I think that it has to do with a soul owning clause with the Metrodump.
I’d like to step in here as an Angeleno and state for the record that the Los Angeles Basin doesn’t need any stinkin’ professional football. You can keep your Vikings, Nurse Carmen, I don’t want 'em.
What s/he said. Doubly so if someone is proposing dropping a new Los Angeles football stadium in downtown L.A. – traffic is already wretched enough whenever the Lakers play…
It’s not just the Saints. I read today that the Hornets are almost certain to permanently move to Okalhoma City, of all places, next season, after playing most of their “home” games there this year.
The NFL has blinders on with regards to Los Angeles. They’ve had two teams, and couldn’t support either one. I realize it’s the number 2 TV market in the country, but that’s really all they’ve got. A lot of people that could watch, but not a lot that will. As long as LA has the Lakers and the Dodgers, they don’t need another NFL team.
[speaking as a shareholder in The Green Bay Packers, Inc.]
One more reason to love the Packer’s organization. Should the team ever fold, all assets go directly to a small town VFW hall.
And just to get it off my chest, fuck Edinger. I just knew a former Bear would find some way to hose us. :mad:
I would think that the days of building stadiums and ballparks in urban areas is over. It just never made sense to begin with. Here in New England they did it right with the Pats. Foxborough is close enough that everybody from the city can get there to see a game, but it’s out of the way enough that the traffic headaches are minimalized. Now, if we could only get them to tear down the greem monster…
Agreed. Similar to Gillette Stadium, the new Giants Stadium I went on about in the linked thread will be built out of the city (state!) right next to the current stadium.
Sadly, we never managed to get rid of the moochers…the Jets muscled their way into the new stadium for the next 99 years. Hopefully those cheap bastards won’t float the cost for a roof. The New York Giants playing in a dome would be a crime against humanity.
Regarding the OP, don’t hate on the Saints too much when they move. Sure, it would be nice if the Saints could stay, as I’m sure many residents are fans. But that’s not what should be focused on for the foreseeable future. The city is crippled. The last thing they should be worrying about is supporting an NFL team.
And I don’t know where all the righteous indignation comes from, to be honest. An NFL team does not support a city. The city supports the team, and in return the team represents the city. If a city can no longer support a team, which NO is clearly no longer able to do, then they shouldn’t have one.
They supported both of them. The issue had to do with new stadiums. The teams both wanted new stadiums, and neither Los Angeles nor Anaheim were going to build them for them, so they up and left. It’s the same reason that LA still doesn’t have teams, the city refused to pay for a new stadium for the expansion team, so Houston got it instead.
Good for LA. Let the lesser, insecure cities knuckle under and give precious city funds to billionaire owners.
Oh, I couldn’t disagree more, at least from a local perspective. Here in Baltimore, Camden Yards and Ravens Stadium anchor one end of the Inner Harbor and are a wonderful compliment to the city.
It would seem that not everyone here has attended a game in Foxboro. If a game is a sellout, it takes 2 solid hours to clear everyone onto Route 1. There is no commercial or community growth in the area attributable to the stadium, either - no restaurants or even hotels that wouldn’t have been there already. If the stadium had been built in South Boston, next to the Convention Center and the I-93 access road as well as within walking distance of the Silver Line and Red Line, it would take less time to get in and out, and there’d be some serious spinoff growth due to it. But the stadium in the boonies is just that, nothing more.
Did you even bother reading the Baltimore Sun Article or did you just stick to the “facts” from the Saints page? If you had read the article you would see…
“For years, economists with no stake in the success of the NFL or NCAA, or the local politicians or chambers of commerce, have debunked the myth of the “economic impact” of big sports projects…”
“For the most recent game [Superbowl] in New Orleans for which the numbers were analyzed, the 1997 game, again assuming a $300 million boost, income was actually $33.7 million. After expenses, the actual economic impact on the city was $200,000. The most recent Final Four in New Orleans that Matheson and Baade analyzed, in 1993, was worse: The expectation was between $75 million and $100 million, but it brought in $29.3 million of income, barely breaking even. The 1987 Final Four lost money for the city.”
In short, major league sports franchises claim to bring in a lot of money but they don’t…
[QUOTE=fetus]
Have you ever been to San Antonio? Yecch!QUOTE]
It’s been about a decade since I was last in San Antonio, but I liked the people and the city when I was there. What is, in your opinion, wrong with the city?
:shrug: Have you ever been to Cincinnati?
Brace yourselves, Angelenos - you might be getting the Saints permanently.
Hey, there’s nothing wrong with San Antonio. It’s a really nice town.
Having said that, I’ll also add that it is a Dallas Cowboys town and the Saints ain’t gonna march in.
Dammit, what do I have to do to make myself clear? I said right in post #22 to this thread, that we don’t need any stinkin’ professional football in the Los Angeles Basin. If those NFL dillweeds can’t comprehend a simple post on the SDMB, maybe they’ll comprehend my boot up their asses.
Sheesh.
Yeah. That’s why I’m looking forward to the Nats’ new stadium - down at the edge of town.
And even if it brings nothing to the neighborhood, it’s a shitty neighborhood, so it’s not like a stadium could make it worse.
Developers are already buying up property around the proposed stadium/waterfront site and starting to build nice condos and lofts.