New Orleans, Louisiana on the Gulf Coast Saints

[yh]

For what it's worth, Jerry Jones went on record yesterday stating he would have no objection to the Saints relocating permanently to San Antonio.

[RickV]

For what it's worth, Jerry Jones went on record yesterday stating he would have no objection to the Saints relocating permanently to San Antonio.

Do you believe him?

[simpsontide]

I agree with the inclusion of the states of AL and MS and the part of FL also but,like it was posted earlier,North and Central AL are either Falcons or Titans fans (predominantly) so what I would do is keep the same logo but cut N Miss and N AL at the top of the LA state line and you have a winner.

[leopard88]

I agree with the inclusion of the states of AL and MS and the part of FL also but,like it was posted earlier,North and Central AL are either Falcons or Titans fans (predominantly) so what I would do is keep the same logo but cut N Miss and N AL at the top of the LA state line and you have a winner.

. . . which brings us back to my original (semi-tongue-in-cheek) point about needing surveys to make sure you are accurately speaking for everyone when you start messing around with state or regional names.

[therebelas]

I agree with the inclusion of the states of AL and MS and the part of FL also but,like it was posted earlier,North and Central AL are either Falcons or Titans fans (predominantly) so what I would do is keep the same logo but cut N Miss and N AL at the top of the LA state line and you have a winner.

. . . which brings us back to my original (semi-tongue-in-cheek) point about needing surveys to make sure you are accurately speaking for everyone when you start messing around with state or regional names.

I spent 7 1/2 years at Ole Miss in Oxford, MS. We got Memphis and Tupelo channels. If the Saints were on FOX, we got them on the Tupelo FOX channel. Tupelo is far north of the state line.

For the record, as a lifelong Saints fan born and raised in Gulfport, MS, I freaking love this logo.

[leopard88]

I agree with the inclusion of the states of AL and MS and the part of FL also but,like it was posted earlier,North and Central AL are either Falcons or Titans fans (predominantly) so what I would do is keep the same logo but cut N Miss and N AL at the top of the LA state line and you have a winner.

. . . which brings us back to my original (semi-tongue-in-cheek) point about needing surveys to make sure you are accurately speaking for everyone when you start messing around with state or regional names.

I spent 7 1/2 years at Ole Miss in Oxford, MS. We got Memphis and Tupelo channels. If the Saints were on FOX, we got them on the Tupelo FOX channel. Tupelo is far north of the state line.

For the record, as a lifelong Saints fan born and raised in Gulfport, MS, I freaking love this logo.

The unanswered question is whether that was because it was what the Tupeloeans (?? ) wanted or because the NFL decreed that it would be so.

[simpsontide]

Which AFC team do you get most weeks in Tupelo? When the Houton(Tennessee )Oilers were in Memphis,did ya'll get their games? Here in Tuscaloosa,we usually get Dolphins or Titans games.

[In 5..4..3..2..1]

Actually Jerry Jones went on the record the other day on ESPN'S Cold Pizza and said that he would likie to see the Saints stay in New Orleans so I don't know where you are getting this he would'nt mind seeing them relocate to SA. There is no way in hell he wants a team in what is usually Cowboy country. They even hold part of their training camp in SA.

[bigdub81]

5,4... is right yh. I saw that statement on the NFL's, webiste a few days ago and Jerry Jones, said that it would look bad against the league and ownership of the team if that were to happen to the city now after such a disaster. He didn't exactly say that he would not be apposed to it but like it was said before, Benson, would have to get a majority vote from the rest of his fellow owner's to agree on him moving the Saints. I'm more than sure Jerry and the owner of the Texan's, would not like another team in Texas, so I'd figure that, that would be two votes not in Benson's, favor right there.

Benson, wouldn't have to argue his point very much about the relocation as seeing that everyone in the world know's what happened to the city. And like

I said before I would not blame him for it because it is a necessary business

decision that has to be made because it's the only logical one at the moment.

I mean it's not like you can move the team to Baton Rouge, just to keep them in the state for the fan's sake that still wouldn't solve the problem because you still

need a stadium to play in and everybody know's that Baton Rouge, is LSU country!

The Alamo Dome, is just sitting there and I'm guessing that if the mayor of San

Antonio, and Benson, push hard enough that they could certainlly get a land deal

and such to build a new stadium for the team. My only gripe would be that Benson,

or the NFL give the city of New Orleans, a Cleveland, type deal so that we could at

least keep the right's to our record's, colors, logo's and other stuff being that the

franchise did start here and wether or not we ever get another franchise to call

them the Saints, The New Orleans, Saints would die here!

[In 5..4..3..2..1]

Hey anybody see that email Benson sent to Tags ...WOW that old man has either lost it or someone gave him a real bad idea. Check it out on Profootballtalk.com. He actually said his life was in danger leaving the stadium and that fans were allowed to accost him and his family by security which is complete bs.

