Spun Posted November 24, 2005 Posted November 24, 2005 I don't trust Tagliabue. He is money representing money at the expense of the players and fans. I hope they give New Orleans a chance. My gut feeling is this is the type of opportunity that the league office and L.A. can capitalize on to get there long desired team in L.A. http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AsF7...ov=ap&type=lgns
Bill from NYC Posted November 24, 2005 Posted November 24, 2005 This will be interesting. Much depends on whether or not New Orleans is permanently "shot," for lack of a better word. If you owned the Saints, where would you rather your team play.....in LA, or in a city that was crushed beyond repair? The greedy side of me doesn't care what happens if it will keep the Bills in Buffalo.
Alaska Darin Posted November 24, 2005 Posted November 24, 2005 I hope they don't. I hope the Federal Government does the right thing and throws in the towel on New Orleans. There is no way in hell to rebuild that city and ensure that the exact same thing doesn't happen again.
jarthur31 Posted November 24, 2005 Posted November 24, 2005 AD is right. I don't want my tax dollars going to a last cause. If they're going to rebuild it better be far from the coast and not near any levies. This goes for any coastal town in the US or earthquake zone. I don't get why people want to live there.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 24, 2005 Posted November 24, 2005 I hope they don't. I hope the Federal Government does the right thing and throws in the towel on New Orleans. There is no way in hell to rebuild that city and ensure that the exact same thing doesn't happen again. 511536[/snapback] Don't think it is going to happen. I hear you Darin... I don't think they will... Eyes light up when the conversation turns to NO.
Alaska Darin Posted November 24, 2005 Posted November 24, 2005 Don't think it is going to happen. I hear you Darin... I don't think they will... Eyes light up when the conversation turns to NO. 511570[/snapback] Oh, I have no doubt that they're going to spend (not the right word, more like "promise) a bazillion dollars and in 20 years the damn city is going to be an island teetering on extinction anyway. You built your city BELOW SEA LEVEL on the COAST. Now pretend you're surprised it flooded.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 24, 2005 Posted November 24, 2005 AD is right. I don't want my tax dollars going to a last cause. If they're going to rebuild it better be far from the coast and not near any levies. This goes for any coastal town in the US or earthquake zone. I don't get why people want to live there. 511565[/snapback] One word: Economy. Not good for commerce when the river is constantly shifting... The two don't jive. Force it (the river) to be static or move along with it. Historically where the French Quarter (between the bends) is, is where the city should stay. Doesn't help when you are dredging project depth to 35-40' 100 miles upstream of the head of passes either... Historically, that isn't kosher either.
Recommended Posts