NBA Planning to Purchase the New Orleans Hornets

[dmbrhs]

Originally Posted by Dwele Farooq Al Suleed Afzul

Originally Posted by swyftdahoe

Originally Posted by yungchris504

Seattle Attendance Record From 2001 up until they relocated:

2001 - 17th
2002 - 21st
2003 - 20th
2004 - 23rd
2005 - 21st
2006 - 23rd
2007 - 25th
2008 - 28th

Now please tell me why Seattle so overwhelmingly deserves another bball team oppose to N.O.

Because if it wasn't for the stupid politicians, Sonics shoulda never left.. Seattle has a much richer populace than NO..

But who cares if yall aren't attending the games?

Please read the thread before presenting this same dumb argument. I outlined it quite nicely how the numbers are misleading.

 

[dmbrhs]

Originally Posted by Dwele Farooq Al Suleed Afzul

Originally Posted by swyftdahoe

Originally Posted by yungchris504

Seattle Attendance Record From 2001 up until they relocated:

2001 - 17th
2002 - 21st
2003 - 20th
2004 - 23rd
2005 - 21st
2006 - 23rd
2007 - 25th
2008 - 28th

Now please tell me why Seattle so overwhelmingly deserves another bball team oppose to N.O.

Because if it wasn't for the stupid politicians, Sonics shoulda never left.. Seattle has a much richer populace than NO..

But who cares if yall aren't attending the games?

Please read the thread before presenting this same dumb argument. I outlined it quite nicely how the numbers are misleading.

 

[kixurazz]

Originally Posted by dmbrhs

Originally Posted by Dwele Farooq Al Suleed Afzul

Originally Posted by swyftdahoe

Originally Posted by yungchris504

Seattle Attendance Record From 2001 up until they relocated:

2001 - 17th
2002 - 21st
2003 - 20th
2004 - 23rd
2005 - 21st
2006 - 23rd
2007 - 25th
2008 - 28th

Now please tell me why Seattle so overwhelmingly deserves another bball team oppose to N.O.

Because if it wasn't for the stupid politicians, Sonics shoulda never left.. Seattle has a much richer populace than NO..

But who cares if yall aren't attending the games?

Please read the thread before presenting this same dumb argument. I outlined it quite nicely how the numbers are misleading.

 

[kixurazz]

Originally Posted by dmbrhs

Originally Posted by Dwele Farooq Al Suleed Afzul

Originally Posted by swyftdahoe

Originally Posted by yungchris504

Seattle Attendance Record From 2001 up until they relocated:

2001 - 17th
2002 - 21st
2003 - 20th
2004 - 23rd
2005 - 21st
2006 - 23rd
2007 - 25th
2008 - 28th

Now please tell me why Seattle so overwhelmingly deserves another bball team oppose to N.O.

Because if it wasn't for the stupid politicians, Sonics shoulda never left.. Seattle has a much richer populace than NO..

But who cares if yall aren't attending the games?

Please read the thread before presenting this same dumb argument. I outlined it quite nicely how the numbers are misleading.

 

[dwele farooq al suleed afzul]

Pyramid quotes. How useful.

Rank Team # Pct
12Thunder18,08999.4%

is still more than 80% bruh, even in mamby pamby Coffee land

 

[dwele farooq al suleed afzul]

Pyramid quotes. How useful.

Rank Team # Pct
12Thunder18,08999.4%

is still more than 80% bruh, even in mamby pamby Coffee land

 

[dmbrhs]

Not even worth arguing anymore. Knowledgable NBA fans know that Seattle had great attendance. It's all that matters. When the Mariners aren't playing well, Safeco is empty. The Seahawks used to get blacked out all the time before Holmgren came to town. The Sonics kept butts in the seats more than any other team in town.

 

[dmbrhs]

Not even worth arguing anymore. Knowledgable NBA fans know that Seattle had great attendance. It's all that matters. When the Mariners aren't playing well, Safeco is empty. The Seahawks used to get blacked out all the time before Holmgren came to town. The Sonics kept butts in the seats more than any other team in town.

 

[zoomgp]

Hornets belong in Charlotte

and seattle needs the sonics, somehow this needs to happen

 

[zoomgp]

Hornets belong in Charlotte

and seattle needs the sonics, somehow this needs to happen

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by Dwele Farooq Al Suleed Afzul

Pyramid quotes. How useful.

Rank Team # Pct
12Thunder18,08999.4%

is still more than 80% bruh, even in mamby pamby Coffee land

Says the guy who made the 'Is R. Westbrook an all-star this year?' thread. Shut up, you don't know anything about basketball clown. 

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by Dwele Farooq Al Suleed Afzul

Pyramid quotes. How useful.

Rank Team # Pct
12Thunder18,08999.4%

is still more than 80% bruh, even in mamby pamby Coffee land

Says the guy who made the 'Is R. Westbrook an all-star this year?' thread. Shut up, you don't know anything about basketball clown. 

