New Stadium Resolution.....

saintswhodi · 06-25-2007, 03:13 PM

That's easy, you ignored suite revenue, and you ignored the fact that teams with new stadiums are getting the Superbowls. I could find a lot of things that aren't evidence if I ignore them. That's not how it works though. Also, 2010 is different than 2005. The league, or Tagliabue, forced Benson back cause of the black eye they would have gotten if the Saints left right after Katrina. That won't be the case in 3 more years. The league can't force Tom Benson to sell, and they can't force him to accept a renovated Superdome. That is, again, ignoring the fact. The best the league can do is step in and offer some assistance toward building a new stadium, but they can't force Tom Benson to do anything, it's his team. As a matter of fact, the way he caved after Katrina in coming back, I would think they gave him a kinda "Tom, be quiet and go along with this now, and if you don't get a new stadium we won't oppose you moving." One minute he went from being afraid for his life in Baton Rouge and firing anyone that was pro coming back to New Orleans, then the next he never wanted to leave? Seriously? Sorry I don;t buy it.

But if all you have heard is Benson wants a new stadium, then good, cause that's all that needs to be heard. Either we keep the Saints here by providing a new stadium, or we watch them go to Louisiana cause we though " the league was gonna keep them from moving." I ain't buying that.

Since you edited, I will do the same. I don't think it wil be hard to convince voters to pony up for a winning team. It was that crap that was being put on the field previously that turned people off. I mean, that's why the discussion is here right, cause SOMEONE feels we need to get cracking on a new stadiuma nd take Tom's threat seriously. I could see how it would be easy to call his bluff from Foxboro though. It would be like telling poor Africans to stop the blood diamond trade themsevles from here in the United States. The farther away you are the bolder you can tell others to be.

Nemesis · 06-25-2007, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by saintswhodi

That's easy, you ignored suite revenue, and you ignored the fact that teams with new stadiums are getting the Superbowls. I could find a lot of things that aren't evidence if I ignore them. That's not how it works though. Also, 2010 is different than 2005. The league, or Tagliabue, forced Benson back cause of the black eye they would have gotten if the Saints left right after Katrina. That won't be the case in 3 more years. The league can't force Tom Benson to sell, and they can't force him to accept a renovated Superdome. That is, again, ignoring the fact. The best the league can do is step in and offer some assistance toward building a new stadium, but they can't force Tom Benson to do anything, it's his team. As a matter of fact, the way he caved after Katrina in coming back, I would think they gave him a kinda "Tom, be quiet and go along with this now, and if you don't get a new stadium we won't oppose you moving." One minute he went from being afraid for his life in Baton Rouge and firing anyone that was pro coming back to New Orleans, then the next he never wanted to leave? Seriously? Sorry I don;t buy it.

But if all you have heard is Benson wants a new stadium, then good, cause that's all that needs to be heard. Either we keep the Saints here by providing a new stadium, or we watch them go to Louisiana cause we though " the league was gonna keep them from moving." I ain't buying that.

Since you edited, I will do the same. I don't think it wil be hard to convince voters to pony up for a winning team. It was that crap that was being put on the field previously that turned people off. I mean, that's why the discussion is here right, cause SOMEONE feels we need to get cracking on a new stadiuma nd take Tom's threat seriously. I could see how it would be easy to call his bluff from Foxboro though. It would be like telling poor Africans to stop the blood diamond trade themsevles from here in the United States. The farther away you are the bolder you can tell others to be.

First of all, I edited to make my thoughts appear more concise, and to correct typos. Not to hide anything.

2: I have clearly conceded that the proposal has a better chance of passing while the Saints field a winning team

3: I know what the Saints mean to this region, and so does the league. I've lived here 25 years, and have no interest in the Saints leaving. The Saints are as much a part of this city as the FQ, or potholes. Losing the Saints would be devastating to the psyche of our citizens, and only Benson's abject greed and ego could bring that about.

4.The league has to permit moves by I believe at least a 2/3 vote. Benson can't just sneak off like Irsay, unless he shows NO isn't a viable market. That can't happen, unless fans abandon the Saints. They can't force him to sell, but you'd best believe they can force him to stay. What you think Tag's agenda was by convincing Benson to stay, and what he publicly stated, are two separate issues.

5. We've been through the issue of building many more suites. Our business climate simply can't absorb much more, due to all the reasons I've previously outlined. This is the reality of our worsening economy. We aren't creating more businesses and rich folks out of thin air.
Actually, they're fleeing.

6. Again.. The league usually awards SB to new stadiums. Yet again, NO is one of the top 3 destinations, and this isn't just my opinion. This is the owners, press, players and fans speaking. NO was passed over due to our uncertain ammenities here, hotels rebuilding, crime, Dome renovations, the proliferation of new stadiums, and the league wanting to see if we could yet handle lesser events so soon. A nicely renovated Dome will keep up us in the loop.

7. This is a discussion forum. Adults should be able to question the rationales of others. I'm done with this issue.

saintswhodi · 06-25-2007, 04:32 PM

We'll start at 4, since 1-3 were statements.

4) 2/3 of the owners will not vote against Benson if he can show he can increase revenue in a different market with a new stadium. Know why? Revenue sharing. As long as the rich have to share with the poor, anything that makes the poor rich is viable. As far as Tags agenda, well, let's see: He could go our being recognized for all he accomplished on the league, or retire as the guy who let the Saints leave New Orleans during the worst natural disaster in US history. Seems pretty clear what his agenda was, protecting his legacy.

5) Haven't we sold out the existing suites? So who's to say we couldn't sell out suites in a new stadium? You can't build a stadium overnight, so who knows what growth will have happened by that time. Plus, it's not up to the city to sell out the suites, it's up to Benson to sell out the suites. So he controls his own revenue on that, pretty much ending the "I am losing money cause of the lack of suites" argument, and preventing him from allowing an inferior product to be on the field again.

6) You know the last time New Orleans hosted a superbowl? 2002. 5 years ago. We weren't even in the running for another one any time soon, and the Superbowl is booked now through 2011. We won't be seeing one anytime soon without a new stadium.

7) You can question whatever you like, cause as you said, this is a forum. But just cause it's a forum, doesn't mean someone has to see it your way.

blacksaint · 06-25-2007, 05:51 PM

Everybody keeps focusing on the economy of today, it's going to take time to either renovate the Dome or build a new stadium, the economy can't get no worst, so by the time anything is done, the economy will be strong enough to support it. Trump is in the process of building a hugh Trump Towers type building on Poydras st. with condominiums, upscale restaurants, and corporate business offices. With the world looking in on the recovery of New Orleans it's going to be very hard to go about doing business like before, you think somebody like Trump is going to invest that type of money in a project in a dying city, I don't think so. New Orleans will recover and be much stronger than before I believe that with my heart, I have to because it's my home. And as far as a new stadium goes, I would rather see them renovate the Dome, but if a new stadium is going to keep the Saints in New Orleans, than so be it because I can't imagine a New Orleans without the Saints. I wish there was somewhere else the Saints could temporarily play and build a new stadium on the present Dome site, but that's just wishful thinking. The river is the only viable site I can see making any sense, the Iberville Project site would cause to many logistical problems even though it's the perfect location for a downtown stadium, besides I hear that New Orleans Housing Authority is sending memos out to families that lived in housing projects before the hurricane that they have a certain amount of time to move back to the housing developments that are livable before they stop the current housing voucher program that they are living on, and the Iberville is the first site on the list because it was the lest damaged. So before they can even think about building a stadium on the Iberville site, there's a lot of political red tape they'll have to cut through and I don't think that's an avenue they want to travel.

Nemesis · 06-25-2007, 06:54 PM

No one said the city will die. No one wishes it, either. I questioned where the new businesses will come from to fill 50- 70 more suites, and outlined why business shuns NO. I didn't base my view merely on the current (and worsening) economy, but this city's track record of attracting investment throughout her entire history. NO's economy is basically agriculture, oil, chemical, tourism, and the port. All volatile markets.

Luring residents from other parts of the city to Trump Tower is much easier than getting business and upscale residents to settle here from other states. My view may have seemed pessimistic on the surface, but shouldn't be discarded any more than those proclaiming NO will make some stunning metamorphosis into a grand utopia.

NO will have a much work to do on many core issues. The negative climate here is crushing. Progress will take a hell of a lot longer than the time it takes to build a new Dome, in order to convince others that we deserve to be mentioned along with Houston, Dallas or Atl as a hospitable place for business. It's a shame that one of the oldest cities in the nation has accomplished the least.

I responded in the hopes that you understand why I said what I did, not to convince others to agree.

JOESAM2002 · 06-25-2007, 08:03 PM

Plus you have to convince the voters in the northern part of the state to agree. That in itself will be a trick! Lest we forget they're mostly Cowboy fans. it sucks but thats the reality of it.

redjem25 · 06-29-2007, 10:00 AM

Forgive me if my thoughts are incorrect. Wasn't is said that New Orleans wouldn't be eligible for a Superbowl until a new long-term was in place, not a new stadium. It was only Benson's wish to have a new stadium. After Katrina the state and NFL together spent over 100 million to renovate the dome. If they plan to demo it and build a new stadium then that money used (which was substantial) was spent for nothing. Correct?? That only allowed the Saints to remain and play here for just 3 more years. I am all for a new stadium if it allow the team to stay. The N.O. Skyline would not be the same w/o the dome but then again I don't understand why they would demo it. It could be used for concerts, trade shows and competitions which could bring more $ cause its larger than the Arena. Then the new stadium could be for the Saints exclusively for games and training camp. I think by the time the new stadium is built the economy will be on its way up again. We all know that the team can be financial supported right now. SO, in a few years it will even be more profitable and better. If we can get a deal together for a new stadium in a year or so we would then be eligible for a 2012 or 13 Superbowl.
Just my opinion!
TGIF!

DeadmaN · 06-29-2007, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by redjem25

...After Katrina the state and NFL together spent over 100 million to renovate the dome. If they plan to demo it and build a new stadium then that money used (which was substantial) was spent for nothing. Correct??

my point exactly

Nemesis · 06-29-2007, 10:39 AM

The league and Feds just spending all that money on the Dome was always on my mind while responding. I haven't found any evidence of the league being leery of the condtion of the Dome for SBs. Ol girl is in fine shape, but I'd still like those FQ balconies. Many other modifications are still on the drawing board.

To be fair, I'd like to submit that the Dome seating isn't optimal for basketball. The Final Four had beefs with the seating, and seems to be seeking other venues. I've heard Indy's new Dome was guaranteed the Final Four every 4 Years. I know the league awards SBs to new domes, but I'm confident that even if the SB went to a similar rotation, NO would still be in that number with our current Dome. At least until I hear otherwise...

saintswhodi · 06-29-2007, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by redjem25

Forgive me if my thoughts are incorrect. Wasn't is said that New Orleans wouldn't be eligible for a Superbowl until a new long-term was in place, not a new stadium. It was only Benson's wish to have a new stadium. After Katrina the state and NFL together spent over 100 million to renovate the dome. If they plan to demo it and build a new stadium then that money used (which was substantial) was spent for nothing. Correct?? That only allowed the Saints to remain and play here for just 3 more years. I am all for a new stadium if it allow the team to stay. The N.O. Skyline would not be the same w/o the dome but then again I don't understand why they would demo it. It could be used for concerts, trade shows and competitions which could bring more $ cause its larger than the Arena. Then the new stadium could be for the Saints exclusively for games and training camp. I think by the time the new stadium is built the economy will be on its way up again. We all know that the team can be financial supported right now. SO, in a few years it will even be more profitable and better. If we can get a deal together for a new stadium in a year or so we would then be eligible for a 2012 or 13 Superbowl.
Just my opinion!
TGIF!

I agree with most all of this, except, who said anything about demolishing the dome? And the Superdome HAD to be upgraded after Katrina. There was no other choice if the Saints were gonna play there. IF they didn't, the Saints would not be here now. The state and the Superdome made the league a promise they would be ready to open for the Saints to come back, and they did it. It wasn't just a normal time and they committed money to renovation. That money was a necessity to get the Saints back in the dome. IT has no bearing on any future money that would be spent on a new stadium. Other than that, I agree with you.

