City of Angels Ideal Spot for Saints (Espn.com)
 

Updated: Aug. 31, 2005, 5:15 PM ET

City of Angels an ideal spot for Saints
By Mark Kreidler
Special to ESPN.com

Katrina Has Forced the Saints Out of New Orleans

Just wondering: What about L.A.?

The Saints are an NFL team without a home. Los Angeles is a giant home without an NFL team. The Saints need a place to play. L.A. has places to play, plural.

The Saints, stripped of just about everything remotely normal connected with their lives, suddenly find themselves looking for a soft landing that, essentially, can see them through this season without a huge, long-term promise. Is there anyplace on Earth that does short-term commitment better than L.A.?

And most significantly, from the NFL's perspective: It is Los Angeles -- not Baton Rouge or San Antonio or anyplace else -- where Tha League would most like to reconnect with pro football fans, to see if it can awaken a sleeping giant of a market. It has a chance to do so right now, with virtually nothing lost if the venture doesn't pan out.

What about L.A.?

This is an opportunity wrought of sheer tragedy, and one that nobody can possibly feel good about; but for the NFL the overarching fact of the matter is that the Saints will play somewhere this season. It's strictly a question of where.

Saints owner Tom Benson is a New Orleans native, but he made his fortune over parts of four decades in San Antonio in the car-dealership business, and he is a known quantity in that city. When Benson called this week, San Antonio officials quickly made arrangements for the NFL team to relocate there at least short-term so that it could continue to prepare for the season and possibly begin it there.

Benson may have eyes on San Antonio as a potential permanent relocation (he has made noises in the past about the Saints' future in New Orleans), but there's almost no reading of the NFL's powers-that-be that would suggest they favor such a move. Still, at this point San Antonio's willingness to house the team is as welcome -- and appreciated -- as anything in the world.


Story continues...
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/column...ark&id=2148068

8)

This columnist is an idiot.

There are only 2 places the Saints need to consider this year:

-Tiger Stadium

-Independence Stadium.


Under no circumstances should they leave Louisiana after this disaster.

agreed... someone beat the crap out of him.

<agreed... someone beat the crap out of him.>

Ok, but if we do, then all we would have left is a BAG! Paper at that.

I think it's wrong to move the Saints.

Even so, it would be a handy way to end the Los Angeles talk. It's hard to insist on putting a team out there when no one shows up for the games.

Obviously this author is someone who hasn't taken more than a glancing look at the L.A. situation. We've discussed in full on this board the mulitude of reason why L.A. is not suitable for an NFL teams (Exhibit A: L.A. Rams; Exhibit B: L.A. Raiders). We've also noted how the NFL is using L.A. as a threat only to get better deals out of other teams. That's long term argument against the team moving there.

What's the short term? This guy thinks there'd be some benefit to having the Saints play in L.A. for one year? Rediculous. L.A., a city that didn't show up for games when it had a home team, is not likely just to show up and root for a visiting team. Also, if the plans to try and move the Saints there long term were even remotely less than threats, then there's no way the NFL would let this team play there this year and give them a taste of what inconsistency and mediocrity is before signing the city up for a long term commitment.

it's just not going to happen and with a little thought this clown might have figure that out.

I am sure this moron is just filling space on meeting deadlines for his editor...

The Saints need to play in Louisiana or at least Texas since they are bending over backwards taking in refuggees by the 10's of thousands.