 

[westcoastsfinest]

keep the hornets in NO, move the clips to seattle and the kings to vegas

problem solved

 

[westcoastsfinest]

keep the hornets in NO, move the clips to seattle and the kings to vegas

problem solved

 

[pmatic]

Report: League looking at Kansas City for Hornets

If, and that's a big if, the Hornets don't stay in New Orleans, a number of cities will be lining up to grab them. And a report from FanHouse says the league is strongly looking at moving the team to Kansas City and the newly built Sprint Center.

Matt Moore laid out a number of possibilities that included Seattle, Anaheim, Chicago and Kansas City. What's the drawback to KC? Here's what Matt said:

    That said, the jewel in their crown is pretty simple. It's the building. Sprint Center, built in 2005 and opened in 2007, has a capacity of 18,555 with a considerably higher number of available luxury suites and club seating due to how the building was constructed. Specifically, the arena was built to capitalize on how current arena economics work. Tickets are valuable, to be sure, but the money is made with sponsorships, and luxury seating.

    What's missing? A buyer. AEG who owns the Sprint Center, made noise early on about pursuing either a hockey or basketball team to fill the arena. But with the Pittsburgh Penguins using them as a straw man to get a new arena in Pittsburgh, there has been no team to arrive. Furthermore, it turns out the arena is making more money as a concert venue than it may with a regular tenant. With the recession having hit Kansas City well before the rest of the country and a lack of progressive technology firms in the area, finding a prospective owner outside of AEG is going to be a hard sell. Kansas City remains a viable candidate but it remains to be seen if either AEG or the city will commit to making a serious inquiry toward the Hornets.

Other than the sentimental reasons to bring a team back to Seattle, Kansas City has to be the leader in the clubhouse. New building, big corporate city with a number of sponsorship opportunities and the potential for a great, dedicated fanbase. Like Matt pointed out, it all comes down to a buyer that wants to bring a team there.

The concern over it being a college town is a good one, but the same was said for Oklahoma City and I think we've all seen how that went over. Competing with the Jayhawks and the Missouri Tigers wouldn't be easy for a professional franchise, but in a market like Kansas City, there's always room for more basketball.

But it's not about those reasons. It's about the building. Kansas City has what the league likes and what a prospective owner loves: a brand new arena that can make money. If Seattle had something new, no doubt in my mind it would be the frontrunner. But the NBA is about money and by all appearances, Kansas City would have the best shot at making the most right now.

Source

 

[pmatic]

Report: League looking at Kansas City for Hornets

If, and that's a big if, the Hornets don't stay in New Orleans, a number of cities will be lining up to grab them. And a report from FanHouse says the league is strongly looking at moving the team to Kansas City and the newly built Sprint Center.

Matt Moore laid out a number of possibilities that included Seattle, Anaheim, Chicago and Kansas City. What's the drawback to KC? Here's what Matt said:

    That said, the jewel in their crown is pretty simple. It's the building. Sprint Center, built in 2005 and opened in 2007, has a capacity of 18,555 with a considerably higher number of available luxury suites and club seating due to how the building was constructed. Specifically, the arena was built to capitalize on how current arena economics work. Tickets are valuable, to be sure, but the money is made with sponsorships, and luxury seating.

    What's missing? A buyer. AEG who owns the Sprint Center, made noise early on about pursuing either a hockey or basketball team to fill the arena. But with the Pittsburgh Penguins using them as a straw man to get a new arena in Pittsburgh, there has been no team to arrive. Furthermore, it turns out the arena is making more money as a concert venue than it may with a regular tenant. With the recession having hit Kansas City well before the rest of the country and a lack of progressive technology firms in the area, finding a prospective owner outside of AEG is going to be a hard sell. Kansas City remains a viable candidate but it remains to be seen if either AEG or the city will commit to making a serious inquiry toward the Hornets.

Other than the sentimental reasons to bring a team back to Seattle, Kansas City has to be the leader in the clubhouse. New building, big corporate city with a number of sponsorship opportunities and the potential for a great, dedicated fanbase. Like Matt pointed out, it all comes down to a buyer that wants to bring a team there.

The concern over it being a college town is a good one, but the same was said for Oklahoma City and I think we've all seen how that went over. Competing with the Jayhawks and the Missouri Tigers wouldn't be easy for a professional franchise, but in a market like Kansas City, there's always room for more basketball.

But it's not about those reasons. It's about the building. Kansas City has what the league likes and what a prospective owner loves: a brand new arena that can make money. If Seattle had something new, no doubt in my mind it would be the frontrunner. But the NBA is about money and by all appearances, Kansas City would have the best shot at making the most right now.

Source

 

[durantula]

smh at KC

 

[durantula]

smh at KC

 

[Animal Thug]

It all really comes down to who can house this team in the newest, accessible stadium. And right now, it looks like Kansas City has the lead and best chance at making the most money..

