OMMF

I don't think the Canucks have the rights to Seattle. They sort of squat on the American Pacific Northwest by airing a limited slate of Canucks games on one of the RSNs, but I'm not sure it's a full-fledged claim of the region, nor does the region fully claim the Canucks.

As far as I can tell, the Canucks' reach goes about as far south as Mount Vernon, which is also about as far south as most Vancouverites go on weekends to outlet shop. Once you start getting into actual Seattle suburbs, there might be a lot of Canucks merch for sale or at least up in the windows, but they're still pandering to the tourists.

While a lot of Seattlites would be considered fair-weather Canucks fans (see: crowded sports bars around town last Cup final), there are multiple people I personally know of here that have season tickets for the Canucks and the team also gets a great bit of exposure by having 1/2 of their schedule televised on the local Comcast SportsNet and CBC.

Why do you care?

Indeed. If you don't care that it's illegal, why are you coming in here trying to defend your purchase? Just like the "wrestling is fake" and "soccer isn't real football" comments, if you really don't care about the topic or the opinion of those that disagree with you, don't join the conversation. Or better yet, start a topic about why you like counterfeit jerseys and show all the great examples of their high quality.

Yeah but they're cheaper and he deserves one or three.

Once again, no one is saying that they deserve a fake.

The thought process is that they can get a high priced item at a low price, and really don't care what a group of people over the internet think of their descision.

If they didn't, they wouldn't be in here trying to defend it.

Except most Vancouverites don't give a rat's ass about the Seahawks.

Calgary makes up for that.

Oof. Dixie Square West. Maybe Dan Aykroyd will make another horrendous Blues Brothers sequel and trash the joint.

Blues Brothers 2000 wasn't that bad.

It was a sequel to arguably the most iconic Chicago film, shot in Toronto to save on the budget. It was a PG sequel to an R film. It rankles the locals.

It wasn't good by any means.

The original is a classic and I know they used the entire Chicago police force and all that, but when I think of Chicago movies, the first four off the top of my head are in order: Ferris Bueller, The Fugitive, Rookie of the Year, and Home Alone. That might be my age and that I'm not from there though.

No Wayne's World? Aurora is close enough to make the cut. Plus, Ferris Bueller gets points taken off for Cam wearing a Wings jersey.

haha...too bad it won't look like that when it arrives.

What are you saying? The Price is Wrong?

This has been my only contention in this thread -- if fakes are so readily available and as popular as they are, then clearly, the market has decided that $300 for an authentic NFL jersey is too much.

Hardly. Just because a market exists for knock off items, it doesn't mean that the original item is priced too high. It means that people who want the real thing can't or won't spend the money to get it. A 2L of Coke at $1.79 is not overpriced simply because there are people who think Big K Cola tastes exactly the same and costs $.79. Now, if Big K becomes the #1 selling brand at that price point with that recipe, then you would have something. But as long as people continue to buy authentic jerseys at the prices they are at now, there isn't any black market justification for a price reduction.

And I know you know that just because something is popular doesn't make it good or right. Especially in America.

Wouldn't it be illegal to buy if you knew it was being illegally sold? Not that anyone could actually prove that.

That last sentence is the key part. The law would have to prove that you knew it was counterfeit, which it can't do.

I think the law is funny sometimes in that there are areas where you can be prosecuted for things you don't know and not prosecuted for things that you do.

It's legal to buy a bootleg jersey. It's not legal to produce the jersey.

Actually, I don't even think it is illegal to do that. Now, when you sell it, that's when the law gets involved.

3) People keep saying that but no one can seem to come up with the specific law being broken. If it's "illegal" it means some authority could show up and arrest a customer who has bought a counterfeit jersey. What authority is that, and under what law?

If I may clarify something for both sides, the purchase of the jersey in and of itself is not illegal. But by doing so, you are contributing to an illegal industry. Counterfeiters require customers to continue what they are doing.

You can knock counterfeit jerseys all you want

Now I have a good reason to fire some of the employees at work. "If someone can do your job cheaper, and no one will notice the differences, I'd be stupid not to fire you. It's all about saving money. Oh, and my personal sense of entitlement."

***

This issue gets brought up on HFBoards a lot, too. The question is, as a fan of a team or as a graphic designer, why would you support something where the purchase price ends up going to neither? However you may feel about paying $100-300 for a jersey, if you support counterfeit goods, you are only raising the price, not lowering it. Much like people complaining about not being able to see NFL preseason games or complaining about how McDonalds is unfair for not having a dollar menu, there is no inalienable right to an authentic jersey. If you can't afford it, don't get it. But don't support an illegal trade.

