers I made a few very tough entries here, practically begging the fans to fill the Coliseum, putting it on the public to force Nassau/Wang to keep the team here, writing fill the building or lose the team.
Another announced 29th year of attendance. Kate Murray will get her sixty percent, Mangano will run for election, few will hold them accountable, some will even praise him.
The apathy or indifference among the politicians even now speak for themselves.
Wang has interest on the property that are not expiring in 2015, and a hotel to fill.
Lot's of unanswered question.
