houstonsemipro Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Mayor hopefuls want to see Saints march in Web Posted: 05/11/2005 12:00 AM CDT Tom OrsbornExpress-News Staff Writer A local attorney representing New Orleans Saints owner Tom Benson said Tuesday that Benson is interested in relocating the franchise, possibly to San Antonio. ***Edited to remove copyrighted content***Please provide links where possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Don't do it SA.It's like dealing with the devil. Faust Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestGrayGuy Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Dream On!No way San Antonio gets it over LA. Houston had a hard enough time winning over LA with a brand new stadium. A spruced up Alamodome won't cut the mustard.I wonder if this means a new stadium for New Orleans isn't going to happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunstar Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Cool, another big rivalry for Texas. SA has needed a team for a long time. I'm a little surprised that they will need to spend so much money to bring the Alamo dome up to par. It's kind of funny to think that they built that stadium specifically to woo an NFL team, and now they finally get a team and they already have to update it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonsemipro Posted May 12, 2005 Author Share Posted May 12, 2005 To me. I think SA have a great shot bringing a NFL team to the city. The owner for the Saints been talking about moving away from New Orleans to SA about 5 years ago when Ricky Williams was there, and I remembered Ricky talking about the Saints moving to SA then. New Orleans is a cool place, but just don't have the money. Saints franchise best bet is SA or L.A. I think the Saints should move to SA, and also the Vikings is looking for another home. I think they should go to L.A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjb434 Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 I think the taxpayers are hesitant to build a new stadium in New Orleans. Also, there isn't much room in that city for new construction unless the raze some delapidated neighborhoods like the baseball team in Washington D.C. is doing. Being from Louisiana, I really don't want the Saints to leave. It's like the Utah Jazz (whoever heard of Jazz in Utah?). If they move, I would like the name to change like when the Oilers moved to Tennessee.The Superdome is also like the Astrodome with history. I don't think anybody can let it go. It still hold the record for largest reinfored concrete roof span. The main problem is the facility is just too big. It can be modified on the inside for anything since the most of the internal structure doesn't support the roof. The big problem is competing against stadiums that can be built like Reliant where the flexibility of indoor outdor exists. I really don't want to see the Superdome go for a new stadium, but I wouldn't want a new stadium built outside of New Orleans because of lack of space in the city. One concept was placing a stadium between Baton Rouge and New Orleans or the Mississippi Gulf Coast and New Orleans. This would enlarge the population for the market. It would be similar to the New England Patriots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestGrayGuy Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 The owner of the Minnesota Vikings, Red McCombs has ties to SA. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to move to SA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonsemipro Posted May 12, 2005 Author Share Posted May 12, 2005 Well, by reading the article. The Saints could move by the end of the 2005 season by paying an $81 million penalty. By the sound of the Saints owner, he really want to move away from New Orleans. Believe me, the city of New Orleans is not going to built another stadium, that's more taxes to be rasied, and the people there already doing bad then on top of it building a new stadium? More tax increase? Hell, they rather the franchise to relocate.People already suffering for money, not only louisiana, but nationwide. I'm not an Orleans fan, nor a Saints fan, so my guess is to relocate to a better state. Besides, Texans love to spend money. We love to travel. We support our teams, and it's alot of money here in Texas. I say either Saints or Vikings to move to SA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpcampbell Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Well, by reading the article. The Saints could move by the end of the 2005 season by paying an $81 million penalty. By the sound of the Saints owner, he really want to move away from New Orleans. Believe me, the city of New Orleans is not going to built another stadium, that's more taxes to be rasied, and the people there already doing bad then on top of it building a new stadium? More tax increase? Hell, they rather the franchise to relocate.People already suffering for money, not only louisiana, but nationwide. I'm not an Orleans fan, nor a Saints fan, so my guess is to relocate to a better state. Besides, Texans love to spend money. We love to travel. We support our teams, and it's alot of money here in Texas. I say either Saints or Vikings to move to SA.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>I hate when teams move, but having the Cowboys as the third best team in their own state would be fun to see.Go Texans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citykid09 Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 We need another NFL Team in this state. California, Floridia, and New York get all of the teams, and Texas is the 2nd most populated State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpcampbell Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 We need another NFL Team in this state. California, Floridia, and New York get all of the teams, and Texas is the 2nd most populated State.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>It's all about concentration of population. Houston may be #4 in population, but it's like the 11th media market. Dallas is like #7 because of Ft. Worth, Arlington, Grand Prarie, etc, etc. Even though San Antonio is a larger city than Dallas, it ranks 37th in market size. Granted, that's larger than New Orleans (43), but jumping up to LA (#2) is probably more appealing.link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonsemipro Posted May 12, 2005 Author Share Posted May 12, 2005 I agree. Texas needs one more NFL team, and that's SA. I always wanted to see SA to have a pro NFL team. Remember, SA is rennovating the Alamodome anyway for a potential MLS franchise, so might as well spend couple more millions of dollars to attract a NFL franchise too. But, SA will have to deal with L.A. for the next home NFL franchise team.Here is an article which Anaheim, CA (35 miles away from downtown L.A.) have plans for a NFL stadium...Anaheim unveils plans for potential NFL stadium NFL.com wire reports ANAHEIM, Calif. (May 10, 2005) -- The city of Anaheim outlined plans for a football stadium near the home of the Angels that could house an NFL franchise by 2008. "We have an economic impact report approved for a 70,500-seat state-of-the-art stadium," said John Nicoletti, the city's external affairs manager. "We are working with the NFL to finalize our term sheet for their upcoming owners meeting May 24-25 in Washington, D.C. "We would love to be able to host NFL games in 2008." Anaheim is one of four sites in the greater Los Angeles area being considered for an NFL franchise. The others are the Los Angeles Coliseum, the Rose Bowl in Pasadena and a proposed stadium in Carson. Nicoletti, joined by several other city officials at the presentation, said the plan included a grand parkway that would link the stadium with Disneyland and other sports venues. "If called upon, we are ready to make our presentation to the NFL owners at the meetings in two weeks," Nicoletti said. David Carter, principal of The Sports Business Group, a marketing consultant, said after months of study he believes Anaheim is the best site for an NFL owner. Anaheim hired the Sports Business Group last fall to ascertain the best site from an owner's perspective for an NFL franchise in the greater Los Angeles area. The proposed stadium in Anaheim is about 35 miles south of downtown Los Angeles. "If I'm an NFL owner, I think I can make more money and build my franchise value more in Anaheim than at the other sites," Carter said. But, Carter added, there are other elements to consider. "We came back with the fact that each of the four competing sites has some real attributes and each has shortcomings," he said. "Ultimately, Anaheim's biggest shortcoming is the real estate values continue to escalate rapidly and the city believes there are additional uses for that land. "(Anaheim) may be the optimal site if you're an NFL owner, but it's very expensive, almost so attractive it could be tough to justify putting an NFL stadium in there." The area has been without an NFL franchise since the Rams left Anaheim for St. Louis and the Raiders left Los Angeles for Oakland before the 1995 season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpcampbell Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 There was a lot of talk last year of the Colts owner wanting to move to LA. Maybe if that happens, SA will have a better shot at getting the Saints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flatline Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 I'm afraid San Antonio is just being used as leverage against New Orleans and the state of Louisiana to get a new stadium/upgrades to Superdome/lease concessions. As the article notes, it's happened before. . .in fact, I'm pretty sure that Benson was doing the flirting that went a long way towards S.A. building the Alamodome in the first place. Semipro makes a good point about the renovations. Now, since 15+ years have past since the 'MoDome was built, the NFL would assuredly demand upgrades and/or a new stadium to have a team there.While the NFL desperately wants to be in LA, the key considerations will always be (1) ownership group and (2) stadium. The proof of that being that two small market towns -- Jacksonville and Charlotte-- got the expansion teams ten years ago, and that McNair and H-Town beat out LA, who just couldn't get its s--t together on an ownership group or a publicly financed stadium deal like H-Town did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjb434 Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Yes, Benson has played this game many of times before and received upgrades. He often flirts with moving the team to the Mississippi Gulf Coast. And the Biloxi-Gulport area really wants them and had the money to build a stadium easily.This is the first time I see Benson flirting with SA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonsemipro Posted May 13, 2005 Author Share Posted May 13, 2005 I'm glad he's just flirting with Mississippi, cause moving a NFL team there is like moving a cargo full of junk. Mississippi? Good lord! That place is twice as bad as it in louisiana. Moving a pro team there is like telling the NFL go f*** y'all selves without KY. You know. I was thinking about this whole deal, and I came to a conclusion. Benson, the owner of the Saints. If he's really serious about moving away from New Orleans, he will do it after this 2005 season. Gone ahead and pay for the $81 million penalty, and move to SA, or L.A. We will see after this season. However, if they decide to stay in Orleans the contract will extend to 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjb434 Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 The location to Mississppi would make a regional team. This would exten the Market from Mobile to New Orleans.What is so bad about Mississippi and Louisiana? Please don't knock places down from stereotypes and lack of knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonsemipro Posted May 13, 2005 Author Share Posted May 13, 2005 I don't want to get off topic talking about Mississippi. But to answer your question about Mississippi. If I was an owner of a NFL franchise team do you think I would think of Mississippi before Texas? What Mississippi have to offer? Casinos? Hell, Louisiana got them too. Ummmm, the answer would be NO. Hell, in that case get a NFL team in Alabama, or Arkansas. I had my experience in Mississippi, beleive me I know. Besides, Mississippi media market is not even ranked in the top 25. A pro team will lose money there faster then in Louisiana. Before you know it they be relocating somewhere else.Texas is the best place for another NFL team. SA is a rapidly growing city. Hell, it out did Dallas and now SA is the second largest city in Texas. SA desires a NFL team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonfella Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 I think the San Antonio - Austin area could very well support the NFL. I won't say that N.O. will go there, but in the future, it would be AWESOME to have that third Texans NFL team. I love the local rivalries. Dall-Hou SA-Hou SA-Dall etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjb434 Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 I think they could make a regional central texas team