RE: Re: RE: Bengals lawsuit may help New Orleans
 

Speaking of lost revenue ......

Wonder what the estimated total of lost revenue would be from the N.F.L. banned Ron Mexico jersey ????

Re: RE: Re: RE: Bengals lawsuit may help New Orleans
 

\


... well, you lost me there..

you are telling me the Saints are profitable... so why exactly are they demanding 15,000,000 dlls cash a year from the State???? Isn't Benson's argument that the team is not profitable and therefore demands he's given by the State what he calls "guaranteed profits" or else he'd leave?????

... many businesses survive for many years without change, until change bites them in the behind and they go under...
..the NFL was a very different conglomerate 38 years ago... 38 years ago they were preempting games for Heidi reruns...

... and speaking of fans being born into families of fans: as far as I know no one is born with a paying job, so whatever those fans get, the Saints bib or the Saints onesy, still comes out from the same pocket that has been supporting the team already... sure, fans are born every day, but fans die every day too...

..and revenue sharing is NOT designed to keep small market teams.. revenue sharing is designed to keep the league profitable.

... and I don't think owners of other teams like New Orleans because it is a fun place to have a Bowl... owners get much more cash when the SB is played in their stadium.. same thing with the TV deal: adding L.A. to the mix, the T.V. deal could easily go up by 2-3 billion dollars over what it would be without it...

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Bengals lawsuit may help New Orleans
 

There's a difference b/w "spin" and misrepresenting facts. Saying you're amongst the bottom of the league in profitability, and that you cannot keep up with other teams, when in fact you're in the top 10 in the league in Operating Income is not spin. It's a misrepresentation. The U.C.C. even accounts for the difference b/w "puffing" (or salesmenship) and misrepresenting facts.

I disagree, in part, TR. While I agree that the Saints will one day leave, it won't be in the next 3-4 years. The Saints are in a small market, but they are similarly situated with about 10 other teams, and they are very profitable - more profitable than NE (Boston) and both NY teams on a regular basis. The Bears made 1/3 of what the Saints made in 2003, so I guess that goes to show that being in an 8 million person market doesn't guarantee success.

The plan that the State offered the Saints was for 20 years and did not have an out clause for either party. I think that the State and Saints will agree within the next few years b/c L.A. is not a realistic option for Benson. That will keep the team in New Orleans for the next two decades. After that, who knows?

Yes. As I illustrated above, the Saints are very profitable. 6th in Operating Income according to Forbes in 2002. 8th in 2003. Benson is demanding money b/c the State will give it to him, or that's been the case in the past. His saying that the team is not profitable goes to my statements about a potential lawsuit if the Ohio ruling stands. I think Benson is lying when he claims that the team can't keep up with other teams. He could be in real trouble if this Ohio suit goes agaisnt the NFL.

But ask yourself one question - would the NFL, the only truly profitable professional league, an organization that makes Billions of dollars a year - allow a guy who couldn't make his team profitable to CHAIR THEIR FINANCE COMMITTEE??

Add to Whodat's comments the old vikings owner's. He basically said that the stadium deal Benson got was the best in the league -- Like it or not Benson is playing the cards he has to perfection -- New Orleans, already hurting economically, already with the perception of being a dying city cannot afford to let the Saints go -- And one can say that regardless of the economics of the Saints -- From a perception point of view -- if New Orleans ever wants to start attracting business back (which is the only way the city will ever grow) they cannot afford to let the Saints go.

If the Ohio ruling stands I think you will see Benson quickly accepting the last state deal and shutting up about a new stadium for now

Benson never claimed to be poor, the team with its contracts are profitable and different media outlets report that, its not a secret. However the Saints don't generate the hundreds of millions like teams such as Dallas, New York, and Washington. What makes the Saints profitable is that they don't have huge overhead to operate... I don't think this has anything to do with the Saints, will have no effect at all. Benson can sit tight and get a govenor elected that wants to bring in Super Bowls and work with the Saints and all is well. But the Saints are playing with a gun to there head this year. Saints are in a position to make a run... lets say they make the NFC championship game, do you think the Saints will be able to get whatever they want? You better beileve it... some in Baton Rouge feel they want a different management to run the Saints.. if Benson shows he knows what he's doing then state legilation will run Blanco out of there as quickly as she rode in on her broom stick.

Those teams do NOT generate hundreds of millions of dollars in Income. Period. The problem is that people aren't educated on the issue and they believe Benson when he says this stuff. For example, you just said that Dallas, New York and Washington make hundreds of millions.

In 2003, Washington led the league in profitability making $87.8 million. New England was secong at $67.3 Million. After those two, no one was significantly more profitable than the Saints.

3rd - Dallas - $52.3
4th - Denver - $48.8
5th - Houston - $47.6
6th - Tampa Bay - $45.5
7th - Carolina - $44.9
8th - New Orleans - $43.1
9th - Baltimore - $42.6
10th - Tennessee - $42.3

So the Saints were more profitable than 24 teams in the league. But b/c Washington or Dallas make more money the Saints therefore have a bad deal? That's just a totally crap argument. The Saints made more than both New York teams, and teams in much larger markets, like Chicago, San Francisco, Miami, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Baltimore... etc. And where does New Orleans rank as a market? In the bottom 5 in the league. If you have a team in one of the five smallest markets in the league and you're consistently in the top 10 in income, you're very profitable. Your margins must be destroying the competition.

You are right in saying that Benson has low overhead. Know why that is? He doesn't pay rent on his stadium. He doesn't pay rent at his practice facility or corporate offices. He gets concessions that most other teams do not. That's why his margins are so high. In 2003, the same year as the numbers shown above, the Saints had margins of 29.5%. That ranked the team 3rd in the league behind New England and Washington. I think we all agree that Dan Snyder and Arthur Kraft are far better businessmen than Tom Benson, no?

Highly doubtful. Most of the State likes Blanco and how she's handled the Saints situation. Most in Baton Rouge don't like New Orleans, and so shafting the City and its team doesn't matter to most up-state legislators. Blanco has been praised in the media and amongst legislators for the great job she's done so far. While a good showing this season will definitely help Tom Benson in negotiations by softening public opinion about his team, I doubt Blanco will lose a ton of support from the vast majority of the state. She'll likely win re-election.

1. UHM... never said the Saints had a bad deal. I'd say they got a great deal/scam going. My point is I don't thing the Bengals situation will reflect on whats going on with the Benson/Blanco situation. If you tax Benson, take away concession deals, and charge him rent... the Saints drop bigtime as a formidable profitable teams. The deal was to make the Saints as profitable as possible to improve them as a competitve and a winning team, to a degree they have improved.
2. THe figures you quote are 'profit'? Then you have to say they 'generate' hundreds of millions when you take into account all the contracts for tv, merchandising, ect ect...
3. Well some can argue with you on the Snyder thing but other wise.
4. I do agree its more of a Baton Rouge vs. New Orleans thing going on than Saints and State.

OK, I agree that if you take all of that stuff away it hurts the Saints' ability to be profitable. But no one is proposing that. If NFL teams have to show how they compare to one another in terms of profit, and the Saints are in the top of the league in profit, it will make it real hard for them to reject the best sudsidy in the league (the deal the State offered already). I mean, what are they going to say? We're 8th in the league in profit and you just agreed to give us twice as much money over the next 20 years, but that's not good enough??? B/c that's what they're saying now basically.

Yes, teams generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. Most teams are between $140 or so million and $200 million in revenue. The vast majority are grouped in the $150 million to $160 million range. The Saints made $157 million in revenue last year if I remember correctly. Ultimately, though, revenue is irrelevant. PROFIT matters.

Profit means a lot without question and so does cash flow to a degree.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh
 

Just the same old crap