Jump to content

Looking for a good argument?

CS85

By CS85
in Sports In General

Recommended Posts

CS85

CS85

Posted
Posted

Saints owner Tom Benson declared this week that nothing will be decided on the franchise's future until after the season. But ESPN's Chris Mortensen reports that, based on information from key league sources, the team has probably played its last game in New Orleans.

According to Mortensen, San Antonio is a likely home for 2006 and Los Angeles is the preferred destination beyond that. The NFL could still include New Orleans as a Super Bowl site when the city is reconstructed, and expansion might even be a possibility, but that's 10 to 15 years away.

If the Saints relocate to San Antonio or elsewhere, New Orleans has only a slim chance of ever seeing another NFL team, according to a major sports consultant.

Marc Ganis of SportsCorp Ltd. in Chicago served as a consultant to Cleveland in 1996 when that city's NFL team moved to Baltimore and the NFL guaranteed Cleveland a new team and allowed the city to keep the Browns' logos, colors and nickname.

Earlier this week, New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin said he wanted the "Cleveland deal" if the team relocates. Gov. Kathleen Blanco said she supported Nagin on such a plan.

But Ganis questioned the strategy.

"If I were advising Mayor Nagin, I would have given him the same advice that someone should have given the mayors of Baltimore and Houston," Ganis said. "Hold on to what you have. Do everything you have to hold on to what you've got, because there's no certainty to what will come next or what will come at all."

Houston lost the Oilers to Tennessee and later got the expansion Texans.

Ganis said New Orleans is already viewed as a small market struggling to remain financially competitive -- and most NFL owners oppose expanding beyond the present 32 teams.

Cleveland provided stout support for its new team with corporate dollars and businesses that generated tax money to build a new stadium, Ganis said.

"It's not the people," Ganis said of New Orleans' situation. "It's not the individuals who show up at the game and buy the tickets. The people are great. It's the business, or lack of, that's the primary factor. For whatever reason, the area simply does not have many strong and large businesses."

But Ganis and two other sports consultants said the issue includes a wild card -- compassion for a city devastated by Hurricane Katrina.

"When it's all said and done, the whole situation boils down to one thing -- how do these 32 owners feel about resolving New Orleans while protecting their franchise value?" said David Carter, a sports consultant in Los Angeles.

Dean Bonham, a sports consultant based in Denver, questioned whether the NFL would support a move to San Antonio, which like New Orleans is considered a small market, or whether the NFL could strike a deal to build or renovate a stadium equipped for a team in Los Angeles.

If neither San Antonio nor Los Angeles is adequately prepared to support an NFL team, Bonham said the Saints will likely remain in New Orleans.

"I would have to say the chances are 50-50 or less that you'll see the New Orleans Saints move from one city to another at this point," Bonham said.

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

____________________________________

What does this mean for a new franchise logo, colors, etc? The league is running out of color schemes.

Quote
"You are nothing more than a small cancer on this message board. You are not entertaining, you are a complete joke."

twitter

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply
CS85

CS85

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Ahh..I love the smell of sarcasm in the evening...

I know this is "old news" but this was recently posted on ESPN.com, and the stuff about the Browns Deal I thought would apply. Perhaps I was wrong. :therock:

Quote
"You are nothing more than a small cancer on this message board. You are not entertaining, you are a complete joke."

twitter

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JPBlueHen

JPBlueHen

Posted
Posted

I really hate to say this, but I think the Saints would be better off if they left New Orleans. It's a real shame to leave such a great city that is very loyal to their football team, but if they want to be playoff contenders and increase their market, then New Orleans is right now not the place to promote their franchise.