and place it is New Braunfels. SA and Austin markets will be served. It will just be like the New England Patriots serving Boston and Providence.There has been a trend of development growing to the point where SA and Austin suburbs will meet each other. It'll be kind of like Silicon Valley between San Fransisco-Oakley and San Jose. With the metros kind of merging in the next 20 years, I think placing a Team between the two will be great. The only problem would be that SA wants the team in their city, in downtown. Austin I think really doesn't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonsemipro Posted May 13, 2005 Author Share Posted May 13, 2005 We will see if the Saints owner is for real when the 2005 season ends. Now think about this. How if the Saints go to the playoffs this year? What will happen then? Will they continue to stay in N.O.? or continue with their relocation package? The city might fund the money to renovate the superdome if they go to the playoffs. Something to think about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.A.S.O.N. Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 I for one wouldn't like to see the Saints stay in New Orleans, or any renovations to the Superdome. Houston could take New Orleans' spot in the Superbowl rotation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonsemipro Posted May 13, 2005 Author Share Posted May 13, 2005 Well Jason. That's good you wanna see Houston in the superbowl rotation, but let's be realistic here. If Houston is not awarded for the 2009 superbowl, houston will be in limbo for another super bowl. But, you know what. I have a funny feeling about this whole relocation deal. To me, the Saints will stay marching in New Orleans. But, who knows. The Saints might be marching in San Antonio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonsemipro Posted May 15, 2005 Author Share Posted May 15, 2005 More news. Read below...San Antonio not in shape for SaintsThe city's financial constraints would probably prevent it from being readyfor an NFL team Friday, May 13, 2005 By Mike TriplettStaff writer -------------------This message has been edited to remove copyrighted material.Please do not post copyrighted photos or articles from newspapers or magazines. We have already received a warning from the Houston Chronicle, and the legal departments of other publications have visited the site. If you would like to discuss a published article, please summarize the article and provide a link to the original source.------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ V Lawrence Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 We need another NFL Team in this state. California, Floridia, and New York get all of the teams, and Texas is the 2nd most populated State.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Respect to CityKid for the valid point. Let's see, if I'm correct, California leads all states in the U.S. with three NFL teams, followed by Texas, Florida, and NEW JERSEY with two (yes, New Jersey. New York state has ONE team. Buffalo. New York Giants and Jets play at the Meadowlands in NEW JERSEY!!! NYC, DON'T be fooled. We're not. Build your stadium in Manhattan, and you'll get some credit, aight?!) Now check it: http://www.forbes.com/2004/09/01/04nfland.htmlThis is the major plus for a team in S.A. instead of L.A. Two out of the three highest valued teams in the NFL are located in Texas, and BOTH are expected to pass up the Washington Redskins as the highest valued storts teams of ALL major U.S. franchises. For S.A., a team would be great for the city, its revenue, its image, and its surrounding businesses, but the biggest winner to having another franshise in Texas is Austin. I'd be fighting like hell to get another team here if I were state legislature. State revenue would be boosted madly.As for L.A., I'm not sure how L.A. wouldn't be able to win back a franchise by simply renovating the L.A. Colloseum. It wouldn't be as expensive as a new stadium, and I think the revenue would work to the city's and owner's advantage the highest if it were to go there. Lastly, I can see the Saints owner asking for a new stadium as part of the deal should the Saints actually pursue a move to S.A., with renovations to the Dome for a temporary stay as also being part of the deal. With that, the possible MLS team or teams would play long-term in a state-of-the-art Alamodome, and pump revenue from three different venues (including SBC Center) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonsemipro Posted May 15, 2005 Author Share Posted May 15, 2005 Well, L.A. got the money to do things, S.A. don't. We would love S.A. to have an NFL team, but do tot he lack of money S.A. has, it's going to be hard as hell to outdo L.A. The NFL commissioner already said that they want L.A. to have the the next NFL team. Maybe the Saints would have it better in L.A. then in S.A. But the owner of the Saints is really pushing for S.A. But, it's hard to say right now. We can talk until we blue in the face about this, and then at the end the Saints stays put in New Orleans. But, who knows. Saints owner may work out an deal with the city of S.A. on bringing the franchise there. We shall see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewMND Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 Respect to CityKid for the valid point. Let's see, if I'm correct, California leads all states in the U.S. with three NFL teams, followed by Texas, FloridaActually, even Florida has three teams! JAX, Tampa, Miami. I too would like to see a team for central Texas, don't really see it happening, but it could be cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citykid09 Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 ^ I think if LA gets this next team, San Antonio will be the next after LA to get a team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonsemipro Posted May 17, 2005 Author Share Posted May 17, 2005 I also think that SA is not ready to host a NFL team. If the Saints move to SA, they be in the same situtation like they was in New Orleans. So my prediction is stay in N.O., or move the team to L.A. L.A. is ready to host a team there. They have four big stadiums to host an NFL team temporary has they build a new stadium, (a new propose stadium already on plans). Besides, even the NFL Commissioner is pushing for an NFL team in L.A. by 2008-2009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjb434 Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 You can hardly call the Colloseum a good stadium. LA will have to completely build a new facility for a new team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.