So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

It certainly seems as if the Saints front office is doing everything they can do to sign Lawyer Milloy. This really comes as no surprise to me because we certainly have a big need at saftety and we have the cap space to do the deal. But, just because we have a need and the money doesn't guarantee that we are going to get Milloy, Ultimately it's going to come down to who Milloy want's to play for. Also, some teams like the Redskiins could drive the price up so high that it forces other teams out of the picture. We have only heard what has been released through the media and I'm sure there are many things we don't know and never will.

This situation is typical of most free agent bidding wars. Several teams stand in line, with check books in hand, trying everything they can do to sign the coveted player. Sometimes the deal gets done and sometimes it doesn't work out. What fans need to realize is that they do not no everything that happens behind the scene. Even if they did know everything that happend behind the scene, you still need to realize that every team has different reasons why they ultimately back out of negociations or why they never went after the player at all.

I don't pretend to know why the Saints haven't gone after some of the big name players that some fans wanted, but I don't call into question the organization's desire to win. I have heard several fans not only question it, but state it as fact.

How some fans can call into question the Saints organizations commitment to win based off what players they feel like the Saints should have signed is beyond me. Especially since they have no idea if they could have gotten the player or not. For all of you that have questioned the front office desire to win, I think you should look at the big picture, and understand where this team come from and where it is now. That doesn't happen because the front office isn't commited to winning.

Never I have I heard so much criticizim based of so little facts to back it up. Of couse this isn't unique to only the Saints. You always have those fans out there, no matter what team, that feel like they are better GM's than their team has.





[Edited on 3/9/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

Billy, you\'re right that the fans are completely in the dark with contract negotiating, inside knowledge of players and cap manuevering within the NFL. Fans should not be in position to call a team\'s desie to win into play, but, although I\'m not saying that I am doing that with the Saints, I can clearly see that some franchises do not have the ability to create a winner because of a lack of competent front office staff.

For example, do you believe that the current Cardinals management has the ability as talent evaluators, contract negotiators, promoters and coaches? These guys have a well established history (with current staff) of making bizarre draft choices, bringing in free agents and way over paying for them, bungling free agent deals, and fielding terrible teams. The fans should not be questioning the ownerships desire to win, but their ability to do so.

At what point are fans allowed to question the management of a team? There is a famous business proverb that says \"if you\'re not moving forwards, you\'re moving backwards\". You constantly use the term \"give them the benefit of the doubt\". What you are really saying is that as long as the team is making moves they have potential scapegoats for failure. It is clear that we haven\'t played a game this year, but should we finish 9-7, would you agree that we have hit the wall of progress with this team management? Year one was a huge jump when they came to the league. Year two was nice stability of the growth. Year three was illustrating that thye are struggling with the hurdle......and now year four, if they don\'t climb the hurdle.......do we continue to be lap dogs in blind faith of our masters?

I just want to know where you stand come year end, win or lose.

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

LummOx -- There is an old saying that goes \" If you\'re not moving foward you\'re moving backward.\" However, just because there are ups and downs during a certain period doesn\'t mean you should fire everyone and start over. In a perfect world the Saints would get better and better every year and we would go to the Super Bowl.

Well, this ain\'t a perfect world and last year must be considered a set back for the defense. Does this mean you should over look the big picture here? When Ford Motor Company has a couple of down years, should you fire everyone? My point is, you can\'t just say because we had a couple of set backs that everyone must be fired and overlook the success that they have had.

Everyone has the right to question everything I suppose. It\'s easy to play monday morning QB and point out mistakes. Sure, there have been set backs but I have a hard time following anyones reasoning when they talk as if the Saints front office has hit a wall and doesn\'t have the capiability of getting us over the hump.

Now, I\'m not saying they can. What I am saying is-- it is unfair to say that when you take everthing in to consideration. You got to learn to crawl before you walk and learn how to walk before you run. Sometimes you\'re going to fall down but you\'ve got to get back up. Jim Haslett and Co. hasn\'t fallen down enough IMO. As far as when I would consider firing everyone and starting over. Hmmmmmm... That\'s hard to say because there are so many variables that would have to be taken into consideration.

[Edited on 3/9/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

They seem to have done that on defense though. They pretty much fired everyone and started over there. They seem to have done nothing but move backwards defensively since Haslett came on board. Now I\'m not saying that this is rounds to revamp the team management, but if they don\'t show progress defensively this year I would think it very fair to call for a change in D-coordinator.

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

Now I have no problem with that. And the reason I have no problem with that is Venturi has never showed me anything. The rest of the coaches have.

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

That\'s interesting... what? What have the other coaches shown you?

I mean, Haslett is supposed to be the manager of the team right? But he doesn\'t write the offensive plays, McCarthy does that. Venturi on D. And those guys call the plays on game day too. Sure, Haslett may help determine strategy - for a game, for the direction of the team, etc. But he\'s not calling or writing plays. Neither is he scouting players - we have talent scouts for that (see Meuller), or negotiating contracts (see Loomis)...

Haslett\'s ONLY job, is to make sure OTHERS are doing their job correctly - that relates to some degree to the personnel staff, but mostly to his coaches. If the defense does not get better this season it is as much Haslett\'s fault as it is Venturi\'s. That\'s the way it works in business. When a VP screws up and costs a company millions - he may get fired, but his boss usually goes with him for not fixing the situation before it got worse.

If the defense hasn\'t made big strides by week 6 or 8, Haslett better step in and take the reigns (it\'s not like he hasn\'t been a d coord before), or else he is in the same boat as Venturi... at least from where I\'m sitting.

As for questioning their commitment to win - I don\'t do that. Like Lumm0x said, I question their ability. Further, there is a thin line with ANY NFL team between dedication to winning and profitability. These are corporations, and while they may be different than your average company, their goal is the same as any other company\'s - Maximize shareholder equity. The first purpose of the New Orleans Saints is to make Tom Benson money. The second goal is to win a Super Bowl... why? B/c success of the team means more money for Benson. You think these guys spend $300 million for sh!ts and giggles?

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

I read your post 3 times WhoDat and I still don\'t get what you\'re saying. What\'s your point?

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

Two points:

First, I\'m agreeing with Lumm0x. Ability to win and desire to win are different things. No one gets to work with an NFL team at any level if they don\'t want to win - but that doesn\'t mean that they have the ability to get their team to that point.

Secondly, and this is important to remember. This is a business. Benson is out to make money FIRST, and put a good team on the field SECOND. So if you work for him, or any other owner for that matter, the best way to keep your job is to make sure that the owner\'s bottom line is as big as possible.

Many people here believe that when the Saints don\'t make moves for players it is b/c they feel like they can get beeter value or more players elsewhere. I\'m sure that\'s true to some degree - but how do you know that at least some part of that isn\'t simply covering the owner\'s a$$ and making sure his palms stay greased?

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

I have heard several owners say that they make very little money as an owner of a NFL team. They also said they could have picked a 1000 different things to invest their money in that would have been much more profitable. Further more, each team can spend only so much money per year and most are at that limit every year.

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

Yes Billy, and there is a correlation between success on the field and earnings for owners...

Obviously anyone who owns a sports franchise is going to have some passion for that game - however, you don\'t get enough money to own a franchise by spending money frivilously. NFL owners make money with their teams.

Further, you\'ve seemed to be agast that someone would question the \"front office\'s\" dedication to winning, when in fact, most of the people who work in the front office are concerned with PROFITS - that\'s why football operations is seperate from business operations. Now, again, I won\'t question our personnel\'s dedication to winning, but I will question their ability. Do you think the executives at K-Mart want to fail? Do you think they are happy that 60% of WalMart\'s customers pass a K-Mart on their way to WalMart? No, they don\'t WANT that to happen... but it also sure seems to me like they CAN\'T do anything to change that. Haslett and CO. aren\'t happy missing the playoffs - the question is do they have the ability to do something about that? If not this year, how many more years do you give them before enough is enough?

