Whottt, where the do you live so I can get a picture of why you;'re bitter.
The only things SA and New Orleans have alike are both have strong tourism industries (SA being bigger). Both have storied histories in their evolution. Both are big players in American history.I like SA...actually it's a lot like New Orleans...but you guys are embarrassing on this thing...
That pretty much it.
You don't even talk about permanently moving the freaking Saints right now....it will get no support from anyone outside of greedy SA businessmen and the city of SA itself.
Everyone knows Benson wants to move the Saints...but you just don't it after one of the greatest cities in America has gotten ing nuked by mother nature.
You guys have legitimate claim to being the next city to get an NFL Franchise...and Jerry Jones doesn't have that much ing pull to prevent it...get serious...Just be patient and don't paint yourselves as a group of heartless and covetous assholes who will stomp the out of a devastated city and it's people just to get an NFL franchise.
What would David Robinson do? He'd do it the right way. He's the best citizen you guys have ever produced...take a page from his book...act like a winner. If San Antonio is an NFL worthy city...then the NFL needs SA more than SA needs the NFL. Act like it.
Austin...and I'm not bitter. I love SA...it's my favorite city in the state...I think earlier in the year when this topic was first discussed I was very much in favor of the Spurs getting the Saints. But you guys are being absolutely crass, insensitive and out of line if you go hard to obtain the Saints right now...and you need be called out, ridiculed and smacked around for even thinking about it. It's a bad idea and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. It's not going to go over well with the rest of the country if you attempt this...not just ya'll but any city that attempts it is going to get reamed by the rest of the country...by the media, politically...it's a just a bad idea after this hurricane.
Don't worry...I have the attention span to handle a long post.
Disagree...New Orleans and San Antonio are historical, cultural and economic twins, not identical twins but closely related...I am surprised you don't see it. The most obvious similarity is that neither of the cities have any discernible reason or excuse for their citizens being poor...To be fair...SA has done more with a lot less than NO.
Their evolutionary paths are nearly identical, it's almost eerie how identical they are...but there is a divergence now, New Orleans cultural evolution had largely stopped...It was assumed San Antonio's had stopped...
But San Antonio just got a shot of 25,000 New Orleansians(sic), many of whom I have a feeling are going to feel more at home in SA than they would any other city in the Nation...You guys are about to get a big boost to your job market, you finally have a pretty decent city gov, and it's going to be a very attractive place to stay.
I have a very strong feeling that the cultural diversity of SA, which is rivaled in all of America only by New Orleans, is about to become even more diversified. If any city is going to show the effects of picking up a Cajun influx...it's going to be San Antonio......Texas could use some good cajun restaurants...and San Antonians affinity for food is well do ented.
The anthropolgist in me is extremely fascinated by how this is going to play out for SA...
About the only difference I see between the two cities...New Orleans is a culturally liberal city....SA is culturally conservative...You guys conservatism may not allow the impact of your cajun influx to be shown...but looking at the history of SA's cultural evolution, I doubt that...if it the impact doesn't show it would be the first time in the history of the city it has failed to show the cultural impact of an influx of new citizens.
But meanwhile...you guys stealing the Saints...it's one thing for siblings to fight over the will after the parents die...and New Orleans was willing to steal the Spurs a few years ago...but to do it now would be like stabbing your brother in the back. Don't do it. Just don't do it. It's a bad idea.
Oh...and there will be a major sports stadium in New Orleans one way or the other...it's a key sports hub for all the major sports...and I am pretty sure the Superdome is insured. Plus....they're still going to need a big ass hurricane shelter.
Oh, please. The histories of San Antonio and New Orleans have little to nothing in common. They're both old, and neither were founded by the English. They diverged from there.
By the way, San Antonio is not a culturally diverse city. It is culturally rich and unique, but it is not diverse. You're taking "diverse" to mean "non-Anglo" when it actually means "has lots of different kinds."
San Antonio has a whole lot of Mexican, a little bit of German... and that's about it.
Don't worry. We all expect the to come spewing from Whottt's keyboard on a constant basis.
By the way, San Antonio is not a culturally diverse city. It is culturally rich and unique, but it is not diverse. You're taking "diverse" to mean "non-Anglo" when it actually means "has lots of different kinds."
