Or city for that matter. I'd love the Clippers that much more if they were representing their own portion of the SoCal region rather than sharing the same arena as THE franchise of the City of Angels, let alone of the NBA. I know Sterling is making a killing by sharing the Staples Center but he's missing a chance for the team to completely come out of the Lakers shadow as the city/arena's "B" team and take over their own territory like the Angels, Ducks and Nets. I think if they were in Orange County at the Honda Center (also much closer to San Diego where they're originally from) or perhaps the Inland Empire it'd be better for them long term. And by the way, I know the Knicks and Nets are technically in the same city but that's different plus they have always played in separate arenas despite being mere miles apart.
Yeah, I agree. It's not fair that the Lakers get what is essentially 4 extra home games (especially when the Clippers are bad and Laker fans buy up the seats). Brooklyn and Manhattan are different. They may have the same mayor and share a subway line - but culturally and historically they're different. And Brooklyn is big enough to be a city of its own. I have no issue with two LA teams, but the Clips need their own arena.
Brooklyn would be bigger than Houston if it were a city (as it used to be). Queens too. And that's why I didn't like it when the Jets weren't able to come from under the Giants shadow. They had a real chance to create their own identity and maybe even become THE team in the Tri-state area if they had a stadium on the west side of Manhattan instead of sharing one across the river in the Meadowlands with the Giants.
I wonder how big the financial advantage is. This could be a reason why going over the lux tax never phased them in the previous collective bargaining Agreement. If so that is a huge advantage that is very unfair
