Hey did you hear? The NFL saved New Orleans!

They tore down Hamsterdam

 

These are much more valid points than the incindiary political trolling that's featured on these threads. Ironically, Katrina has extended the Saints stay in NOLA because the NFL won't let Benson move it, but the business climate there wasn't good before the storm and is obviously worse now. Fortune 500 companies have been fleeing for years, and I don't think there were but one or two headquartered there before the storm. The oil companies are moving north of Lake Ponchartrain at least, and it's going to be hard for the Saints to sell luxury boxes at price levels that will keep them competitive. They'll say they're going to go regional to expand who they sell to, but they've been doing that for years already.

And I think the NFL is better off without a team in L.A., because that lets them lord it over all the cities where they want new stadia.

 

Just too bad Flair wasn't there for the grand re-opening.

 

And what will it symbolize when they abandon ship and move out of town?



BTW, Benson's hometown of San Antonio is a player in this, too.

 

San Antonio would simply replace New Orleans as the NFL city with the least local corporate support.

And they'd be playing in a smaller stadium. If San Antonio was going to get an NFL team it'd already have the Vikings.

 

Agreed, L.A. is a far more logical choice. It is, however, Tom Benson making said choice. Just sayin'.

FWIW, I'd still bet on L.A.

 

Logical, maybe.

Realistic, not a chance. The NFL has two choices: Coliseum or Rose Bowl. There ain't gonna be another stadium built -- not in West L.A., not in Anaheim, not in Carson, not in the I.E., not anywhere. ... Pasadena won't allow a team to come to the Rose Bowl (for good reason.) Nobody -- team, league or fans -- wants to go to the Coliseum (also for good reason.) ... It just ain't gonna happen.

The NFL doesn't need a team in L.A. And L.A. doesn't want the NFL.

Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

 

The league wants it. It's the most powerful entity in American sports.

I'm betting on the National ... Football ... League (cue old-school MNF music).

 

da-man -

who is paying for the new LA stadium?

 

The NFL has a bit of a quandry over LA. On one hand it's ridiculous that the second biggest market in America doesn't have a team.

But on the other hand, not having a team there actually helps its TV numbers. With no NFL team in LA there are no blackout issues and LA gets a full slate of games every week. If they had a team that wouldn't be the case.

 

If it were simply a matter of the league wanting it, it would have put a team there. Heck, the whole point of the last expansion was to get L.A. a team, but Houston came up with more money and an actual organized bid.

If the NFL were to, as a league, substatianally finance a new stadium (which at this point it would have to) you would have owners screaming like hell over why they have to pay for a team in L.A., when they worked long and hard to fleece the local taxpayers into doing it. There would be an owners' revolt. No way they, as a whole, would be convinced that adding L.A. would make that much difference. Life has hardly been difficult for them without the NFL there. Plus, putting a team in L.A. eliminates any leverage owners have against their home cities.

Armchair, you bring up a good point about TV numbers. It's actually been a better TV deal for the NFL without a team there because they were always blacked out. Also, I remember seeing some report saying NFL ratings since teams left have not gone down -- as in, a Colts-Jags game draws the same TV number as the L.A. Raiders on the road did.

I agree with buck -- ain't gonna happen.

 

Here's a revolutionary concept: The new franchise owners could finance, and pay for it, themselves.