[In 5..4..3..2..1]

BENSON BLASTS BATON ROUGE

And so it continues.

Because the league essentially has prevented Saints owner Tom Benson from making public or private statements reflecting his intentions for his franchise and has (by all appearances) forced him to affirm his commitment to Louisiana, Benson seems to be trying a different tack in his effort to uproot his team.

This time around, someone has leaked the text of an e-mail message that Benson sent to NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue and other league office personnel (presumably General Counsel Jeff Pash and COO Roger Goodell) regarding Benson's experiences in Baton Rouge.

The message, dictated to and published by WWL-TV in New Orleans, reads as follows:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul, Roger, Jeff,

My trip to Baton Rouge was a total disaster. As my wife and the rest of my party left the suite, well before the end of the game, we were attacked by a number of hecklers who shouted obscentities [sic] at me and my party and put my wife and family in danger. Security was inadequate and nonexistent and we were led out through a hostile crowd on a very long route. If it had not been for my grandson and his friend, we could have all been severely injured or killed. In addition, the media was forcing cameras in our faces and slowing down our escape from a very dangerous situation and experience. We finally escaped without serious injury, but only due to luck and the intervention of my grandson and his friend. Secruity [sic] had completely abandoned us.

After this traumatic experience, I will not return to Baton Rouge for any reason, including any games scheduled for the end of this season or a contemplated next season. No person, much less the owner of an NFL team, should have either he, his family, or his friends subjected to this form of danger, intimidation, and abuse. We will not be back in Baton Rouge for any reason. I was advised not to go, but wanted to support the league. It was my mistake. I wanted each of you to know of this miserable experience and disappointment to me after i [sic] had tried to cooperate in every way.

Sincerely,

Tom Benson

Is this his excuse for leaving N.O.?

What an ass

[FiddySicks]

"Golden State Warriors" sounds kinda cool, but "San Francisco Warriors" sounds even better.

That may be true, but they play in Oakland. In fact their arena is just about a stonesthrow away from the Coleisum.

[Saint Zephyr III]

Look, the observation may not be racist, though it is unfortunately stereotyping. As a San Antonian, while not Hispanic myself, you can see clearly that this city is most definitely a football city. Our high school games are sometimes the envy of small colleges and is always a joyous occasion. Every Hispanic friend that I have that does like sports love football of any level. The Alamo Bowl is only getting bigger and bigger, and last year with two out-of-state team was able to sell out. And just recently with the Saints game, the whole city has clamored around them, even though they know they might end up leaving soon.

The remark about a thick Hispanic population liking soccer more than American football is absurd...yes, San Antonio does have a generally more enthusiastic passion for soccer than most major cities, hosting the Big 12 Tournament and various qualifying matches, yet we were without enough support to bring in a MLS team earlier this year.

So, it may walk like a duck, and sound like a duck, but I assure you that them mallards enjoy American football over soccer AND boxing anyday of the week.

[therebelas]

Which AFC team do you get most weeks in Tupelo? When the Houton(Tennessee )Oilers were in Memphis,did ya'll get their games? Here in Tuscaloosa,we usually get Dolphins or Titans games.

It was a mix between the Titans and Colts on WCBI out of Columbus.

[bigdub81]

I read that letter Benson, sent to the league last night on MSN, right after I left the forum. It's just another nail in the already tight sealed casket that was the

New Orleans Saints. You can take this as proof that he doesn't want to be here

anymore and desperately wants out of the city. I can bet you that had this never

had happened to the city but Benson, was still talking the "San Antonio / Moving"

talk, it would have been a lot worse to be in the Superdome.

[powersurge]

The NFL NEEDS a team in LA.

Needs? Nonsense.

They'd like a team in LA, but the NFL is doing just fine right now. They've been out of LA ten years, and those ten have been the best the NFL's ever seen.

I think viewership might actually go down in the LA television market if they got a team. Right now, they get the best matchups - no blackouts, no need to show terrible or meaningless local games.

What evidence supports your argument that television viewership would go DOWN?.

Relax - I said "might actually go down." Not would go down.

Right now, LA gets all the premium games. The best matchups, all the time. If LA gets a team, it'll be stuck with some lousy games that won't draw the same numbers. Especially if the team isn't a contender.

I would argue that the NFL would get smart this time around if they had an LA team when it come to TV markets in that area. They would structure it differently. How can you blackout an ENTIRE city huge metropolis like LA and its suburbs because of one team?

They've done it before. They do it in New York, so why not LA?

It's not about blackouts (if it is, that would mean they couldn't sell all the tickets, which I don't think would be the case). It's about showing the local team instead of the premium matchups, which LA gets now.

