Report: Saints won't play in New Orleans again | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Report: Saints won't play in New Orleans again

B

BAMAPHIN 22

FinHeaven Elite
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
19,666
Reaction score
47
Location
Huntsville, AL
New Orleans Saints owner Tom Benson may have decided his team's future. And it doesn't look like it's in New Orleans.

San Antonio is the team's likely home for 2006, while Los Angeles is the preferred destination after that, ESPN reported.

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, ESPN reported.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9776465/
 
The Saints wouldn't be a bad named for LA....they have all kinds of missions in California....San Jose, Santa Barbara, San Juan Capistrano, San Diego....all named for Saints. It makes more sense than the Los Angeles Lakers.
 
If the Saints cant play in New Orleans thats understandable but no way should San Antonio get an NFL franchise, thats absurd. New Orleans should certainly be allowed to keep its name and logo, it would just be wrong for them to lose those due to a disaster like this. Really New Orleans has to either keep the Saints or get an expansion team, its just not right for the NFL to dump the city due to a natural disaster like this.
 
I like the name San Jose Saints, more than Los Angeles Saints. LA doesn't seem to work right, you think the would change the logo or the name or anything?
 
kastofsna120 said:
they'd have to change the name

los angeles shouldn't get a team period
Click to expand...

Yea they are only what the 2nd or 3rd biggest if the biggest TV market in the US? Dude the NFL wants TV revenue any other arguement is just silly. They will get a team, its a certainty. You dont leave TV revenue like that on the table to go to places like San Antonio, thats just idiotic.
 
finfansince72 said:
Yea they are only what the 2nd or 3rd biggest if the biggest TV market in the US? Dude the NFL wants TV revenue any other arguement is just silly. They will get a team, its a certainty. You dont leave TV revenue like that on the table to go to places like San Antonio, thats just idiotic.
Click to expand...
but the city doesn't want a team. so don't give them one
 
kastofsna120 said:
but the city doesn't want a team. so don't give them one
Click to expand...

Are they going to turn down a team? I know the city is tough to deal with but all the NFL has to do is guarantee a Superbowl within 4-5 years of building a stadium, which would essentially pay for the stadium and the city will take the deal. It will take awhile but I just cant see the Saints staying in San Antonio longterm over LA, its just not good business and the NFL is a bottomline business just like any other business.
 
kastofsna120 said:
tampa bay, atlanta, los angeles, carolina

which of these doesn't belong?
Click to expand...

Based on that, where would you put them instead of LA?
 
finfansince72 said:
Are they going to turn down a team? I know the city is tough to deal with but all the NFL has to do is guarantee a Superbowl within 4-5 years of building a stadium, which would essentially pay for the stadium and the city will take the deal. It will take awhile but I just cant see the Saints staying in San Antonio longterm over LA, its just not good business and the NFL is a bottomline business just like any other business.
Click to expand...
LA has said they aren't willing to pay for a stadium. and if they don't build a stadium, they won't get a team. simple
 
The Aints' leaving New Orleans? I would have never imagined such a successful franchise would come to this. They aren't going to get a stadium wherever they go, so they might as well just stay in San Antonio where the stadium's are in better shape. Didn't OREGON want a team though? I heard something about Red McCombs possibly wanting to move the Vikes there. That would be an interesting re-location.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom