San Antonio should get a NFL team (Alamo: 2009, lease)

[SweethomeSanAntonio]

New Orleans has a team and is nowhere near San Antonio's economic strength, even going by pre-katrina.

[bresilhac]

Originally Posted by SweethomeSanAntonio

New Orleans has a team and is nowhere near San Antonio's economic strength, even going by pre-katrina.

Very true. In fact it is beyond my reasoning that Nola has a team to this day.

[satx56]

As a taxpayer I pray some other city is the proud recipient of an NFL franchise!! Not San Antonio!! If you want it please volunteer to pay for it!!

[tindo80]

Originally Posted by SweethomeSanAntonio

New Orleans has a team and is nowhere near San Antonio's economic strength, even going by pre-katrina.

It did if you judge it by when it got its team. Its not really accurate to say 'New Orleans of last 10 years has a franchise but SA doesnt', when in fact NO got its franchise in 1967, a time when the NFL was much smaller as a corporation, as were its franchises.

As I said previously, you have to judge with context. Sure, one could look at plenty of cities, buffalo, green bay, NO etc, and say 'hey, they have teams, why doesnt SA', but you must take the NFLs entire history into account. Those teams joined at a different time and remain as legacies.

In order for SA to get a team, the $$$ has to be there, and it just isnt. Never was.

Originally Posted by bresilhac

You couldn't be more off the mark on who qualifies for an NFL team. Florida and California both have three teams yet I hear no talk of any of those franchises cannibalizing one another. They all seem to do fine in their respective markets including lowly Jacksonville. Which is a mere 67% the size of San Antonio. Also it was more politics than anything else that got San Antonio left out of the last expansion. Jones' politicking to keep the NFL out of South Texas namely.

Yes, but you must look at when they got their respective teams, and how much money each team brings in.

Also, Texas isnt like california with football. The coyboys are damn near a religion, everywhere, even in Houston.

Also, as I said above, economically, business wise, and logically, its foolish to judge football legacy team cities as a reason for expansion. Those cities have teams because they got them a long time ago, when the small teams were big deals. If we were debating that SA should have gotten a team in 1949, well thats maybe true, but its not smart business to create comparison model using legacy teams as a comparison.

If you think I am wrong, just think about why SA does not have a football team already. If it were that profitable, it would, or it would at least be on the 'big table'. Its not.

Originally Posted by bresilhac

Secondly, if you don't think there are rich people in San Antonio you haven't been here in awhile. The economy has exploded here in recent years, despite the downturn in the rest of the nation, and as a result San Antonio has become extremely prosperous. And with over four million people living within 100 miles of the Alamodome San Antonio/South Texas would have absolutely no problem selling tickets/merchandise for a local NFL team. For a practical example of this examine the San Antonio Spurs.

I never said there were not rich people. What I said was-

Originally Posted by tindo

2. SA's business market is not that large, yet. That means no rich millionaires selling out the skybox and front row seats. Yes there are plenty of businesses, but not compared to many other cities of comparable size (the 1- 3 million people metro).

Which is true. SA's main market is still primarily services, military and tourism, not very big corporate industries when you compare it to other metros in the 1-3 million area (seattle, Minneapolis, Salt Lake are biggest examples).

Spurs sell out now because they started winning. Before the late 90s, it was a different story. The city had to practically promise the dome (as one of its very expensive and practically wasted taxing options) to get them to stay, then after they started to complain about it, the city goes and spends to build a brand new SBC center.

The alamodome wont bring a team, the city would have to pay for a brand new dome, which would be more expensive. This is a recession as well. It all does not seem very likely. Add to that the fact that ticket sales would be high in price (which is even steeper when you factor in the low cost of living) and the fact that expansion teams usually do not do too well for their first years...well, lets just say I understand the native hype and support, but logically and businesswise, it would be a bad investment at this point in time. And thats coming from a guy who 10 years ago would be arguing on your side that the SA 'just deserves' a team.


The commission has given thumbs up for plenty of cities. Its good PR. Telling a city 'hey, we think you guys arent good enough' would be bad for business. It would turn locals off to the NFl, and cut any distant future prospects short at the bud, due to resentment.

Just wanting it and having a city with x amount of people is not enough. It is all about bringing in the cash. If SA could bring the cash, it would already have an NFL team, and/or a baseball team, and/or a hockey team. Its just business.

Or just my opinion

[bresilhac]

^ Yes I understand your belief that legacy teams were awarded during less expensive times. But, if having lots of money and a high standard of living were truly factors then Los Angeles and or Toronto would have gotten teams long ago. So clearly money is not the only criteria for being awarded a team. And let's get over this Dallas Cowboy mystique or religion or whatever you want to call it. Yes they are very popular, but that popularity does not preclude other Texas cities from having teams.

If the DC were so popular then the Texans would have folded or moved long ago. That hasn't happened. And it's not the number of millionaires that reside within a community that is critical. But the shear number of ticket buying households. And as I've said, with over four million people within 100 miles of the Alamadome, selling out games would obviously not be a problem.

And also, I can really tell that your information on San Antonio's economy is extremely outdated. The one you describe is from 25 years ago. Today's SA economy is more diverse than ever before. With huge financial and IT sectors in addition to the ones you mention.

You seem to be down on San Antonio for some unknown reason and that's unfortunate. Because what you simply don't want to accept is that today's San Antonio is a booming, prosperous, rapidly growing community that is more than qualified for an NFL team. You see it as impossible. I see San Antonio in the NFL as an inevitability.

[Bowie]

Originally Posted by satx56

As a taxpayer I pray some other city is the proud recipient of an NFL franchise!! Not San Antonio!! If you want it please volunteer to pay for it!!

Amen! Supporters should get their checkbooks ready to write those checks for however many $15,000 Personal Seat Licenses you'll need. Make the check payable to NFL San Antonio.

[firstclassflyer]

Originally Posted by Bowie

Amen! Supporters should get their checkbooks ready to write those checks for however many $15,000 Personal Seat Licenses you'll need. Make the check payable to NFL San Antonio.

I doubt they'll be that high. Even NY Giants (amongst the most expensive markets) with the brand new stadium aren't that high. They even have $1000 licenses (High up but middle of field).
Sure, some of the best seats are 7.5k and10K (and even a very select few) are 20K....but the lions share are 1K,4K and 5K.

[Bowie]

Originally Posted by firstclassflyer

I doubt they'll be that high. Even NY Giants (amongst the most expensive markets) with the brand new stadium aren't that high. They even have $1000 licenses (High up but middle of field).
Sure, some of the best seats are 7.5k and10K (and even a very select few) are 20K....but the lions share are 1K,4K and 5K.

With the zero-subsidy by taxpayers that satx56 and I are looking for, those PSLs will need to be unprecendentedly high-priced. If you want the team, you'll get your checkbook out! Besides, it'll give San Antonio bragging rights for having the priciest PSLs. Higher than Dallas. Higher than NYC.

[firstclassflyer]

Originally Posted by Bowie

With the zero-subsidy by taxpayers that satx56 and I are looking for, those PSLs will need to be unprecendentedly high-priced. If you want the team, you'll get your checkbook out! Besides, it'll give San Antonio bragging rights for having the priciest PSLs. Higher than Dallas. Higher than NYC.

I personally, don't have any money issues and would buy my limit immediately (and know many others that will also). I'm quite sure that they'll sell out no matter what. . Those PSL's almost always have great resale as well.

[SweethomeSanAntonio]

Originally Posted by tindo80

It did if you judge it by when it got its team. Its not really accurate to say 'New Orleans of last 10 years has a franchise but SA doesnt', when in fact NO got its franchise in 1967, a time when the NFL was much smaller as a corporation, as were its franchises.

As I said previously, you have to judge with context. Sure, one could look at plenty of cities, buffalo, green bay, NO etc, and say 'hey, they have teams, why doesnt SA', but you must take the NFLs entire history into account. Those teams joined at a different time and remain as legacies.

In order for SA to get a team, the $$$ has to be there, and it just isnt. Never was.



Yes, but you must look at when they got their respective teams, and how much money each team brings in.

Also, Texas isnt like california with football. The coyboys are damn near a religion, everywhere, even in Houston.

Also, as I said above, economically, business wise, and logically, its foolish to judge football legacy team cities as a reason for expansion. Those cities have teams because they got them a long time ago, when the small teams were big deals. If we were debating that SA should have gotten a team in 1949, well thats maybe true, but its not smart business to create comparison model using legacy teams as a comparison.

If you think I am wrong, just think about why SA does not have a football team already. If it were that profitable, it would, or it would at least be on the 'big table'. Its not.




I never said there were not rich people. What I said was-



Which is true. SA's main market is still primarily services, military and tourism, not very big corporate industries when you compare it to other metros in the 1-3 million area (seattle, Minneapolis, Salt Lake are biggest examples).

Spurs sell out now because they started winning. Before the late 90s, it was a different story. The city had to practically promise the dome (as one of its very expensive and practically wasted taxing options) to get them to stay, then after they started to complain about it, the city goes and spends to build a brand new SBC center.

The alamodome wont bring a team, the city would have to pay for a brand new dome, which would be more expensive. This is a recession as well. It all does not seem very likely. Add to that the fact that ticket sales would be high in price (which is even steeper when you factor in the low cost of living) and the fact that expansion teams usually do not do too well for their first years...well, lets just say I understand the native hype and support, but logically and businesswise, it would be a bad investment at this point in time. And thats coming from a guy who 10 years ago would be arguing on your side that the SA 'just deserves' a team.


The commission has given thumbs up for plenty of cities. Its good PR. Telling a city 'hey, we think you guys arent good enough' would be bad for business. It would turn locals off to the NFl, and cut any distant future prospects short at the bud, due to resentment.

Just wanting it and having a city with x amount of people is not enough. It is all about bringing in the cash. If SA could bring the cash, it would already have an NFL team, and/or a baseball team, and/or a hockey team. Its just business.

Or just my opinion

Sure some of those teams you mentioned were awarded to several cities long ago. If it is just too expensive for smaller markets, then they would have relocated already, once venue leases are up, kinda of a contridiction to what you are saying.

You are dead wrong about San Antonio being a mostly Tourisim and Military driven city. Actually Financial, and Healthcare-Biomedical are the largest industries, Financial (largest in Texas)over $20 billion, and Healthcare nearly $17 billion. National Defense is third, followed by Manufacturing. Toursim-Convention is huge at nearly $11 billion, but it's not what drives this city economically. I recommend you catch up on the San Antonio of today, rather than, living in it's past.

I know it won't be cheap, San Antonio will have to prove itself.