That being said...I'd buy one of those Bruins Winter Classic throwbacks on the condition that it was blank. Those numbers are atrocious, but doesn't seem like they made any glaring mistakes on that one.

Except for the brown parts of the real jersey being black on the fake ones. But who would notice that?

So there's a new wrinkle to the MSG renovation plans. They're going to add "bridge seating" that will be suspended from the ceiling to hold up to 1,000 more fans.

It's a great idea for almost any other arena, but it'll ruin the iconic "Fan Ceiling" that the Garden features.

Wow, that's crazy. The floor would have to be some type of transparent glass though!

It would be nice if the picture enlarged but, based on what I see, that isn't hanging over the ice.

Not to start a whole thing, but why are realignment threads so frowned upon?

-Dan

Because every single goddam time someone brings up a realignment, the same 50 idiots show up and post their ideas, and the thread turns in to nothing but postings of realigned leagues with expansion teams that don't make any sense.

In my opinion (which counts for next to nothing, if not nothing), realignment threads aren't the worst thing in the world, except that everyone will feel the need to start their own thread, and the board would be littered with them. You'd need a whole forum just for that.

The worst is when there's a perfectly good thread going on, then one jackass posts his idea for how the league would be aligned if the Jags move to LA, then, like roaches, every other idiot comes out of the woodwork to join the party and derail the thread.

Agree but the people who feel the need to post a picture sentence do as much to derail a thread as the op posting the realignment suggestion. It's along the lines of IBTL and such; pure post padding.

By the time any of those pictures or IBTLs get posted, it's already too late.

Sure, but how many instances of derailment could have been avoided if people had simply ignored the realignment post instead of quoting it and drawing more attention to it?

Not to start a whole thing, but why are realignment threads so frowned upon?

-Dan

Because every single goddam time someone brings up a realignment, the same 50 idiots show up and post their ideas, and the thread turns in to nothing but postings of realigned leagues with expansion teams that don't make any sense.

In my opinion (which counts for next to nothing, if not nothing), realignment threads aren't the worst thing in the world, except that everyone will feel the need to start their own thread, and the board would be littered with them. You'd need a whole forum just for that.

The worst is when there's a perfectly good thread going on, then one jackass posts his idea for how the league would be aligned if the Jags move to LA, then, like roaches, every other idiot comes out of the woodwork to join the party and derail the thread.

Agree but the people who feel the need to post a picture sentence do as much to derail a thread as the op posting the realignment suggestion. It's along the lines of IBTL and such; pure post padding.

December 2005:

The irony that is found in that picture!

I wish those TBird banners had made the trip to Kent. They are better than the new ones the team has now.

Why don't NFL teams celebrate championships as much as the other sports? Don't see too man pennants / flags / trohpy cases / etc.

Maybe because many stadiums aren't designed for the hanging of banners or flying of flags?

Gillette Stadium's the only outdoor one I can think of where they actually hang banners.

Qwest Field also has banners hanging in it. A little easier there considering the roof line comes over most of the stands.

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/14951760.jpg

How is him typing "Neat topic" any different than all of you Massengills who think that posting "IBTL" is somehow still funny or makes you look smart?

Don't the Clippers have at least some retired numbers? Mind you, other than McAdoo (and maybe DiGregorio and Randy Smith), I can't think of anyone that's really contributed that much to the Clippers franchise...

Los Angeles Clippers

* None

Here's the retired number that makes the least sense to me:

Miami Heat

* 23 - Michael Jordan, G, Contributions

KeyArena - December 2005

It will be great to see those Thunderbirds banners in the new arena come January.

This one makes my head hurt. There is only one Stanley Cup champion per year.

Yeah, but there are many players on the team. Isn't "Champions" standard usage? Does any team use the singular in its banners?

Or are you talking about "1996 Champions" v. "1995-96 Champions?"

Not every player gets a Stanley Cup. There can only be one Stanley Cup champion. We (not you and I but in general) have had the discussion as to whether a team name represents a single entity or a collection of players. This one is more complicated by the Avalanche having a singular name.

"Your Stanley Cup champion Avalanche!" No?

Edit: To add to the confusion, the Stars have a banner that reads "Stanley Cup Champions" but also one that reads "Presidents Trophy Winner." So I guess it also matters whether you think the team is referring to the actual cup or the playoffs of the same name used to determine the winner of the cup.

This one makes my head hurt. There is only one Stanley Cup champion per year.

Ray Bourque

Always mixed emotions seeing that picture.

Can anyone tell me the "Wes Anderson" font? I'm sure it's obvious but I'm new to the whole identifying of these things.