Nagin's a bada**, Benson's a turd

saintswhodi · 10-21-2005, 10:02 AM

The Saints are privately owned by Tom Benson. It's his team. If he chooses not to spend money on his team, that's his choice. The league doesn't mandate that. If he says he will not pay for FAs, pay for assistant coaches, etc that would be his choice, since the franchise is privately owned. He can do whatever he wants with it. He just has 31 other individual owners he has to report to, as part of a collective. It's under the business heading of the NFL. Al Davis threatened to sue the league if he couldn't move his team back to Oakland. Where are they now? In Oakland. The federal government has nothing to do with if the Saints move or not. That's Tom Benson's decision. His "partners" in the NFL could say we don't think that's a good idea for the NFL as a whole and block him, but that's it. It has nothing to do with the federal government. Unless it went to court, then the federal government could intervene. Each organization, outside of the Packers, is privately owned. Outside of the limited revenue sharing, every penny they spend or don't spend is theirs. But when it's a matter that effects the entire league, that's when they all get to voice an opinion, as in the case of a team move.

Halo · 10-21-2005, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by saintswhodi

Al Davis threatened to sue the league if he couldn't move his team back to Oakland. Where are they now? In Oakland. The federal government has nothing to do with if the Saints move or not.

I agree with you but the difference being Al Davis was being strangled in Los Angeles. In LA they tax the sports organization so high, take all consession revenue and you pay high dollar rent for a stadium they can never sell out. A place like LA, the NFL is a third class citizen. Oakland is different and appreciate the team. And he moved and has made more money. The fact that LA is the second largest market in the US doesn't make it profitable for an NFL franchise. If so, why have so many teams left?

A market like New Orleans is a very lucrative deal for the NFL. The state funding probably turns profits over the top. Remember, no one knows exactly how much the Saints make. Not only that, they pay no rent, collect all consessions and revenue, and to make it worse, the State built them the most state of the art facility and indoor practice facility in the NFL. In New Orleans the pendulum is swung so far in the Saints favor it's rediculous.

But what's really going on is, judges make decisions based on what's presented and what they think is justice. Al Davis did have a right to leave, Benson does too... but no court will favor Benson and fight him tooth and nail because of the circumstances. Facts are New Orleans was destroyed by natural disaster, the biggest in recent history of the US, and he will have a hard time getting anyone to have sympathy for him. But you are right he can leave, it will cost him everything he owns probably, and rightfully so.

saintz08 · 10-21-2005, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Halo

Originally Posted by TallySaint

I always understood the Fleur was brought to the southern Louisiana area by Acadians that were banished from Nova Scotia.

I dunno.

8)

Louisiana was named after King Louis XIV of France because they discovered it. New Orleans was meant to be a great city like the City of Orleans in France. Orleans, France sets on the Loire River where it curves south... sound familiar? The Crescent city sets on a curve on the Mississippi River. The fleur was the symbol or royalty. English Kings and soldiers began to put it on their shields and emblems because they constantly claimed rights to the throne of France.

Christians believed the white 3 pedels at the top represented the Holy Trinity, hence the Saints and the fact that the team was chartered on All Saints Day.

You know everyone at one time or another was wearing the fleur de lis, to Cajuns probably brought it here with them too.

The fleur de lis

Clovis is considered the founder of the French State. In 486, in co-operation with other Frankish chieftains, he defeated the last great Roman army in Gaul under the commander Syagrius near Soissons. He then went on to defeat many minor princes, kings and tribal chieftains to form the first Frankish Kingdom.

Clovis I married in 493 to Clotilda (475 - 545), later St. Clotilda, daughter of Childperic, King of the Burgundians. Clotilda was a Christian and is said to have been instrumental in the conversion of Clovis I to Christianity. According to legend, an angel gave Clovis I an iris flower or "fleur-de-lis" after accepting the Christian faith, and Clovis I then used fleur-de-lis as his symbol.

However, it is entirely unlikely that Clovis underwent an experience of profound enlightenment during which he renounced the many Celtic, Germanic and Roman deities to embrace Jesus Christ. He more likely viewed Christ as another powerful god; an ally he could call upon to give him victory in battle.

Louisianna

Named by explorer Robert Cavelier de La Salle in 1682 in honour of King Louis XIV

New orleans named after the city of Orleans in the New France .

New Orleans

New France (French: la Nouvelle-France) describes the area colonized by France in North America during a period extending from the exploration of the Saint Lawrence River by Jacques Cartier in 1534 to the cession of New France to the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1763. At its peak in 1712 (before the Treaty of Utrecht), the territory of New France extended from Newfoundland to Lake Superior and from the Hudson Bay to the Gulf of Mexico. The territory was then divided in five colonies, each with its own administration: Canada, Acadia, Hudson Bay, Newfoundland and Louisiana.