San Antonio has a whole lot of Mexican, a little bit of German... and that's about it.
Don't mind whottt...he's simply pissed that those damn refugees of his are stealing his Austin Toros basketball in the Austin Convention Center.
Heartless Benson ponders bad move
By Tom Knott
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published September 7, 2005
http://www.washtimes.com/functions/p...7-121612-9086r
Tom Benson, the wealthy owner of the Saints, has his tin cup out while money and relief workers pour into devastated New Orleans and the Gulf Coast region.
If he has a heart, it is made of stone.
Benson reportedly is entertaining the notion of moving the Saints to San Antonio or Los Angeles on a permanent basis, the team's vice president indicated to a television station in New Orleans.
Arnold Fielkow told WDSU-TV that Benson is maneuvering to strike a deal with the highest bidder and does not care how he is perceived in New Orleans, Louisiana and nationally.
Benson apparently does not care if he goes down in sports history as one of the most reviled owners ever, because that is how it will be.
To even think of abandoning a city in its hour of greatest need is contemptible, and NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue undoubtedly will make that clear to Benson in their discussions this week, if he hasn't already.
That Benson has elected not to quell the increasing speculation is in itself revealing.
He finally broke his silence on the topic of where the Saints should play this season yesterday, casting a nod to Baton Rouge, La., "to the extent cir stances allow."
The Saints are not just a car dealership looking to move to another lot. The Saints are one of the most identifiable symbols of New Orleans. Its citizenry has an emotional investment in the team. A special bond exists between municipalities and teams, which owners often ignore or trivialize in their quest to seek a better deal elsewhere.
You could ask Robert Irsay, who forever was tarred with his moving of the Baltimore Colts under the cover of darkness.
Baltimore, though, hardly was a city awash in despair and grief as the Mayflower vans pulled up to the Colts' compound. New Orleans is all about hurt now after being knocked on its backside by Mother Nature. It is dazed, out of it, in the clutches of misery and uncertainty.
You see horror. The unfeeling owner of the city's NFL team sees an opportunity.
"This is like pouring salt into the wound," a state official told the Times-Picayune.
Benson has every right to be concerned about the long-term viability of New Orleans and how it could have a negative impact on the Saints. He expressed these concerns long before Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. And there is no secret about his affinity for San Antonio, where he made his first fortune as an automobile dealer.
But now is not the time to be raising anew the economics of the football business -- not with thousands presumed dead, not with countless others left homeless, not with so many lives on hold in the Gulf Coast region.
Now is not the time to be seeking the warm embrace of San Antonio or Los Angeles, or any locale willing to play ball with a football owner. Now is not the time to be playing high-finance games with a state that is otherwise preoccupied with matters of far graver importance than a football team.
In an editorial, the Times-Picayune pleaded with Benson to have the Saints play at Tiger Stadium in Baton Rouge this season and stick to his word.
"[Benson] has talked in recent months about how much he loves New Orleans, about his desire to stay, and we take him at his word," the newspaper wrote. "Before Katrina, Saints fans wanted their team to stay. Now they need it to stay."
In an e-mail stuffed with frustration yesterday, WDSU-TV sportscaster Fletcher Mackel wrote that he asked running back Deuce McAllister if the Saints have played their last game in New Orleans.
To which McAllister replied: "I don't know. Nothing would surprise me."
Shame on Benson if he exploits this tragedy to fill his pockets.
So, Benson is considering L.A. as well. That really sucks.
What does any of this have to do with the Spurs? Since all these topics keep getting put in the Spurs forum, it seems like a reasonable question. If it's not a reasonable question, then I'll go ahead and let it be known that I'm embarassed for any San Antonio residents that are hoping to get the Saints while the city of New Orleans lies under fifteen feet of sewer water. I'd just as soon any discussion of it not take place here because I'm disgusted by it.
All this ing is pointless.
The Saints will not be moving permanently unless the league truly feels that New Orleans and its immediate area can not viably support an NFL team there for the next few years.
If that is the case...then the Saints moving will not be heartless in any way...it will be a necessity for the team/business to survive.
Its as simple as that. And anyone that thinks the NFL going to keep a team in New Orleans if they can't support that team is an idiot. It won't happen. The NFL is a business....not a charity. They may donate some money here and there...but there is no way in a year or two from now they are going to support Benson's team for New Orleans if New Orleans can't support the team itself.
That being said I bet the relocated team would NOT use the Saints name once the move is permanent and the Saints name will be reserved for when New Orleans can eventually support a team again (of course this is IF it turns out they wont be able to in the next several years).
Another point I would like to make is that even though San Antonio's officials can have their heads up their asses at times....overall they are pretty decent people. For example...Mayor Hardberger was very quick to invite Katrina victims to SA. In fact he was one of the first mayors in a city outside Louisiana to invite victims here.
I seriously doubt that Hardberger and the other SA officials are trying to put together a deal with the Saints to keep them from playing in LA this year. Most likely they are saying something like IF you cant play in New Orleans or the nearby area...we would like you to stay and play your games in SA.
So basically they are probably competing against other locations outside of Louisiana ...not necessarily New Orleans or Louisiana itself. If thats the case there is NOTHING wrong with that.
I certainly havent heard about them trying to get the Saints to play in SA over Louisiana...and unless some of you have heard something more specific to that...you might want to consider ShuttingTFU. I'm reading all this ing about SA being so heartless and classless but those people complaining have NO ING IDEA if its really true. Until it is....you might not want to be so quick to rag on the people and city who have taken in quite a lot of Katrina victims and are doing the best they can to take care of them.
Last edited by JsnSA; 09-07-2005 at 01:40 PM.
Benson is a businessman, what do you all expect. How is it heartless to move a team that he OWNS.
Face reality. That region does not NEED an NFL as that article implied and this is not the time to be worrying about NFL games. Unless I'm wrong here and teh city will be in much better condition if the Saints can manage to stay there. It's tragic what happened, but it's time to move on whether it's here LA or whereever.
If the authorities ever start shooting looters, San Antonio's civic leaders will all be dead.
It relates to the Spurs only in that it's another major sports team that may possibly be moving to town. It's a huge topic of discussion, and this late in the NBA offseason, it's not bothering the Spurs forum.
Geezus...not being founded by the English is hardly unique in America....New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania weren't founded by the English either...
Let's start with the fact that both cities have a direct ethnic link to the Canary Islanders...
Let's start with the fact that the most famous historical segment of both cities...comes from Spain...The Alamo in your case...and the French Quarter in New Orleans case...
Yes ace, the French didn't build the French Quarter we see today...the Spanish did...when New Orleans belonged to them.
Both cities have uniqueness given to them by their city planners because of River Floods...
There's a lot more to it than that...but what is the point?
Wrong...there is more to culture than just having a bunch of mexicans or blacks...By the way, San Antonio is not a culturally diverse city. It is culturally rich and unique, but it is not diverse. You're taking "diverse" to mean "non-Anglo" when it actually means "has lots of different kinds."
San Antonio has a whole lot of Mexican, a little bit of German... and that's about it.
You are the one with the dim view...not I.
And even using your view...just about every city in the US has a little bit of German culture...German heritage being the #1 ethnic link for more Americans than any other...largely true even in New Orleans...who also had a major influx of German immigrants. So basically that's not even a noteworthy claim...
Just go take a walk around your city sometime, if indeed it is your city...it might help you pull your head out.
New Orleans has done a pretty good job of supporting a team that has sucked ass from day 1. The Saints suck and always have...that's the reason they appear to have no support.
Keyword: heartless
JohnnyBlaze, your thoughts? Does it have more credibility coming from a journalist?
I am just telling you that America isn't going to like it, at all. Don't kill the messenger.
MannyisGod, is always championing the poor...until someone waves a football team in front of his face...then he's Mr. Capitalist. Are you going to schedule your trip to Afghanistan around football season? LOL.
Last edited by whottt; 09-07-2005 at 02:37 PM.
And for all you guys that think Tagliabue can't impact this decision...ask Jerry Jones what Tagliabue can do...Jones pissed off Tagliabue in the mid 90's and Tagliabue killed his dynasty will rule changes to the game and the NBA's financial structure...Jerry thought he was untouchable too...but Tagliabue knows how to manipulate his league. He's not going to be in favor of moving the Saints right now.
