<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetsDaily)</div><div class='quotemain'>Friday’s court victory puts the Nets even closer to Brooklyn … and closer to an all-out war with the Knicks. As Bruce Ratner and Jim Dolan know, the Nets’ new arena will be as close to Wall Street and big corporate accounts as the Garden is. On an artistic level, the Nets appear to have the advantage right now and marketing is the Nets’ forte. As one Knick fan notes, the Nets have something else the Knicks don’t: Jay-Z.</div> Starks raving MaD: New York… uh I mean, Brooklyn’s Finest? - Richard Bertin - KnicksOnline I can't wait for this war.
Honestly with the emergence of Boone and Swat you have to see a real solid young core that will help us to win the war in years to come. Nenad is 24 Josh is 23 Marcus is 22 Sean is 21 Thats a solid young core all under the age of 25.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32 @ Jan 13 2008, 02:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's kind of hard to go to war with the Knicks, seeing how they don't fight back.</div> exactly... beating a dying horse
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jloc857 @ Jan 13 2008, 04:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Honestly with the emergence of Boone and Swat you have to see a real solid young core that will help us to win the war in years to come. Nenad is 24 Josh is 23 Marcus is 22 Sean is 21 Thats a solid young core all under the age of 25.</div> I always forget how young Nenad is he seems so old to me for some reason
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jloc857 @ Jan 13 2008, 04:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Honestly with the emergence of Boone and Swat you have to see a real solid young core that will help us to win the war in years to come. Nenad is 24 Josh is 23 Marcus is 22 Sean is 21 Thats a solid young core all under the age of 25.</div> I don't think that's a core at all. Compare that group with the best four players under 25 on the other teams in the NBA and the Nets' future looks bleak. They certainly have no chance at a championship without at least one young superstar. And don't forget that this is Nenad's contract year.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jan 15 2008, 11:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jloc857 @ Jan 13 2008, 04:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Honestly with the emergence of Boone and Swat you have to see a real solid young core that will help us to win the war in years to come. Nenad is 24 Josh is 23 Marcus is 22 Sean is 21 Thats a solid young core all under the age of 25.</div> I don't think that's a core at all. Compare that group with the best four players under 25 on the other teams in the NBA and the Nets' future looks bleak. They certainly have no chance at a championship without at least one young superstar. And don't forget that this is Nenad's contract year. </div> That isn't a young core to base a successful marketing campaign around. That is what this battle is about, getting butts in seats.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J-HoAgZ @ Jan 15 2008, 11:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jloc857 @ Jan 13 2008, 04:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Honestly with the emergence of Boone and Swat you have to see a real solid young core that will help us to win the war in years to come. Nenad is 24 Josh is 23 Marcus is 22 Sean is 21 Thats a solid young core all under the age of 25.</div> I always forget how young Nenad is he seems so old to me for some reason </div> I think the receding hairline does it.
Please. The Nets are not competing with the Knicks who have been around for over 60 years. The whole MSG vs. Barclay's thing is funny to me. The Mecca of Hoops versus a some new arena somewhere in downtown Brooklyn. MSG is the "World's Most Famous Arena" for a reason. Nets will be Brookyln. Knicks are New York. There's a big difference in that. And this whole "OMG, jay iz a netz fan n can do anything!!!!!11!!!" malarkey needs to end. As J.R. Writer said: "Your boss is washed up like a surfer."
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mr. J @ Jan 15 2008, 12:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Please. The Nets are not competing with the Knicks who have been around for over 60 years. The whole MSG vs. Barclay's thing is funny to me. The Mecca of Hoops versus a some new arena somewhere in downtown Brooklyn. MSG is the "World's Most Famous Arena" for a reason. Nets will be Brookyln. Knicks are New York. There's a big difference in that. And this whole "OMG, jay iz a netz fan n can do anything!!!!!11!!!" malarkey needs to end. As J.R. Writer said: "Your boss is washed up like a surfer."</div> So we are back to this discussion eh? You continue to fail to understand that this is about the corporations that purchase the big tickets to entertain their people and their clients.
Knicks fans know they put out a sh*tty basketball product, so they hang on to anything they can. Can't blame them for making ludicrous comments.