06-25-2007, 03:13 PM	#1
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	That's easy, you ignored suite revenue, and you ignored the fact that teams with new stadiums are getting the Superbowls. I could find a lot of things that aren't evidence if I ignore them. That's not how it works though. Also, 2010 is different than 2005. The league, or Tagliabue, forced Benson back cause of the black eye they would have gotten if the Saints left right after Katrina. That won't be the case in 3 more years. The league can't force Tom Benson to sell, and they can't force him to accept a renovated Superdome. That is, again, ignoring the fact. The best the league can do is step in and offer some assistance toward building a new stadium, but they can't force Tom Benson to do anything, it's his team. As a matter of fact, the way he caved after Katrina in coming back, I would think they gave him a kinda "Tom, be quiet and go along with this now, and if you don't get a new stadium we won't oppose you moving." One minute he went from being afraid for his life in Baton Rouge and firing anyone that was pro coming back to New Orleans, then the next he never wanted to leave? Seriously? Sorry I don;t buy it. But if all you have heard is Benson wants a new stadium, then good, cause that's all that needs to be heard. Either we keep the Saints here by providing a new stadium, or we watch them go to Louisiana cause we though " the league was gonna keep them from moving." I ain't buying that. Since you edited, I will do the same. I don't think it wil be hard to convince voters to pony up for a winning team. It was that crap that was being put on the field previously that turned people off. I mean, that's why the discussion is here right, cause SOMEONE feels we need to get cracking on a new stadiuma nd take Tom's threat seriously. I could see how it would be easy to call his bluff from Foxboro though. It would be like telling poor Africans to stop the blood diamond trade themsevles from here in the United States. The farther away you are the bolder you can tell others to be.
	Last edited by saintswhodi; 06-25-2007 at 03:17 PM..

06-25-2007, 03:59 PM	#2
Nemesis VIP~~Drunken Clam Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Quahog Posts: 422	Originally Posted by saintswhodi That's easy, you ignored suite revenue, and you ignored the fact that teams with new stadiums are getting the Superbowls. I could find a lot of things that aren't evidence if I ignore them. That's not how it works though. Also, 2010 is different than 2005. The league, or Tagliabue, forced Benson back cause of the black eye they would have gotten if the Saints left right after Katrina. That won't be the case in 3 more years. The league can't force Tom Benson to sell, and they can't force him to accept a renovated Superdome. That is, again, ignoring the fact. The best the league can do is step in and offer some assistance toward building a new stadium, but they can't force Tom Benson to do anything, it's his team. As a matter of fact, the way he caved after Katrina in coming back, I would think they gave him a kinda "Tom, be quiet and go along with this now, and if you don't get a new stadium we won't oppose you moving." One minute he went from being afraid for his life in Baton Rouge and firing anyone that was pro coming back to New Orleans, then the next he never wanted to leave? Seriously? Sorry I don;t buy it. But if all you have heard is Benson wants a new stadium, then good, cause that's all that needs to be heard. Either we keep the Saints here by providing a new stadium, or we watch them go to Louisiana cause we though " the league was gonna keep them from moving." I ain't buying that. Since you edited, I will do the same. I don't think it wil be hard to convince voters to pony up for a winning team. It was that crap that was being put on the field previously that turned people off. I mean, that's why the discussion is here right, cause SOMEONE feels we need to get cracking on a new stadiuma nd take Tom's threat seriously. I could see how it would be easy to call his bluff from Foxboro though. It would be like telling poor Africans to stop the blood diamond trade themsevles from here in the United States. The farther away you are the bolder you can tell others to be. First of all, I edited to make my thoughts appear more concise, and to correct typos. Not to hide anything. 2: I have clearly conceded that the proposal has a better chance of passing while the Saints field a winning team 3: I know what the Saints mean to this region, and so does the league. I've lived here 25 years, and have no interest in the Saints leaving. The Saints are as much a part of this city as the FQ, or potholes. Losing the Saints would be devastating to the psyche of our citizens, and only Benson's abject greed and ego could bring that about. 4.The league has to permit moves by I believe at least a 2/3 vote. Benson can't just sneak off like Irsay, unless he shows NO isn't a viable market. That can't happen, unless fans abandon the Saints. They can't force him to sell, but you'd best believe they can force him to stay. What you think Tag's agenda was by convincing Benson to stay, and what he publicly stated, are two separate issues. 5. We've been through the issue of building many more suites. Our business climate simply can't absorb much more, due to all the reasons I've previously outlined. This is the reality of our worsening economy. We aren't creating more businesses and rich folks out of thin air. Actually, they're fleeing. 6. Again.. The league usually awards SB to new stadiums. Yet again, NO is one of the top 3 destinations, and this isn't just my opinion. This is the owners, press, players and fans speaking. NO was passed over due to our uncertain ammenities here, hotels rebuilding, crime, Dome renovations, the proliferation of new stadiums, and the league wanting to see if we could yet handle lesser events so soon. A nicely renovated Dome will keep up us in the loop. 7. This is a discussion forum. Adults should be able to question the rationales of others. I'm done with this issue.
	Last edited by Nemesis; 06-25-2007 at 04:04 PM..

