Senator Answers Criticism From Foster

mayoj · 06-08-2005, 08:26 AM

Senator answers criticism from Foster
This letter is in response to recent correspondence from former Gov. Mike Foster relative to the New Orleans Saints contract. The information provided in that letter did not provide a complete picture as to the state's investment in the Saints, the cost to the taxpayers and the true economic impact of professional football on Louisiana's economy.

First, the former governor indicated that an economist verified that the agreement would make money for the state. Further, Mr. Foster implied that the agreement would yield a two-for-one return on investment. Actually, the economist's report could lead one to conclude that there was a $7 million loss in the first year alone, based on the economist's estimated state revenue.

Second, the former governor's recent letter did not address the costs resulting from the stadium agreement he signed with Saints owner Tom Benson. These costs include: part of the construction, maintenance, improvement of facilities ($187 million outstanding Superdome debt); any proposed cash incentives and infrastructure provided to the owner ($187 million); and lease entitlements (concessions, game day parking, suite license fees etc.) to the owner ($194 million). One may be led to conclude, in part, that Mr. Foster's inability to secure a more traditional stadium agreement may result in a significant local earnings blow from the loss of another Super Bowl in the foreseeable future ($92 million).

Third, Mr. Foster's own analysis four years ago concluded that renovating the Superdome was the most cost-effective means by which to keep the Saints in New Orleans. Based on national averages, this approach may have called for a three-to-one public-to-private shared investment in renovating the Superdome. Instead, the former governor simply agreed to provide annual cash subsidies to the only debt-free franchise in the NFL in exchange for the team remaining in Louisiana.

Had Mr. Foster better assessed the costs and benefits associated with his Saints deal, we may not be in the situation we are in today. His calling me names does not dispute the facts.

http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/..._view002.shtml

06-08-2005, 08:26 AM	#1
mayoj 100th Post Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Charleston, SC Posts: 109	Senator Answers Criticism From Foster Senator answers criticism from Foster This letter is in response to recent correspondence from former Gov. Mike Foster relative to the New Orleans Saints contract. The information provided in that letter did not provide a complete picture as to the state's investment in the Saints, the cost to the taxpayers and the true economic impact of professional football on Louisiana's economy. First, the former governor indicated that an economist verified that the agreement would make money for the state. Further, Mr. Foster implied that the agreement would yield a two-for-one return on investment. Actually, the economist's report could lead one to conclude that there was a $7 million loss in the first year alone, based on the economist's estimated state revenue. Second, the former governor's recent letter did not address the costs resulting from the stadium agreement he signed with Saints owner Tom Benson. These costs include: part of the construction, maintenance, improvement of facilities ($187 million outstanding Superdome debt); any proposed cash incentives and infrastructure provided to the owner ($187 million); and lease entitlements (concessions, game day parking, suite license fees etc.) to the owner ($194 million). One may be led to conclude, in part, that Mr. Foster's inability to secure a more traditional stadium agreement may result in a significant local earnings blow from the loss of another Super Bowl in the foreseeable future ($92 million). Third, Mr. Foster's own analysis four years ago concluded that renovating the Superdome was the most cost-effective means by which to keep the Saints in New Orleans. Based on national averages, this approach may have called for a three-to-one public-to-private shared investment in renovating the Superdome. Instead, the former governor simply agreed to provide annual cash subsidies to the only debt-free franchise in the NFL in exchange for the team remaining in Louisiana. Had Mr. Foster better assessed the costs and benefits associated with his Saints deal, we may not be in the situation we are in today. His calling me names does not dispute the facts. http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/..._view002.shtml