Truth is, you can only treat your fanbase like shit for so long. Most storied teams get away with it because they have a monopoly on their market, but if the Nets do move in that will finally put the pressure on the Knicks organization. You can say that the Knicks will always be New York, and that's probably true, but you have to wonder how much support they'll really have after a while. I mean, over the last 7 years they've driven away an entire new generation of potential fans and have made the majority of their fanbase apathetic or genuinely pissed off. People no longer have pride and don't like being associated with the league's biggest joke. They no longer sellout what is probably the easiest arena to sell out in the NBA and they have to pipe in crowd noise over the speakers. And this was all done with absolutely nobody threatening their territory. If the Nets come into the area with a better team, a much more likeable owner, and a newer vibe, I don't see how they won't draw fans away from that franchise. It'll finally force the Knicks front office to work with some sense of urgency and I really doubt that they'll be able to do that.
Most of the lucrative businesses in the city are in Manhattan. Wall Street is in Manhattan. The New York Stock Exchange is in Manhattan. The largest number of corporations in the nation is located in Manhattan. Manhattan accounts for two-thirds of all jobs in New York City. To say the Nets will be just as close to corporate accounts as the Knicks is balderdash. Clearly, Manhattan is the center of New York both financially and culturally, I doubt the Nets' move to Brooklyn changes much of anything. Besides, there's more to it than corporate accounts. Like I said, there's a 62-year history the Knicks have that the Nets don't. Diehard Knick fans--many whom are Brooklynites themselves--will not stop supporting the team they have been rooting for their entire life. Hell, if there was an NBA basketball team that moved to Harlem, I wouldn't support them over my Knicks. And the article continues to babble about Jay-Z and how he started Roc-A-Fella (conveniently or perhaps fallaciously leaving out Biggs and Dames' impact) He goes on to mention: "He's brought star power. Prior to him you would have never seen Missy, Cedric the entertainer, Ciara, Kanye West, Beyonce, Rhianna in the house. All on the same night!"? That's funny because that might be an off night in terms of celebrity appearances at the Garden; they appear regardless of the state of the Knicks. And most of those are his label mates anyway. And Beyonce is his girlfriend. Basically, he's starting to touch a pretty subpar mark for MSG standards. And Chutney, you are right to an extent. But the Knicks have still been amongst the NBA's best in league attendance the past 7 years. This is with all the struggling. In terms of fan support, Knick fans are amongst the legaue's best, and have been for years. Also, the move is three years from now in 2011. It's hard to gauge the state of either team. As of now, the Nets are below .500 and Jason Kidd will be 38 by the time they move, and the Knicks could very well be better than them. And wouldn't it be a good thing if Dolan feels some added pressure? That means he'll be forced to get someone competent to run things. As for Kid Chocolate, if you don't have anything constructive to say you can either not say anything at all, or continue fondling with your rusty spoons.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mr. J @ Jan 15 2008, 02:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So the Nets are going to significantly diminish how much money the Knicks make? Most of the lucrative businesses in the city are in Manhattan. Wall Street is in Manhattan. The New York Stock Exchange is in Manhattan. The largest number of corporations in the nation is located in Manhattan. Manhattan accounts for two-thirds of all jobs in New York City. To say the Nets will be just as close to corporate accounts as the Knicks is balderdash. Clearly, Manhattan is the center of New York both financially and culturally, I doubt the Nets move to Brooklyn changes much of anything.</div> You clearly fail to understand what corporate accounts are looking for. It is about being someplace to be seen and it is about being entertained. People go to red carpet events not to see the new movie, but to be seen at the movie and to hobknob with other people. MSG, for all of its history is not an entertaining place compared to the modern NBA arena. When Barclays opens, every game will be an event and all of the big wigs will be treated to ammenities that don't exist at MSG. Lets also look at the marketing side of the equation. Because the Knicks have such built in advantages right now, they don't know how to market themselves. None of this is about basketball, rather it is all about people's entertainment dollars. Right now, people go to MSG because there isn't another convient alternative. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Besides, there's more to it than corporate accounts. Like I said, there's a 62-year history the Knicks have that the Nets don't. Diehard Knick fans ”many whom are Brooklynites themselves” will not stop supporting the team they have been rooting for their entire life. Hell, if there was an NBA basketball team that moved to Harlem, I wouldn't support them over my Knicks.</div> Teams don't make much money off the ticket sales to the diehards. The diehards aren't the ones that purchase the luxury boxes and the big money tickets. You are looking at this only from the fan's perspective and none of this is about the individual fan. The product on the floor is obviously going to have some impact, but both teams have roster issues and the Knicks currently have their basketball operations run by a moron.