You\'re the one who keeps talking about how much more talented this team is than any other Saints team in history. If that\'s the case, then this group is rare, and shouldn\'t be squandered. They MUST live up to their FULL potential and time is of the essence. Now, do you think 9-7 and missing the playoffs is their FULL potential? If they don\'t live up again this year that will make three years in a row. How much more time do you give this coaching staff with our special and rare group of talented players?

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

WhoDat -- You have this unique way of avoiding the facts that I\'m telling you. The fact is you said an owner is more concened with making money FIRST. Now -- I stated that every team spends about the same thing every year. Remember the cap? Instead you go in every other direction possible. Stick to what we were debating. You\'re wrong and you know you\'re wrong. Don\'t you think if THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WAS MONEY -- they could have made more money elsewhere?

[Edited on 3/9/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

Billy, if you think winning is more important to owners than money you\'re plum wrong. How can you even begin to believe that\'s a FACT?!?! It doesn\'t even make sense.

Consider - is a sports franchise a business? Yes. Can it survive if it loses money every year? NO. Thus, making money will always be the most important thing, otherwise THERE IS NO FRANCHISE.

Why did Benson threaten to move the Saints? B/c they weren\'t playing well, or b/c HE WASN\'T MAKING ENOUGH MONEY? Why does he want a new stadium? More suites means more money in HIS pocket. Why will the Bears NEVER get rid of Brian Urlacher? He\'s a good player yes, but more importantly his jersey is the highest selling in the league. That\'s merchandising money Billy. You think networks show the games b/c they like them. If you think this league, the teams in it, and the players and coaches and basically everyone involved are not driven by money you\'re sorely mistaken. Yes, occassionally a guy passes on money to play for a contender or with his buddies, etc. But those players do that when the difference in salary is small. Money makes this league go round billy - if you deny that you\'re either incredibly naive or incredibly dumb.

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

WhoDat -- Here\'s how it works, my man!! There are only so many ways that an owner can make money. All teams split an equal share of the TV money. Then you have ticket sales -- Winning puts asses in the seats. Then you have concession sales, clothing sales, and naming rights.

Now, your original point was that the #1 goal is to make money !!! All of that is based off of winning. You don\'t win -- then you don\'t sell tickets or merchadise. Furthermore, the Saints GM has nothing to do with selling tickets or mechandise. He is responsible for spending the money -- He can only spend so much because of the cap.


You might be a broker but you know little about business my man !!

Can you name me one front office person in the NFL that has been fired because the team lost money?? Because I can name a bunch that have been fired because the team wan\'t winning. CHECK MATE!!!



[Edited on 4/9/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

What you\'ve stated is: if a team isn\'t winning you don\'t get people to come to the game. And then you say that the GM has nothing to do with selling tickets? If your GM doesn\'t get the right coach who then aids in getting the right players, who then perform up to expectation, he gets fired. The GM orchestrates the success of a team....it\'s his job to juggle the issue of player salaries to fit under that cap and field the best product for the money.

The GM has everything to do with making money.

And any GM that ever got fired was because he wasn\'t doing those things.

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

Bill, you stated that you heard several NFL owners say that they made very little money as an owner in the NFL and they could have invested their money in 1000 other places and made money. Pardon my ignorance, I didn\'t realize that the profits were that bad in the NFL, could you name those several owners and when they said that?

[Edited on 4/9/2003 by jm]

[Edited on 4/9/2003 by jm]

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

Jerry Jones and Al Davis off the top of my head. These owners can and HAVE made more money outside of the NFL. How do you think they got the money to buy the teams?

You don\'t see General Electric or General Motors rushing out to by a team because it is so profitable. Do you?

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

That\'s my point exactly. The GM isn\'t directly responsible for selling tickets. He is responsible for the team winning. Winning = Money. If the GM puts a winning team on the field and the team doesn\'t make money there is nothing he can do about it. The marketing team can however. How much control the GM has over marketing -- I have no idea.

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

GM and GE CAN\'T run in to buy teams, that\'s why they\'re not. The NFL approves every sale of every team and they only allow private individuals, or groups of individuals, to own teams.

Answer one question for me Billy - when you hear Tom Benson speak, how often is he talking about the players and the team\'s success, and how often is he talking about his profits, moving the team, a new stadium, naming right, corporate sponsorship... etc?

The NFL is about money first and foremost. THAT\'S WHY PROFESSIONAL SPORTS EXIST BILLY. That\'s why they\'re PROFESSIONAL and not AMATEUR. Olympic athletes train just as hard if not harder than players in the NFL and they don\'t get paid for it. They truly do it b/c they love it... well, now there are some endorsement deals involved, but... point is - every NFL player COULD play for 100,000 and still be in the top 5% of wage earners in the country. They get paid so much b/c it\'s big business, and big business doesn\'t get big unless someone is profiting - a lot.

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

Believe me when I tell you that if GE wanted to but a team that they could. You believe what you want to believe. It really makes no difference to me. Paul Allen owns the Seahawks. Know who Paul Allen is? One of the owners of Microsoft. He didn\'t buy the team because it was the most profitable venture he could go into. He also is making as much money as other teams because they ain\'t winning. They still have 25,000 plus tickets for the game Sunday. Don\'t you think that if they went to the palyoffs last year that it would be a sellout? If you can\'t see what I\'m telling you -- it\'s only because you don\'t want to admit you\'re wrong.



Winning = Money

Money does not = Winning

You don\'t win = Losing Money.

I\'m sure there are expecptions to the rule but that\'s the way it works.

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

Chicago Cubs Billy... and the Bears for that matter. Sell out every game and neither have been good for more than a season in a long time.

Ticket sales DO NOT go to owners by the way. They go to the league and the league divides that money evenly. Only sales of tickets for suites go directly to the owners... do you hear Benson screaming to add more seats or more boxes to the Dome?

We\'ve already established that you can make more money other ways than owning a franchise billy. You\'re not teaching us anything new. The problem here is that you\'re making this huge leap. Yes, owners have to care about the game to give up some profits to own a team, but NO owner would continue to own a team if they lost money every year. They may overlook some losses or diminished profits to own a team, but they do NOT forego all profits. As long as it is a business they are out to make money.

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

I have explained it every way I know how. It\'s obvious you don\'t get it. But let me try one more time.

Tickets = Money. Doesn\'t matter if they spit the money or not. They still get more money if they sell more tickets.

They hire a front office to put a winning team on the field first. They do not hire a front office with the number one goal of making money. They know that if they have a winning team they will make MORE money. They aslo know if they put a losing team on the field that they will NOT make as much money. Money does make the world go round. But there\'s a secret to making money in any business. You get a good staff and you sell a good product.

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

Paul Allen\'s reason for buying the Seahawks and the Trailblazers was publicly stated because he grew up in the area and those are the two teams he grew up watching. He admitted that he was never a huge sports fan, but wanted the teams to remain in their areas as a matter of local pride. The guy is a proven hutty philanthropist and throws huge sums of money into a variety of profitable and guaranteed non-profit ventures, but he made a huge coup with that new stadium. The place cost $400 M to create and he kicked $50 M of that out of his pocket. He owns the stadium now and along with the team and is in a huge drivers seat as far as NFL ownership goes.

He is frivolous but not stupid.

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

LummOx -- I don\'t know what that has to do with what we\'re talking about. But -- you are right.

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

What the had to do with it was that as a businessman and avid real estate prospector, Allen saw an opportunity to cheaply (out of his money) design, build and own both the Seahawks stadium and the Portland Rose Garden for a fraction of the true costs, all in the name of \"local sports pride\". He has acquired more than a half billion in assets for just under half of that in expenditures. Business????? I don\'t care if he was dealing with NFL football ownership or Taco Bell shares......it was a financial decision to buy the Hawks and Blazers....the local pride was the means to the end.

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

LummOx-- Let me get you to make a stand here.

Do you beleive that a GM is hired to make money as his # 1 goal or put a winning team on the field.

Do you disagree with me when I say that Winning = MORE money.

Do you disagree with me when I say Losing = Less money.

Just want to know where you stand??

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

A GM is hired to effectively run an owners business. Regardless of the type of business. So a GM is gauged on his ability to do that. Fortunately the owner has to answer to a multitude of fans and the media that will destroy his reputation and personal image if he openly runs a team into the ground to pocket cash. But...
Winning=more potential money so the GM is asked to win with the least money spent outside of the cap and the best product within the cap
Losing does not always equal less money because regardless of ticket sales or television appearances we get an equal share of those revenues, so our direct correlation to the amount is only 1/32 in our control. But, like WhoDat said you can be a 3-13 team and have the most marketable player in the NFL and capitalize on huge revenue.

My stance....the NFL is a business, but the client base is so huge it cannot be operated like a normal business. Owners buy these teams for the \"face time\" they get both locally and nationally, and use this venture as a springboard for others.

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

LummOx -- I agree with everything you just said, as I usually do.

However -- mine and WhoDat\'s arguement was what is the biggest reason a NFL GM is hired. To make money or put a winning team together?

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

GM may not own a team but Ford does. Or am I wrong about Ford Field? Salary Cap only has to do with player salaries. These guys wish that was the only expenses they had to worry about. The NFL as are other pro sports are BIG business. Winning does have everything to do with the amount of money you make as an owner but so do many other things. If that weren\'t the case why in hell would Benson and the state go toe to toe all the time wanting more money. Because New Orleans is a small market area and the people of the area have very little income. Little income= less spending. Less spending= less profits. Thats the way business works. Sorry guys just had to do that. Business 101 class starts tomorrow at 1 P.M. :D

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

I am piping in on this one.

1. NFL owners make a ton of money each year. The profits come from TV rights. Salaries are paid from ticket sales and other fluff money.
2. If anyone believes Jerry Jones and Al Davis when they say they don\'t make money ... well you\'re ... Why would the cinn owner refuse to sell?
3. A corporation cannot have any ownership in an NFL team. Owners cannot comingle their NFL franchise with any other business they may own. See eddie debatolo problems back in the early 90\'s I think it was.
4. The GM\'s responsibilities varies from team to team. If you think Matt Millen is responsible for seeing the owner makes his profits your nuts. Millen is a football guy not a businessman.
5. You only hear benson talk about financial issues because the business side is his responsibility. The day I hear him try to talk football is the day I will die laughing my azz off. LOL
6. If you asked any owner if he would take less profit for a superbowl trophy they would all say yes ... and mean it. Thus wining and making money run 1a and 1b ... I think they are somewhat interchangeable.
7. New stadiums are about luxury suites and building a teams(owners) net worth via public assistance. The very rich mans welfare ... its a hell of a gig and i wish it was me.

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

Well Billy, my answer then to your arguement is the same as FWTex.....1a-winning, 1b making money.

winning-50.0000001
making money-49.9999999

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

FWtex -- You make some good points. I don\'t know how much money owners make and I don\'t think anyone does. I do believe Jerry Jones when he said he didn\'t get into football for the money and when he said if it was about money there were many more profitable verntures he could have invested in.

It\'s true coorperations can\'t incorporate teams but the owner or shareholder can own a team. See Paul Allen as example. For the most part I completely agree with you.


LummOX -- I\'ll take that. As long as I\'m right. ;) There is no such thing as two people coming in first. You have a winner and a loser. I won by -- .0000001 margin... :P

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

When it comes to owners making money or losing money, think of it this way. If they were losing money the books would FLY open.

So much critcizm-- So little Facts.
 

In no way do I think they are losing money and I never said that. Really the only point I was trying to make was that the owners don\'t get into football primarily for the money.