Stadium Sites Narrowed

[Aerick]

Originally Posted by Scholesy

First of all I would disagree that marketing = making the majority happy and we certainly would have to say that would be the question really though wouldn't it? Is that what the majority want? And does that even matter? How many fans will say 'Oh Sandy! Can't believe it, I'm not going this year.' Should Dave Checketts really have to check in with the fans on every decision? He can't do that, he is the owner, it isn't a democracy. Now don't get me wrong obviously downtown is a more desirable spot, although that is not to say that there are no problems with the Salt Lake options, there are quite a few actually, not least of all the politicians. But I just don't care where they build it as long as it's accessible and I can call it our 'home' ground.

I'm not having a pop at you mate, I just think overall we really should just be glad to have a stadium on the way and if you look at Sandy it really does have some positve points, lots of them. I don't picture a man like Dave Checketts and his team of Steve, Dean, John, Trey, Chris and the other very capable team members of picking a 'bum' location for a $250 million project. I am figuring that before they even think of investing that kind of money they would have commissioned a number of strategic and pheasability studies as to the viability of the areas.

Just a thought.

Agreed. Marketing doesn't necessarily mean making the majority happy - especially when the majority of your demographic will end up "buying" your product regardless of where you place it. Marketing also means that you don't spend yourselves out of business, and or get your product into place so that your business can begin making money as soon as possible. For the next few years, RSL will be hemorrhaging money. So the question becomes:

1) Should we wait and continue to lose money until 2010+ in an attempt to get a stadium downtown and make most of our fanbase happy about the placement or,
2) Should we build in Sandy and start making money as early as 2007, and even though our fanbase won't be as happy, they'll still come to the games.

That's a very simplistic approach, and like super-scholes has mentioned, Dave is a smart man, and he's surrounded by other smart people and they'll all end up doing the smartest thing with all things considered. So, if it turns out to be Sandy - then that ended up being the smartest thing for all concerned. If it's to be downtown - same thing. There's a reason we're all typing away on a soccer forum instead of working, and why Dave is the owner of a multi-million dollar sports/media empire (soon to be a multi-billion dollar empire, I'm sure). So if he says "Sandy", I'll believe that it's a good decision for the health of the team.

[Dadof3]

Re beer...I live in Sandy and yes :jawdrop: you can buy beer there.

The trip to Sandy will take less time from the South and about the same from the North as it does to get to RES.

Rumor has it that the plan in Sandy does include a whole complex, not just the stadium. Also figure in the proposed 9400 South TRAX stop.

Finally, Sandy has a way to help fund this mess...SLC still does not. Until that changes, get used to the fact the new stadium will be all of 15 minutes out of downtown...that's it...15 minutes...

With all this said, I still wish we could get it into downtown...but I'm with Scholsey...Sandy stepped up, SLC did not, this is all about profitability...not only to keep the team here, but also to help us competitively...remember, the salary cap is NOT a hard cap...only $270,000 of a good player's salary counts against the cap. If the owner wants to spend more, it appears that they can. If Dave is profitable, expect the quality of our players and the amount of our payroll to be in the top half of the league. It appears the Sandy deal will allow RSL to be profitable earlier rather than later...and that kind of makes it a no-brainer.

[the cup]

Originally Posted by Scholesy

our front office team have put together a package where we have a stadium site ready to announce...........We are having a brilliant, first class, massive stadium being built.

So Scholesy, my ulcer needs to know when do you think we will be getting the announcement?

This week, next week?

[SoccerPrime]

Originally Posted by the cup

...
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.

However, KC is playing in Arrowhead which has a sweet deal with Hunt (and might be making progress on Burb stadium and local owner), the Krafts, who own the Revs, control Gillette Stadium and the Quakes, although losing money at Spartan Stadium, are not the huge bloodsucker that Metros at Giants Stadium is (@$200,000 a game!!!).

[Scilaci]

Originally Posted by Aerick

....
1) Should we wait and continue to lose money until 2010+ in an attempt to get a stadium downtown and make most of our fanbase happy about the placement or,
2) Should we build in Sandy and start making money as early as 2007, and even though our fanbase won't be as happy, they'll still come to the games.
....

I think it would be interesting to know where RSL's fans come from, geographically speaking. Do a majority live near downtown? Do a majority live in the suburbs? Do most of them live in the UC? (just kidding on that one)

I theorize that if the fanbase is suburbian in nature, they would be willing to drive anywhere since they already have to drive downtown. A trip to the game means a trip on the freeway, so which direction on the freeway probably doesn't matter that much.

If the fanbase is mostly downtown, then I would agree that Sandy might be less effective for them. They don't have to drive far to RES. Driving to Sandy wouldn't be that much more, but it could be out of their traditional travel sphere.

What it boils down to is this ---- how many people will stop buying tickets and going to games because of the location of the stadium? It's all about the Benjamins, right? right. If someone could put a number on, say, x percentage will stop going if it is in Sandy, and x percentage will stop if it is in Downtown.... then compare the two and take it into consideration.

[SoccerPrime]

I did a quick analysis of Loyalist members a few months ago.
It revealed that the largest group had a SLC addresses but that there equal numbers (in total) in the Utah County and non-city SL county areas.

[montgjules]

What needs to be analyzed is how many WOULD go if the stadium were closer to the UC and how many WOULD go if the stadium were closer to the Up North. Those who are currently attending are already making a long trek to RES. Hypothetically, if 20% more people would attend in Draper (for example) than currently attend, and only 15% more people would attend in Bountiful (for example), that is a more relevant sort of thing to think about.

[Section 37]

Originally Posted by bordelais7

Why is a "downtown stadium" better than a "destination stadium complex"?

A stadium downtown would become part of a community and would complement and be complemented by its surroundings. It would dramatically (but organically) alter the area of downtown it was put in, offering more interesting and diverse uses for property owners in the area.

A destination stadium complex features none of this. it's surroundings will have to be artificially built up by a single developer and based on decades of suburban destination building ie

malls, strip malls, warehouse retailers, etc.

we know we will create a space that is technically an acceptable location to play a soccer game

but does not take part in a greater organic community. It will effectively be an island to which people drive, spend a pre- determined amount of time/money, then leave behind. A destination instead of a community.

It's a development model that is dramatically outdated but unfortunately in the west we can't let go of it.

Someday we'll regret it. In a way, we already do.

[SoccerPrime]

Section37, what you just described (aside from the opinion pieces) is essentially how every MLS stadium to date has been/is being built.

[Section 37]

Originally Posted by SoccerPrime

Section37, what you just described (aside from the opinion pieces) is essentially how every MLS stadium to date has been/is being built.

That's my point. We don't have to.

But we could lose our opportunity because of all the virtues to bestow upon our new stadium

we've picked "fast"

as the most important.

I think it's a mistake.