06-25-2007, 05:51 PM	#4
blacksaint DARE TO ENTER Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Home Sweet Home, NEW ORLEANS, La. Posts: 1,154	Everybody keeps focusing on the economy of today, it's going to take time to either renovate the Dome or build a new stadium, the economy can't get no worst, so by the time anything is done, the economy will be strong enough to support it. Trump is in the process of building a hugh Trump Towers type building on Poydras st. with condominiums, upscale restaurants, and corporate business offices. With the world looking in on the recovery of New Orleans it's going to be very hard to go about doing business like before, you think somebody like Trump is going to invest that type of money in a project in a dying city, I don't think so. New Orleans will recover and be much stronger than before I believe that with my heart, I have to because it's my home. And as far as a new stadium goes, I would rather see them renovate the Dome, but if a new stadium is going to keep the Saints in New Orleans, than so be it because I can't imagine a New Orleans without the Saints. I wish there was somewhere else the Saints could temporarily play and build a new stadium on the present Dome site, but that's just wishful thinking. The river is the only viable site I can see making any sense, the Iberville Project site would cause to many logistical problems even though it's the perfect location for a downtown stadium, besides I hear that New Orleans Housing Authority is sending memos out to families that lived in housing projects before the hurricane that they have a certain amount of time to move back to the housing developments that are livable before they stop the current housing voucher program that they are living on, and the Iberville is the first site on the list because it was the lest damaged. So before they can even think about building a stadium on the Iberville site, there's a lot of political red tape they'll have to cut through and I don't think that's an avenue they want to travel.
	saint4life (504) Last edited by blacksaint; 06-25-2007 at 05:54 PM..

06-29-2007, 10:00 AM	#7
redjem25 Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: New Orleans Posts: 203	Forgive me if my thoughts are incorrect. Wasn't is said that New Orleans wouldn't be eligible for a Superbowl until a new long-term was in place, not a new stadium. It was only Benson's wish to have a new stadium. After Katrina the state and NFL together spent over 100 million to renovate the dome. If they plan to demo it and build a new stadium then that money used (which was substantial) was spent for nothing. Correct?? That only allowed the Saints to remain and play here for just 3 more years. I am all for a new stadium if it allow the team to stay. The N.O. Skyline would not be the same w/o the dome but then again I don't understand why they would demo it. It could be used for concerts, trade shows and competitions which could bring more $ cause its larger than the Arena. Then the new stadium could be for the Saints exclusively for games and training camp. I think by the time the new stadium is built the economy will be on its way up again. We all know that the team can be financial supported right now. SO, in a few years it will even be more profitable and better. If we can get a deal together for a new stadium in a year or so we would then be eligible for a 2012 or 13 Superbowl. Just my opinion! TGIF!
	WHO DAT!

06-29-2007, 10:30 AM	#8
DeadmaN Saints Junky Join Date: May 2007 Location: Metairie Originally now a Houston transplant Posts: 672	Originally Posted by redjem25 ...After Katrina the state and NFL together spent over 100 million to renovate the dome. If they plan to demo it and build a new stadium then that money used (which was substantial) was spent for nothing. Correct?? my point exactly

06-25-2007, 04:32 PM	#3
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	We'll start at 4, since 1-3 were statements. 4) 2/3 of the owners will not vote against Benson if he can show he can increase revenue in a different market with a new stadium. Know why? Revenue sharing. As long as the rich have to share with the poor, anything that makes the poor rich is viable. As far as Tags agenda, well, let's see: He could go our being recognized for all he accomplished on the league, or retire as the guy who let the Saints leave New Orleans during the worst natural disaster in US history. Seems pretty clear what his agenda was, protecting his legacy. 5) Haven't we sold out the existing suites? So who's to say we couldn't sell out suites in a new stadium? You can't build a stadium overnight, so who knows what growth will have happened by that time. Plus, it's not up to the city to sell out the suites, it's up to Benson to sell out the suites. So he controls his own revenue on that, pretty much ending the "I am losing money cause of the lack of suites" argument, and preventing him from allowing an inferior product to be on the field again. 6) You know the last time New Orleans hosted a superbowl? 2002. 5 years ago. We weren't even in the running for another one any time soon, and the Superbowl is booked now through 2011. We won't be seeing one anytime soon without a new stadium. 7) You can question whatever you like, cause as you said, this is a forum. But just cause it's a forum, doesn't mean someone has to see it your way.

