jjakq27 Posted May 14, 2005 Report Share Posted May 14, 2005 http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/3609634Attorney: Benson may move Saints Story Tools: Print Email Associated Press Posted: 2 days ago NEW ORLEANS, La. (AP) - An attorney for New Orleans Saints owner Tom Benson told a newspaper that Benson is interested in moving the football team out of Louisiana and possibly to San Antonio, Albuquerque, N.M., or Los Angeles.Benson already has implicitly threatened to move the NFL franchise when discussing negotiations with the State of Louisiana over the Saints' Louisiana Superdome lease.He said last year that the state could accept his stadium proposals or "tell us to leave."But Benson has declined to comment specifically about what his options would be if he left New Orleans.On Wednesday, the San Antonio Express-News quoted Benson attorney and friend Stanley Rosenberg as saying that Benson has a strong interest in moving the Saints out of New Orleans and is considering invoking an exit clause in his lease with the Louisiana Superdome after the 2005 season."Tom has a house in San Antonio, a ranch in San Antonio and business interests in San Antonio," Rosenberg said. "He likes San Antonio very much."Last month, Benson broke off lease negotiations with the state, saying he preferred to wait until after the 2005 season to resume talks. Under the current lease, the Saints will have 90 days after next season to inform the state of their intentions to stay or leave. If Benson leaves, he would have to repay the state about $81 million in cash subsidies he has received since the current lease took effect in 2001.Benson initially asked for a new stadium but said he would settle for a renovated Superdome along with a package of cash subsidies and other incentives. The state has offered to renovate the dome but has asked Benson to pay part of the cost and to accept lower cash subsidies than he currently receives once the renovation is complete.Saints officials did not immediately respond when called about Rosenberg's comments on Wednesday. A message left at Rosenberg's San Antonio law office, seeking further comment, was not returned.Rosenberg told the newspaper he's received several offers from parties interested in either buying the Saints or persuading Benson to move the team. One offer exceeded $1 billion, Rosenberg said."Tom has many alternatives when it comes to the Saints and he has received many different offers, including one from Los Angeles," Rosenberg told the newspaper.Rosenberg said he met last week with representative of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson about the possibility of the Saints moving to Albuquerque."They have an interest, a real interest, in having a National Football League team," Rosenberg said. He said Richardson's representatives already have requested a follow-up meeting.On Tuesday, Anaheim officials unveiled plans for a football stadium near the home of the baseball Angels that could house an NFL franchise by 2008. Anaheim is one of four sites in the greater Los Angeles area being considered for an NFL franchise. The others are the Los Angeles Coliseum, the Rose Bowl in Pasadena and a proposed stadium in Carson.The Los Angeles area has been without an NFL franchise since the Rams left Anaheim for St. Louis and the Raiders left Los Angeles for Oakland before the 1995 season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Antonio Bengal Posted May 14, 2005 Report Share Posted May 14, 2005 I've heard rumors like this before, but nothing has materialized because our city government is so inept. Red McCombs was going to practically give the Vikings to San Antonio, but our mayor ignored him and pursued his own path of trying to get major league soccer here. I think I heard about the Saints rumor approximately 6 months ago, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it fall through considering our government. If San Antonio somehow lands the Saints, I will be . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazkal Posted May 14, 2005 Report Share Posted May 14, 2005 LA saints sounds good.I'd also like to see reno get a football team though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalindian Posted May 14, 2005 Report Share Posted May 14, 2005 What about the Dayton Saints?!? They could play in Welcome Stadium (UD), which is probably smaller than a few high school stadiums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Next_Big_Thing Posted May 14, 2005 Report Share Posted May 14, 2005 IF the Saints leave New Orleans, they should have to leave their name behind just like the Clowns uh I mean Browns did.LA Saints? There are none! LA Stars? That's another issue... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybren Posted May 15, 2005 Report Share Posted May 15, 2005 Los Angeles Saints of Anaheim.Actually it wouldn't be very smart to move a team out here unless the team is already winning. LA sports fans just won't support somebody else's losing team (ie. the Minneapolis Lakers). Unless it's the Chargers, because then Raiderfan will make sure there's at least 1 sell-out every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Antonio Bengal Posted May 15, 2005 Report Share Posted May 15, 2005 Isn't there some kind of rule now such that the name of the team belongs to the city? Maybe I'm remembering another sports league or something... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalszoneBilly Posted May 15, 2005 Report Share Posted May 15, 2005 I'd also like to see reno get a football team though. Yeah! They should change their name from the "Saints" and call them the "Reno 9-1-1's!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
not-another Posted May 15, 2005 Report Share Posted May 15, 2005 If they move to LA they would be the LA Dragqueens. Not to be sterotyping, but that is what mostly they have out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalszoneBilly Posted May 15, 2005 Report Share Posted May 15, 2005 If they move to LA they would be the LA Dragqueens. Not to be sterotyping, but that is what mostly they have out there. Now wait a minute! I lived in California for about 15 years and sure, there are some freaks, but they're not moving to 'Frisco ya know!...sheesh! You could call 'em many things before you'd come to "drag queens!" Look at jditty! He lives there, and he's not a drag queen. (uh, you're not one, right jditty? ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jditty47 Posted May 15, 2005 Report Share Posted May 15, 2005 uh i live near san diego and the only drag queen that i know i would send to you on your upcoming 50th? birthday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjakq27 Posted May 15, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 15, 2005 Isn't there some kind of rule now such that the name of the team belongs to the city? Maybe I'm remembering another sports league or something... If not, there should be. How many cardinals can you actually see in Arizona? It is kinda funny to watch shows about the "old days" and have them mention the Baltimore Colts and the LA Rams. The Oilers did it right. Eventually they changed to the Titans and as much as I dislike the Browns I am glad that the name stayed in Cleveland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalNation1281 Posted May 15, 2005 Report Share Posted May 15, 2005 I live three hours from Albuquerque, so I'm all for that idea. I could actually go to NFL games without having to drive to Dallas and watch the Cowboys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalszoneBilly Posted May 16, 2005 Report Share Posted May 16, 2005 If not, there should be. How many cardinals can you actually see in Arizona?Speaking as a person who lives in Arizona... NONE! ZERO! ZILCH! NADA! NIL! Biologists claim there are some real cardinals here, but they must be hiding in the shade most of the time, cause I ain't seen them! They fall into the same catagory as UFO's, Big Foot, and smart blondes. You heard they exist, but you never get to see one!  uh i live near san diego and the only drag queen that i know i would send to you on your upcoming 50th? birthday.Ooh! I'll get the guest room ready right now!! BTW, which should I prepare for, pitching or catching? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazkal Posted May 16, 2005 Report Share Posted May 16, 2005 Diden't the bengals move to cincy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGrizzlyBaer Posted May 16, 2005 Report Share Posted May 16, 2005 Diden't the bengals move to cincy? the bengals were created here when paul brown got angry with the browns. and there was actually a bengals pro team in the 30's or 40's which i found interesting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjakq27 Posted May 17, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 Diden't the bengals move to cincy?The Bengals were an expansion team in the AFL in 1968. In fact they were the last team added before the NFL merger in 1970. They were placed into the AFC during the merger along with all of the other 9 AFL teams. Pittsburgh, Baltimore (Colts) and the Browns were moved from the NFL and placed in the AFC to give an even 13 teams in each conference.Paul Brown was replaced as coach of the Browns in 1963 after Art Modell bought the team. PB was "unemployed" until the AFL agreed to grant Cincinnati a franchise on the condition a new stadium was built which ended up being Riverfront Stadium which opened in 1970. Brown used his name and his contacts to help make this franchise and the stadium a reality.If you are interested, bengals.com does a pretty good job of explaining the old 1930's Bengals and the early history of the Paul Brown version.http://www.bengals.com/team/history.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 If they move to LA they would be the LA Dragqueens. Not to be sterotyping, but that is what mostly they have out there.Jeff Garcia would be first in line for try-outs. ("psssst, do you guys need a ball thrower guy? Huh, what's football? Ohhhh, Mr. Center, here I come....") Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazkal Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 "If you are interested, bengals.com does a pretty good job of explaining the old 1930's Bengals and the early history of the Paul Brown version."Heh I remember reading that a long time ago I just have a short time memory o_O Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 Heh I remember reading that a long time ago I just have a short time memory o_O Special herbs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalszoneBilly Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 Heh I remember reading that a long time ago I just have a short time memory o_OSpecial herbs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjakq27 Posted May 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 Heh I remember reading that a long time ago I just have a short time memory o_OSpecial herbs? damm....now I got the munchies.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted May 23, 2005 Report Share Posted May 23, 2005 The Bengals were an expansion team in the AFL in 1968. In fact they were the last team added before the NFL merger in 1970. They were placed into the AFC during the merger along with all of the other 9 AFL teams. Pittsburgh, Baltimore (Colts) and the Browns were moved from the NFL and placed in the AFC to give an even 13 teams in each conference.Paul Brown was replaced as coach of the Browns in 1963 after Art Modell bought the team. PB was "unemployed" until the AFL agreed to grant Cincinnati a franchise on the condition a new stadium was built which ended up being Riverfront Stadium which opened in 1970. Brown used his name and his contacts to help make this franchise and the stadium a reality. Just to fill in the blanks, AFL founder Lamar Hunt admitted that long before the official merger there was a handshake agreement reached MANY years prior that called for the AFL to stop placing teams in cities where existing NFL teams played, and vice versa. This agreement was to be kept secret and when rumors surfaced it was denied by all parties....until Hunt spilled the beans about 25 years after the fact. Bills owner Ralph Wilson then confirmed the agreement. Why is this secret handshake agreement important for Bengal fans? Well, because the agreement to not compete directly in the same cities eventually led to the AFL expanding to Miami and Cincinnati, the latter having been recently rejected by the NFL as being too small a marketplace. Lucky for Cincy the AFL was said to be less interested in market size and far more interested in the potential revenue generated by new stadiums like Riverfront. Sound familiar? Meanwhile the NFL started new teams in New Orleans and Minnesota, but only after the AFL agreed to drop it's own plans to expand into New Orleans. Without competing teams in the same small marketplaces the later merger went off smoothly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjakq27 Posted May 23, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2005 That makes sense. Early in the AFL, the Chargers were located in LA and later moved to San Diego. I think Mr. Hunt moved the Chiefs to KC after starting in Dallas as the Texans. The Cowboys started sometime in the early 60's so there was some competition in big D but nothing in KC.The Jets started out as the Titans and were renamed after the first year or two in the AFL. I think that was the only team that stayed in an NFL city but NYC was big enough to support them both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsfan2 Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 Los Angeles Saints of Anaheim.Actually it wouldn't be very smart to move a team out here unless the team is already winning. LA sports fans just won't support somebody else's losing team (ie. the Minneapolis Lakers). Unless it's the Chargers, because then Raiderfan will make sure there's at least 1 sell-out every year. This is the truest, most accurate statement to describe the situation in LA when referring to an NFL team. They loved the Rams ... when they were winning. They loved the Raiders because of the name recognition ( always big in la ) and the perception ..... as long as they were winning. When they weren't ... it was OVER. As was said above, these "fans" will not support a team that isn't winning NOW. Sad part is, that just doesn't matter to the NFL because of the money involved. Since they would obviously sell their soul for the money, I think that would make them a better fit for being headquartered in La than any team extant. Plan B could be an agreement with LA that every SB winner from now on will be referred to as the Los Angeles Whatevers during the next season and be listed as such in the record books... in return for the financial backing and support of course. Perfect fit! LA "fans" get the perennial winner that they NEED to constantly bolster their self esteem ( hell ... the therapists could maybe all get a week off ) ........ they wouldn't have to build a stadium because "their" team would be playing somewhere else anyway ..... and the whore ( read NFL ) gets her money. Take my word for it. the NFL will ram another team down this citys throat in order to milk the cash cow for a couple more years .... and then they'll leave ... again .... and then we can do it all over again in a couple more years. When is it again that earthquake is supposed to hit ????????? Can't wait! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.