Sign in to follow this  
The Vatican Hitsquad

Los Angeles Saints?

Recommended Posts

Saints, OK.  But the Hornets and the Sugar Bowl?  :D

 

962251[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Well, yes. The same factors working against the Saints ever going back to New Orleans are also working against the Sugar Bowl (which also is played in the Superdome) and the Hornets (whose arena is right next door). It's going to take years, if ever, for the city to recover to the point where it can support any major sports again, not just the Saints.

 

If you thought I meant all three would be going to L.A., no, that's not what I meant. St. Louis is probably the most likely destination for the Hornets, but where the Sugar Bowl will end up (or whether it will still be called the Sugar Bowl after the move) is anyone's guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

961581[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

That is quite an erroneous statement. LA is crazy for football. With a new stadium a team would do quite well there. But with all the problems in the state, a new stadium isnt the highest priority, so the 2nd half of what you said does make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Saints play better on the road anyways. Superbowl here we come. Bottom line, the city has allot more to worry about right now then where a football game is going to be played. If the logistics could be worked out I'd vote for Baton Rouge, just so that season ticket holders still had the opportunity to go to the game if they wanted to.(again, probably not their highest priority right now though).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread just makes me sick to my stomach :D . I understand it but......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who finds the name "Los Angeles Saints' redundant? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I the only one who finds the name "Los Angeles Saints' redundant?  :D

 

962827[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Well, as long as it's not "Los Angeles Saints of Anaheim" (if Anaheim is in fact where they end up)....

 

UPDATE: myhousekey mentioned Baton Rouge as a possibility. Well, now it looks like the Saints have their eye there too, at least for this season.

Edited by Pack Mentality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

962036[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Well, it's nice to know that someone out there is at least trying. But why is it taking so long? It only took six years for Houston to get a franchise back into their city and the Browns got theirs back in a mere four. Neither of those markets are close to what LA can offer, yet LA is still without a franchise. Is it a question of funding in SoCal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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]

 

 

 

 

Wow. I didn't realize that the city was paying the Saints to stay there. Since the economy of that town will be depressed for several years to come, I don't see how they'll be able to stay. It would be a horrible business decision on Benson's part. It's sad, but that appears to be the reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Word out of Saints Camp is that there's a big meeting tonight to decide the fate of where they will play their games. I'm with Boo's prediction. First game in San Antonio. Rest of the season in Baton Rouge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what Bob glauber of Newsday wrote this morning:

 

"Consier: In later April, team owner Tom Benson cut off negotiations with the state over a long-term lease that was tied to major renovations to the Superdome. Benson said then we would not negotiate until after the 2005 season."

 

"The Saints currently are tied to New Orleans through the 2011 season, but they can exercise an out clause in the lease after this season by paying Louisiana $81 million." He goes on to mention that the state has struggled to make payments to the Saints due to lost tourism revenue post 9-11.

 

"The two most logical places they will consider: San Antonio and Los Angeles. Benson has business and personal ties to San Antonio - he owns a second home there - " and the Saints train and might play there this season.

 

But also, Tagliabue has made it a priority to put a team in LA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is quite an erroneous statement.  LA is crazy for football.  With a new stadium a team would do quite well there.  But with all the problems in the state, a new stadium isnt the highest priority, so the 2nd half of what you said does make sense.

 

962537[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Well, yes and no.

 

We'd take a football team, but only if an owner comes in and builds the stadium himself in an area that would benefit from it. Otherwise, if they ask for public funding it will NOT happen.

 

Even as recently as a few years ago the sticking point for a Coliseum project was public funding for a parking structure. That scuttled the whole thing because no one wants to pay a penny for the 'privelege' of an NFL team.

 

There are so many transplant here that no one misses a 'home' team enough to get one here, especially a pre-existing franchise.

 

"Football" here is sated with the Galaxy and Chivas, and constant double headers on the TV that don't require getting out of a parking lot at the end of game time.

 

Besides, I think Tags sees/understands the value in appearing supportive of New Orleans. I predict they stay close as possible and at some point allow refugees into games for free, albeit in a controlled situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us not forget what moves the NFL: the almighty dollar. If a move is to take place, and I suspect it will, it will be to San Antonio. It's close enough to keep the fans who remain in the New Orleans area and San Antonio has a place for the team to play right now. It's the best solution financially, and while we may not like the fact that N.O. will lose the franchise, decisions about this won't be emotionally motivated in the long term. I don't like it, but it's unlikely that Benson will lose millions upon millions for the benefit of the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We'd take a football team, but only if an owner comes in and builds the stadium himself in an area that would benefit from it. Otherwise, if they ask for public funding it will NOT happen.

 

Even as recently as a few years ago the sticking point for a Coliseum project was public funding for a parking structure. That scuttled the whole thing because no one wants to pay a penny for the 'privelege' of an NFL team.

 

966464[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Then it's not going to happen anytime soon. While just about all state budgets are in the red, California's situation is much more dire than average. Until they fix that, owners are going to stay away. No owner is going to pay for the cost of a new stadium in full when the city/state governments of other markets are more than willing to pitch in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.