New Orleans Saints To Relocate To San Antonio?

[DJ V Lawrence]

Actually, 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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Respect to NewMND for the correction. A thousand apologies for my ignorance, yo!

Oye, and by the way, whatever happened to the talks of the next NFL franchise being located in Mexico City?

[Subdude]

Just an idea they threw around at the time of the last expansion. It wasn't a serious proposal, just a vague competitive threat to make sure cities continued coughing up for spankin'-new stadiums.

[houstonsemipro]

L.A. had two teams before, L.A. RAMS and L.A. RAIDERS. They both left the city. What was the reason they left? Stadium issues? Will the past hunt them if they get a NFL team back in L.A.?

[Subdude]

I believe it was stadium issues. Unlike most cities, LA hasn't been willing to cough up the bucks to support the NFL in the style to which it's become accustomed. LA can get away with it since, due to the size of the market, the NFL is desperate to get back into the area.

[kjb434]

One of the problems with the stadium the raiders played at was that fans wouldn't go to it. The neighborhood wasn't safe and the seating was particularly good.

[houstonsemipro]

Well, getting back to the Saints relocating issue. My advice to the Saints is these three options.

1. Stay in New Orleans, and sign a long term contract rennovate the superdome.

2. Relocate to L.A.

3. Sell the team

Now, the reason why I said relocate to L.A. and not the S.A. cause first of all S.A. is not prepared to host a NFL team, secondly, L.A. already has 3 big stadiums that could host a NFL team tempotary until they build a new one.

For selling the team. Benson (Saints owner), have had offers to sell the team. The highest seller was $1.2 billion, the lowest was $1 billion.

[HeightsGuy]

Bob McNair paid 700 million for the Texans. He and Jerry Jones are two of the most powerful owners in the NFL. Do you think both of them are going to just roll over and concede merchandising to all of central and south central Texas to a new team in SA?

No chance. SA will never have an NFL team.

[The Great Hizzy!]

You know, most people don't know this but the San Diego Chargers started off as the Los Angeles Chargers in the AFL before moving a couple years later. So Los Angeles has been the home at one time or another of three current NFL teams.

Pretty impressive.

In any case, Los Angeles will eventually get another team, and it may just be another expansion team. The NFL announced last year that it would basically guarantee a new LA team in the near future, even if it meant expansion, which means that (if expansion) some other city will be in line for a franchise, too. I can think of several candidates for the 34th team, including Portland, OR, Sacramento, CA, Memphis, TN (they've been trying to get a team for 20 years), Oklahoma City, San Antonio, Toronto, Birmingham, AL and even Las Vegas, NV.

[houstonsemipro]

I seriously doubt they will have another expansion team in the NFL. It's 5 NFL teams looking for relocation due to stadium issues. Buffalo Bills, Minnesota Vikings, New Orleans Saints, Indianapolis Colts, and San Diego Chargers.

[el-tri]

to me San Antonio is a better home to a football team than Los Angeles,

plus the Alamodome is way better than the LA Coliseum.

[Gary]

to me San Antonio is a better home to a football team than Los Angeles,

plus the Alamodome is way better than the LA Coliseum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

El-tri,

have you ever been to the LA colliseum? Yes it's old but it is emense. It's a great place to see a football game, it's outside generally in great weather and it's laid out very nicely (although a little large).

The only domed stadium I could stand was the Astrodome because sunlight actually got through (to some degree). Imo every other one I've been to including the Alamodome was sterile and uninviting. It's like being in a cave.

I remember when I first moved here and went to a few Astros games in the dome and although it was very nostalgic for me it wasn't nearly as cool as watching a game in Dodger stadium. Then they built Enron field and I thought I had died and gone to heaven. You just can't beat an outdoor stadium.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Well, getting back to the Saints relocating issue. My advice to the Saints is these three options.

1. Stay in New Orleans, and sign a long term contract rennovate the superdome.

2. Relocate to L.A.

3. Sell the team

Now, the reason why I said relocate to L.A. and not the S.A. cause first of all S.A. is not prepared to host a NFL team, secondly, L.A. already has 3 big stadiums that could host a NFL team tempotary until they build a new one.

For selling the team. Benson (Saints owner), have had offers to sell the team. The highest seller was $1.2 billion, the lowest was $1 billion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First off, I thought Indianapolis already got that football-college basketball stadium approved. I think the Colts have already been confirmed to play in a new Staduim in '08 or 09.

Secondly, to Mr. Benson, Take the money and RUUUNNN!! RRRRUUUUUUNNNN!!!Your team is one of the lowest worth teams in the league (around $550 Million). You are NOT the Cowboys or Texans! TAKE THE 1.2 BILLION and buy a different team!!!!

Oh, and S.A. NEEDS a team. Alamodoem was primarily built to lure an NFL team to them, anyway. What has L.A. done so far to already have a stadium in place?

And finally, I think Jones and McNair would make MORE money if S.A. had a team, compared to L.A., where there would almost be no effect afterwards on Texas teams.

[HeightsGuy]

DJ, tell me how the Texans make more money with a team in SA vs. LA. Is it that we will sell more Texans merchandise in SA once SA gets their own team, or will it be from all the TV revenue SA can bring to the table as compared to LA?

[RedScare]

You can't forget, Tom Benson is himself, a San Antonio man, so SA is in play. Until Red McCombs sold, Texas had 6 NFL owners, 2 in San Antonio.

San Antonio could support a team. There are only 10 games a year, so tickets, though expensive, are affordable for a season pass, compared to basketball and baseball. San Antonio metro is over 1, 600,000, equal to San Diego and larger than Jacksonville. Add in Austin (1,250,000) next door, and it is equal to Minneapolis and bigger than Green Bay/Milwaukee, Indy, Nashville, Charlotte and Tampa, among others.

Media market is a big deal when deciding an expansion site, but Tom Benson is a longtime owner, and if he wanted to move to his hometown, I suspect the owners would let him.

If Tom is turning down $1 Billion, as has been reported, he clearly likes owning the team. The question is still stadiums. Can the AlamoDome be renovated to satisfy Club/Suite needs?

[kjb434]

San Diego and Jacksonville Metro is much bigger than 1.6mil. San Diego proper is just over 1 mill with a large subrurban area reach over a million.

Jacksonvill is similar with about 800,000 people in the proper with over a million in the suburbs.

To me as I said before, San Antonio and Austin should work together and place a team in between around New Braunfels similar to Boston and Providence having a team in Foxbury.

[DJ V Lawrence]

DJ, tell me how the Texans make more money with a team in SA vs. LA. Is it that we will sell more Texans merchandise in SA once SA gets their own team, or will it be from all the TV revenue SA can bring to the table as compared to LA?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think there would be any affect on the Texas markets if L.A. recieved the team.

However, if S.A. got the new team, and they were as passionate about the team as we expect them to be, I think merchandise between S.A., the Cowboys, and Texans would jump.

But S.A. would either be in the NFC with the Cowboys, or the AFC with the Texans, which means there would be more rivalry games played among us every season. Rivalry means ratings and revenue. Ratings mean noteriety, and merchandise sales.

[RedScare]

http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t3.html

Table 3.

Don't take my word for it...

San Antonio/Austin combined metro population - 2,842,146

San Diego - 2,813,833

St. Louis - 2,603,607

Denver - 2,581,506

Tampa - 2,395,997

Pittsburgh - 2,358,695

Cincinatti - 1,979,202

Kansas City - 1,776,202

Green Bay/Milwaukee combined metro - 1,916,350

Indianapolis - 1,607,486

Charlotte - 1,499,293

New Orleans - 1,337,726

Nashville - 1,231,311

Buffalo - 1,170,111

Jacksonville - 1,100,491

Not to mention 2 metros that are less than 5% larger...

Minneapolis - 2,968,806

Cleveland - 2,945,831

Count 'em...one half of NFL metros smaller than SA?Austin.

[Heights2Bastrop]

If the Saints care about their fans, then they should relocate to somewhere where there is a cheap supply of brown paper bags.