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jan 15 2008, 02:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You clearly fail to understand what corporate accounts are looking for. It is about being someplace to be seen and it is about being entertained. People go to red carpet events not to see the new movie, but to be seen at the movie and to hobknob with other people. MSG, for all of its history is not an entertaining place compared to the modern NBA arena. When Barclays opens, every game will be an event and all of the big wigs will be treated to ammenities that don't exist at MSG.</div> What new amenities are we talking about? Even if the building itself isn't as glamorous as Barclay's, the circumambient city serves as the Garden's amenities. Downtown Brooklyn isn't comparable to downtown Manhattan. Perhaps there will be sellouts in the beginning just because it is a new arena and such, but how long will Barclay's be able to sustain the fanfare? There's also talks of building a new MSG across the street from the old one with all the "amenities" of Barclay's. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Lets also look at the marketing side of the equation. Because the Knicks have such built in advantages right now, they don't know how to market themselves. None of this is about basketball, rather it is all about people's entertainment dollars. Right now, people go to MSG because there isn't another convient alternative.</div> If it's not about basketball, I don't follow. Are you suggesting there is no other convenient source of entertainment in New York City? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Teams don't make much money off the ticket sales to the diehards. The diehards aren't the ones that purchase the luxury boxes and the big money tickets. You are looking at this only from the fan's perspective and none of this is about the individual fan.</div> So, at the end of the day, you are saying the Nets will have more money and fans than the Knicks once they move to Brooklyn, and the Knicks will no longer be the league's most valuable franchise? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The product on the floor is obviously going to have some impact, but both teams have roster issues and the Knicks currently have their basketball operations run by a moron.</div> Currently isn't three years from now.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mr. J @ Jan 15 2008, 03:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jan 15 2008, 02:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You clearly fail to understand what corporate accounts are looking for. It is about being someplace to be seen and it is about being entertained. People go to red carpet events not to see the new movie, but to be seen at the movie and to hobknob with other people. MSG, for all of its history is not an entertaining place compared to the modern NBA arena. When Barclays opens, every game will be an event and all of the big wigs will be treated to ammenities that don't exist at MSG.</div> What new amenities are we talking about? Even if the building itself isn't as glamorous as Barclay's, the circumambient city serves as the Garden's amenities. Downtown Brooklyn isn't comparable to downtown Manhattan. Perhaps there will be sellouts in the beginning just because it is a new arena and such, but how long will Barclay's be able to sustain the fanfare? There's also talks of building a new MSG across the street from the old one with all the "amenities" of Barclay's. </div> If and when a new MSG is built, then it will experience the same new stadium effect. Marketing driven, special event fanfare will be easy to keep up and you are fooling yourself if you think the rich and powerful give it a second thought about getting from Brooklyn to the hot spots in Manhattan. Yankee Stadium isn't on Manhattan island either. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Lets also look at the marketing side of the equation. Because the Knicks have such built in advantages right now, they don't know how to market themselves. None of this is about basketball, rather it is all about people's entertainment dollars. Right now, people go to MSG because there isn't another convient alternative.</div> If it's not about basketball, I don't follow. Are you suggesting there is no other convenient source of entertainment in New York City? </div> None of this is about the oncourt product of basketball. It is about people spending entertainment dollars on basketball. People will not only get more for their dollar at Barclays than they will at MSG, but they will be well informed of that fact. Marketing is a powerful force. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Teams don't make much money off the ticket sales to the diehards. The diehards aren't the ones that purchase the luxury boxes and the big money tickets. You are looking at this only from the fan's perspective and none of this is about the individual fan.</div> So, at the end of the day, you are saying the Nets will have more money and fans than the Knicks once they move to Brooklyn, and the Knicks will no longer be the league's most valuable franchise? </div> Not even close to what I'm saying and there is no need to invent strawmen in this discussion. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The product on the floor is obviously going to have some impact, but both teams have roster issues and the Knicks currently have their basketball operations run by a moron.</div> Currently isn't three years from now. </div> Thanks, really, I had no idea
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MrJ)</div><div class='quotemain'>And Chutney, you are right to an extent. But the Knicks have still been amongst the NBA's best in league attendance the past 7 years. This is with all the struggling. In terms of fan support, Knick fans are amongst the legaue's best, and have been for years. Also, the move is three years from now in 2011. It's hard to gauge the state of either team. As of now, the Nets are below .500 and Jason Kidd will be 38 by the time they move, and the Knicks could very well be better than them. And wouldn't it be a good thing if Dolan feels some added pressure? That means he'll be forced to get someone competent to run things.</div> I didn't mean to make it sound like the Nets move will bring about a drastic change in the New York basketball market. But I do think that the Knicks franchise is currently more vulnerable than I ever remember it being. This is the strongest basketball market in North America, as you said, with among the best fans in the league but they still can't sell out the MSG, they can't generate any significant crowd noise during a game, and the majority of their fanbase genuinely despises everyone associated with the franchise (players and the front office). You can argue that they're still averaging a respectable attendance, given their struggles. But this is New York we're talking about. I've been going to this city for years and, in the past, losing has never stopped people from attending games, cheering for crappy players, and genuinely being proud of their franchise. This isn't a glamorous franchise like the Lakers, that draws fans only when they're winning and making highlight reels. This fanbase has seen only moderate success in the large scheme of things and yet has always managed to attract a loyal following. The fact that its fallen this far and this fanbase is actually turned off by their team really is a testament to how terrible this front office has been over the past decade. I realize its a long way, and this topic really is just conjecture. Forecasting the demise of the Knicks is premature and unjustified, but I think its fair to say that the Nets have a very real chance to challenge the Knicks' stranglehold on the city's basketball market. If you were to tell me about this even 4-5 years ago, I wouldn't have gave it much thought and would have assumed the Nets would build themselves in as a niche attraction that would still be dwarfed by the Knicks. But, as I said earlier, the Knicks have alienated a large portion of their fanbase over the past few years, not just with losing but also because of the dismissive and disrespectful attitude the front office has shown towards its fanbase (one that doesn't look to change anytime soon). I believe its about as vulnerable as I've ever seen it and there's a chance for it be taken down a notch. I have absolutely no faith in Dolan's ability to deal with genuine competition (given his extreme arrogance and general incompetence).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jan 15 2008, 03:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If and when a new MSG is built, then it will experience the same new stadium effect. Marketing driven, special event fanfare will be easy to keep up and you are fooling yourself if you think the rich and powerful give it a second thought about getting from Brooklyn to the hot spots in Manhattan. Yankee Stadium isn't on Manhattan island either.</div> I said that to point out what MSG lacks in amenities it makes up for with its surroundings. The rich and powerful are not the only ones who attend basketball games. And what are these new amenities you are talking about? What is the relevance of Yankee stadium? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>None of this is about the oncourt product of basketball. It is about people spending entertainment dollars on basketball. People will not only get more for their dollar at Barclays than they will at MSG, but they will be well informed of that fact. Marketing is a powerful force.</div> MSG is still the world's most famous arena. People know that and regardless of how behind they are amenities-wise, there is still something that attracts people from all over the world to this stadium. People know that. I don't think Barclay's or any other new arena can compete with that fact. The Barclay's celebration seems to be something temporary. After the first couple of seasons when the fanfare is over, how alluring will it be? And basketball has a lot to do with this. If the Nets are struggling much like their rivals across the river, expect attendance to dip regardless of how new the arena is. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Not even close to what I'm saying and there is no need to invent strawmen in this discussion.</div> It's far from strawman. My point is this: the Nets won't have as much money or as many fans than the Knicks. They will be second to the Knicks. They might take some fair-weather fans away from us or our ticket sales might decline, but they will not be New York's team. And those same fair-weather fans will hop on the Knicks bandwagon when the Knicks become better than they are. I'm sorry if the previous post sounded like sarcasm. That's not the direction I'm aiming for. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Thanks, really, I had no idea</div> Again, not sarcasm. My point is in three years we don't know what will be of either team in three years, so the fact that Isiah is a moron is irrelevant. He probably won't even be here anyway.
