1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Saints/Hornets to leave city? How serious is this?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Blitz, Feb 10, 2009.

  1. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    Let 'em threaten to move. In this economy, where the fuck are they going to go?

    San Antonio didn't have anywhere near enough corporate support for an NFL team before the economy tanked and the Alamodome doesn't have enough bells and whistles (read: luxury suites) to satisfy the average NFL owner.

    Good luck getting the city to pony up to retrofit that place - or build a new stadium - right now.

    And the Hornets? The Sonics left Seattle because they had a shitty arena and the city wouldn't build a new one.

    Vegas? Not a chance.

    Kansas City? Maybe. But KC seems more interested in a hockey team for some reason. And, again, there isn't the corporate money there for a third pro franchise.
     
  2. Bob Cook

    Bob Cook Active Member

    Bingo, Armchair. So many franchises and cities are going to be in a world of hurt that no one will go anywhere. If they go anywhere, it's out of business. No city or state is going to be able to get away with paying such lavish subsidies anymore, not in this economy. And corporate support is going to fade fast because of, well, fewer corporations, and because cutting the stadium suite is an easy and symbolic move.
     
  3. Mark2010

    Mark2010 Active Member

    Cities and states should be getting revenue (ie taxes) from sports franchises, not paying them. That's ass-backwards.
     
  4. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    No "major-league" sport will ever contract teams -- the primary profit generator in professional sports is franchise appreciation, and that bubble goes "poof" faster than the housing bubble, the banking bubble, etc etc the second any franchise is contracted.

    Franchises cannot appreciate in value if there's ANY -- I mean, even the slightest microscopic minuscule smidgen -- doubt that the team (or the league) is going to exist in 5, 10, 20 years. If teams start contracting, that doubt becomes reality.

    Plus, the NFL loves having the LA market open, because it gives any owner, anywhere in the country, leverage to play the stadium-extortion game. ("Give us a new stadium or we move to LA.")

    Especially with nominally-serviceable if not ideal stadiums (the Coliseum and/or the Rose Bowl) available to make the threat of moving immediately at least credible.
     
  5. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    You're 100 percent right about the NFL and the using LA as stadium leverage thing... But at some point, the NFL will have to put a team in Los Angeles.
     
  6. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    Why?
     
  7. Oz

    Oz Well-Known Member

    I've always asked that, too. NFL seems to be doing fine without Los Angeles, which already has one semi-pro team with USC. And if I remember right, the Rams and Raiders had their fair share of blacked out games.
     
  8. westcoastvol

    westcoastvol Active Member

    WFW.

    I moved here in 94, couldn't give a shit about the Raiders then, didn't give a shit when they moved and I don't give a shit about a team moving here now, whether it's in a rehabbed Rose Bowl, Coliseum or a new stadium in Commerce or Shitty of Industry, both of which are colossal shitholes that are a shit drive to get to just to watch a shit game with a shit team rebuilding or getting off the ground, getting the shit kicked out of them by even the shittiest of teams.
     
  9. Pancamo

    Pancamo Active Member

    Shit.
     
  10. Johnny Dangerously

    Johnny Dangerously Well-Known Member

    I was one of those who thought Katrina extended the life of the Saints right down the road from me. I thought Benson was headed out of town, and after Katrina I still thought the Saints were on borrowed time. Never did I think the Hornets could stay through the end of the decade, and I thought the Saints would be gone by 2010 too. The leagues can only help for so long supporting a market that really can't support itself.

    I just hope Jindal pushes for what's best for the entire state, not just what's best for New Orleans -- and not what's best for his political career.
     
  11. Editude

    Editude Active Member

    It was a delicate balance when Katrina forced the Saints to relocate to San Antonio. The city welcomed the team but didn't want to look like it was stealing it (the owner being from San Antonio was a big factor as well), and the area's Cowboys influence also hovers. The stadium is not NFL-ready without a lot of modernizing, and it's not a corporate-heavy place to begin with, let alone in the current economic retrenchment.
     
  12. CollegeJournalist

    CollegeJournalist Active Member

    Assuming one or both moves, which cities would even be viable options?

    The Hornets wanted to bolt to OKC but it has a team now. What markets are out there that have arenas open and will support the NBA?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page