got this from a saintsreport.com
Forget the Alamo: Tom Benson is handling the New Orleans situation all wrong. By firing key personnel who pushed to play games in Louisiana, he has completely alienated and scared officials in New Orleans into thinking that he will never bring the team back to the Superdome. Here's the problem: Benson has absolutely no support from commissioner Paul Tagliabue and the NFL about moving the team to San Antonio. The league considered the market too small and the stadium not good enough. Sure, it's an interim fix in San Antonio, but a full-time move to San Antonio will never be voted in by the NFL. The Saints owner better get some better advisors in the situation.
For a link to this article, click here: Clayton's Quick Hits
__________________
Last edited by redskinfan; 10-21-2005 at 09:26 AM. Reason: fixing title
I want Tagliabue to tell someone how LA Memorial Collisium or The Superdome are any better than The Alamodome. LA has proven too many times that they can't keep an NFL team. NO should get an NFL team back in expansion later...once they rebuild the city. They can even keep the logo and the name like the Browns did. Tags is an idiot who just has some sort of prejudice against San Antonio.
Tags ha a prejudice on non-NFL markets NOT named Los Angeles.
Los Angeles can have a renovated or a new stadium built. San Antonio can probably renovate the Alamodome but won't build a new one.
The Raiders and Rams left cause of bad stadiums and can't get a team cause of politics. The same group that built the Staples Center wanted to build a football stadium in Downtown Los Angeles using the funding method they used to build the Staple Center. However, folks at the Rose Bowl and the Memorial Coliseum told their elected leaders to they didn't want it for fear of losing UCLA and USC as tenants. The NFL wanted Los Angeles to have a team for over ten years and even gave them an expansion team but potential ownership groups were fighting each other and couldn't get a stadium plan.
I think fan support will be Los Angeles, although it is Los Angeles - we all know of their reputation but as another poster stated earlier, if Los Angeles builds their state-of-the-art stadium, the NFL will move to L.A. faster than Speedy Gonzalez.
I don't see this as an anti-San Antonio but more of anti-small market and let's be honest, we are a small market, we are growing but we are still a small market. Considering that all NFL gets a equal piece of the NFL pie from television, they will get more from Los Angeles than from San Antonio, Memphis, Birmingham or Orlando.
LA already failed with what 2 teams?
Screw them..
We are not a small market .. that's hogwash...
Wtf did all you anti San Antonio people crawl out from? Go back under the slimey rock's you crawled out from..
WTF people this is our chance to get a team so stfu and get behind the effort or get lost....
Yes, the league does not want a franchise in SA over LA. But is the league the primary decisionmaker here?
Sorry dude but its ALWAYS, Remember The Alamo
The answer to your question is somewhere between a no and a maybe.
There's something screwy going on with all this. Why appoint a committee if there isn't? The only thing I can think of is that some of the other small-market owners are bending Tagliabue's ear regarding the shared revenue from TV money, ticket sales, sponsorship deals, and licensing contracts.
Either that or Tags feels some moral obligation to investigate the uncouth romance between Mayor McCheese and Tommy Boy while the entire state of Louisiana is calling for their heads.
Maybe he needs to get a taste of the feeling among the owners for Benson leaving NO and relocating to SA. Those topics are obviously connected, but each is certainly significant enough to be weighed individually. What do owners think the fallout from leaving a city due to the economic impact of a natural disaster is going to be? On a franchise in San Antonio, does that make sense? Is there a way to force Benson to LA? If the league wants to try to block a move to SA, what support is there among the owners?
The NO advisory committee is comprised of 8 owners. If those 8 are in unanimous agreement that the Saints should not leave NO, that SA is not a desirable location and that they would all vote to block a relocation of the Saints to SA, then perhaps Tagliabue goes over Benson hard.
Yeah, could be CYA in effect for the league. As in, we investigated the situation and found that we don't have the legal standing to force Benson to stay in NO. There is also the possibility that the committee's role will be to conduct a post-mordem on the situation with NOLA after the Saints leave. As in, what kind of bones does the league throw the city's way (expansion, Super Bowls, etc...)Either that or Tags feels some moral obligation to investigate the uncouth romance between Mayor McCheese and Tommy Boy while the entire state of Louisiana is calling for their heads.
Nobody knows what Benson is thinking but if he was at least entertaining the notion of going back, would he not be handling things a little differently? I mean, it looks like he is ready to cut the cord. Saints fans and Nagin seem to think so. Nagin seems a bit hot tempered (who wouldn't be?) but to already be dumping on Benson and calling for an expansion team seems to be as though NO is resigned to life after Benson.
Last edited by Marcus Bryant; 10-21-2005 at 02:31 PM.
One other thing about that committee. Here is their franchises rank in value among the NFL. Remember too, the Arizona Cardinals are ranked 32th, or last, in value in the NFL, and 33rd overall in the four major US sports leagues.The NO advisory committee is comprised of 8 owners. If those 8 are in unanimous agreement that the Saints should not leave NO, that SA is not a desirable location and that they would all vote to block a relocation of the Saints to SA, then perhaps Tagliabue goes over Benson hard.
Robert Kraft (New England), 4
Jeff Lurie (Philadelphia), 5
Pat Bowlen (Denver), 6
Mike McCaskey (Chicago), 8
Jerry Richardson (Carolina), 12
Dan Rooney (Pittsburgh), 16
Lamar Hunt (Kansas City), 18
Wayne Weaver (Jacksonville), 21
This isn't exactly a group of the have-not's here.
That is interesting. Owners with a greater stake than most, some owners who are 'founding families' or pillars of the league, and no Jerry Jones. You could read a lot into this, as Tagliabue wants a group of owners with some clout in the league so whatever decision is arrived at is authoritative. Also, that you have a group of owners with more at stake than the average owner. You also have some longtime owners in that group, those with not only a financial interest but perhaps a concern about the league's image and what not in dealing with New Orleans post-Katrina.
That definitely looks like the NFL establishment there (who among the old guard is left out, the Giants' owner?). No Jerry Jones or Bob McNair. No Bud Adams. No Art Modell. No Al Davis. No Georgia Fronteria (sp?).
NFL politicking at its finest. Lamar Hunt is as close to an elder statesman as the NFL ownership has anymore, with Art Rooney's death. And it's definitely geared toward an absolute decision, because trusting this particular group of men with a process and then going against its decision would be a foolhardy exercise.
http://espn.go.com/sportsbusiness/s/forbes.html
This is a list of the franchise value rankings, through 9/29. Very interesting to see Dallas is #2 and Houston at #3. I wonder how many owners Bob and Jerry can convince that there's no need for a third team in Texas while watching their teams skyrocket toward worth of a billion dollars.
True. Depends on how much of that Cowboys' valuation is tied to Central and South Texas. The Texans have made no inroads in SA as far as I can ascertain. Also, it's incredible that such a ty team could be worth so much, but such is pro sport.
You know, it is interesting that Benson hosted the Austin mayor at the Falcons game. Perhaps Benson wants to make the case for a Central Texas market.
I think the value of those franchises has more to do with the new stadiums they are playing in as opposed to any fan base here in South Texas. In fact, I'd wager San Antonio has very little to do with the value of either.
Metro Austin's 1.5+ million people is only like 200K less than SA and still more than the 1.3M NOLA claims. Not to mention that the median household income is over $10,000 higher than San Antonio's, and that Memorial Stadium already has 66 luxury suites.
Two guys who would torpedo any efforts to get a team here.No Jerry Jones or Bob McNair.
Yep. Austin + SA would be pretty compelling. That's certainly not a small NFL market. You couldn't name it as a San Antonio team and certainly none of that New York-New Jersey hyphenated USFL or whatever . The team would probably have to be called something generic, like the "Texas Tornados" or whatever.
Of course, then you'd have a team named the Houston Texans and another one named the Texas whatevers. Cueing Tim Duncan to step in and tell us what that really sounds like.
Try 1.4 versus 1.9
Include Round Rock & Georgetown.
I did.
Those are MSA numbers.
Do you really think I wouldn't look up stats with an annoying little like you trolling around?
1,739,695 - San Antonio
1,503,128 - Austin
http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.ph...aohdq&va=&pt=a
Good job, now here are the real numbers as of July 2004 and provided by the US Census:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...threadid=73141
Last edited by TheWriter; 10-21-2005 at 04:36 PM.
Also, scroll down a bit and you'll get the combined consolidated and nonconsolidated metro numbers.
As well, the San Antonio civilian labor force as of 2005 is 907,000.
Those are 2004 estimates off of a message board. I used 2005 estimates from a comprehensive worldwide project containing every national census listing available, including the US census from http://www.census.gov.
Skyscraperpage.com? What the is that, anyway?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