I think San Antonio would be a better fit for them because the city is filled with Spanish missions, and the nickname "Saints" would fit well with that theme. They would probably have to change the logo since it has French connections, but I think it would work out in the end. They already have an NFL-caliber stadium that can accommodate them very well, and the city is one of the fastest-growing in the nation. The owner of the team has connections with the city, as has already been discussed. Finally, it has already been shown with the Spurs that sports can survive there and thrive, and football is a huge sport in Texas. Therefore, the Saints in San Antonio would be a prefect fit and is a much more logic location than Los Angeles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vike09

vike09

Posted
Posted

This would work, but the Cowboys and Texans could both have problems having a team move into Texas, very close to Dallas and Houston. Even though New Orleans is close to both cities, them moving to San Antonio could cause problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ez Street

Ez Street

Posted
Posted

I think that New Orleans has bigger things to worry about than an NFL franchise. It is sad, I don't want to see the Saints leave. But I do believe it will be in the best interest of the Franchise to do so. This thought that everything will be normal in NOLA in a few months is a bit laughable.

runnersbanner.jpg

@DavidStreeter

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JPBlueHen

JPBlueHen

Posted
Posted
This would work, but the Cowboys and Texans could both have problems having a team move into Texas, very close to Dallas and Houston. Even though New Orleans is close to both cities, them moving to San Antonio could cause problems.

Well, the NBA has three teams in Texas, and all three of them made the playoffs last season and will probably get in again this season. I don't think it would be that much of a problem.

Plus, Los Angeles has had trouble trying to support NFL teams. They lost not only one but two franchises, and it happened the same year! I'm sorry, but LA does not deserve another NFL team if it can't even hold onto one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burkell007

Burkell007

Posted
Posted

well i think they keep the name and colors and logo in New Orleans if they do move and when they are ready then give them a team and that name back.......the owner is in SA and NO still has the saints everybody is happy now right???

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JPBlueHen

JPBlueHen

Posted
Posted
well i think they keep the name and colors and logo in New Orleans if they do move and when they are ready then give them a team and that name back.......the owner is in SA and NO still has the saints everybody is happy now right???

That would definitely be the case if we lived in a perfect world. However, I'm sure Tom Benson would not be willing to give the name back to New Orleans since that's the jerk he is. You're probably going to have another Washington situation. There, when the Expos moved to DC, rename the franchise the Senators since the name is owned by the Texas Rangers. That's why they went with the Nationals. So unfortunately, New Orleans would have to pick a new name. I would go with the New Orleans Pelicans as the new name; that name was used by a former minor league baseball team before the Zephyrs came about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francis10

Francis10

Posted
Posted

To the OP: it's generally considered bad form (and copyright violation) to cut and paste an article without acknowledging the source and providing a link. I'd ask that you edit your post to correct that. With some of the 'high profile' traffic that this board gets, I'd hate to see Chris get busted for someone else's indiscretion.

Also, isn't this more appropriate for the Sports in General board?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jkrdevil

jkrdevil

Posted
Posted
well i think they keep the name and colors and logo in New Orleans if they do move and when they are ready then give them a team and that name back.......the owner is in SA and NO still has the saints everybody is happy now right???

That would definitely be the case if we lived in a perfect world. However, I'm sure Tom Benson would not be willing to give the name back to New Orleans since that's the jerk he is. You're probably going to have another Washington situation. There, when the Expos moved to DC, rename the franchise the Senators since the name is owned by the Texas Rangers. That's why they went with the Nationals. So unfortunately, New Orleans would have to pick a new name. I would go with the New Orleans Pelicans as the new name; that name was used by a former minor league baseball team before the Zephyrs came about.

That's not why the DC team is name the Nationals. The Rangers were willing to give up the rights to the name Senators and MLB wanted to name them the Senators however the mayor of DC wanted the name Nationals and MLB let him have the name in order to help get a city funded stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
In 5..4..3..2..1

In 5..4..3..2..1

Posted
Posted

Actually we have been talking about this quite a bit about half way down the page in the create a Saints new identity thread. But here you go anyways on the LA angle heard this from Mort a couple weeks ago when the Chargers were playing the Steelers on Mon. night.

The Chargers makes the most sense for LA really and with an oppurtunity to get out of their lease in 07 and with all the local gov problems the city of SD is having right now the public support will not be there for a public funded stadium. The Chargers I predict will be back in LA like they were their first season in 1960.

Well the part I heard from Mort was that they were having alot of problems with the local gov. in the city of S.D. and that the lease was up in 07 and people are not going to be behind public funding for a stadium. The prediction that they are going to move there is mine because they have played around with this idea before as well as having there training camp in the LA area before. Not to mention the franchise being born out of LA in the early AFL days. Makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept