JKool

Ok.

For all you guys who think that the Saints are unwilling to pay for a team. In 2003, we had the highest payroll in the league. That means that we were paying the most for players of any team in the league; i.e. no other owner paid his team more that year, not one.

Barring distinctions between spending and paying, people who think that "this regime" does not ever use money on players, I call BS. Benson opened the wallet and paid his players more than any other owner in 2003.

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/footb...aspx?year=2003

If I'm wrong, please let me know why. If I'm not, quit saying that Benson (or this organization, or whatever) is too cheap to pay for players.

I am in no way suggesting that Benson will pay to get new players here - but I'm not sure why people think he won't, when he is clearly willing to pay his players more than any other team is paying. I'm merely saying the claim that he is too cheap to pay for players is false.

FireVenturi

The amount of spending is fine.....it is the way we spend. For instance, giving Deuce or anybody else an extension...no, let them hole out if they are not happy. You sign a contract you play it out. Another example, TeBucky Jones, which is an average safety, but we payed well above average for him! IF we can trade howard, restructure Joe, let riley and hodge hit the road that would free up about 12 mil, which would prove me wrong and that would be fine!

GumboBC

These discussions always seem to go nowhere because there\'s a lot of folks who don\'t stick to the FACTS and they throw their opinions in there and everything becomes clouded and a long debate ensues and the FACTS are forgotten.

JKool is right! Benson has spent the money. We had the highest total payroll in 2003! That includes signing bonuses, salaries, ect., ect.....

It hasn\'t been money that\'s the problem. It\'s been how the money has been spent.

I get pissed off when there\'s a player out there that could help our team and we don\'t sign the guy.

But, I can\'t ignore the FACTS !

I can blame Benson for many things. But not spending money is not one of them!!

JKool

Whodi,

This wasn\'t for you. I acknowledge your distinction from earlier (spending versus paying). I don\'t know what you deleted, but I wanted you to know that I posted this NOT as a response to anything you\'d said.

saintswhodi

I figured as much, so I didn\'t even get into it again. :thumbsup:

JKool

:thumbsup:

LKelley67

but in 2004 n.o. was 11 million under tha cap! 11mil ( http://www.theredzone.org/caproom.asp )left on the table that could have acquired a linebacker and/or a cornerback. but player salaries are relatively even team to team versus other sports. the big spending disparity now is for coaches. they are skyrocketing. norm chow got in the 800-900K range, mangini is getting the same to leave ne. whaddya think sheppard got? how much was the retention of haz a result of the 4 wins or more the reluctance to pay him 6mil to leave? mueller reported after he left that he could not sign big name free agents cuz upstairs told him no signing bonuses over 10mil. far beyond my opinion benson has a rep as one of the tightest wad owners. he has made a half billion dollars profit off owning the team for two decades and is putting the ransom squeeze on the state. he is a money guy imo, not a football guy. there is a reason why he has been elected the chairman of the nfl finance commitee three times.

he has the ONLY team in the nfl with ZERO debt. the team revenue minus the operating expenses is +149mil. certainly in the top half of the league .
http://www.theredzone.org/teamvalue.asp?Order=Rank

forbes said this of n.o. out of 120 prof franchises-
2004: Our hats are off to the lowest cap cost in all of major sports and the seventh-cheapest ticket price ($43.87) in the NFL. Then again, Big Easy fans are stuck watching a team whose title hopes are as low as a local\'s resistance to gumbo (five playoff appearances and one win in 36 years). The only consistent winner here is Tom Benson, car magnate and ever-more unpopular owner. Forbes says the value of his franchise jumped 22 percent, to $585M.
Overall: 78th
Bang For The Buck: 33rd
Fan Relations: 86th
Ownership: 96th
Affordability: 49th
Stadium Experience: 87th
Players: 91st
Coach/Manager: 69th
Championships: 102nd

LKelley67

http://2theadvocate.com/stories/0130...nking001.shtml
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunh...s/10783947.htm
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/...0328/1002/NEWS

The Bottom 5 NFL Owners
1. Bill Bidwill, Cardinals. Twice as many moves (2) as playoff victories (1) since last title as Chicago Cardinals in 1947. It\'s looking up, though. He finally is getting new stadium.
2. Dan Snyder, Redskins. Owns only franchise Forbes values at more than $1 billion, so he should be more respected than he is. Meddlesome ways have backfired.
3. Red McCombs, Vikings. Carpetbagging San Antonio car dealer bought team cheap, can\'t hoodwink state or city into paying for new stadium, wants to sell.
4. John York, 49ers. Took over for brother-in-law Eddie DeBartolo Jr. and has dismantled proud organization.
5. Tom Benson, Saints. Proof that public is paying too much for cars, another car dealer presides over perennial failure. Called it a high school team. Stadium issues could force move but took $20 million yacht to Super Bowl. (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune....ck=1&cset=true)

The list of failed Saints executives, under Benson alone, is long and not so distinguished.

Kuharich. Loomis. Chet Franklin. Ditka. (It was Mike\'s call, trading every draft pick he had to grab Ricky Williams.)

Tom Benson has met the enemy, and, naturally, the enemy is Tom Benson.

Somewhere, Jim Finks is shaking his head in disbelief.

It\'s a shame.

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunhera...printstory.jsp

JKool

LK,

I take your point. There is much to think about and discuss there, but the fact remains that Benson has paid for players - saying that he won\'t again is different from saying he never will. He did.

He may be a cheap so and so - but that doesn\'t show that he is unwilling to pay his players. He did.

Either (1) we have no evidence one way or the other that he\'ll pay for players, or (2) we have evdience that he will, since he did. The only unjustified claim I can see is (3) Benson will not pay for players.

What needs to be shown by the \"Benson is cheap\" crowd is this: something changed from 2003 until now (he became cheap), because he wasn\'t in \'03.

If he is such a money grubber, why doesn\'t he raise ticket prices? According to everyone the problem is that the Dome is always full. Certainly he could have higher than the 7th lowest ticket price and still fill the Dome?

This last bit is speculation on my part. It is still a fact that in 2003 the Saints payroll was the highest in the NFL. Anyone who wants to present a theory one way or another about Benson\'s cheapness, must explain this fact.

I agree that Benson is not a football guy. Furthermore, I\'m certainly on board with your frustration (and nice work finding all those details btw), but I just don\'t see that it is all that conclusive that our problem is that Benson won\'t open the pocket book. Again, he did.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

JKool

I don\'t see how this last bit of info relates. Snyder is clearly willing to buy a team - that is when this \"Benson is cheap\" stuff comes up most often.

I don\'t care if Benson is cheap or even doesn\'t care about winning. Maybe those are both true. In fact, I could give a rat\'s about his character at all. There just isn\'t evidence to make claims like \"Benson\'s unwillingness to pay is our problem\" - he has paid. Tell me that he has become unwilling to pay, and back it up, then people should listen. Before that, your just saying something that there isn\'t sufficient evidence for.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks