Pepsi vs Coke... a Saints taste test challenge

WhoDat · 06-17-2005, 08:28 AM

Wow Danno - 5 posts in a row. I think that ties a BnG record. Congrats.

But if you want to get into a debate about the State v. Saints, you're going to have to come with more than that. C'mon, you're better than that.

I think if you ask people do they favor subsidies or paymnets to ANY successful business you'll get the exact same results as asking them about the Saints, probably even worse.

How about an up or down vote on directly giving our money to ANY business in this state, whether its tax breaks or incentives? Ha, probably not gonna see that one eh?

"Corporate welfare? Fine, as long as it isn't the Saints"!

Transparent.

You're correct in saying that I am generally anti-State subsidies, but I am not particularly against tax breaks or other incentives. Moreover, I would disagree that most people would oppose incentives to ANY business. Put that up or down vote on the floor and use Avondale as a test case. If Beoing said they wanted to move their corporate headquarters out of Chicago to some other City and by some miracle New Orleans made the list, most everyone would agree that giving subsidies to attract that business would be fine. I FAVOR the Governor's current offer - which gives $400 Million in guaranteed money to the Saints - so the argument that I simply disapprove of payments to the Saints is completely off-base, unless you think $400 is essentially nominal. No, my problem is with the how, why, and how much. Shall we discuss the true issue, or do you want to continue to deflect?

Do you think the State should take the 15 million they promised someone else and spend it on a hot-air balloon race and an Oil and Gas museum?

Absolutely not. I've already said that in past threads. I've said time and again that the State is far from being blameless. But as I said in THIS THREAD, that's a problem with the LEGISLATURE and not Blanco. She doesn't decide the budget. Moreover, the fact that the State is comparatively at fault for this problem does not negate the Saints wrong-doing, which in this case, I think outweighs the State's.

Should the state allocate the 8/10,000ths of their yearly budget to honor their previous agreement?

Again, of course they should. I've never argued that the State should break their agreement. I've also argued in the past the legislature is acting dangerously if not irresponsibly and is continuing to take Blanco's legs out.

But again, this ignores the question. Is the return on, say $400 for the Saints worth the investment. That is the question. Say instead, for example, the State spent $400 million improving and expanding the convention center. Think that might be a better investment? $5 Billion a year from the Convention Center - the Saints claim $400 million, which is exaggerated IMO.

Do you think bickering with the Saints is simply a diversion by politicians to distract attention away from the largest state budget in Louisiana history?

No, not at all. That the bickering might deflect attention from the budget does not mean that is the reason for the disagreement. That's a side effect. Do you really think that the reason the State is asking the Saints to renegotiate their deal, renovate the Super Dome, sign a long-term deal, and invest hundreds of millions of dollars is just so they can deflect attention from the budget this year? That's pretty hard to defend - especially considering talks began over a year ago in a different budget year.

If I gave you 100 dollars, and you gave me 1000 dollars in return, did I really just give away 100 dollars.

Ah, you know what they say about assumptions Danno. So by your analogy, the Saints generate $150 million in direct annual revenue for the State of LA. The Saints have $150 million in revenue TOTAL, so they must be paying 100% taxes. Wow, Tom Benson is a good guy. Can you run the numbers and show me how that works out? LOL

And let me ask you another question - do you believe that the Saints only become an investment not worth pursuing at the point where it costs more for the State to keep them than to lose them? How does that compare to a belief that Tom Benson making $40 million a year ($43 actually in 2003) is not enough?

lynwood · 06-17-2005, 09:36 AM

I Like Vanilla Coke.

Euphoria · 06-17-2005, 09:43 AM

If you keep the Saints in a aging wore down dome, you're less likely to attract altheletes. I am ok with Benson making bank but if the state has to fork over money to him and pay/upkeep on facilities, I start to winch. We are going to debate this whole deal until we are all blue in the face. This coming season is going to be the most interesting though. If some how someway the Saints pull off one of the greatest seasons it has had, its going to be very difficult not to give Benson the keys to the State.

Danno · 06-17-2005, 10:06 AM

Wow Danno - 5 posts in a row. I think that ties a BnG record. Congrats.
But if you want to get into a debate about the State v. Saints, you're going to have to come with more than that. C'mon, you're better than that.

I didn't want you to debate it. I only wanted to show the transparency in their tactics. I'd prefer ZERO subsidies and ZERO tax breaks for anyone, if not everyone. Why give business X a break, and not business Y? Thats all I was trying to get across. The polls are basically asking "should we give your money to some rich guy". Well duh! What did they expect the poll results to be?

