SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   San Antonio (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=447)
-   -   Local: S.A. to discuss ways to lure pro franchises (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=122986)

SAguy Jan 4, 2007 12:48 PM

Local: S.A. to discuss ways to lure pro franchises
 
Local: S.A. to discuss ways to lure pro franchises


Tom Orsborn
Express-News Staff Writer

Mayor Phil Hardberger and County Judge Nelson Wolff have scheduled a meeting for next week to discuss how San Antonio would pursue NFL or Major League Baseball teams interested in relocation.
"Phil and I need to come to a consensus on how we should approach (teams exploring relocation) and what we are willing do to do get a team," Wolff said Wednesday.

County sports consultant Michael Sculley will also attend the meeting, Wolff said. County commissioners want Sculley to develop relationships with Major League Baseball and the NFL and keep the county apprised of opportunities.

"We have a pipeline to Major League Baseball because of the Marlins, but we need to strengthen that pipeline," Wolff said. "And, at some point, we need to make contact with (NFL commissioner Roger Goodell)."

The county attempted to lure the Marlins away from South Florida last spring with a plan that called for generating $200 million for a stadium by extending the tourism taxes paying for the AT&T Center.

City and county officials are also expected to attend a meeting of the Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce's NFL task force Wednesday to discuss how the city would react if the San Diego Chargers decide to pursue relocation.

Under their agreement with San Diego, the Chargers are free to talk to any U.S. city about relocating. But the club has said several times it won't entertain proposals from cities outside San Diego County.

The Chargers, who want a new stadium, can leave San Diego after the 2008 season.

Trae Jan 5, 2007 12:55 AM

I don't think San Antonio would get the Chargers. You don't want to oversaturate a small market, like San Antonio's either.

Double L Jan 5, 2007 1:53 AM

I don't think they're announcing catering to the Chargers just yet but instead creating an infrastructure so that they will always be able to pursue any opportunities that arise to bring in new sports teams to the city.

21bl0wed Jan 5, 2007 2:57 AM

This is where austin and sa should come together and try to bring a team to the AREA. Austin and sa alone would be small markets but put them together and its a decently sized medium market. Just make sure to put the stadium in new braunfels :D :D

BSofA04 Jan 5, 2007 3:54 AM

^^Great idea, but the NB locals would go nuts over that. They are already trying to ban drinking on the river, trying to get an NFL stadium would be ludacris. I was thinking Selma....they'll do just about anything for attention. lol.

BSofA04 Jan 5, 2007 3:59 AM

I wonder if Hardberger would be intrested in talking to Holly Hills? BUT....what's the point? It seems pointless to get our hopes up when we know that no team is going to move to SA (barring another natural disaster).

METALMiKE Jan 5, 2007 4:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BSofA04 (Post 2546909)
I wonder if Hardberger would be intrested in talking to Holly Hills? BUT....what's the point? It seems pointless to get our hopes up when we know that no team is going to move to SA (barring another natural disaster).

That Holly Hills dream plan went down the shitter I believe.

http://eastsidevision.info/Vision.htm

SAguy Jan 5, 2007 4:56 AM

I think it's great that the city hasn't given up on persueing any other pro team for S.A. A more detaill plan will likely be made public after Monday's meeting.

Schertz1 Jan 5, 2007 5:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TraeSlab713 (Post 2546578)
I don't think San Antonio would get the Chargers. You don't want to oversaturate a small market, like San Antonio's either.


San Antonio is larger than several markets with more than one professional team. :shrug:

Geaux Tigers Jan 5, 2007 5:26 AM

Not to crap on San Antonio, but the city's one shot at a NFL team was the Saints. Everyone knows that the next city to get a NFL team will be Los Angeles.

The market is too small to competitively support a MLB team. Perhaps an NHL or MLS expansion team could one day play in San Antonio

Double L Jan 5, 2007 5:48 AM

Well if you put it in small towns outside the city you're not thinking about the infrastructure and since San Antonio is just San Antonio without Austin, you're wasting your money on trying to get teams you can't get.

Schertz1 Jan 5, 2007 6:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geaux Tigers (Post 2547109)
Not to crap on San Antonio, but the city's one shot at a NFL team was the Saints. Everyone knows that the next city to get a NFL team will be Los Angeles.

The market is too small to competitively support a MLB team. Perhaps an NHL or MLS expansion team could one day play in San Antonio


What about KC, Cincinnati, and Milwaukee?

JAM Jan 5, 2007 6:47 AM

Put in a fast train between SA and ATX. The SA-ATX Express. Close the time/distance gap. Hell, I'll buy season tics!

Trae Jan 5, 2007 6:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schertz1 (Post 2547220)
What about KC, Cincinnati, and Milwaukee?

All larger than San Antonio's metro.

Schertz1 Jan 5, 2007 7:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TraeSlab713 (Post 2547288)
All larger than San Antonio's metro.

San Antonio is already larger than Milwaukee. It is growing much faster than KC or Cincinnati and will be larger in about three years.

Trae Jan 5, 2007 7:20 AM

Those teams have been there for a while, though. I think their economies help them out. Milwaukee is close to Chicago, also. KC owns almost everything outside St. Louis. Cincy runs northern Kentucky and half of Ohio. They have larger media markets than San Antonio.

Double L Jan 5, 2007 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAM (Post 2547281)
Put in a fast train between SA and ATX. The SA-ATX Express. Close the time/distance gap. Hell, I'll buy season tics!

That's actually a good point. Put the stadium in San Antonio and put it on a commuter rail line. Connect to sunset station downtown, rennovate the Alamodome, set up a shuttle service and viola!

Geaux Tigers Jan 5, 2007 2:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schertz1 (Post 2547220)
What about KC, Cincinnati, and Milwaukee?

And when was the last time these smaller cities produced a competitive MLB team? San Antonio, while growning, is still a small market compared to lots of other cities.

Tex1899 Jan 6, 2007 3:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schertz1 (Post 2547220)
What about KC, Cincinnati, and Milwaukee?

I agree with Geaux Tigers...
Quote:

Not to crap on San Antonio, but the city's one shot at a NFL team was the Saints. Everyone knows that the next city to get a NFL team will be Los Angeles.

The market is too small to competitively support a MLB team. Perhaps an NHL or MLS expansion team could one day play in San Antonio
Cincy: long history with baseball...weren't the Reds the first baseball team in America?

Milwaukee: small, stagnant market, but a history of professional sports, at least for the last 50 years...plus, they have a new stadium

Kansas City: gone if MLB ever decides to contract by 2 teams; possibly gone in a few years anyway...when Eugene Kaufman (?), their former owner, died a few years ago, several nails went into their coffin

Here's a good MLS name: Alamo FC

texastarkus Jan 6, 2007 7:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 21bl0wed (Post 2546785)
This is where austin and sa should come together and try to bring a team to the AREA. Austin and sa alone would be small markets but put them together and its a decently sized medium market. Just make sure to put the stadium in new braunfels :D :D


Why not put the stadium in Kyle or Buda?

jaga185 Jan 6, 2007 8:19 PM

If there was to be a stadium, it would probably have to be in San Marcos, because that is mid-way point between Austin and San Antonio.

SAguy Jan 7, 2007 12:38 AM

Remember San Antonio is the one chasing after another Pro Team not Austin. Any stadium built would be in or around S.A. not Austin.

Double L Jan 7, 2007 2:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaga185 (Post 2549824)
If there was to be a stadium, it would probably have to be in San Marcos, because that is mid-way point between Austin and San Antonio.


Well if they did that then nobody would go there because it's too far away. I agree with JAM, connect the Alamodome to sunset station and then everybody will use the commuter rail.

21bl0wed Jan 7, 2007 7:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by texastarkus (Post 2549733)
Why not put the stadium in Kyle or Buda?

Hence the two :D ...The ideal spot would be just south of san marcos. But then again maybe not since round rock has some good population i'm not sure they'd want to drive out that far.

TexasBoi Jan 8, 2007 5:41 AM

the NFL is the best shot. 8 games out of the season. San Antonio can support that. I do not believe they combined with Austin can support 81 games in MLB. And once the newness wears off and the team starts to consistently struggle, it will be like KC.

In fact, bringing up KC, Cincinatti, and Milwaukee does not help your argument. KC barely gets attendance anyway. Milwaukee is 90 miles away from Chicago and Cincinatti is a historic franchise that's been around for decades.

SAguy Jan 9, 2007 6:28 AM

Leaders Look at Plan for Pro Sports Teams
 
Leaders Look at Plan for Pro Sports Teams

Local leaders met Monday to put together a plan to elevate San Antonio to the top of the list for professional sports, officials told News 4 WOAI.
“It's just a question of time until we get one or more, professional franchises here, either in baseball, football or both,” San Antonio Mayor Phil Hardberger said Monday. He met with Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff to construct a game plan.

“The whole idea is not to just go for one team, but to establish a climate that will be appealing to all teams, and the commissioners,” Hardberger said.

They were looking at a change in strategy after failed attempts to bring both the NFL and Major League Baseball to San Antonio, officials said.

“First, sitting down with the comissioners, getting a clear reading from them,” Wolff said of the strategy, “what they want, what they expect and what they're willing to do and then work with the individual teams.”

