Mavericks Owner Mark Cuban May Have Bought Nets.com To Troll Mikhail Prokhorov
Mark Cuban doesn't exactly love Brooklyn Nets owner Mikhail Prokhorov, which is why we believe he pulled off this mad website caper just for the lulz.
As if by magic and no doubt to amuse the Internets, the domain Nets.com became available. If you head there to that URL now, you will see this.
That there is a giant middle finger if I have ever seen one, and it's really just a way for one uber-rich fellow to say hello to another.
The rich are funny that way.
On the right is a listing of every NBA franchise with a hyperlink to their respective websites. The Brooklyn Nets are represented there just as the other teams are.
Still, for fans who thought they would just type in "Nets" on this computer machine and get to the actual franchise, they get Mark Cuban sticking his tongue out—hardly the sight you ever want to see.
On the bottom, there is something written in Russian. Just as Busted Coverage did, we used Google Translate to get: "Michael, you have noticed? Vilena is interested…"
We have to note that we cannot guarantee this was the handiwork of Mark Cuban. As the report issues, there is no confirmation that the Mavericks owner bought this domain simply to troll his rival owner.
It just seems that way. It really, really, really seems that way.
As for the Vilena part, Complex Magazine has some answers.
...the Vilena part is a reference to a Russian prostitute. Now, what you may not know is that back in January 2007, Prokhorov was arrested on suspicion of arranging prostitutes for his guests. Even though the billionaire was cleared of the charge and the case was dismissed two years later, it looks like Cuban is trying to rehash some old moments.
Cuban or some salty Mavericks fan is digging deep to rile up the Russian billionaire.
While we normal people are relegated to sticking staplers in jello mold and other benign pranks, the rich pull off these highly visible jokes on one another.
Prokhorov, the ball is now in your court.
Follow me on Twitter because, what the hell. Right?
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?