Saints withdraw 2012 Superbowl bid (1 Viewer)

[NCSaint]

yeah, it makes sense.... New Orleans/Louisiana can no longer support a modern NFL franchise..

They should move.

Did you forget to turn sarchasm on/off? Your kidding right? You been around since 2001 so you can't be serious (I hope).

 

[jimrip]

Wow, where are you getting your information from? I recall debating this topic pretty fiercely the past few years and I don't remember any of what you just typed.

1) Blanco didn't whine about giving the Saints any money. The complaint was that the shortfall was having to come out of the general state budget because the projected source of revenue for the payments was not accurate. The request was made to adjust the annual payments to an amount more in-line with what the hotel/motel tax actually generated.

2) Blanco tried to get a deal done. She even proposed the construction of a new stadium which many will quickly shoot down as her going through the motions, yet it was more than anyone else has come close to doing. Benson did not show a willingness to negotiate with her because she approached him with the request to reduce the amount of the payments. Both parties opted to slinging mud at each other instead of getting a deal done.

3) New Orleans was not about to get a Superbowl with the string of new stadiums already promised Superbowls. It's possible that the Saints might have been in the running for the 2007 Superbowl, but the rest were to newly built or renovated stadiums since the last New Orleans Superbowl. The teams with newer stadiums are going to get the nod over New Orleans since those cities decided to subsidize their respective NFL teams with new digs.

A quick search of "economic impact of a superbowl" reveals an article from january of 2007 that predicted a "record $195 million in direct spending for Miami-Dade" during Superbowl XLI. The huge $300 million dollar numbers you see (someplace that I have never seen) are probably inflated figures using economic multipliers which are highly debated. Regardless, the state budget doesn't see all of that money. The immediate area sees that money, which is why the annual payments are to come from .... the local hotel/motel tax.

Starting to make sense yet?

Let me see if I can clear it up a little for you.

1) You basicly rephrased exactly what I wrote. The income from the hotel tax was earmarked for the Saints.. the state did not pay a penny into it. Therefore, Blanco did not "give" that money to the Saints. The part the state had to make up was as you stated "the shortfall". This was the amount that Blanco wanted reduced to zero (as in "any"). Your summary line says just that.. that Blanco wanted only hotel tax money to go to the Saints. Where's the disagreement?

2) I must have been absent the day Blanco offered a new state-built stadium to Benson and him turning it down. It seems the whole internet was absent too because I couldn't find any instance of it. If it even came up in a conversation, it was probably a Benson/NFL financed stadium. In either case, that is off-topic to what I was discussing.

3) I might have been a little obtuse here. By 2 Superbowls, I was referring to 2010 and 2012. I'm pretty sure the 2007 Superbowl was awarded before Blanco entered office, but I could be mistaken. Anyway, you are perfectly correct about the string of new stadiums getting Superbowls. Arizona in 2008, Tampa (old stadium) 2009, New Giants Stadium 2010, New Dallas Stadium 2011. Well it turns out that the new Giants stadium won't be ready in 2010 so the NFL turned to who?... Miami just hosted the Superbowl in 2007. The obvious choice? New Orleans!! But New Orleans does not have a deal in place.. so Miami gets a second Superbowl in 3 years. The latest bid is the topic of this thread, 2012. Again.. no deal, no bid. 2 Superbowls.

4) azcentral.com | Phoenix Arizona News - Arizona Local News
You can debate this one all you want.. I'm not an economics professor by any means. The "official" NFL claim is 300 to 400 million. Google "superbowl economic impact". All I know is that if a waiter makes a few extra bucks during the super bowl, he tends to spend it. If he spends it at a local store, that store owner spends the extra profit he just made. Each time the money is spent, the state gets a sales tax cut. All from money brought in from out of town. Which gets back to my original point.. doesn't an investment from the general fund of 6 or 7 million make sense to bring in the millions from not only the Superbowl but the priceless exposure the city and state get from hosting it?

 

[MLU]

Let me see if I can clear it up a little for you.

1) You basicly rephrased exactly what I wrote. The income from the hotel tax was earmarked for the Saints.. the state did not pay a penny into it. Therefore, Blanco did not "give" that money to the Saints. The part the state had to make up was as you stated "the shortfall". This was the amount that Blanco wanted reduced to zero (as in "any"). Your summary line says just that.. that Blanco wanted only hotel tax money to go to the Saints. Where's the disagreement?

The state determines where the money goes, thus the state gives it to the Saints. If they didn't give it to the state, they would be giving it to the convention center, arena, Superdome, etc. It would go somewhere else. I have no problems giving Tom that money, but he has no right to money out of the general fund any more than the Shaw Group, Harrah's or any other business.

2) I must have been absent the day Blanco offered a new state-built stadium to Benson and him turning it down. It seems the whole internet was absent too because I couldn't find any instance of it. If it even came up in a conversation, it was probably a Benson/NFL financed stadium. In either case, that is off-topic to what I was discussing.

He didn't turn it down. Local NOLA businessmen and politicians shot it down before it ever got started. Blanco proposed a new stadium as part of the Convention Center expansion, actually reducing the expansion to provide for the new stadium. The world was busy criticizing Blanco for being a woman, crying, blathering, etc. so when she proposed such a thing, they became deathly silent in hopes no one would point out what dumb***es they were.

A Google search of "blanco proposed stadium" shows this article on the first page of results. How hard did you look? I had links bookmarked to both the Baton Rouge Advocate and the Times Picayune, but neither appear to be valid any longer.

3) I might have been a little obtuse here. By 2 Superbowls, I was referring to 2010 and 2012. I'm pretty sure the 2007 Superbowl was awarded before Blanco entered office, but I could be mistaken. Anyway, you are perfectly correct about the string of new stadiums getting Superbowls. Arizona in 2008, Tampa (old stadium) 2009, New Giants Stadium 2010, New Dallas Stadium 2011. Well it turns out that the new Giants stadium won't be ready in 2010 so the NFL turned to who?... Miami just hosted the Superbowl in 2007. The obvious choice? New Orleans!! But New Orleans does not have a deal in place.. so Miami gets a second Superbowl in 3 years. The latest bid is the topic of this thread, 2012. Again.. no deal, no bid. 2 Superbowls.

The city doesn't want the 2012 Superbowl because it's smack dab in the middle of Mardi Gras season. Officials for either the city or the Superdome commission already said this like two weeks ago. We were not getting another Superbowl before Miami received a Superbowl. It's just seems to be the natural rotation of the games between New Orleans, Miami and Pasedena. The rest went to new stadium (or newly renovated stadium) cities.

4) azcentral.com | Phoenix Arizona News - Arizona Local News
You can debate this one all you want.. I'm not an economics professor by any means. The "official" NFL claim is 300 to 400 million. Google "superbowl economic impact". All I know is that if a waiter makes a few extra bucks during the super bowl, he tends to spend it. If he spends it at a local store, that store owner spends the extra profit he just made. Each time the money is spent, the state gets a sales tax cut. All from money brought in from out of town. Which gets back to my original point.. doesn't an investment from the general fund of 6 or 7 million make sense to bring in the millions from not only the Superbowl but the priceless exposure the city and state get from hosting it?

read up on economic multipliers and then get back to me. Until you do, this discussion is going to be over your head. It's already over mine and I have done a good bit of reading. I just know that as a rule of thumb when you're given different sets of numbers, you have to take into account who is reporting the numbers and their (possible) motivations. Regardless, even it the economic impact is Eleventy Trillion dollars, the impact is less into the state's budget and more into the pockets of vendors. Sure some of it filters down into the taxes, but no where near the millions and millions that sports franchises, politicians, etc. like to brag about.

 

[jimrip]

The city doesn't want the 2012 Superbowl because it's smack dab in the middle of Mardi Gras season. Officials for either the city or the Superdome commission already said this like two weeks ago. We were not getting another Superbowl before Miami received a Superbowl. It's just seems to be the natural rotation of the games between New Orleans, Miami and Pasedena.

Exactly right, which is why we were in prime position to get the 2010 Superbowl when the Giants fell out. As I stated, Miami had just hosted the game in 2007 and if I remember correctly it was announced during the week of the game or just after that the NFL had to fall back to an emergency plan. We were not even an option without the new lease. And if Mardi Gras is going to interfere with the Superbowl in 2012 on Feb 21, we may as well forget 2013 too.. it's on Feb 12! Feb 21 puts the Endymion extravaganza on Feb18.. that's the only dome event I know of during Mardi Gras. I wonder what those officials have in store 3 weeks before Fat Tuesday in 2012. hmmmmm
I would say that we could conservatively figure on getting the Superbowl every 7 years. That's basicly like buying a Superbowl for 42-49 million spread out at 6-7 million per year. I'd still consider that a bargain, keeping in mind that it also includes an NFL pro football franchise. But I'm stupid that way..

 

[MLU]

Yep, but when Benson stepped away from the table he resigned himself to dealing with the next governor which eliminates any possibility of a Superbowl until a deal is done...