The Vatican Hitsquad Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 Does anybody think that this disaster in New Orleans is going to result with the NFL relocating the Saints to L.A.? Maybe temporarily at first, but then announce a permanent move later? I don't see how the city can recover period in the next few years, let alone support a franchise. LA (the state) is goign to hav eto divert all their cash to fixing this city, and they already owed the Saints dough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 Local Dallas sports radio reported this morning the Saint's temporary home will be in San Antonio. I'll see if I can find a link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
major-tom Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 Does anybody think that this disaster in New Orleans is going to result with the NFL relocating the Saints to L.A.? Maybe temporarily at first, but then announce a permanent move later? I don't see how the city can recover period in the next few years, let alone support a franchise. LA (the state) is goign to hav eto divert all their cash to fixing this city, and they already owed the Saints dough. 961300[/snapback] I sure as he!! hope not. The Saints belong in New Orleans and I'm sure when the recovery starts they'll figure a way to keep them there and address the staudium issue. Anyway, L.A. is not necessarily the next city in line for an NFL franchise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 Local Dallas sports radio reported this morning the Saint's temporary home will be in San Antonio. I'll see if I can find a link. 961302[/snapback] I've heard of both that and LSU. Not sure which way they'll go, but I'm hoping for San Antonio, as I have Horn in my league and want him to continue playing indoors. Much of New Orleans is going to be uninhabitable for months and the economic infrastructure will be down for years. So, if the Saints were ever going to leave for good, the time will be now. It's a very unfortunate situation, but I think that's the way it's going to play out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted September 1, 2005 Author Share Posted September 1, 2005 "L.A. is not necessarily the next city in line for an NFL franchise" They're not? The NFL has a hatd on for sticking a team there, it's the 2nd biggest market in the country. Sure they have had 3 different pro teams and lost them all, but it doesn't mean they dont wanna try again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 This is the latest from KFFL. No link...got this in an email. Saints Looking at Options Tom Orsborn, of the San Antonio Express-News, reports NFL spokesman Greg Aiello Wednesday, Aug. 31, listed San Antonio, Dallas, Houston, Baton Rouge, La., and Tuscaloosa, Ala., as candidates to host the New Orleans Saints' home opener Sept. 18 and possibly the remainder of the beleaguered team's eight-game home schedule this season. "We are exploring options, and San Antonio is clearly one of them," said Aiello, the NFL's vice president of public relations. "But there are others." While none of those options, including playing in the Alamodome, seemed ideal, a high-ranking Saints official said the team would prefer "from an emotional standpoint" to play in Louisiana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 If they in fact are going to move to the Alamo Dome temporarily, I can see it becoming permanent. The Alamo Dome is an excellent venue. San Antonio is a large enough market, and football in Texas is huge, and those in Central Texas would love to have a team. I think the NFL would be nuts if they moved them temporarily to the Alamo dome and then moved them to LA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 If they in fact are going to move to the Alamo Dome temporarily, I can see it becoming permanent. The Alamo Dome is an excellent venue. San Antonio is a large enough market, and football in Texas is huge, and those in Central Texas would love to have a team. I think the NFL would be nuts if they moved them temporarily to the Alamo dome and then moved them to LA. 961337[/snapback] LA has already failed to support two different NFL franchises. The third time won't be a charm. San Antonio (1.1 million) has a larger market than a lot of other NFL franchises and they'll also get the Austin crowd (650k, only 80 miles away). I think there's definitely a possibility that the San Antonio Saints could be a reality. But they'd eventually need a new stadium on the outskirts of town. The Alamo Dome is right smack in the middle of downtown and I foresee some traffic issues with 20,000-30,000 cars rolling in every other Sunday. That said, I would feel very bad for the people of Louisiana if the Saints left town. Given what has happened, it would be adding insult to injury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 San Antonio makes a lot of sense. First off, I think you can expect football hungry fans to support a team that came to them in a time of tragedy. Especially if they tie in relief effort to ticket sales or allow those that lived in Nawlins to come see their team play for free. Tagliabue, and the NFL has always seen the BIG picture when it comes to how their product ties in with US society. Remember that cancelling one week of football for safety reasons, but then coming back strong that following week was a big part of healing the National Psyche 11 days after 911. Also, you can bet that an ideal solution for the NFL would be to get the team BACK into the city when possible. That would cement a 'return to business as normal' feeling as much as about any other event. Fact is, they won't play in New Orleans this year. I'm pretty sure of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REZ Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 LA has already failed to support two different NFL franchises. The third time won't be a charm. San Antonio (1.1 million) has a larger market than a lot of other NFL franchises and they'll also get the Austin crowd (650k, only 80 miles away). I think there's definitely a possibility that the San Antonio Saints could be a reality. But they'd eventually need a new stadium on the outskirts of town. The Alamo Dome is right smack in the middle of downtown and I foresee some traffic issues with 20,000-30,000 cars rolling in every other Sunday. That said, I would feel very bad for the people of Louisiana if the Saints left town. Given what has happened, it would be adding insult to injury. 961426[/snapback] LA supported the teams. The Rams played to sold out crowds until ol' Georgia announced they were leaving. The Raiders had large crowds, it just didn't look like it in the Coliseum. Al left Oakland when they filled the stadium up there and he left the Coliseum when the city wouldn't give in to his demands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 Wouldn't the owners of the team have some say in where they end up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liverlips Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 Sounds like a sign from God. Flood the town to the ground and get rid of all Saints in town. Weird as it sounds, I won't be drafting any Saints this season. I'll never complain about my weather again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted September 1, 2005 Author Share Posted September 1, 2005 L.A. had 3 teams: Chargers, Rams and Raiders. The NFL still wants a team there, despite this. And the owners know they would make more money there than in N.O. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 The NFL still wants a team there, despite this. And the owners know they would make more money there than in N.O. 961553[/snapback] The NFL wants a team there so they can gouge the municipalities of the present franchises that don't have sweetheart stadium deals with the threat of moving the team to LA. The greater Los Angeles area doesn't give a crap about having an NFL franchise. The city/county government (in LA anyway) won't pay for relocation or a stadium upgrade, and we all know how pro sports franchise owners are about paying their own way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraftykraft Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 L.A. had 3 teams: Chargers, Rams and Raiders. The NFL still wants a team there, despite this. And the owners know they would make more money there than in N.O. 961553[/snapback] The thing is, Angelenos don't want to use public money to pay for the kind of deals that NFL owners ask for these days. Public funds for stadium construction, a big cut of the concessions, parking and luxury box revenues--LA doesn't want to fork over that kind of money. And I can't say that I blame them. Another thing is that by not having a team in town, LA actually gets to see more football--on TV. The second largest TV market in the country gets both NFC and AFC games showing at the same time. Fans of the Rams and Raiders still get to watch those teams, even if they are both playing afternoon games. I don't doubt that a reasonable NFL franchise couldn't sell a lot of tickets in LA, but an owner is going to get a much sweeter deal from the voters of San Antonio than the LA electorate is going to give them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOO Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 PR nightmare if they move the Saints now IMO. Nobody in Louisiana is too terribly worried about the Saints right now IMO. There are still way too many people dying right now. I see them playing the first game in San Antonio, the remainder of the season in Baton Rouge (Tiger Staduim), and start working on a new facility next year. JMO of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 Even if they wanted to move the team, it would be a publicity nightmare for the league to do that now because of a tragedy. Hopefully they would never recover from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 The city of New Orleans won't even be inhabitable possibly for years to come. The Saints will be moving, and since San Antonio seems to be on the NFL's wish list for new franchises, a move now would make sense. Granted there won't be a formal announcement probably for quite some time of a permanent move, but I would be very surprised if it shook out any other way from what I have been hearing. I don't think most Americans have full grasped the situation in the hurricane area. It is now a toxic wasteland that may well never recover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted September 1, 2005 Author Share Posted September 1, 2005 Right, thats my point. There would be no bad PR moves because they would not move now nor in the next few months. Techniclly, they would just temporarily play in another city until New Orleans is ready to host them again. But I really don't see that happening, they were already poor and it's goign to take all their recources, both financial and emotional, just trying to make that city OK for people to live in it, nevermind hostign a professional football team in a repaired stadium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 From what I've read, they are looking at playing in San Antonio for the season, despite San Antonio being further from New Orleans than the NFL would like. Guess they want to be closer to their fan base (Baton Rouge [LSU] would make sense, but that'd be a logistical nightmare; potentially LSU game on Saturday, Saints game Sunday). Keep in mind, though... their "fan base" probably won't have the MONEY to spend on going to NFL games for quite some time. San Antonio can support the Saints. After tonight's game, they're headed to the Marriott in downtown San Antonio, where they stayed last preseason when hurricanes were blasting the Gulf Coast. A move to L.A. wouldn't be a shock, especially given the circumstances, as unfortunate as they may be. Swerski, I don't know where you get your information; some of the stuff that you post makes absolutely zero sense. The L.A. market can certainly support the NFL. The NFL wants to be here. The Lambs and Raiders were huge here... they just have idiotic ownership. There are a couple of VERY viable spots in and around L.A. that are beggin' for an NFL franchise to show up. Google "Anaheim NFL" and see the results... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 Swerski, I don't know where you get your information; some of the stuff that you post makes absolutely zero sense. The L.A. market can certainly support the NFL. The NFL wants to be here. The Lambs and Raiders were huge here... they just have idiotic ownership. There are a couple of VERY viable spots in and around L.A. that are beggin' for an NFL franchise to show up. Google "Anaheim NFL" and see the results... 961945[/snapback] The NFL certainly does want to be in LA, but nobody in LA seems to care enough to help fund a stadium. I don't know whether to blame that on the city/state government that let two teams just walk out in the mid-90s or the Dodgers fans who show up to games in the 4th inning. How do Indy and Nashville draw teams away from other cities, while LA can't? And how do you blame Georgia and Al for not wanting to play in the LA Coliseum? If you owned an NFL team, would you want to play in that ancient, over-sized dump? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 The NFL certainly does want to be in LA, but nobody in LA seems to care enough to help fund a stadium. I don't know whether to blame that on the city/state government that let two teams just walk out in the mid-90s or the Dodgers fans who show up to games in the 4th inning. How do Indy and Nashville draw teams away from other cities, while LA can't? And how do you blame Georgia and Al for not wanting to play in the LA Coliseum? If you owned an NFL team, would you want to play in that ancient, over-sized dump? 961994[/snapback] First of all, I don't blame either Georgia or Al for leaving. They are kooky, but the situations they were in did in fact suck... I won't deny that. Al, at the Coliseum and Georgia at the Big A. STILL, there WAS fan support. But... now... there are far better options than the Coliseum. No, I'm not talking about the Rose Bowl or some new stadium built on a landfill in Carson. The Anaheim deal is FOR REAL... there is public support, and I can nearly guarantee it will happen. Look it up. OK, nevermind, I'll do the work for you: http://bastienarchitects.com/live/anaheimnfl.html http://www.sptimes.com/2005/05/11/Sports/A...als_stadi.shtml http://www.anaheim.net/administration/PIO/...efing050905.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 So, do the Saints play better or worse this year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pack Mentality Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 (edited) I've already commented on this possibility at some length in this thread. To put it succinctly, I don't believe the Saints will play in New Orleans again, not just this season, but ever. (Neither, for that matter, will the NBA's Hornets, or the Sugar Bowl.) Given Paul Tagliabue's obsession with putting another team in L.A., that seems at least as likely a future permanent home for the Saints as any other city. And now for the first time since Katrina, there are rumblings to this effect in the mainstream media. Edited September 2, 2005 by Pack Mentality Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 I've already commented on this possibility at some length in this thread. To put it succinctly, I don't believe the Saints will play in New Orleans again, not just this season, but ever. (Neither, for that matter, will the NBA's Hornets, or the Sugar Bowl.) Given Paul Tagliabue's obsession with putting another team in L.A., that seems at least as likely a future permanent home for the Saints as any other city. And now for the first time since Katrina, there are rumblings to this effect in the mainstream media. 962231[/snapback] Saints, OK. But the Hornets and the Sugar Bowl? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.