Paul Tag. has stated time and time again that the NFL BELONGS in LA and that it WILL go back. He knows its ridiculous to not have an NFL team in that area. In my opinion it is going to happen, the reason why it hasn't yet is because of two reasons:

#1 The groups that competed for an expansion team in LA were very disorganized. If you remember, LA was a virtual LOCK to get a team, but Houston got it because the potential ownership got their plop together while the LA group just blew it.

I agree with you that LA should have had a team. But you're leaving off one key factor - the city doesn't have a great interest in having a team. If they did, there would have been a groundswell of support for a stadium deal that would have guaranteed the promised team.

Even now, there's no great interest in a team. There just isn't. I don't know why that is, personally, but you can't blame the lack of a team solely on the prospective ownership groups.

Even if you could, are you telling me that in the whole LA metroplex, there isn't one single prospective owner that can get his act together and raise the funds for it?

As for Tagliabue, for him to admit that the NFL doesn't need LA, he'd lose all stadium deal leverage. I'd argue that the NFL needs LA to remain without a team - without LA, there's no easy relocation threat. LA is to the NFL what Washington was to MLB - and now that Washington has a baseball team, clubs like Oakland have no teeth behind their relocation theats and therefore don't get the sweetheart stadium deals that they could broker ten years ago.

I've long said that LA got unfairly tagged with the "can't support a team" label when the Raiders and Rams left. The Raiders left because Al Davis is a scumbag who only wants to line his pockets, and LA should have been given an opportunity to have just one team again and see how the city supported it.

That having been said, the NFL isn't hurting since the clubs left LA. And LA as a whole doesn't seem to care all that much about not having a team of its own.

You make many great points, and do state them intelligently I might add.

I do have to comment on your idea that:

#1 you think it doesn't make sense that in that whole area of LA, there had to be an ownership group that could get their plop together IF they really wanted a team.

I'd have to say that this inference is not correct. They had the two most substantial and promising ownership groups possible, and quite a bit of a buzz, but couldn't get it all to workout. It is well known that people in the LA area exude an attitude of indifference to alot of things. Its the culture of the area. Does it mean that they wouldn't support football because there wasn't a really huge public out cry for football...I don't think so. Could they fill the seats of a brand new stadium if they got a new team....I think so. But thats just my opinion.

#2 As for a "relocation threat". I think that maybe none sense. If history tells us anything is that the reason that a city may be a "relocation threat" it is because they are tops on the list to get a team, and are generally on the verge to do so. I will have to do some research, but I think the majority of cities that tried to lure current NFL teams within the last two decades, ended up getting a team. So therefore LA is destined to follow the trend.

Other then those two points, I think we completely agree!

[powersurge]

[quote name=

While he may have a point on his other arguments' date=' the statement that "San Antonio has a huge Hispanic population and likes soccer more than American Football" is laughable and frankly down right RACIST. This is San Antonio TEXAS, not San Antonio, Mexico. Football is KING here, why do you think there are so many Cowboy fans. The more I think about this, the angrier I get. It is a BLATANTLY racist comment.

How is this RACIST?

If I said that soccer is more popular in Cameroon than baseball, would that be RACIST or an observation that allows me to come to a possible logical conclusion?

Getting back to the quote about San Antonio and make a logical observation...

...Soccer is huge around the world (FACT), the most commonly played/most popular sport in Latin American countries is soccer (FACT) SAn Antonio has a HUGE Latin American population (FACT). There are no American Football leagues in Latin American countries, therefore it is not a popular sport (FACT) Therefore...through observations of FACTS we can come up with a Hypothesis that is logical: San Antonio has a huge Hispanic population and likes soccer more than American Football

this is not RACIST

A RACIST comment would be:

The only way you can make football work in San Antonio is if there were no Latinos living there.

Beg to differ....If he had said that "Mexicans or Venezuelans or Italians" prefer soccer, I would agree. But he dumped all Hispanics (not nationalities) in San Antonio together, disregarding the fact that they live in the United States, where Soccer is NOT popular at all. In fact the former San Antonio mayor tried to bring MLS to San Antonio and was soundly criticized and had zero local report. I dont see any difference between what he said and a statement like "Well it's well known that African Americans prefer fried chicken to steak, so serving them steak would be a mistake".

RickV,

I have to disagree with you. Although it maybe a little mis guided and insensitive of an observation it is definately NOT racist.

People tend to throw that word around like its nothing. His intent (in my opinion)was NOT racist. His observation was based on conclusions that were NOT racist. It is just not racist.

I think people on this board, and I'm not throwing shots at anyone at all, are taking that statement about Hispanics in San Antonio way overboard. I think if the guy who wrote the article (or whatever medium it was) was a Hispanic, writing for a Hispanic paper, we wouldn't think anything of it. But because he is white, I think the political correctness alarm went off. I don't think there was anything racist about his comments...maybe incorrect or slightly insensitive (although not the worst thing in the world) but NOT racist.

[RickV]

[quote name=

While he may have a point on his other arguments' date=' the statement that "San Antonio has a huge Hispanic population and likes soccer more than American Football" is laughable and frankly down right RACIST. This is San Antonio TEXAS, not San Antonio, Mexico. Football is KING here, why do you think there are so many Cowboy fans. The more I think about this, the angrier I get. It is a BLATANTLY racist comment.

How is this RACIST?

If I said that soccer is more popular in Cameroon than baseball, would that be RACIST or an observation that allows me to come to a possible logical conclusion?

Getting back to the quote about San Antonio and make a logical observation...

...Soccer is huge around the world (FACT), the most commonly played/most popular sport in Latin American countries is soccer (FACT) SAn Antonio has a HUGE Latin American population (FACT). There are no American Football leagues in Latin American countries, therefore it is not a popular sport (FACT) Therefore...through observations of FACTS we can come up with a Hypothesis that is logical: San Antonio has a huge Hispanic population and likes soccer more than American Football

this is not RACIST

A RACIST comment would be:

The only way you can make football work in San Antonio is if there were no Latinos living there.

Beg to differ....If he had said that "Mexicans or Venezuelans or Italians" prefer soccer, I would agree. But he dumped all Hispanics (not nationalities) in San Antonio together, disregarding the fact that they live in the United States, where Soccer is NOT popular at all. In fact the former San Antonio mayor tried to bring MLS to San Antonio and was soundly criticized and had zero local report. I dont see any difference between what he said and a statement like "Well it's well known that African Americans prefer fried chicken to steak, so serving them steak would be a mistake".

RickV,

I have to disagree with you. Although it maybe a little mis guided and insensitive of an observation it is definately NOT racist.

People tend to throw that word around like its nothing. His intent (in my opinion)was NOT racist. His observation was based on conclusions that were NOT racist. It is just not racist.

I think people on this board, and I'm not throwing shots at anyone at all, are taking that statement about Hispanics in San Antonio way overboard. I think if the guy who wrote the article (or whatever medium it was) was a Hispanic, writing for a Hispanic paper, we wouldn't think anything of it. But because he is white, I think the political correctness alarm went off. I don't think there was anything racist about his comments...maybe incorrect or slightly insensitive (although not the worst thing in the world) but NOT racist.

The local radio talk show guys interviewed this professor and he claims the story was taken out of context and that he was misquoted. As for whether it was racist or not, I think we just have to disagree.

[BlueSky]

I have to disagree with all the doomsday talk about New Orleans being unable to financially (or otherwise) support the Saints for years (one poster even said a decade!). I grew up there, my daughter, brother, and sister live there - and are back home - and the city will bounce back much faster than that. My daughter's company expects to resume operations within the next few weeks.

People love the drama of doomsday talk, like the mayor and his prediction of 10,000 dead following Katrina. Didn't happen. Same thing here - the city will rebuild much faster than most people think.

And they're the New Orleans Saints - period. I couldn't stand those 1980's 'State of Louisiana' logo jerseys.

[bigdub81]

I saw a special report last night on ESPN and Tag's, was talking about having both the Saints and the state of Louisiana, broaden the appeal of the team to possibly help them in the future as far as financial stability and overall appeal of the team is concerned.

Basically saying that the team would need the kind of support that other teams

such as the Packers, get from not only their community of Green Bay, but the state of Wisconsin, as well. In a sense he's telling the city what needs to happen

if Benson, by some chance does decide to keep the team in New Orleans.

He went on to say that he is in talks with both sides of the issue dealing with the

situation of "not" having to have the team move out of New Orleans, and possibly

having the NFL foot some of the income to support the lack of revenue that the city

won't be able to generate for some time.

He doesn't agree with Benson, stating that the team isn't making any money when

considering that the state pays him annuity payments to keep the team in the city.

It was said that possibly if worst came to worst, that the NFL would try and buy the

team from Benson, and maybe shop it to potential "local" buyers that would buy the team from the league but would have to agree that the franchise never leaves the city.

All of this being said now after Benson, released a statement saying that he would

not opt-out of his contract with the state until both he, the state and the city had

enough time to sit down and talk about it. Even if Benson, does decided to play the

team in the city by next year, he would have gone past is opt-out clause meaning

that even if he decided to move out any time after that he would have to pay a

penalty for breaking the contract. All he would have to pay after this year is all the

money that he recieved from the state since the contract was signed under then

govenor Mike Foster, which would total around 80 million dollars.