[HeightsGuy]

RedScare, for the sake of this argument, you should be using this stat:

Neilson Media Top Markets

To think of the places the next franchise might settle, you have to think of the owner's incentive. The owners share all TV and merchandise revenue (forgot about that last one, washes one of my arguments about McNair not wanting new franchise in SA). They also share a good portion of ticket sales, but they don't share the extra money made through luxury boxes, which is why that has been the buzzword for a while and represents a significant revenue streem for individual owners.

That said, there are probably a hundred cities in the US that could fill a stadium every week, but not every city is equal when it comes to TV viewership. Since the owners share TV revenue (125 million each per year now), they have a vested interest to place teams in markets that have the most viewers. Currenly, LA (the number 2 TV market in the country) has no team.

Does that make it any clearer why LA wins over SA?

[RedScare]

Dude, why would I want to use that list. It queers my whole argument for SA!

Seriously, there is no denying LA would be the preferred site, IF LA wanted it, and Benson wanted to move there. A guy turning down $1 Billion clearly is not thinking only of the money (quite refreshing). There is something going on in LA, when 2 teams leave and none will take their place for 10 years.

Don't get me wrong. It may be a good thing that LA is telling these billionaires to pay for their own playpens. But, if the NFL has other cities willing to pony up, like Houston, then the urge is to go where the money is.

My posts should not be construed as some type of argument that SA is the smartest place to move a team...only that the area could support one. As the NBA showed this year, 3 Texas teams in the playoffs can be very exciting (for us). I'd love to see it in the NFL, as well.

P.S. - Via Los Es Spurs!

[kjb434]

Good point HeightsGuy. This is one of the reasons the saints stayed in New Orleans for so long. Not only does the smaller New Orleans TV market play for the saints, you also need to include Baton Rouge, Laffayette, Southwestern New Orleans (Houma-Thibodaux), Northshore (Mandeville to Slidel), and Mississippi Gulf Coast.

It's a collective of markets that make the Saints profitable for Benson just like Greenbay. The packers are in a city smaller than New Orleans with a smaller TV market and they keep the team. Also the owners are the people in the city too helps.

[RedScare]

HeightsGuy,

Just looked a little closer at the Media rankings, and noticed Austin is a separate market. Combined with San Antonio, the market looks much better.

Still nothing compared to LA, though.

[DJ V Lawrence]

HeightsGuy,

Just looked a little closer at the Media rankings, and noticed Austin is a separate market.  Combined with San Antonio, the market looks much better.

Still nothing compared to LA, though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I honestly think both markets could work. I'd put both cities as1 and 2 on the list of current cities that NEED a team. New York City would be third.

[ricco67]

HeightsGuy makes a valid point in regards to the population centers around the country vs. SA/San Marcus/Austin..

there IS a bit of a catch, however;

In the majority of the cities that you mentioned, there is little to do during the winter EXCEPT football.

As badly as we dog S.A, it is a major tourist town with outside activities and places to visit.

It's also that very reason that would make it an ideal place for A football team.

HG is also neglecting the fact the Fredericksburg, Seguin, and a number of other small towns would flock there during the winter.

There are plenty of pros and cons about a football being there, but we could simply overanalyze this until we're blue in the face.

I'll contribute to a team being there...we'd be the first state with 3 football teams?

Ricco

[DJ V Lawrence]

HeightsGuy makes a valid point in regards to the population centers around the country vs. SA/San Marcus/Austin..

there IS a bit of a catch, however;

In the majority of the cities that you mentioned, there is little to do during the winter EXCEPT football. 

As badly as we dog S.A, it is a major tourist town with outside activities and places to visit.

It's also that very reason that would make it an ideal place for A football team.

HG is also neglecting the fact the Fredericksburg, Seguin, and a number of other small towns would flock there during the winter.

There are plenty of pros and cons about a football being there, but we could simply overanalyze this until we're blue in the face.

I'll contribute to a team being there...we'd be the first state with 3 football teams?

Ricco

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Florida too:-) I learned that the hard way earlier this thread

I think an S.A. NFL and MLS team would skyrocket development in that city more than any other. Where would S.A. be on the map without the Spurs?

[RedScare]

DJ

Don't forget California has 3 as well, although the 49ers and Raiders these days only count as one half each.

[DJ V Lawrence]

DJ

Don't forget California has 3 as well, although the 49ers and Raiders these days only count as one half each.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>