Saints withdraw 2012 Superbowl bid
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.