By building relationships with the commissioners, Hardberger said chances of San antonio scoring the NFL or Major League Baseball will only get better.

“From the top down, establish San Antonio as a sports-minded town, that it would make some sense to come here,” Hardberger said.

Hardberger, Wolff, and other area leaders plan to meet with the NFL and MLB commissioners within the next three months.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
KSAT is reporting that S.A. will be meeting with the Chargers in the coming months.

JAM Jan 9, 2007 6:41 AM

I don't think it would be a good idea to put a stadium inbetween SA and ATX. Even if it means it is personally more difficult for me to make it to a game. I probably wouldn't enjoy going to Buda for a game as much as I would SA, even though I might not make it as often. I don't even like the fact that Dallas is putting it's stadiums inbetween Ft. Worth and Dallas, although that example is less of a stretch. I feel like stadiums belong in the city center where the bulk of the poplulation can enjoy the game and do other things before/after the game. This brings in additional business, and creates a culture. If a stadium is put in the middle of no where or somewhere inbetween, then little culture is created. No dense housing would be built around it, no museums, ect.... The point of getting a stadium is to bring in dollars to the community, and hopefully, those dollars will get regenerated into other areas that other people of other interests will enjoy, even if they don't like professional sports. IMHO.

matttwentyeight Jan 9, 2007 7:19 AM

Amen Jam, Amen!!!

Trae Jan 9, 2007 2:51 PM

The Cardinals Stadium is doing just fine in Glendale. I have heard that some "urban developments" are going up around it..like the new Cowboys Stadium. I wish San Antonio good luck with that new NFL team there are trying to get. Los Angeles will give you all a run for your money.

Back when the new franchise was awarded to Houston, Bob McNair came up with more money and had a better stadium proposal. Also, Houston had already had a sports franchise for 40 years at that time before they moved, so that helped.

satsuchan Jan 11, 2007 11:33 PM

Above #19, every market has football and MLB save LA...

19 Sacramnto-Stktn-Modesto 1,345,820 1.221
20 Orlando-Daytona Bch-Melbrn 1,345,700 1.221
21 St. Louis 1,222,380 1.109
22 Pittsburgh 1,169,800 1.061
23 Portland, OR 1,099,890 0.998
24 Baltimore 1,089,220 0.988
25 Indianapolis 1,053,750 0.956
26 San Diego 1,026,160 0.931
27 Charlotte 1,020,130 0.926
28 Hartford & New Haven 1,013,350 0.919
29 Raleigh-Durham (Fayetvlle) 985,200 0.894
30 Nashville 927,500 0.842
31 Kansas City 903,540 0.820
32 Columbus, OH 890,770 0.808
33 Milwaukee 880,390 0.799
34 Cincinnati 880,190 0.799
35 Greenvll-Spart-Ashevll-And 815,460 0.740
36 Salt Lake City 810,830 0.736
37 San Antonio 760,410 0.690
38 West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce 751,930 0.682
39 Grand Rapids-Kalmzoo-B.Crk 731,630 0.664
40 Birmingham (Ann and Tusc) 716,520 0.650
41 Harrisburg-Lncstr-Leb-York 707,010 0.641
42 Norfolk-Portsmth-Newpt Nws 704,810 0.640
43 New Orleans 672,150 0.610
44 Memphis 657670 0.597
45 Oklahoma City 655,400 0.595
46 Albuquerque-Santa Fe 653,680 0.593
47 Greensboro-H.Point-W.Salem 652,020 0.592
48 Las Vegas 651,110 0.591
49 Buffalo 644,430 0.585
50 Louisville 643,290 0.584

So, Sacramento seems to have a bigger chance than SA...

On this list, Austin comes in 54th, just after Jacksonville FL and Albany and before Scranton.

http://www.digitalsyndicate.tv/markets.html

Something to consider about Cincinnati - it also has the large Dayton Market (ranked about 56th); Milwaukee can count on Madison and Green Bay...

BSofA04 Jan 12, 2007 4:52 AM

^^Sacramento can't even get a new arena built for the Kings, good luck on a football stadium for an NFL team lol! As you can see, small DMA markets such as Milwaukee, New Orleans and Buffalo have successful. profitable franchises. You can have one of the biggest markets around, but if no one cares and local leaders arn't able to provide a viable stadium plan smaller progressive markets become a great alternative. Sacramento is about to lose the Kings to KC or LV.....they have NO SHOT WITH THE NFL.

Schertz1 Jan 12, 2007 4:59 AM

I do not think the San Antonio DMA represents San Antonio's true Market/Media Area. First, the DMA is smaller than the Metro. Second, the DMA excludes many small towns, in all directions, which are closer to San Antonio than any other small or medium market. The recent changing to Austin Media from San Antonio Media in Kerr County is only one example. Victoria, Corpus, and Laredo also play a part in this. If you look at smaller metros and compare the DMA to the census data you will really start to question how they are derived. Raleigh and Fayetteville North Carolina is one market with about 65 miles distance between the two. Fayetteville Metro is over 300K and defiantly large enough to support it's own affiliates. Rocky Mount, about 45 miles from Raleigh, has 150K+ and is also included in Raleigh DMA as it should be. If San Antonio plans to market itself to the NFL or MLB it will first need to downplay the DMA system. I don't think it really matters if you can not sellout your games anyway.

Schertz1 Jan 12, 2007 5:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satsuchan (Post 2560416)
Above #19, every market has football and MLB save LA...

19 Sacramnto-Stktn-Modesto 1,345,820 1.221
20 Orlando-Daytona Bch-Melbrn 1,345,700 1.221
21 St. Louis 1,222,380 1.109
22 Pittsburgh 1,169,800 1.061
23 Portland, OR 1,099,890 0.998
24 Baltimore 1,089,220 0.988
25 Indianapolis 1,053,750 0.956
26 San Diego 1,026,160 0.931
27 Charlotte 1,020,130 0.926
28 Hartford & New Haven 1,013,350 0.919
29 Raleigh-Durham (Fayetvlle) 985,200 0.894
30 Nashville 927,500 0.842
31 Kansas City 903,540 0.820
32 Columbus, OH 890,770 0.808
33 Milwaukee 880,390 0.799
34 Cincinnati 880,190 0.799
35 Greenvll-Spart-Ashevll-And 815,460 0.740
36 Salt Lake City 810,830 0.736
37 San Antonio 760,410 0.690
38 West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce 751,930 0.682
39 Grand Rapids-Kalmzoo-B.Crk 731,630 0.664
40 Birmingham (Ann and Tusc) 716,520 0.650
41 Harrisburg-Lncstr-Leb-York 707,010 0.641
42 Norfolk-Portsmth-Newpt Nws 704,810 0.640
43 New Orleans 672,150 0.610
44 Memphis 657670 0.597
45 Oklahoma City 655,400 0.595
46 Albuquerque-Santa Fe 653,680 0.593
47 Greensboro-H.Point-W.Salem 652,020 0.592
48 Las Vegas 651,110 0.591
49 Buffalo 644,430 0.585
50 Louisville 643,290 0.584

So, Sacramento seems to have a bigger chance than SA...

On this list, Austin comes in 54th, just after Jacksonville FL and Albany and before Scranton.

http://www.digitalsyndicate.tv/markets.html

Something to consider about Cincinnati - it also has the large Dayton Market (ranked about 56th); Milwaukee can count on Madison and Green Bay...

Sacramento has no chance of getting NFL or MLB with San Francisco less the 90 miles away. Oakland is even closer.

JAM Jan 12, 2007 8:59 AM

^^^^ These numbers don't look representative of real populations. Metro #'s would be more revealing for determining pro-teams. TV markets count as well. So do corporation purchasing power.

BSofA04 Jan 14, 2007 8:33 PM

Jam,
You're absolutly right. Corporate purchasing power is why owners consider San Antonio. With AT&T, USAA and Valero to name a few, those are some significant heavyweights. Throw in a little Red McCombs with Peter Holt (who privatley has expressed intrest in being a potential minority owner), and you have a very promising opportunity. Oh yeah, and football is also KING in Texas.

kornbread Jan 14, 2007 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BSofA04 (Post 2564826)
Jam,
You're absolutly right. Corporate purchasing power is why owners consider San Antonio. With AT&T, USAA and Valero to name a few, those are some significant heavyweights. Throw in a little Red McCombs with Peter Holt (who privatley has expressed intrest in being a potential minority owner), and you have a very promising opportunity. Oh yeah, and football is also KING in Texas.

That is the problem; naming a few. I think the Alamodome only has 16-32 suites. However, most NFL teams have significantly more suites available (about 100 for newer stadiums). So when you start naming corporate support you need to be able to fill in those kinds of numbers. Obviously the dome falls short here, but the corporate environment is also tight.

You could add HEB, Tesoro, The Capital Group, Clear Channel, Toyota, Frost, IBC, Rackspace... It's starting to get tight. I'm sure there are a few more banking, drug, law related companies. US Global Investors made a bunch this past year, but NFL interest is far from a sure thing just because of the presence of at&t.