You're correct in saying that I am generally anti-State subsidies, but I am not particularly against tax breaks or other incentives.

To ALL businesses or just select ones? Who determines who doesn't get those tax breaks and who doesn't? I know how and why tax breaks and subsidies exist. It doesn't make it right. I personally am for equal tax breaks for ALL businesses in my state. Which basically is the equivalent of cutting taxes, but for ALL businesses.

And you answered my question in agreement about the up/down vote. They tried to pass a bill that said they weren't going to give any money to the NFL. Think if you swapped "Business" for "NFL" it would have even been suggested by anyone? Not hardly.

Shall we discuss the true issue, or do you want to continue to deflect?

What exactly am I suggesting we deflect?
I'm exposing a loaded poll. Whats that got to do with the price of superdogs in the dome?

Do you think the State should take the 15 million they promised someone else and spend it on a hot-air balloon race and an Oil and Gas museum?

Absolutely not. I've already said that in past threads. I've said time and again that the State is far from being blameless. But as I said in THIS THREAD, that's a problem with the LEGISLATURE and not Blanco. She doesn't decide the budget.

So we agree again? But I wonder why she's attacking Bemson and claiming we can't afford it instead of attacking the legislature? Isn't she the ruling authority in this state now?

Should the state allocate the 8/10,000ths of their yearly budget to honor their previous agreement? ...
Again, of course they should. I've never argued that the State should break their agreement. I've also argued in the past the legislature is acting dangerously if not irresponsibly and is continuing to take Blanco's legs out.

But again, this ignores the question. Is the return on, say $400 for the Saints worth the investment. That is the question. Say instead, for example, the State spent $400 million improving and expanding the convention center. Think that might be a better investment? $5 Billion a year from the Convention Center - the Saints claim $400 million, which is exaggerated IMO.

But they aren't reneging on a promise they made the convention center are they?

Do you really think that the reason the State is asking the Saints to renegotiate their deal, renovate the Super Dome, sign a long-term deal, and invest hundreds of millions of dollars is just so they can deflect attention from the budget this year?

No not entirely, but it does make good cover doesn't it? Sounds like the old rope-a-dope to me.

If I gave you 100 dollars, and you gave me 1000 dollars in return, did I really just give away 100 dollars. ...

Ah, you know what they say about assumptions Danno. So by your analogy, the Saints generate $150 million in direct annual revenue for the State of LA. The Saints have $150 million in revenue TOTAL, so they must be paying 100% taxes. Wow, Tom Benson is a good guy. Can you run the numbers and show me how that works out? LOL And let me ask you another question - do you believe that the Saints only become an investment not worth pursuing at the point where it costs more for the State to keep them than to lose them? How does that compare to a belief that Tom Benson making $40 million a year ($43 actually in 2003) is not enough?

I'm not debating numbers here, never said I was. I'm again, exposing the fraud and transparent tactics in a loaded poll that concludes most oppose "giving" Benson money. Its a simple analogy. Its not to scale!

My opinion on the whole matter is if the state can't afford the Saints, then the Saints should go to a state that can. I just believe she's being a bit less than honest about the poor financial state of affairs in Louisiana. Imagine that, a dishonest politician. And I believe Tom Benson is being a bit less dishonest than Blanco.

WhoDat · 06-17-2005, 10:09 AM

You're absolutely right Euph. I said the same thing a while ago. This season may well determine how this whole thing turns out, b/c it will greatly sway public opinion. There are a LOT of people on the fence with this team, or slightly down on them, and that's a result of their play more than anything. Now you've got an owner talking about them in the Super Bowl. That's real dumb. He should just shut up. If he said nothing and they had a great year, everyone would be thrilled. If they don't make the playoffs, then Benson just blew his whole damn foot off. More hype ending in more frustration. It makes Benson look less trustworthy or incompetent - more like a guy just trying to create hype to sell tickets, and people will be even more down on the team. They better be good or this could get real ugly.

mayoj · 06-17-2005, 11:23 AM

Danno, I agree with the end of your post about the money situation. I don't think we currently have the money, but I do think the cause is a poor system which is not addressed by Blanco or anyone for that matter bc it is too hard too fix, or at least not feasible in the length of a term. No results would be shown in that short a period of time and a lot of feathers would be rustled, so no one takes on the challenge.

