The thing that irks me when it comes to these pro-owner posts is that sports sell hope. That's there business. Fans of teams spend an inordinate amount of time believing that it's there year or trying to find any ray of hope that may or may not shine. Fans spend top dollars and build the games into something more than it actually is so owners can sell seats, food, and advertising.

So as *consumers*, some of us argue this treatment is acceptable? The company sells hope, but is allowed to charge whatever price it deems acceptable, to fleece the community after this community has made the franchise what is to begin with?

And as it applies *directly* to us Knicks fans, Seattle was one of the few franchises that really knew how to support a quality franchise. In the mid-90s, watching games in Seattle was always fun, always awesome. Winning and losing against teams with that type of excitement--generated by the fanbase--adds to the experience and makes victories sweeter and defeats more devastating.

I, for the life of me, cannot even begin to understand how some of you fans can side with one man, when if it was the Knicks that were moving your tune would be in beat with the rest of us.

[Edited by - supremecommander on 09-05-2008 1:14 PM]

Considering how rarely Seattle fans win you have to put them near the top when it comes to fan loyalty.