Also, to me, I didn't think SA's flirtation with the NFL last year showed a fierce interest in the game. They really should have sold out the 3 games as soon as they went on sale. That really shows something about disposable income for the city. An NFL ticket is expensive and just because football is king, it doesn't mean it sells tickets. They had to give some 10,000 tickets away before the last game on Christmas Eve to get the sellout. Not the strongest showing of support.

In the past the NFL said the roadblock for SA was the stadium, but it was really much more. That resulted in an empty stadium. Sure, it has been put to other use. People have enjoyed college basketball and football, and who could forget the memorial day miracle? But it has not been used for what is was built for and is already likely not suitable for the game today.

Hopefully the leagues willl give the city an honest assesment so they can move on to other things that will help to improve quality of life. When the environment of the city is improved it can start to draw corporate interest and everything else after that will fall into place.

METALMiKE Jan 14, 2007 11:38 PM

Good post.:)

SAguy Jan 15, 2007 12:36 AM

Quote:

Also, to me, I didn't think SA's flirtation with the NFL last year showed a fierce interest in the game. They really should have sold out the 3 games as soon as they went on sale. That really shows something about disposable income for the city. An NFL ticket is expensive and just because football is king, it doesn't mean it sells tickets. They had to give some 10,000 tickets away before the last game on Christmas Eve to get the sellout. Not the strongest showing of support
Remember, the Saints were a mediocre team last year and this is Cowboys country. As for corportate support, I don't see it as a big problem. San Antonio corporate base continues to expand. Also the Alamodome is in the process of adding more suites however; it's still below the 100 mark. If San Antonio does land an NFL team it will likely need to build a new stadium or dome. Perhaps, use the Alamodome temporary until a new one is built.

Schertz1 Jan 15, 2007 4:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kornbread (Post 2565012)
That is the problem; naming a few. I think the Alamodome only has 16-32 suites. However, most NFL teams have significantly more suites available (about 100 for newer stadiums). So when you start naming corporate support you need to be able to fill in those kinds of numbers. Obviously the dome falls short here, but the corporate environment is also tight.

You could add HEB, Tesoro, The Capital Group, Clear Channel, Toyota, Frost, IBC, Rackspace... It's starting to get tight. I'm sure there are a few more banking, drug, law related companies. US Global Investors made a bunch this past year, but NFL interest is far from a sure thing just because of the presence of at&t.

Also, to me, I didn't think SA's flirtation with the NFL last year showed a fierce interest in the game. They really should have sold out the 3 games as soon as they went on sale. That really shows something about disposable income for the city. An NFL ticket is expensive and just because football is king, it doesn't mean it sells tickets. They had to give some 10,000 tickets away before the last game on Christmas Eve to get the sellout. Not the strongest showing of support.

In the past the NFL said the roadblock for SA was the stadium, but it was really much more. That resulted in an empty stadium. Sure, it has been put to other use. People have enjoyed college basketball and football, and who could forget the memorial day miracle? But it has not been used for what is was built for and is already likely not suitable for the game today.

Hopefully the leagues willl give the city an honest assesment so they can move on to other things that will help to improve quality of life. When the environment of the city is improved it can start to draw corporate interest and everything else after that will fall into place.

You know, one thing I hate is a pessimistic attitude. The San Antonio nays Sayers alway pull the same cards and fail to mention the NFL cities that contradict the theories. When you look at Corporation bases look at Buffalo, Kansas City, Nashville, Tampa, Jacksonville, New Orleans, and Green Bay. There are several other Fortune 500s in San Antonio, Washington Mutual, MCI, Microsoft, Home Depot and Lowe’s operations are a few. We also have Zachary, Cordell, Rush, Koontz McCombs, West, Garden Ridge, and KCI. Austin is less than an hour, depending on where you live, so it is only logical may Austin companies would have suites. If Austin had an NFL team San Antonio companies would surly support it. NFL attendance is historically low for Christmas Eve games. Should San Antonio be any different? Basically, you do not know very much about South Central Texas.

kornbread Jan 15, 2007 5:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAguy (Post 2565150)
Remember, the Saints were a mediocre team last year and this is Cowboys country.

I went to the Saints-Falcons game and people were cheering for this mediocre team and having fun. I think the people that want the NFL and are willing to support it went to the games. To what extent would/could they support it? They had 3 games to audition for the NFL.

I heard some say people were mad about what Tagliabue said, or that it was Christmas Eve. But if you're trying to land a job and your potential employer expresses doubts you could either try to convince them that you are worth the risk or be offended and not care. How bad do you really want it? If it's the only game in town (like the NFL) you have to swallow your pride (on their schedule) or decide you don't need it.