06-17-2005, 08:28 AM	#11
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	RE: Pepsi vs Coke... a Saints taste test challenge Wow Danno - 5 posts in a row. I think that ties a BnG record. Congrats. But if you want to get into a debate about the State v. Saints, you're going to have to come with more than that. C'mon, you're better than that. I think if you ask people do they favor subsidies or paymnets to ANY successful business you'll get the exact same results as asking them about the Saints, probably even worse. How about an up or down vote on directly giving our money to ANY business in this state, whether its tax breaks or incentives? Ha, probably not gonna see that one eh? "Corporate welfare? Fine, as long as it isn't the Saints"! Transparent. You're correct in saying that I am generally anti-State subsidies, but I am not particularly against tax breaks or other incentives. Moreover, I would disagree that most people would oppose incentives to ANY business. Put that up or down vote on the floor and use Avondale as a test case. If Beoing said they wanted to move their corporate headquarters out of Chicago to some other City and by some miracle New Orleans made the list, most everyone would agree that giving subsidies to attract that business would be fine. I FAVOR the Governor's current offer - which gives $400 Million in guaranteed money to the Saints - so the argument that I simply disapprove of payments to the Saints is completely off-base, unless you think $400 is essentially nominal. No, my problem is with the how, why, and how much. Shall we discuss the true issue, or do you want to continue to deflect? Do you think the State should take the 15 million they promised someone else and spend it on a hot-air balloon race and an Oil and Gas museum? Absolutely not. I've already said that in past threads. I've said time and again that the State is far from being blameless. But as I said in THIS THREAD, that's a problem with the LEGISLATURE and not Blanco. She doesn't decide the budget. Moreover, the fact that the State is comparatively at fault for this problem does not negate the Saints wrong-doing, which in this case, I think outweighs the State's. Should the state allocate the 8/10,000ths of their yearly budget to honor their previous agreement? Again, of course they should. I've never argued that the State should break their agreement. I've also argued in the past the legislature is acting dangerously if not irresponsibly and is continuing to take Blanco's legs out. But again, this ignores the question. Is the return on, say $400 for the Saints worth the investment. That is the question. Say instead, for example, the State spent $400 million improving and expanding the convention center. Think that might be a better investment? $5 Billion a year from the Convention Center - the Saints claim $400 million, which is exaggerated IMO. Do you think bickering with the Saints is simply a diversion by politicians to distract attention away from the largest state budget in Louisiana history? No, not at all. That the bickering might deflect attention from the budget does not mean that is the reason for the disagreement. That's a side effect. Do you really think that the reason the State is asking the Saints to renegotiate their deal, renovate the Super Dome, sign a long-term deal, and invest hundreds of millions of dollars is just so they can deflect attention from the budget this year? That's pretty hard to defend - especially considering talks began over a year ago in a different budget year. If I gave you 100 dollars, and you gave me 1000 dollars in return, did I really just give away 100 dollars. Ah, you know what they say about assumptions Danno. So by your analogy, the Saints generate $150 million in direct annual revenue for the State of LA. The Saints have $150 million in revenue TOTAL, so they must be paying 100% taxes. Wow, Tom Benson is a good guy. Can you run the numbers and show me how that works out? LOL And let me ask you another question - do you believe that the Saints only become an investment not worth pursuing at the point where it costs more for the State to keep them than to lose them? How does that compare to a belief that Tom Benson making $40 million a year ($43 actually in 2003) is not enough?
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse \"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

06-17-2005, 09:36 AM	#12
lynwood 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Hockley, Tx Posts: 1,515	RE: Pepsi vs Coke... a Saints taste test challenge I Like Vanilla Coke.

06-17-2005, 09:43 AM	#13
Euphoria 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 7,601 Blog Entries: 5	RE: Pepsi vs Coke... a Saints taste test challenge If you keep the Saints in a aging wore down dome, you're less likely to attract altheletes. I am ok with Benson making bank but if the state has to fork over money to him and pay/upkeep on facilities, I start to winch. We are going to debate this whole deal until we are all blue in the face. This coming season is going to be the most interesting though. If some how someway the Saints pull off one of the greatest seasons it has had, its going to be very difficult not to give Benson the keys to the State.
	E U P H O R I A

06-17-2005, 10:06 AM	#14
Danno Site Donor 2014 Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,640	Wow Danno - 5 posts in a row. I think that ties a BnG record. Congrats. But if you want to get into a debate about the State v. Saints, you're going to have to come with more than that. C'mon, you're better than that. I didn't want you to debate it. I only wanted to show the transparency in their tactics. I'd prefer ZERO subsidies and ZERO tax breaks for anyone, if not everyone. Why give business X a break, and not business Y? Thats all I was trying to get across. The polls are basically asking "should we give your money to some rich guy". Well duh! What did they expect the poll results to be? You're correct in saying that I am generally anti-State subsidies, but I am not particularly against tax breaks or other incentives. To ALL businesses or just select ones? Who determines who doesn't get those tax breaks and who doesn't? I know how and why tax breaks and subsidies exist. It doesn't make it right. I personally am for equal tax breaks for ALL businesses in my state. Which basically is the equivalent of cutting taxes, but for ALL businesses. And you answered my question in agreement about the up/down vote. They tried to pass a bill that said they weren't going to give any money to the NFL. Think if you swapped "Business" for "NFL" it would have even been suggested by anyone? Not hardly. Shall we discuss the true issue, or do you want to continue to deflect? What exactly am I suggesting we deflect? I'm exposing a loaded poll. Whats that got to do with the price of superdogs in the dome? Do you think the State should take the 15 million they promised someone else and spend it on a hot-air balloon race and an Oil and Gas museum? Absolutely not. I've already said that in past threads. I've said time and again that the State is far from being blameless. But as I said in THIS THREAD, that's a problem with the LEGISLATURE and not Blanco. She doesn't decide the budget. So we agree again? But I wonder why she's attacking Bemson and claiming we can't afford it instead of attacking the legislature? Isn't she the ruling authority in this state now? Should the state allocate the 8/10,000ths of their yearly budget to honor their previous agreement? ... Again, of course they should. I've never argued that the State should break their agreement. I've also argued in the past the legislature is acting dangerously if not irresponsibly and is continuing to take Blanco's legs out. But again, this ignores the question. Is the return on, say $400 for the Saints worth the investment. That is the question. Say instead, for example, the State spent $400 million improving and expanding the convention center. Think that might be a better investment? $5 Billion a year from the Convention Center - the Saints claim $400 million, which is exaggerated IMO. But they aren't reneging on a promise they made the convention center are they? Do you really think that the reason the State is asking the Saints to renegotiate their deal, renovate the Super Dome, sign a long-term deal, and invest hundreds of millions of dollars is just so they can deflect attention from the budget this year? No not entirely, but it does make good cover doesn't it? Sounds like the old rope-a-dope to me. If I gave you 100 dollars, and you gave me 1000 dollars in return, did I really just give away 100 dollars. ... Ah, you know what they say about assumptions Danno. So by your analogy, the Saints generate $150 million in direct annual revenue for the State of LA. The Saints have $150 million in revenue TOTAL, so they must be paying 100% taxes. Wow, Tom Benson is a good guy. Can you run the numbers and show me how that works out? LOL And let me ask you another question - do you believe that the Saints only become an investment not worth pursuing at the point where it costs more for the State to keep them than to lose them? How does that compare to a belief that Tom Benson making $40 million a year ($43 actually in 2003) is not enough? I'm not debating numbers here, never said I was. I'm again, exposing the fraud and transparent tactics in a loaded poll that concludes most oppose "giving" Benson money. Its a simple analogy. Its not to scale! My opinion on the whole matter is if the state can't afford the Saints, then the Saints should go to a state that can. I just believe she's being a bit less than honest about the poor financial state of affairs in Louisiana. Imagine that, a dishonest politician. And I believe Tom Benson is being a bit less dishonest than Blanco.

06-17-2005, 10:09 AM	#15
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	RE: Pepsi vs Coke... a Saints taste test challenge You're absolutely right Euph. I said the same thing a while ago. This season may well determine how this whole thing turns out, b/c it will greatly sway public opinion. There are a LOT of people on the fence with this team, or slightly down on them, and that's a result of their play more than anything. Now you've got an owner talking about them in the Super Bowl. That's real dumb. He should just shut up. If he said nothing and they had a great year, everyone would be thrilled. If they don't make the playoffs, then Benson just blew his whole damn foot off. More hype ending in more frustration. It makes Benson look less trustworthy or incompetent - more like a guy just trying to create hype to sell tickets, and people will be even more down on the team. They better be good or this could get real ugly.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse \"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

06-17-2005, 11:23 AM	#16
mayoj 100th Post Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Charleston, SC Posts: 109	RE: Pepsi vs Coke... a Saints taste test challenge Danno, I agree with the end of your post about the money situation. I don't think we currently have the money, but I do think the cause is a poor system which is not addressed by Blanco or anyone for that matter bc it is too hard too fix, or at least not feasible in the length of a term. No results would be shown in that short a period of time and a lot of feathers would be rustled, so no one takes on the challenge.