Reply With Quote
How is that vague? Denver has a more affluent population with more disposable income. That is reflected in the development downtown as well as every govt stat you care to take a look at.
Celtics, Boston.
From what I recall, the Packers are not public.
How is that vague? Denver has a more affluent population with more disposable income. That is reflected in the development downtown as well as every govt stat you care to take a look at.
Um, the Packers are public, and the only pro sports team in the USA that is.
They do have a large "affluent" population in the core. But again, WTF does that have to do with landing a sports team, its superficial reasoning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers
The Packers are now the only publicly owned company with a board of directors in American professional sports.
Yeah, after all what pro league would want an affluent population in a market when they could have SA's South side?
It has plenty to do with the location and relocation of pro sports franchises.
But they are....so that is part of the equation.And the Hornets should have never been in NO - they should have gone to Vegas, baby.
When there was just the Saints, they did a pretty good job supporting them.Stadium size doesn't mean all that much. LSU is a college....how many college students do you n=know that can afford a ticket to a pro game each week? The college fills that stadium with students where much of the cost of the tickets are included in tuition.That college stadium is bigger than any football stadium in Texas.
if that was case the Chargers wiuld play in the Rose Bowl 92,000
The spurs would still be playing the dome.
Pistons would play in the silverdome
Sonics would play in the Kingdome..until it was razed.
Size doesn't always matter.
Yes....but they do make yearly estimate updates.....you read up.You know the census is only done every 10 years right. This isnt really news. Started that way in 1790 or so. Read up, dumbass.
Last edited by cherylsteele; 09-20-2005 at 06:10 PM.
Buffalo and Green Bay are both old teams that have been supported every year for the life of the teams. If they werent supported, they would leave.
Jacksonville got a team because they were the biggest city in the nation without any sports teams. They seem happy to have them.
It has a lot to do with where the NFL would put a team. They care about corporate support, population, income, media market, etc. There are more factors than just population.Also, the Vikings ar not seeing much love and aren't they supposed to be a big market? They are wanting to move. Market size has nothing to do with NFL aspirations.
Oilers and Browns were moved because of idiot owners. Same with the Raiders in both moves.The Oilers moved but were in a big market, as did the Cardinals, Browns, Colts.
I know this: Indianapolis has half the poverty of SA, much more GP than SA.Indy is not much bigger than San Antonio...what major companies are based there?
I dont know about specific companies - never been there, but they have the only two sports teams in the state. Always a plus.
I'd love to see that support from Toyota. I'd love for the Saints to be in SA - they have always been my favorite team, but logistically there are places that make much better sense.It was mentioned somewhere that toyota would pitch in 25-30mil dollars to keep the Saints if needed. Plus Benson has implied that the Saints shpuld be in San Antonio and if NO is unavailable due to logistics he wants to play here. If you allow Al Davis to moved as he pleases along with Art Modell, and the Oilers' owner why not the Saints?
Why bring up the southside?
I'm sure Denver has no poor sides of town. Right? I mean, your a home boy. you should know if there's any "hoods" in Denver.
And to tell me Downtown SA wouldn't look "good" on tv is complete horse spewed from a ignorant jackass.
Point me to those numbers for each city. I went to wikipedia for each city. If they are wrong, show it.Yeah, and the 10 year census isn't estimated as well....
The census releases yearly numbers that are as good as the 10 year census.
Read up, dip .
You really are a little .
I don't see any registration statements with the SEC. It's not "public" as in listed on the NYSE, AMEX or Nasdaq.
We'll get a team as soon as a Hays or Comal county stadium makes sense.
Give it 20 years.
It's public as in the city of Green Bay bought the team. And sells shares to residents.
It's not on the NYSE.
WTF? How do you not comprehend that a MSA with a significantly higher avg per capita income is going to be a more desirable market for a pro franchise?
Again, 4 > 1. Apparently a host of wealthy individuals and experts don't know something you do. That appears to be the greatness that is Southside.
That's different. "Public" in the securities business means something entirely different.
San Antonio's 2003 numbers:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108597.html
Oh, and thank you.
I never said it was in terms of business.
The city had to buy the team in order to keep them in Green Bay. They pay for stadium up keep, etc.
That's the only reason the Packers are still in Green Bay.
Hey dumbass, reading comprehension is not a bad thing.
Where did I say a league wouldn’t choose a city with a higher per captia income? I never did.
You made a superficial comment that I gave my retort to.
Also, Denver's overall business base is a tad bit more appealing than SA's. That is reflected, again, in the per capita income stats and I'm sure in other stats that capture.
Ancedotally, anyone who's actually set foot in both SA and Denver for any amount of time knows that Denver is a much more attractive location for a pro franchise or two or three.
SA just does not have the economic base to support a NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL franchise combined.
End of discussion.
What the ? You compared SA to Denver.
ing moron.
Why because your lard ass says so?
Because you know the in's and out's?
Show me the proof? So me how San Antonio's economic situation is the same as it was in 1990? Or the same as in 2000. Come on poser, do it.
What data have you provided? Above in the thread we have evidence that the Denver MSA had nearly a 50% higher average per capita income in 2000 than SA. That's not going to be overcome over 5 years.
Go to the Census Bureau, go to the BLS. Find me the stats that prove your point.
"Poser"? What are your credentials you little dumb ? That is, besides posting someone else's pictures on a boy band fan website.
You talk a lot of but you haven't a clue. When you are actually hired and paid to assess the economic characteristics of a given market and assess the economic impact of various industries in that market, let me know. Until then, shut the up already.
Reading Comprehension Test:
In reading the most recent report from the NFL Commissioner's office, which team is not getting an NFL franchise?
a) San Antonio
b) The home of the 2005 NBA Champions
c) a "small" market
d) All of the above
Let's face it, we can b!TC# about it all we want...P-Tags does not read this board and it carries no weight with the NFL.
Also, I heard on some local radio stations here (Houston radio) that San Antonio could "ONLY SELL" 100K tickets for the three games. Now, we all know why that is ALL we could buy...do you think the media would report accurately?
Have they ever?
Since we are including SMSA, the following cities are bigger than Jacksonville (1.2mil) and they have no sports teams...excpet columbus who was awarded an NHl after the Jacksonville recieved the Jaguars.Jacksonville got a team because they were the biggest city in the nation without any sports teams.
Greensboro/Winston-Salem 1.3mil
Raleigh-Durham 1.3mil
Austin 1.5mil....has Longhorns' stadium
Columbus, Oh. (at the time) 1.6mil....has OSU stadium
No one ever mentions Honolulu, they play the Pro-Bowl there...it is not as big though.
As you can see...size means nothing.
If Benson
A) Wants to move the team here he will.
Well, there's the correct answer.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
