Rangers represent New York City and the tri-state area. New York State, New Jersey, Connecticut.
And in each one of those states there are fans who root for other teams--in Western NY they root for Buffalo (and sometimes Ottawa or Toronto), in the North Country they root for Montreal (cause that's the city closest to them), Long Island residents tend to root for the Isles, in New Jersey there are Devils fans (obviously) and in the southern part of the state Philly fans, in CT there are many Boston fans.
There are plenty of fans to go around. I don't see why you are so threatened by the thought that there are people out there (in New York City even) who don't root for the Rangers.
The metropolitan area you are referring to is a creation for the federal government. It has no bearing on what people think of themselves. Someone who lives in Newark or Jersey City is from New Jersey, not the New York metropolitian area.
The metropolitan area you are referring to is a creation for the federal government. It has no bearing on what people think of themselves. Someone who lives in Newark or Jersey City is from New Jersey, not the New York metropolitian area.
It's a metropolitan area. The outlying suburbs weren't settled first, the city was, and the outlying areas were second.
Bergen County, Hudson County, etc... all the cities surrounding NYC are satellite cities that spawned after the major city grew.
If the borders and boundaries were drawn so precise, then why is there such a huge contingent of Rangers fans in New Jersey? The Rangers don't represent the area? Apparently they do.
The New York Giants and Jets represent the tri-state area as well. As do the Yankees and Mets. As do the Knicks.
Because there are other markets in between doesn't make it not so.
The Leafs represent ONLY the city of Toronto? They represent Toronto and the greater area. All the satellite cities surrounding it. The province of Ontario.
Last edited by SupersonicMonkey*: 10-27-2012 at 07:44 AM.
And in each one of those states there are fans who root for other teams--in Western NY they root for Buffalo (and sometimes Ottawa or Toronto), in the North Country they root for Montreal (cause that's the city closest to them), Long Island residents tend to root for the Isles, in New Jersey there are Devils fans (obviously) and in the southern part of the state Philly fans, in CT there are many Boston fans.
There are plenty of fans to go around. I don't see why you are so threatened by the thought that there are people out there (in New York City even) who don't root for the Rangers.
Threatened?
The subject was who and what the Rangers represent. It isn't limited to the confines of the City or state. They represent a vast region surrounding it.
As do any team.
Last edited by SupersonicMonkey*: 10-27-2012 at 07:41 AM.
This more specifically answers the question, thank you.
The bottom line is, apparently when the Isles got started, they were allowed anywhere on the (Long) Island, and presumably there is a specific clause to that effect, AND the geographical reality that Brooklyn (and/or Queens) is part of Long Island supercedes the reality that those locations are also boros in the City of New York, which is the home turf of the Rangers, not just Manhattan.
I don't think that is fair, but I understand your explanation.
The Devils had themselves situated across the river, and they had to pay, but they were still technically not only in another municipal or equivalent location, but actually in another state!
The Rangers are getting gypped, IMO, if the above stands.
The clearly consented to another franchise within NYS, on the 'Island' but not one which additionally included any other NYC boro, including Brooklyn/Queens.
What we need is a class action lawsuit!!!
Thanks again for the insight.
Your welcome, I am just happy we will all able to see the rangers 3x more each year still. Sucks that you wont be able to get a pair 2nd row from the glass anymore for 160 but it is what it is. The Rangers will always be NYC's team.
I don't care how the fees shake out, but if NJ compensates Philly for the Devils' move, people don't see any basis when a team moves into the City? Think the Leafs won't get something if a team goes to Hamilton or even in the city limit?
I don't care how the fees shake out, but if NJ compensates Philly for the Devils' move, people don't see any basis when a team moves into the City? Think the Leafs won't get something if a team goes to Hamilton or even in the city limit?
They already had an agreement allowing the Islanders to move to Brooklyn or Queens if they wanted to.
You seriously believe the Islanders or Barclay's is any sort of threat to the Rangers and MSG? Are you delusional?
The Barclay's has "already hurt MSG"? MSG hasn't been open since the Barclay's opened. MSG is undergoing renovations. The arena is going to be one of the most modern facilities in the league. Larger capacity. Has the history. Is in the middle of Manhattan.
Best hope?
Get back to us when you're little team survives 86+ years, four major wars, three of which included drafts and slews of NHL players serving, economic disasters, several lockouts, ran another local team out of existence, and dominates the local market.
You think your the new dog in town or something? New tiny arena, same old garbage Islanders.
You seriously think that Barclay's Center isn't a threat? Didn't they just take the Coaches vs Cancer tournament from MSG?
__________________
"Trust me I'm an expert, I watched 13 rangers games on NHL center Ice this year through streaming." -Starburst
"I don't even understand what the point of all this arguing is. Are you guys hoping that the other side is going to have an epiphany and go 'Oh, OH! You're right, we ARE going to lose this series!'" -Crease
But here’s a bigger reason why Islander fans might find the small size of the Barclays Center problematic. Chances are that ticket prices for games in Brooklyn could end up being among the most expensive in the NHL.
With a reduced capacity, the team may be forced to charge a steep price in order to keep up with NHL economics,
Someone should tell the writer that the isles new home, has 100 luxury suites. Almost 70 more then their current home.
Gallof has reported that the regular seats are gonna rise 25%.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/10/...slanders-away/
And, remember, those 14,500 (or now 15,500) seats will be priced 25 percent higher than the seats at the Coliseum, which would be equivalent to 17,300 Coliseum seats.
The Times article below, reports that the Isles will look to make their big profits on luxury suites and premium seating. http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/20...es/?ref=hockey
Q. Why would the Islanders move from the Coliseum, where they are tenants, to Barclays, where they will still be tenants?
A. The short answer: $35 million in extra revenue per year. That goes a long way toward wiping out the club’s current operating deficit, estimated at $8 million per year.
The main benefit in this move “is not in the increased revenue the Isles will get from the average fan; it’s in the huge increase they’ll get from selling luxury suites and premium club seats,” said Tony Knopp, chief executive officer of Spotlight TMS, a company that manages corporate tickets at Barclays Center and other sites around the country.
Barclays Center, which is far more geographically convenient to corporate customers than the Coliseum, has 104 luxury suites. Knopp estimated that those suites would generate about $21 million for the Islanders, while premium seating would generate an additional $33 million. That comes to $54 million from suites and premium seats — $35 million more per year than what the Islanders generate at the Coliseum.
Is the Barclays Center a threat to MSG? IDK. The Rangers have built an empire. Let's see what the Islanders do for THEMSELVES to better their image.
Wang will need to step down a bit and hire some real hockey people. Are the Islanders really going into Brooklyn with this loser coach and GM?
If so, the nice arena won't matter. Fans will put up with some obstructed views in a beautiful palace if hockey operations are professional.
If things remain the same, I don't know why the NHL would even want the Islanders to stay in the league. All the Islanders do is make themselves look horrible and make the league look worse with the decisions they make.
Again, we have to wait and see. The plan could be for Wang to sell before 2015 even hits, some people believe that's the case. If so, we have hope for this franchise.
If not, this is going to end up terribly if you have Capuano (LOL) coaching this hockey team in the Barclays Center.
Someone should tell the writer that the isles new home, has 100 luxury suites. Almost 70 more then their current home.
Gallof has reported that the regular seats are gonna rise 25%.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/10/...slanders-away/
And, remember, those 14,500 (or now 15,500) seats will be priced 25 percent higher than the seats at the Coliseum, which would be equivalent to 17,300 Coliseum seats.
The Times article below, reports that the Isles will look to make their big profits on luxury suites and premium seating. http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/20...es/?ref=hockey
Q. Why would the Islanders move from the Coliseum, where they are tenants, to Barclays, where they will still be tenants?
A. The short answer: $35 million in extra revenue per year. That goes a long way toward wiping out the club’s current operating deficit, estimated at $8 million per year.
The main benefit in this move “is not in the increased revenue the Isles will get from the average fan; it’s in the huge increase they’ll get from selling luxury suites and premium club seats,” said Tony Knopp, chief executive officer of Spotlight TMS, a company that manages corporate tickets at Barclays Center and other sites around the country.
Barclays Center, which is far more geographically convenient to corporate customers than the Coliseum, has 104 luxury suites. Knopp estimated that those suites would generate about $21 million for the Islanders, while premium seating would generate an additional $33 million. That comes to $54 million from suites and premium seats — $35 million more per year than what the Islanders generate at the Coliseum.
Not for nothing, but during the first couple of years, the novelty aspect all but ensures that this building will be close to full. I know it's hard to believe because it is the Islanders we're talking about, but they will market to Nets fans, too. Who knows, maybe Nets fans get free tickets to the game.
Not for nothing, but during the first couple of years, the novelty aspect all but ensures that this building will be close to full. I know it's hard to believe because it is the Islanders we're talking about, but they will market to Nets fans, too. Who knows, maybe Nets fans get free tickets to the game.
To you and I, it's a filled seat, right?
So how does that bring in money, exactly?
__________________
Jaime Lannister has better hands than Brian Boyle.
Not for nothing, but during the first couple of years, the novelty aspect all but ensures that this building will be close to full. I know it's hard to believe because it is the Islanders we're talking about, but they will market to Nets fans, too. Who knows, maybe Nets fans get free tickets to the game.
To you and I, it's a filled seat, right?
I do agree that the Islanders will get a bump for the first year or two.
After that they will go back to being second (or third) class citizens.
But it's silly for any Rangers fans to think that they won't do well for at least a couple of years there.
__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB "Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
Sestito still on the make a wish tour. - rholt168
It would bring in food and merchandise revenue for sure.
Good point, forgot about that. I guess it would also possibly generate interest from people who would never think to go to a game, and then if they have their free seats taken away, they'll be more inclined to buy tickets the next year because they now know they like going to hockey games.
Good point, forgot about that. I guess it would also possibly generate interest from people who would never think to go to a game, and then if they have their free seats taken away, they'll be more inclined to buy tickets the next year because they now know they like going to hockey games.
That's the idea.
Poor teams have to do that to drum up interest. It generally does not work. I expect it to work for the Isles for a season or two and then revert to the normal.