TallySaint · 10-21-2005, 12:04 PM

Thanks all for the info. Interesting. Some of it was probably to counter some San Antonio point. But, interesting nonetheless.

It's likely the Fleur did pre-date the Acadians arrival in the area. They weren't run out of Acadia (Nova Scotia) by the British until the mid- to- late 1700's, me thinks.

Thanks again.

8)

saintswhodi · 10-21-2005, 12:19 PM

Halo, bro, you know I know that the Saints had the sweetest honeypot of a deal that has ever been offered to an NFL team, by far. I was just disputing the fact Euph felt they were not privately owned. I know for a fact Benson will not find any sympathy in his attempts to move the team should it have to go to court, but I also know no matter what they say, NFL owners are a fraternity, a scratch my back i'll scratch yours bunch if there ever was. They are driven by profit. If Tom Benson can prove to them it would not be profitable to remain in New Orleans, and it would be to move to San Antonio, he could prob get more to bite than not, especially with increased revenue sharing on the table. If he can predict doom and gloom for the New Orleans market, he can get owners on board with the move. But like you said, it will cost him every cent, and damn right it should.

saintz08 · 10-22-2005, 03:52 PM

08, again, just a terrible idea. Why is it the people of San Antonio's responsibility to stop the team from moving?

Glad to see someone has some balls in Texas .

Here you go SW , jump on the bandwagon .....

If you're like me you're ticked about the "promises" of local SA officials to use state rather than city funds to lure the Saints. As a Houstonian with my "own" team here, that just isn't right. I'm copying a letter I'm sending to my local representatives and a link so that you can find out who your own reps are. I emailed Hardberger and Wentworth (state senator behind a lot of state money begging), but realized that since I'm out of their area they probably won't care a lick. But our own reps need to hear this, too, especially if you're in Houston or Dallas. This is a different way that we can hopefully halt one avenue of funding for the looters in SA.

Here are the links; I put in my address/zip and found out who my local reps to the state are:
Find your local TX representatives:
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/welcome.php
http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/members.htm

This is the letter I'm sending to them, which includes a clip from an article dated 10/20/05, by Carlos Guerra of the SA Express-News:

Dear ______________,

I am writing in opposition to any use of our state tax dollars to help Mr. Tom Benson move his NFL team to San Antonio. I believe that there are better and more productive uses of the Texas Enterprise Fund than a professional sports team. In addition, the cities of Houston and Dallas support their own teams with city/county funds, not state funds. As a Houstonian I do not want my tax dollars supporting a team in San Antonio when I have my ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â“ownÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬? team to support here. If the mayor and people of San Antonio want a team so badly, let them pay for it out of city funds. If the mayor feels that the financial support from the city and its people isnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã¢Â„Â¢t adequate, then perhaps San Antonio should think twice about taking another cityÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã¢Â„Â¢s team.

Here are comments from the San Antonio Express-News, written by Carlos Guerra 10/20/05:

***When hosting some Saints' home games first arose, Mayor Phil Hardberger said that there would be a price and that the city had its limits. Sunday, he reiterated his opposition to spending city money on an NFL franchise and invited the state to pay the tab. But he also said that he will meet with Saints owner Tom Benson about a relocation after the season ends.
The same day, Gov. Rick Perry said that he would welcome a third National Football League team in Texas, and that the state would support San Antonio's bid, but offered no details. Sen. Jeff Wentworth filled in one blank, saying that he was checking into getting state money from the Texas Enterprise Fund, a virtually unrestricted discretionary fund with almost $150 million of tax money that Perry controls.
Then, after Sunday's game, Benson fired the Saints' top administrator, Arnold Fielkow, who wanted to keep the Saints in Louisiana.
Now, the word is that for the right deal, Benson will bring the Saints to San Antonio's Alamodome for a few years, until the team gets a new stadium. Still unrevealed is how much a new stadium will cost, who will pay for it and what we will do with the Alamodome after it's vacant again.
The mailbag indicates some readers remain skeptical.
"I find it strange that cities and states cannot find money for education, public health or housing projects, yet will break the bank to subsidize sports franchises," wrote "Phillip," pointing out that "academic research consistently questions the lasting economic benefit of professional sports."***

There is another point: This latest blatant attempt by the San Antonio mayor to court the Saints is painting a large ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â“black eyeÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬? on the city of San Antonio. They are being perceived as opportunistic, inhospitable thieves. Strong words, I know, but for a city that gains so much from the tourism industry, this type of publicity will do them no good.

Please support fiscal restraint and oppose any use of our tax dollars for helping the New Orleans Saints relocate to San Antonio.

Sincerely,

My name

__________________
Kellye in Houston
NL CHAMPS ASTROS!
GO 'STROS!!!!

10-21-2005, 11:47 AM	#32
Halo Site Donor MONTHLY Join Date: May 2002 Location: New Orleans, LA Posts: 20,205 Blog Entries: 45	Originally Posted by saintswhodi Al Davis threatened to sue the league if he couldn't move his team back to Oakland. Where are they now? In Oakland. The federal government has nothing to do with if the Saints move or not. I agree with you but the difference being Al Davis was being strangled in Los Angeles. In LA they tax the sports organization so high, take all consession revenue and you pay high dollar rent for a stadium they can never sell out. A place like LA, the NFL is a third class citizen. Oakland is different and appreciate the team. And he moved and has made more money. The fact that LA is the second largest market in the US doesn't make it profitable for an NFL franchise. If so, why have so many teams left? A market like New Orleans is a very lucrative deal for the NFL. The state funding probably turns profits over the top. Remember, no one knows exactly how much the Saints make. Not only that, they pay no rent, collect all consessions and revenue, and to make it worse, the State built them the most state of the art facility and indoor practice facility in the NFL. In New Orleans the pendulum is swung so far in the Saints favor it's rediculous. But what's really going on is, judges make decisions based on what's presented and what they think is justice. Al Davis did have a right to leave, Benson does too... but no court will favor Benson and fight him tooth and nail because of the circumstances. Facts are New Orleans was destroyed by natural disaster, the biggest in recent history of the US, and he will have a hard time getting anyone to have sympathy for him. But you are right he can leave, it will cost him everything he owns probably, and rightfully so.

10-21-2005, 11:57 AM	#33
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020	Originally Posted by Halo Originally Posted by TallySaint I always understood the Fleur was brought to the southern Louisiana area by Acadians that were banished from Nova Scotia. I dunno. 8) Louisiana was named after King Louis XIV of France because they discovered it. New Orleans was meant to be a great city like the City of Orleans in France. Orleans, France sets on the Loire River where it curves south... sound familiar? The Crescent city sets on a curve on the Mississippi River. The fleur was the symbol or royalty. English Kings and soldiers began to put it on their shields and emblems because they constantly claimed rights to the throne of France. Christians believed the white 3 pedels at the top represented the Holy Trinity, hence the Saints and the fact that the team was chartered on All Saints Day. You know everyone at one time or another was wearing the fleur de lis, to Cajuns probably brought it here with them too. The fleur de lis Clovis is considered the founder of the French State. In 486, in co-operation with other Frankish chieftains, he defeated the last great Roman army in Gaul under the commander Syagrius near Soissons. He then went on to defeat many minor princes, kings and tribal chieftains to form the first Frankish Kingdom. Clovis I married in 493 to Clotilda (475 - 545), later St. Clotilda, daughter of Childperic, King of the Burgundians. Clotilda was a Christian and is said to have been instrumental in the conversion of Clovis I to Christianity. According to legend, an angel gave Clovis I an iris flower or "fleur-de-lis" after accepting the Christian faith, and Clovis I then used fleur-de-lis as his symbol. However, it is entirely unlikely that Clovis underwent an experience of profound enlightenment during which he renounced the many Celtic, Germanic and Roman deities to embrace Jesus Christ. He more likely viewed Christ as another powerful god; an ally he could call upon to give him victory in battle. Louisianna Named by explorer Robert Cavelier de La Salle in 1682 in honour of King Louis XIV New orleans named after the city of Orleans in the New France . New Orleans New France (French: la Nouvelle-France) describes the area colonized by France in North America during a period extending from the exploration of the Saint Lawrence River by Jacques Cartier in 1534 to the cession of New France to the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1763. At its peak in 1712 (before the Treaty of Utrecht), the territory of New France extended from Newfoundland to Lake Superior and from the Hudson Bay to the Gulf of Mexico. The territory was then divided in five colonies, each with its own administration: Canada, Acadia, Hudson Bay, Newfoundland and Louisiana.
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020

