Stadium Sites Narrowed

Rover · 10-03-2005, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scooter Von Bundesliga

.
Well said. By the way, maybe I missed something. What happened to the $60,000,000 stadium? Where'd $250,000,000 come from? Those are huge numbers!

My guess is that we're talking about the entire development, not just the stadium.

Jim Umber · 10-03-2005, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oussan

Thanks, Scholesy, for voicing an issue that's been a beef of mine all along. I've posted on the subject at BS, but I've always felt that Real Salt Lake encompasses a region and not merely a municipality. There are the cities (yes, all three!), the county, and even better, the lake. Put those all together and you've got people from Brigham City to Tooele to SLC, to, yes, even Sandy and Draper that can all be proud to call themselves Salt Lakers.

And I too think a stadium downtown would be glorious and wonderful, but look around - FC Frisco plays a full 45 minute drive away from Dallas. Sandy's not too bad in my mind. Of course, that's my own humble opinion, and whatever the case, I've been encouraged all along that there has been (a) so much jockeying among politicians and (b) so much passionate discussion among fans. Hey, it's gotta be kinda nice to be a part of the RSL team - at least you know you're wanted and loved anywhere you go!

Oh, yeah! Right! Just leave Spanish Fork and Payson out of the discussion. Like we don't count! Huh! We'll just see who counts and who doesn't....

:tomcat:

:tank:

We're coming to get you.

Section 37 · 10-03-2005, 07:27 AM

It's true other teams have built in the suburbs

but property in downtown SLC is cheaper than in other major cities. Building a downtown stadium is more possible in SLC than anywhere else.

I just don't understand how a destination stadium complex surrounded by acres of parking a la Super Target

is an acceptable solution only because a downtown stadium may take more time to get together.

I don't agree with the sentiment that "sooner is better". I believe "better is better"

Don't rush Sandy!

Wait on Downtown!

the cup · 10-03-2005, 08:25 AM

Doesn't it all boil down to this?

Sandy wants it, Downtown doesn't.

RSL wants to be profitable which will only happen once we are in our own stadium. If we can get a very nice stadium built within a couple of years and immediately be profitable (like LA and Columbus) we should jump at the chance.

Otherwise we could keep trying for a downtown stadium which could take a decade due to the fact that the politicos want us to stay at Rice Eccles and in turn keep loosing money.

The league as a whole has lost on average a million dollars a team each year. Once everyone gets in their own stadium the league will start to make money. With Colorado, Chicago, and Metro being in new stadiums soon (and DC not too far off) thats only going to leave New England, KC and San Jose to be the leaches on the butt of the league.

Section 37 · 10-03-2005, 08:46 AM

I don't understand how saving 1 million this year

at the expense of millions of dollars in the future of

a PERMANENT stadium.

Makes Sandy a good location.

It actually makes it a bad location.

bordelais7 · 10-03-2005, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Section 37

It's true other teams have built in the suburbs

but property in downtown SLC is cheaper than in other major cities. Building a downtown stadium is more possible in SLC than anywhere else.

I just don't understand how a destination stadium complex surrounded by acres of parking a la Super Target

is an acceptable solution only because a downtown stadium may take more time to get together.

I don't agree with the sentiment that "sooner is better". I believe "better is better"

Don't rush Sandy!

Wait on Downtown!

Why is a "downtown stadium" better than a "destination stadium complex"? Please elaborate. And I'm not trying to be a jackass, I'm just wondering. Eliminating any discussion about distances, population centers, etc. I'm assuming it's a matter of ambiance? I'm trying to understand why there is such an intense resistance to a site that, to me, seems like it would provide an identical fan experience.

(And, for the record, I don't prefer either location, and am not on the Sandy bandwagon just because I live in UC. If it were in Bountiful, I'd still go without thinking twice about it. It's only another 10 minutes.)

bordelais7 · 10-03-2005, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Section 37

I don't understand how saving 1 million this year

at the expense of millions of dollars in the future of

a PERMANENT stadium.

Makes Sandy a good location.

It actually makes it a bad location.

Wait...the Sandy stadium wouldn't be permanent and would be a money-loser? I'm confused.

clarette · 10-03-2005, 08:57 AM

The real question is:

Will Sandy let us have beer at the stadium?

the cup · 10-03-2005, 09:05 AM

We need to also keep this in mind, Dave promised the league and the other owners that he would have a stadium plan in place by the end of the year.

Dave is a man of his word. He can't go back to the owners and tell them he needs a few more years. They wouldn't take kindly to that since what does or doesn't happen with our stadium affects them as well due to the single entity set up of the league.

And lets keep this in mind as well, Dave had great plans in place for Downtown until that Agent of Satan Bramble sent Dave's plans to hell. So if anyone doesn't like Sandy, don't get mad at Dave or the FO, get out your ninja clothes and chalk.

noxum · 10-03-2005, 09:06 AM

You know what the funny thing about this thread is? How many other teams fans can sit and post about the best location, as far as who wants it is concerned. Other teams are asking "can we build it here?", "will you take us?", "...how 'bout you?". Here we are, having different cities "fighting" for the stadium, and a bunch of fans arguing about it when we all will end up going to the games, where ever it is built. Checketts hit a gold mine. The stadium will be built, now we just need the team to be. 🙂.