11/23/24
October 23, 2005
Saints Go Marching Out: The New Orleans Saints have likely played their last game in the city, sources told ESPN's Chris Mortensen. The plan is to spend 2006 in San Antonio and possibly Los Angeles as a permanent home.
There should be more outrage over this. The NFL should make more of an effort to rebuild the stadium and the city; the goodwill they'd create could last generations, and not just on the Gulf Coast. Tom Benson shouldn't be rewarded for being such an opportunistic freak. If an NFL team can be profitable in Green Bay, then New Orleans should be a breeze. Dammit, dammit, dammit.
posted by chicobangs at 04:35 PM on October 23, 2005
That's okay. Just a perfect place to put an expansion team in the future.
posted by dbt302 at 04:47 PM on October 23, 2005
I can't believe that they lost to the Rams. I think that it's a pity that the NFL is going to leave The Big Easy high and dry.
posted by budman13 at 05:42 PM on October 23, 2005
chico, I feel yer rage...but I also feel a big need to put the brakes on the "rebuild New Orleans just the way it was" bandwagon. The fact is, there were some serious flaws in the way it was; if there hadn't been, the city wouldn't have flooded. The city and the Superdome could be rebuilt, but you don't get something for nothing. The cost is going to have to be borne somewhere, and I don't see the people, institutions or corporations with the money stepping up to take the weight off the rest of us. Many of us who live in the colder parts of the country are looking at a winter where we're not sure if we can afford the fuel we'll need to stay alive; that's the blunt truth, and that gets a lot less play in the media than the plight of New Orleans. Programs that could save us are being back-burnered while Congress and the President scramble to find what they can cut to pay for Katrina, and I don't think there's anyone who will really care about us blue-with-cold staters until it's much too late. With what some of us are facing, a stadium and a football team just doesn't seem all that important.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:02 PM on October 23, 2005
Good point lil_brown_bat. If they rebuild or just move someone is still going to make millions.
posted by skydivemom at 07:25 PM on October 23, 2005
I can see the NFL pulling a Cleveland in New Orleans. After the post-Katrina work is done Tagliabue & Co. will get on the NO bandwagon, stick an NFL franchise in NO and milk the event for all its worth. Benson may be an opportunistic jerk, but he had to make a choice here. Right now, NO has other things that take a higher priority than finding a makeshift home for a football team and throwing millions of dollars into it -- millions of dollars that the state and city can use to build itself and its people up again. Maybe San Antonio can house the Saints this year -- whatever. But NO cannot, and they have other problems right now other than keeping a football team. Milk and bread come before 2 tickets to see the Saints.
posted by roberts at 08:54 PM on October 23, 2005
I live in New Orleans and I am of 2 minds to this: 1. Benson is an a** and I want him to take the team and go. He is a terrible owner who does not really care about his fans. and 2. If the Saints go then there goes the revenue that was generated by the Saints and New Orleans needs all the money it can get, (ie. beer and food and parking and people who work in the Superdome, etc.) plus, New Orleans gives a great party whenever we get the Super Bowl. I understand your stance lil_brown_bat but it just smacks of kicking us (New Orleans) when we are down. What Benson should do is say the Saints will be back and then he can try to leave in 2007 or sell the team to someone who will keep the Saints in New Orleans.
posted by govtdrone at 08:56 PM on October 23, 2005
Since when is New Orleans not a great party even when the Super Bowl isn't there? I'm with lbb here, though ... the city simply shouldn't be rebuilt where it was before -- not unless the good folks of Nawlins want no help from John Q. Taxpayer countrywide and no insurance. Rebuilding in an area that's extremely likely to get leveled again is just idiocy, and just because a bunch of bars have reopened doesn't mean the idea of moving the city inland shouldn't be explored. And it's not Tom Benson's fault the Superdome didn't withstand the hurricane. It might be his fault that the team hasn't been very good historically, but it's his right to move the team, and if there's ever been a better time than now, I don't know when it would have been.
posted by wfrazerjr at 09:23 PM on October 23, 2005
govtdrone, as someone who was a near neighbor to a MLB park for many years, I'm always a little skeptical that stadiums bring that much benefit to their local areas. The people who own the concessions and bars and restaurants and parking lots don't live there, and the people who work at the concessions and bars and restaurants and parking lots are being paid minimum wage. I didn't know a single person in my neighborhood who worked at the ballpark; it was low-wage, low-skills, part-time, seasonal work, and you can't pay city rents on that. As for your comment about being kicked, I'm not the one kicking you. Katrina kicked you. Insurers who sold you policies and then reneged kicked you. Officials who told you the levees would hold kicked you, and you know what, the people who are selling the idea of rebuilding New Orleans as if Katrina can't happen again are the ones who are really kicking you. I will share with you what I have, but when some people talk about what they'd like to do in the way of rebuilding, they're asking for what I and my neighbors don't have ourselves. My thermostat is set at 50 degrees, and that breaks the bank; I don't have money to spare to rebuild the Superdome.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:28 PM on October 23, 2005
It seems to me that a lot of people, including the NFL and Paul Talglibue, are overlooking that San Antonio is ripe for a franchise of their own. the Alamodome was built for one purpase - football. The Spurs played played many seasons there but draped a large curtain across the center of the dome. The USFL tried their hand also, but much like all things Trump, did not survive due to the League itself. The Cowboy's have held training camps there and drawn well, and not to mention a lackluster bowl game which does well also. One other fact that seems to be overlooked is the NFL is making gestures south of hte border for fans, San Antonio has a very large hispanic-american population with significant dispossible income. Lastly San Antonio is also a major destination for conventions due to vast accomadatons, pleasant weather, moderate prices and a genuinely pleasant atmosphere to visitors. Seem perfect for the next NFL city?
posted by BevoBacker at 11:00 PM on October 23, 2005
I can understand both sides. I can understand fraz and llb not wanting to deal with rebuilding n.o., and I can understand chicobang's frustration (even more so). The politics is too metafilterish for me, and I'm too close to the subject to be unbiased. And mistake or not, the city, for the most part, will be built right back where it was, just as san fran will if it ever comes crashing down. I think new orleans is an asset far beyond what it gives or takes money wise. And anyone who's spent much time in or near new orleans knows the saints are a huge key to the identity of the city. That said, no one's saying it isn't the owners right to take the team where he desires. It would be nice if it wasn't all about the money, but we're not on fantasy island. Hopefully, the city can keep the saints name. Bad enough to have jazz in utah.
posted by justgary at 11:47 PM on October 23, 2005
Yes its sad, but Saints owner was looking to pull out of NO long before Katrina. The city may have just sarted showing up to games, but it wasn't that long ago people wore bags over their heads with the word "AINTS" on them. AS for the NFL awarding a new franchise, its highly unlikely since the owners don't want more than 32 teams and it would take away fron their bottom dollar with one more team to share revenue with. The bottom line is: Benson owns the team not NO and he can do what he likes. The NFL isn't gonna do anything to stop him.
posted by terpiders at 01:18 AM on October 24, 2005
Some parts of New Orleans did not flood and are unlikely to flood, even in the bathtub. The Superdome is in part of this area. I think the NFL should take a huge PR hit if it lets Benson take the Saints away from New Orleans in the wake of this disaster. At a time when numerous companies are doing great work to rebuild after Katrina, one of the most prominent companies in the U.S. is planning a pullout. Classy move, Tagliabue! Many of us who live in the colder parts of the country are looking at a winter where we're not sure if we can afford the fuel we'll need to stay alive ... What does this have to do with Louisiana or New Orleans funding a new stadium for the Saints, both of which would undoubtedly come from local bonds or tax revenues rather than federal dollars? I can't recall a single stadium deal that got fed money, unless the Nationals managed that feat.
posted by rcade at 07:12 AM on October 24, 2005
What does this have to do with Louisiana or New Orleans funding a new stadium for the Saints, both of which would undoubtedly come from local bonds or tax revenues rather than federal dollars? I can't recall a single stadium deal that got fed money, unless the Nationals managed that feat. That's a little disingenuous, rcade. There's a theoretical line between federal, state and local tax dollars, but states and localities use the one to make up for shortages in the other. Where exactly would these "tax revenues" for a new stadium come from? From the affluent state of Louisiana? From the burgeoning coffers of the city of New Orleans? Louisiana and New Orleans have plenty of more pressing problems, and ample federal government funds will be needed to deal with basic human needs in the state, because the city and the state just can't do it. Every dollar spent on a stadium, whatever nominal pile it comes from, will cause a drawdown in the other piles. If you want to start a campaign for the NFL to fund a new Superdome entirely out of its own pockets, I wish you luck -- but you know that the NFL won't step up to that; it's become too much of an established practice for teams to ask for some public funding. And right now, public monies are more urgently needed elsewhere.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:12 AM on October 24, 2005
I feel terrible about the whole situation, but I'm with all of LBB's comments. One thing that continues to go through my mind is why anyone would ever want to return to the Superdome anyways. What horrible memories for so many. And with so many huge needs in that city for basic necessities, a pro football team (that would have moved eventually anyway) is far down the list. If New Orleans is such a profitable market for a NFL team, then another team will either get placed there or move there in the future (I doubt it, though). Saints ownership has to do what they need to for their own team's future, and right now that reality does suck for New Orleans. It's just another part of a major tragedy.
posted by dyams at 08:59 AM on October 24, 2005
If the people of New Orleans want to fund a stadium the same way the city of Arlington, Texas, has funded two stadiums -- sales tax increases -- why should anyone else outside of Louisiana care? I think a good argument can be made that city tax and bond money spent on a stadium to save the Saints is justifiable. New Orleans hosts two bowl games and frequent Super Bowls in addition to the Saints, and it has a tourism-driven economy. The loss of the NFL franchise also would be a blow to the effort to persuade the world that New Orleans is back in business. As bad as the Saints have been, the team's fan base is considerably bigger than New Orleans -- they're supported throughout the Gulf Coast. Whenever I drive through on a Sunday, you can catch their games from Louisiana all the way to panhandle Florida.
posted by rcade at 09:53 AM on October 24, 2005
As a postscript, the next five Super Bowls are all scheduled for NFL cities, sometimes as a carrot to spur the launch of a new stadium. Local owners are a big part of the push to get one, as Wayne Weaver showed by bringing one to Jacksonville. New Orleans will be at considerable disadvantage trying to get more Super Bowls without a franchise.
posted by rcade at 09:55 AM on October 24, 2005
If the people of New Orleans want to fund a stadium the same way the city of Arlington, Texas, has funded two stadiums -- sales tax increases -- why should anyone else outside of Louisiana care? And is that, in fact, what "the people of New Orleans" want to do? Where's the proposal? Where's the vote? I think a good argument can be made that city tax and bond money spent on a stadium to save the Saints is justifiable. New Orleans hosts two bowl games and frequent Super Bowls in addition to the Saints, and it has a tourism-driven economy. Well, we've now digressed entirely away from the situation of New Orleans and into the "build a stadium and it will save the local economy" argument. To which I respond: show me the money. Show me how much comes in, and exactly who it goes to. I've seen that economy close up, and in my experience, it doesn't operate the way most people think it does. Yes, a "good argument" can be made, as long as you don't do the math. If you can do the math, and can show a widespread benefit to the people of New Orleans (or anywhere else a stadium has been or would be built), I'm willing to be convinced.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:05 AM on October 24, 2005
I'm not talking about the situation as it applies to places like Arlington. New Orleans is clearly an exceptional situation -- a town emptied of its population (and its tourists) that will at some point be ready to woo them back. The Super Bowls and bowl games also are different -- New Orleans is going to build a new stadium at some point regardless of whether the Saints move, because the bowls bring serious tourist dollars. And is that, in fact, what "the people of New Orleans" want to do? Where's the proposal? Where's the vote? Better question: Where's the voters? If the NFL allows the Saints to move before New Orleans has gotten anywhere in its rebuilding process, the people won't have a chance to vote on whether to build a new stadium.
posted by rcade at 10:45 AM on October 24, 2005
the bowls bring serious tourist dollars. One. More. Time. Show me the money. rcade, I would absolutely love to see an ecomonic scenario that's not all smoke, mirrors, wishful thinking and self-serving lies that shows how stadiums and their accompanying extravaganzas actually benefit the people where those stadiums are located. I will become an enthusiastic adherent if you or anyone can show me facts and figures that support such an optimistic view of stadium reality. I'm actively encouraging you to show me such a model. I have an open mind about this, but I want to see facts and figures, not bland, generalized assertions that stadiums and bowls equal economic benefit. If the NFL allows the Saints to move before New Orleans has gotten anywhere in its rebuilding process, the people won't have a chance to vote on whether to build a new stadium. From the article: "Dean Bonham, a sports consultant based in Denver, questioned whether the NFL would support a move to San Antonio, which like New Orleans is considered a small market, or whether the NFL could strike a deal to build or renovate a stadium equipped for a team in Los Angeles." ...so I'd say you're a little premature on that. Also: "Saints owner Tom Benson declared this week that nothing will be decided on the franchise's future until after the season. " Since no decision will be made until after the season, that will give people time to return to New Orleans for any "vote" (as if this will happen by democratic process, but we'll preserve that optimistic notion). And if they haven't returned in that timeframe? I'd call that voting with their feet.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:15 AM on October 24, 2005
Event economic impact projections are always pie-in-the-sky. Mayor Nagin estimated that the 100,000 attendees of the city's gay pride Southern Decadence celebration were worth $95 million. But even a limited look at hard numbers shows that the bowls are significant moneymakers. The Sugar Bowl draws around 79,000 in attendance, the New Orleans bowl draws at least 15,000 more, and thousands of additional fans often attend in spite of lacking tickets. So there's at least 100,000 people a year in New Orleans for the two college football bowls. That's bringing in $20 million a year if each of those people spends $200 on a hotel room, meals and booze. Add another 100,000 in a Super Bowl year, and New Orleans is looking at $40 million in extra dollars.
posted by rcade at 01:09 PM on October 24, 2005
One more time: where did all those dollars go, rcade? Stadium proponents talk big numbers about "dollars coming in", but pop the smoke grenades when it's time to talk about the dollars going right back out. Where did those bazillions of dollars go, rcade?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:14 PM on October 24, 2005
You asked for the money. Now you're asking for proof the money stays in New Orleans. I think some skepticism is healthy where stadium deals are concerned, but you're taking it to the point of ridiculousness. You'll have to wait for that kind of data until the Information Awareness Office puts RFID chips in all our money and the fillings of our teeth.
posted by rcade at 01:34 PM on October 24, 2005
rcade: You asked for the money. Now you're asking for proof the money stays in New Orleans. No, not "now". As I said previously: Well, we've now digressed entirely away from the situation of New Orleans and into the "build a stadium and it will save the local economy" argument. To which I respond: show me the money. Show me how much comes in, and exactly who it goes to. I've seen that economy close up, and in my experience, it doesn't operate the way most people think it does. rcade: I think some skepticism is healthy where stadium deals are concerned, but you're taking it to the point of ridiculousness. What's ridiculous is pretending a question has been answered when it hasn't (and it's not about you not answering it, rcade, it's about every mayor, city council member, owner, and other stadium proponent not answering it, not ever). And it's not as if someone couldn't come up with the information, or at least some indicators, if they wanted the information to be public. As a first step, just try showing correlation. Show an uptick in the standard of living of a city's residents that you can correlate to the building of a stadium. We'll leave the causation to another day, but if stadiums add to the local economy in ways that mean anything, you ought to be able to show some tangible results of all them millions as reflected in the paychecks of the city's residents.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:49 PM on October 24, 2005
Economic arguments can be gussied up to support either side of this kind of argument. To me the bottom line is that governments shouldn't be building stadiums for privately-owned teams, though infrastructure is an acceptable exception. If N.O. wants to keep the Saints then they should work with Benson and local financial and real estate groups to put together a plan that makes sense without city or state money. There are good examples of this, like SBC Park in SF, so it is doable.
posted by billsaysthis at 02:42 PM on October 24, 2005
And the award for the most inevitable sports-related event goes to...