Which makes the SA-NO connection that much less remarkable.
New Orleans also has ethnic links to the West Africans, Native Americans, mainland Spanish, French, British, Italians, Germans, Creoles, Filipinos, Croatians, and Greeks. THAT is diversity.Let's start with the fact that both cities have a direct ethnic link to the Canary Islanders...
New Orleans is (was?) culturally unique in the entire United States. It was one of the great immigrant ports. It attracted more settlers from the north than from the South. A person from Brooklyn could go to New Orleans in the 1800's and find the surroundings surprisingly familiar. New Orleans was one of America's largest and richest cities in the 19th century. It was a thriving city long before it became part of the United States.
San Antonio was a capital outpost in the Spanish borderlands. It was founded as a mission town in one of the few verdant valleys in the semiarid Texas colony. The purpose of the settlement was to strengthen Spanish claims to the land against French incursions. It remained primarily a military outpost until it became part of the United States. Only then did the city start to grow, as a service and distribution center for westward expansion, sort of a St. Louis of Texas.
Not much in common there.
There is Spanish influence in the French Quarter, notably in the repeating arches and the ironwork (which itself is Arab-influenced) but the district was built by French-speaking settlers, even though Spain was in charge 1762-1803.Let's start with the fact that the most famous historical segment of both cities...comes from Spain...The Alamo in your case...and the French Quarter in New Orleans case...
Yes ace, the French didn't build the French Quarter we see today...the Spanish did...when New Orleans belonged to them.
The recalcitrance of the New Orleansians in cleaving to their French culture is a big reason Spain sent the Isleños to settle St. Bernard Parish in the 1780's.
Both cities have uniqueness given to them by their city planners because of River Floods...
Good question. Why am I arguing with somebody is clearly has no idea what he's talking about? If I had to pick a city that is a "twin" to San Antonio, the closest one would be Albuquerque, but really they're more like cousins, because Albuquerque is more like El Paso.There's a lot more to it than that...but what is the point?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said: "By the way, San Antonio is not a culturally diverse city. It is culturally rich and unique, but it is not diverse. You're taking 'diverse' to mean 'non-Anglo' when it actually means 'has lots of different kinds.'"
whott replied:This indicates one of the following:Wrong...there is more to culture than just having a bunch of mexicans or blacks...
A) whottt does not agree that San Antonio is culturally rich or unique
B) whottt has poor reading comprehension skills
Then I made the point that San Antonio's cultural diversity is very limited, and mentioned the mild German influence.
whottt replied:This indicates:And even using your view...just about every city in the US has a little bit of German culture...German heritage being the #1 ethnic link for more Americans than any other...largely true even in New Orleans...who also had a major influx of German immigrants. So basically that's not even a noteworthy claim...
1)whottt inadvertantly agreed with me about SA's underwhelming diversity
2)whottt has lapsed into incoherence and is going on rabbit trails
I lived in SA for 18 years. I live in Houston now. The cultural diversity in Houston = SA x 100. Of all the cities I've visited, San Antonio is among the least diverse.Just go take a walk around your city sometime, if indeed it is your city...it might help you pull your head out.
And it certainly is anything but a twin to New Orleans.
The Texas city most similar to New Orleans is Galveston.
The Louisiana city most similar to San Antonio... umm... there isn't one really.
Woah, I'm not on either camp on this issue other than I oppose a stadium funded by tax dollars. The Saints can go wherever they choose. They are a private business, not something the people of NO own.
I just know they aren't going to come to San Antonio as a permenant team.
I love ES. I think he, Scott, and FWD form the best trio of posters on the board.
Whottt on the other hand is on par with TRO and NBADan. You must be proud Whottt!
The Saints are one of the most identifiable symbols of New Orleans. Its citizenry has an emotional investment in the team.
I'm not smart, I just know how to use Google, and how to belittle people.
I love ES. I think he, Scott, and FWD form the best trio of posters on the board.
Whottt on the other hand is on par with TRO and NBADan. You must be proud Whottt!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