 

[Animal Thug]

It all really comes down to who can house this team in the newest, accessible stadium. And right now, it looks like Kansas City has the lead and best chance at making the most money..

 

[pololax]

Originally Posted by MrONegative

Originally Posted by PoloLax

Also, maybe I'm the only one who feels this way but I feel the NBA shouldn't have teams in warmer weather climates. For instance, does anyone know the attendance for the Heat before Wade and James?

I just feel the populace of those areas would rather be outside in nice weather rather then inside an areana. Maybe it's cause I'm from up north. Haha.

Like Los Angeles and San Antonio... 

Once again, I said my opinion.

Los Angeles of course deserves a team, they are the second or third largest market in the nation behind New York and Chicago, and in some cases Los Angeles might be ahead of Chicago.

I just can't really justify teams like San Diego or Tampa having NBA teams OVER a northern city such as Seattle or Pittsburgh for that matter.

I'm not saying warm weather climate teams can't sustain themselves, they can as you pointed out San Antonio does. San Antonio is also a great great NBA team, best in the league right now and one of the most consistent.

But like another member said after me, teams like Memphis, Atlanta, etc. have trouble selling tickets. Also someone else mentioned that Seattle traditionally had a packed areana. It may have been a smaller areana, but it was still packed.

If you look at teams in the South, and not just basketball, even baseball and hockey, stadiums always seem to be at less capacity than stadiums up North. Maybe that's just an observation I see and can totally be false as I don't have any numbers, but it just looks that way from a viewer standpoint.

I think Seattle would have a better chance of getting more people in the seats than say a Kansas City or San Diego.

By the way, Vegas will never, ever have a professional sports franchise, it just won't. Way to much risk involved, and with the economy the way it is know, Vegas has completely capped out on spending. No matter how many wealthy people maybe there, the economy wouldn't be able to support a team.
  

 

[pololax]

Originally Posted by MrONegative

Originally Posted by PoloLax

Also, maybe I'm the only one who feels this way but I feel the NBA shouldn't have teams in warmer weather climates. For instance, does anyone know the attendance for the Heat before Wade and James?

I just feel the populace of those areas would rather be outside in nice weather rather then inside an areana. Maybe it's cause I'm from up north. Haha.

Like Los Angeles and San Antonio... 

Once again, I said my opinion.

Los Angeles of course deserves a team, they are the second or third largest market in the nation behind New York and Chicago, and in some cases Los Angeles might be ahead of Chicago.

I just can't really justify teams like San Diego or Tampa having NBA teams OVER a northern city such as Seattle or Pittsburgh for that matter.

I'm not saying warm weather climate teams can't sustain themselves, they can as you pointed out San Antonio does. San Antonio is also a great great NBA team, best in the league right now and one of the most consistent.

But like another member said after me, teams like Memphis, Atlanta, etc. have trouble selling tickets. Also someone else mentioned that Seattle traditionally had a packed areana. It may have been a smaller areana, but it was still packed.

If you look at teams in the South, and not just basketball, even baseball and hockey, stadiums always seem to be at less capacity than stadiums up North. Maybe that's just an observation I see and can totally be false as I don't have any numbers, but it just looks that way from a viewer standpoint.

I think Seattle would have a better chance of getting more people in the seats than say a Kansas City or San Diego.

By the way, Vegas will never, ever have a professional sports franchise, it just won't. Way to much risk involved, and with the economy the way it is know, Vegas has completely capped out on spending. No matter how many wealthy people maybe there, the economy wouldn't be able to support a team.
  

 

[westcoastsfinest]

Originally Posted by PoloLax

Originally Posted by MrONegative

Originally Posted by PoloLax

Also, maybe I'm the only one who feels this way but I feel the NBA shouldn't have teams in warmer weather climates. For instance, does anyone know the attendance for the Heat before Wade and James?

I just feel the populace of those areas would rather be outside in nice weather rather then inside an areana. Maybe it's cause I'm from up north. Haha.

Like Los Angeles and San Antonio... 

Once again, I said my opinion.

Los Angeles of course deserves a team, they are the second or third largest market in the nation behind New York and Chicago, and in some cases Los Angeles might be ahead of Chicago.  

LA is second.

 

[westcoastsfinest]

Originally Posted by PoloLax

Originally Posted by MrONegative

Originally Posted by PoloLax

Also, maybe I'm the only one who feels this way but I feel the NBA shouldn't have teams in warmer weather climates. For instance, does anyone know the attendance for the Heat before Wade and James?

I just feel the populace of those areas would rather be outside in nice weather rather then inside an areana. Maybe it's cause I'm from up north. Haha.

Like Los Angeles and San Antonio... 

Once again, I said my opinion.

Los Angeles of course deserves a team, they are the second or third largest market in the nation behind New York and Chicago, and in some cases Los Angeles might be ahead of Chicago.  

LA is second.

 

[kidqotsolez]

Send em to Seattle, but Lil Wayne would definitely mind the change of cities