10-22-2005, 03:52 PM	#36
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020	08, again, just a terrible idea. Why is it the people of San Antonio's responsibility to stop the team from moving? Glad to see someone has some balls in Texas . Here you go SW , jump on the bandwagon ..... If you're like me you're ticked about the "promises" of local SA officials to use state rather than city funds to lure the Saints. As a Houstonian with my "own" team here, that just isn't right. I'm copying a letter I'm sending to my local representatives and a link so that you can find out who your own reps are. I emailed Hardberger and Wentworth (state senator behind a lot of state money begging), but realized that since I'm out of their area they probably won't care a lick. But our own reps need to hear this, too, especially if you're in Houston or Dallas. This is a different way that we can hopefully halt one avenue of funding for the looters in SA. Here are the links; I put in my address/zip and found out who my local reps to the state are: Find your local TX representatives: http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/welcome.php http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/members.htm This is the letter I'm sending to them, which includes a clip from an article dated 10/20/05, by Carlos Guerra of the SA Express-News: Dear ______________, I am writing in opposition to any use of our state tax dollars to help Mr. Tom Benson move his NFL team to San Antonio. I believe that there are better and more productive uses of the Texas Enterprise Fund than a professional sports team. In addition, the cities of Houston and Dallas support their own teams with city/county funds, not state funds. As a Houstonian I do not want my tax dollars supporting a team in San Antonio when I have my ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â“ownÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬? team to support here. If the mayor and people of San Antonio want a team so badly, let them pay for it out of city funds. If the mayor feels that the financial support from the city and its people isnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã¢Â„Â¢t adequate, then perhaps San Antonio should think twice about taking another cityÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã¢Â„Â¢s team. Here are comments from the San Antonio Express-News, written by Carlos Guerra 10/20/05: *When hosting some Saints' home games first arose, Mayor Phil Hardberger said that there would be a price and that the city had its limits. Sunday, he reiterated his opposition to spending city money on an NFL franchise and invited the state to pay the tab. But he also said that he will meet with Saints owner Tom Benson about a relocation after the season ends. The same day, Gov. Rick Perry said that he would welcome a third National Football League team in Texas, and that the state would support San Antonio's bid, but offered no details. Sen. Jeff Wentworth filled in one blank, saying that he was checking into getting state money from the Texas Enterprise Fund, a virtually unrestricted discretionary fund with almost $150 million of tax money that Perry controls. Then, after Sunday's game, Benson fired the Saints' top administrator, Arnold Fielkow, who wanted to keep the Saints in Louisiana. Now, the word is that for the right deal, Benson will bring the Saints to San Antonio's Alamodome for a few years, until the team gets a new stadium. Still unrevealed is how much a new stadium will cost, who will pay for it and what we will do with the Alamodome after it's vacant again. The mailbag indicates some readers remain skeptical. "I find it strange that cities and states cannot find money for education, public health or housing projects, yet will break the bank to subsidize sports franchises," wrote "Phillip," pointing out that "academic research consistently questions the lasting economic benefit of professional sports."* There is another point: This latest blatant attempt by the San Antonio mayor to court the Saints is painting a large ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â“black eyeÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬? on the city of San Antonio. They are being perceived as opportunistic, inhospitable thieves. Strong words, I know, but for a city that gains so much from the tourism industry, this type of publicity will do them no good. Please support fiscal restraint and oppose any use of our tax dollars for helping the New Orleans Saints relocate to San Antonio. Sincerely, My name __________________ Kellye in Houston NL CHAMPS ASTROS! GO 'STROS!!!!
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020

10-21-2005, 10:02 AM	#31
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	The Saints are privately owned by Tom Benson. It's his team. If he chooses not to spend money on his team, that's his choice. The league doesn't mandate that. If he says he will not pay for FAs, pay for assistant coaches, etc that would be his choice, since the franchise is privately owned. He can do whatever he wants with it. He just has 31 other individual owners he has to report to, as part of a collective. It's under the business heading of the NFL. Al Davis threatened to sue the league if he couldn't move his team back to Oakland. Where are they now? In Oakland. The federal government has nothing to do with if the Saints move or not. That's Tom Benson's decision. His "partners" in the NFL could say we don't think that's a good idea for the NFL as a whole and block him, but that's it. It has nothing to do with the federal government. Unless it went to court, then the federal government could intervene. Each organization, outside of the Packers, is privately owned. Outside of the limited revenue sharing, every penny they spend or don't spend is theirs. But when it's a matter that effects the entire league, that's when they all get to voice an opinion, as in the case of a team move.

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

10-21-2005, 12:04 PM	#34
TallySaint 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,367	Thanks all for the info. Interesting. Some of it was probably to counter some San Antonio point. But, interesting nonetheless. It's likely the Fleur did pre-date the Acadians arrival in the area. They weren't run out of Acadia (Nova Scotia) by the British until the mid- to- late 1700's, me thinks. Thanks again. 8)

10-21-2005, 12:19 PM	#35
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Halo, bro, you know I know that the Saints had the sweetest honeypot of a deal that has ever been offered to an NFL team, by far. I was just disputing the fact Euph felt they were not privately owned. I know for a fact Benson will not find any sympathy in his attempts to move the team should it have to go to court, but I also know no matter what they say, NFL owners are a fraternity, a scratch my back i'll scratch yours bunch if there ever was. They are driven by profit. If Tom Benson can prove to them it would not be profitable to remain in New Orleans, and it would be to move to San Antonio, he could prob get more to bite than not, especially with increased revenue sharing on the table. If he can predict doom and gloom for the New Orleans market, he can get owners on board with the move. But like you said, it will cost him every cent, and damn right it should.