Of course there are many reasons why people could not go to a game, but SA is a city of over 1 million. If this was the city's chance to prove it could support a team, it was interesting to see what transpired.

kornbread Jan 15, 2007 6:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schertz1 (Post 2565258)
You know, one thing I hate is a pessimistic attitude. The San Antonio nays Sayers alway pull the same cards and fail to mention the NFL cities that contradict the theories. When you look at Corporation bases look at Buffalo, Kansas City, Nashville, Tampa, Jacksonville, New Orleans, and Green Bay. There are several other Fortune 500s in San Antonio, Washington Mutual, MCI, Microsoft, Home Depot and Lowe’s operations are a few. We also have Zachary, Cordell, Rush, Koontz McCombs, West, Garden Ridge, and KCI. Austin is less than an hour, depending on where you live, so it is only logical may Austin companies would have suites. If Austin had an NFL team San Antonio companies would surly support it. NFL attendance is historically low for Christmas Eve games. Should San Antonio be any different? Basically, you do not know very much about South Central Texas.

Well, actually I grew up in San Antonio and South Central Texas. The post I responded to said that corporate purchasing power is why owners consider SA. My point was that it was actually more of a concern than a plus. I would categorize that as more realistic than pessimitic. I think SA is gaining a better corporate base and hopefully it will really flourish over the next 10 years.

I may be wrong, but I tihnk the only presence Microsoft, Lowes and Home Depot currently have in SA is retail and sales. Lowes has a proposed data center near Westover Hills. Microsoft is considering a data center nearby. Garden Ridge is actually headquartered in Houston.

Schertz1 Jan 15, 2007 6:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kornbread (Post 2565438)
Well, actually I grew up in San Antonio and South Central Texas. The post I responded to said that corporate purchasing power is why owners consider SA. My point was that it was actually more of a concern than a plus. I would categorize that as more realistic than pessimitic. I think SA is gaining a better corporate base and hopefully it will really flourishes over the 10 years.

I may be wrong, but I tihnk the only presence Microsoft, Lowes and Home Depot currently have in SA is retail and sales. Lowes has a proposed data center near Westover Hills. Microsoft is considering a data center nearby. Garden Ridge is actually headquartered in Houston.

The Lowe's data center is under construction, or at least the site work. Microsoft currently has a small operation here and may buy the land next to the new Lowe's Data center for their data center. Paypal is also looking at SA for a data center. Garden Ridge may have moved to Houston, but it was started in San Antonio. Lowe's may also build a regional distribution center in the San Antonio area. I made a mistake on Home depot, I meant Wal-Mart.

My point is there are many cities with less corporate presence than San Antonio. A fact you left out.

NBTX11 Jan 15, 2007 7:03 PM

Hi guys,

First time poster, got to add my 2 cents, since I am also a sports fan. First of all, market shares do not buy tickets, people do. So I think it is relevant to look at metro population, or MSA population. Here are the cities in SA's neighborhood. I've put their rank in terms of US population as well as how may teams they have:

20 Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater FL 2,647,658 - 3 teams
21 Pittsburgh PA 2,386,074 - 3 teams
22 Denver–Aurora CO 2,359,994 - 4 teams
23 Cleveland–Elyria–Mentor OH 2,126,318 - 3 teams

24 Portland–Vancouver–Beaverton OR–WA 2,095,861
25 Cincinnati–Middletown OH–KY–IN 2,070,441 - 2 teams
26 Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–Roseville CA 2,042,283
27 Kansas City MO–KS 1,947,694 - 2 teams
28 Orlando-Kissimmee FL 1,933,255
29 San Antonio TX 1,889,797 - 1 team
30 San Jose–Sunnyvale–Santa Clara CA 1,754,988
31 Las Vegas–Paradise NV 1,710,551
32 Columbus OH 1,708,625
33 Virginia Beach–Norfolk–Newport News VA–NC 1,647,346
34 Indianapolis–Carmel IN 1,640,591 - 2 teams
35 Providence–New Bedford–Fall River RI–MA 1,622,520
36 Charlotte–Gastonia–Concord NC–SC 1,521,278 - 2 teams
37 Milwaukee–Waukesha–West Allis WI 1,512,855 - 2 teams
38 Austin–Round Rock TX 1,452,529
39 Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro TN 1,422,544 - 2 teams
40 New Orleans–Metairie–Kenner LA 1,319,367 - 2 teams

41 Memphis TN–MS–AR 1,260,950
42 Jacksonville FL 1,248,371
43 Louisville–Jefferson County KY–IN 1,208,452
44 Hartford–West Hartford–East Hartford CT 1,188,241
45 Richmond VA 1,175,654
46 Oklahoma City OK 1,156,812
47 Buffalo–Niagara Falls NY 1,147,711 - 2 teams
48 Birmingham–Hoover AL 1,090,126
49 Rochester NY 1,039,028
50 Salt Lake City UT 1,034,484

So, as you can see, there are 6 cities SMALLER than SA that have multiple franchises:Buffalo, New Orleans, Nashville, Charlotte, Milwaukee, and Indianapolis. Plus another 6 cities, that are SLIGHTLY larger in terms of population that have mulitple franchises. That's 12 cities that are smaller or nearly the same size that have more than one team. And, that's not even taking into account Austin, the #38 metro area just an hour away. For example, West Palm Beach is considered part of Miami's metro, even though it is the same distance from Miami as Austin is to San Antonio. There are other examples. If you combine the metro populations like ther cities do (DFW, WPB/Miami, etc), you have a top 15 metro area with over 3.3 million people. And SA is the gateway for all of South Texas down to the RGV. I don't there is ANY question, looking at the statistics, that SA can support one if not 2 more franchises.

TexasBoi Jan 16, 2007 2:08 AM

SA can support football no problem. 8 games out of the year is doable in a football crazy state.Still think it'll be Cowboy country, though. I have a hard time seeing SA supporting Major League Baseball. That league caters to large market or historic teams.

Tampa- Devil Rays were threatened to be contracted. Bucs are good though.

Pittsburgh- historic city that was once large yet they are on the verge of losing it's NHL franchise.

Denver- the only major city within a 600 mile radius. Nothing even remotely close to challenge it. That's why they have all four major sports.

Cleveland- see Pittsburgh

KC- this is not a good argument for people to bring up. the Royals could easily move to another city because the attendance is horrible.

Charlotte fits the discription of SA.

METALMiKE Jan 16, 2007 4:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAguy (Post 2565150)
Remember, the Saints were a mediocre team last year and this is Cowboys country. As for corportate support, I don't see it as a big problem. San Antonio corporate base continues to expand. Also the Alamodome is in the process of adding more suites however; it's still below the 100 mark. If San Antonio does land an NFL team it will likely need to build a new stadium or dome. Perhaps, use the Alamodome temporary until a new one is built.

Where did you hear about the Dome adding more suites??

BSofA04 Jan 16, 2007 5:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kornbread (Post 2565438)
Well, actually I grew up in San Antonio and South Central Texas. The post I responded to said that corporate purchasing power is why owners consider SA. My point was that it was actually more of a concern than a plus. I would categorize that as more realistic than pessimitic. I think SA is gaining a better corporate base and hopefully it will really flourish over the next 10 years.

I may be wrong, but I tihnk the only presence Microsoft, Lowes and Home Depot currently have in SA is retail and sales. Lowes has a proposed data center near Westover Hills. Microsoft is considering a data center nearby. Garden Ridge is actually headquartered in Houston.

It was pretty obvious to Tagliabue that the quality of football the NO Saints put on the field in 2005 was far from spectacular. Considering all the mishaps with Ticketmaster and no one actually caring about the Saints, San Antonio did a tremendous job. Tags even saluted the city after our efforts to sell as many tickets in a very short time span (what was it...4....5 months????) for a team TEXAS doesn't follow. Asking someone to fork over $50-$70 for a tix to see a crappy team, and then averaging over 60,000 is quite an accomplishment. I too was hoping for a sellout, as I attended all three games, but San Antonio did its part. Image if the team actually committed to SA.....would your opinion change then? Do you actually think 1 game wouldn't be sold out?

About the Alamodome....it was made very clear along time ago that the dome would be a temporary solution until a new stadium deal was put on the table. You know this man, so stop using the Alamodome as a scapegoat for another crappy reason why SA shouldn't have a football team. Your responses are convincing enough to prove that you know what you're talking about, so why play dumb?

I still don't see why you think local SA powerhouses wouldn't want to be associated with a pro football team? Why would it be a concern? When 65000-70000 San Antonians are showing up 8 times a year to support a local team, why wouldn't they want to be associated with that? HEB would be all over it like they were for the Saints (Sponsered the tailgating), USAA would purchase a suite to raffle off to employees like they do for the Spurs games, and probably one more for the CEO. Valero much the same I'm sure. 2 owners boxes. We could go on and on with this but I'm not sure you even beileve me. Well, I respect your opinion but should SA recieve a team, I hope you purchase tix early, because they won't last.

LouisianaRush Jan 16, 2007 3:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NBTX11 (Post 2565978)
Hi guys,

For example, West Palm Beach is considered part of Miami's metro, even though it is the same distance from Miami as Austin is to San Antonio. There are other examples. If you combine the metro populations like ther cities do (DFW, WPB/Miami, etc), you have a top 15 metro area with over 3.3 million people.

Austin/San Antonio is not a metro area this is because of their lack of interconnectivity between the two cities and the vast amount of empty space between the two. West Palm/Miami may be the same distance as Austin/San Antonio, but WPB/Miami are interdependent, has strong commuting patterns, and it has no empty land between the two.

SAguy Jan 16, 2007 5:28 PM

Quote:

METALMiKE-Where did you hear about the Dome adding more suites??
I believe I read in the January 12 edition of the San Antonio Business Journal which still out until this Friday. If not there, it was in the San Antonio Express News.

kornbread Jan 16, 2007 5:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BSofA04 (Post 2566943)
It was pretty obvious to Tagliabue that the quality of football the NO Saints put on the field in 2005 was far from spectacular. Considering all the mishaps with Ticketmaster and no one actually caring about the Saints, San Antonio did a tremendous job. Tags even saluted the city after our efforts to sell as many tickets in a very short time span (what was it...4....5 months????) for a team TEXAS doesn't follow. Asking someone to fork over $50-$70 for a tix to see a crappy team, and then averaging over 60,000 is quite an accomplishment. I too was hoping for a sellout, as I attended all three games, but San Antonio did its part. Image if the team actually committed to SA.....would your opinion change then? Do you actually think 1 game wouldn't be sold out?

The support would likely be there for the first few seasons, but how long would someone fork out over $50-$70 a ticket if it was a crappy team? The NFL is thinking long term.

I think those that were serious about supporting a team bought their tickets. That's why the first 2 games sold well. I think the buyout-sellout of the third game sends out mixed signals. There is no doubt in Green Bay where they have a waiting list of over 10,000 for season tickets and a crappy team.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BSofA04 (Post 2566943)
About the Alamodome....it was made very clear along time ago that the dome would be a temporary solution until a new stadium deal was put on the table. You know this man, so stop using the Alamodome as a scapegoat for another crappy reason why SA shouldn't have a football team. Your responses are convincing enough to prove that you know what you're talking about, so why play dumb?

It seems you misunderstood my point. A new stadium would be included in securing a team. That new stadium would have many more suites than what the Alamodome has. Most new stadiums have around 100 suites, so the NFL is looking for a community that has the demand for those kinds of numbers.

The other mention of the dome was the campaign that if a stadium was built the city would get a team. That obviously didn't happen. Hopefully the leagues will be up-front about the city's realistic chances of getting a team.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BSofA04 (Post 2566943)
I still don't see why you think local SA powerhouses wouldn't want to be associated with a pro football team? Why would it be a concern? When 65000-70000 San Antonians are showing up 8 times a year to support a local team, why wouldn't they want to be associated with that? HEB would be all over it like they were for the Saints (Sponsered the tailgating), USAA would purchase a suite to raffle off to employees like they do for the Spurs games, and probably one more for the CEO. Valero much the same I'm sure. 2 owners boxes. We could go on and on with this but I'm not sure you even beileve me. Well, I respect your opinion but should SA recieve a team, I hope you purchase tix early, because they won't last.

I don't doubt that the city would enjoy support from local corporations. The question was is there the kind of corporate support that NFL teams enjoy in other cities.

San Antonio has 5 Fortune 500 companies; 4 in the top 252 thanks to the big profits from refiners (Valero, at&t, Tesoro, USAA) with Clear Channel being the other F500. After that there is only 1 more (Rush Ent.) in the top 1000. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...une500/cities/

San Antonio also has a fairly low median income like New Orleans
http://www.efanniemae.com/sf/refmaterials/hudmedinc/

How is it that SA does not have a team now? It all comes down to economics. Has the climate changed enough to make the city attractive today? That remains to be seen.

NBTX11 Jan 16, 2007 6:05 PM

The Alamodome would only be a temporary solution in luring a team here. Remember, the city was willing to fork over at least 200 million to lure the Marlins here, with a new stadium. If a team were to seriously look into SA, you can bet Hardberger and Wolff would put up at least 250-300 million to upgrade the alamodome to NFL stadards by adding a whole bunch of suites, or as a downpayment on a new stadium. The current city leadership would do whatever it took to land a team, including forking over big money. After Hardberger leaves office, that might change though. Oh, and by the way, the Alamodome is adding some more suites. That was part of the deal when garza tried bringing in MLS soccer. The city said no to MLS when hardberger took over, but decided to add suites anyway. I don't know how many though, I think it was in the neighborhood of an additional 12-18 suites.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.