06-25-2007, 06:54 PM	#5
Nemesis VIP~~Drunken Clam Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Quahog Posts: 422	No one said the city will die. No one wishes it, either. I questioned where the new businesses will come from to fill 50- 70 more suites, and outlined why business shuns NO. I didn't base my view merely on the current (and worsening) economy, but this city's track record of attracting investment throughout her entire history. NO's economy is basically agriculture, oil, chemical, tourism, and the port. All volatile markets. Luring residents from other parts of the city to Trump Tower is much easier than getting business and upscale residents to settle here from other states. My view may have seemed pessimistic on the surface, but shouldn't be discarded any more than those proclaiming NO will make some stunning metamorphosis into a grand utopia. NO will have a much work to do on many core issues. The negative climate here is crushing. Progress will take a hell of a lot longer than the time it takes to build a new Dome, in order to convince others that we deserve to be mentioned along with Houston, Dallas or Atl as a hospitable place for business. It's a shame that one of the oldest cities in the nation has accomplished the least. I responded in the hopes that you understand why I said what I did, not to convince others to agree.

06-25-2007, 08:03 PM	#6
JOESAM2002 1000 Posts + Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: CRYSTAL BEACH TEXAS Posts: 4,100	Plus you have to convince the voters in the northern part of the state to agree. That in itself will be a trick! Lest we forget they're mostly Cowboy fans. it sucks but thats the reality of it.

06-29-2007, 10:39 AM	#9
Nemesis VIP~~Drunken Clam Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Quahog Posts: 422	The league and Feds just spending all that money on the Dome was always on my mind while responding. I haven't found any evidence of the league being leery of the condtion of the Dome for SBs. Ol girl is in fine shape, but I'd still like those FQ balconies. Many other modifications are still on the drawing board. To be fair, I'd like to submit that the Dome seating isn't optimal for basketball. The Final Four had beefs with the seating, and seems to be seeking other venues. I've heard Indy's new Dome was guaranteed the Final Four every 4 Years. I know the league awards SBs to new domes, but I'm confident that even if the SB went to a similar rotation, NO would still be in that number with our current Dome. At least until I hear otherwise...

06-29-2007, 12:17 PM	#10
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Originally Posted by redjem25 Forgive me if my thoughts are incorrect. Wasn't is said that New Orleans wouldn't be eligible for a Superbowl until a new long-term was in place, not a new stadium. It was only Benson's wish to have a new stadium. After Katrina the state and NFL together spent over 100 million to renovate the dome. If they plan to demo it and build a new stadium then that money used (which was substantial) was spent for nothing. Correct?? That only allowed the Saints to remain and play here for just 3 more years. I am all for a new stadium if it allow the team to stay. The N.O. Skyline would not be the same w/o the dome but then again I don't understand why they would demo it. It could be used for concerts, trade shows and competitions which could bring more $ cause its larger than the Arena. Then the new stadium could be for the Saints exclusively for games and training camp. I think by the time the new stadium is built the economy will be on its way up again. We all know that the team can be financial supported right now. SO, in a few years it will even be more profitable and better. If we can get a deal together for a new stadium in a year or so we would then be eligible for a 2012 or 13 Superbowl. Just my opinion! TGIF! I agree with most all of this, except, who said anything about demolishing the dome? And the Superdome HAD to be upgraded after Katrina. There was no other choice if the Saints were gonna play there. IF they didn't, the Saints would not be here now. The state and the Superdome made the league a promise they would be ready to open for the Saints to come back, and they did it. It wasn't just a normal time and they committed money to renovation. That money was a necessity to get the Saints back in the dome. IT has no bearing on any future money that would be spent on a new stadium. Other than that, I agree with you.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode