Another anti-stadium letter to SL Tribune

the cup · 01-30-2005, 03:24 PM

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_2545212

This letter isn't so much anti-stadium as it is anti-public money for stadium but it prompted me to email the author and inform him that his comment

"It's a hard enough argument to make when a team has a fan base, something Real Salt Lake doesn't have"

was way off the mark. I informed him we look to be only second to LA Galaxy for season ticket sales and I gave him a link to our Loyalists website.

It could be funny if we were to all email him

bordelais7 · 01-30-2005, 03:52 PM

Ok, I emailed him.

Anyone know which "recent survey" he was referencing, btw?

dasoccerplayafosho · 01-30-2005, 08:51 PM

the one they handed out at the sunshine baseball tournament in St. George.
Just Kidding

Rover · 01-31-2005, 02:55 AM

The poll John Yewell refers to in the linked article was a Deseret News/KSL poll from last fall, and it did show 2-1 against public funding for a soccer stadium.

As much as I want the stadium built, and as frustrating as it is to read the negative comments of journalists and politicians, I think they've got a point. I can't think of a persuasive counter-argument for public financing, especially for voters with no experience with pro soccer. The citycounty should make the stadium central to a comprehensive redevelopment of southern downtown and help with land and infrastructure, but RSL/Sports Capital Partners should pay the $60 million for bricks and mortar. This is a privately owned/operated team that should pay for its own building--that's the perception, and it won't be moved by a PR campaign.

Sure, the stadiums in Frisco and Bridgeview have public funding (all public funding in the case of Bridgeview), but only after years of negotiations and a decade for teams to establish themselves. On the flip side, the HDC and Crew Stadium were built by their teams with minimal public help, and those stadiums were central to team profitability.

Private ownership of the stadium also means private control, and in the long run that's better for the club. In any case, the public support isn't there, and likely won't be for several years. If RSL's stadium is going to be built within two years, Mr. Checketts and his partners are going to need to pay for it.

SoccerPrime · 01-31-2005, 05:31 AM

The Crew stadium only cost like 20 million, 10 million less than Checketts has offered. Plus have you ever been to the Crew Stadium? Ugh, terrible HS football stadium.
HDC may have been built with minimal municipal funds, but it got loads from USSF(ie public) as their new training center. AEG put less than 30 million into it.
Although I have to agree RSL is expecting a lot from a public that has no history with MLS. Dallas and Chicago did have a team for 6+ years before they asked (Fire were an expansion team in '98).

dysko · 01-31-2005, 06:01 AM

Hey... I got a by line in the Desnews Today...Soccer Story Showed Ignorance

They contacted me and sked for my city of residence to they could print the story... not bad.

Small off set to this article, but I was pleased.

Jim Umber · 01-31-2005, 06:47 AM

Sorry, Dysko, I'm not getting anything with that link.

Rover · 01-31-2005, 07:17 AM

Each stadium is different. I'm not saying we want the Columbus stripped down version (closer to $30 million) or all the bells and whistles and velodromes that surround the HDC ($120 million for the stadium alone). The key question here is this--when do we want the stadium? Sooner is better for club profitability, which is the lesson learned in Columbus and LA.

My argument is that a bond issue will be a tough sell in the short term. If you want public financing for the stadium, then be prepared to play on the plastic grass at RES for at least half a decade. If you want a stadium by 2007, as we keep hearing, it may be a better idea for Mr. Checketts and his partners to take on significantly more than half the cost.

That said, these are very smart people at SCP--with lots of connections--so I wouldn't be surprised if some kind of deal gets done. But I hold to my point that those in Utah who don't think the public should pay for this are not wrong for thinking that way. I may think they're shortsighted, but in their position I would be against the stadium too.

Jim Umber · 01-31-2005, 07:31 AM

I personally think that it would be better for the team, too. The less the government is involved, the better. The team retains full control and all the profits. On the other hand, at $60 million it will take twice as long to be profitable.

I'm quite sure of one thing, though. Dave Checketts and crew know what they're doing. I only hope that the whole thing doesn't hing on public financing for half the cost of the stadium. In that case, they better start selling it to the people right away.

bordelais7 · 01-31-2005, 08:52 AM

Sounds like the majority of the councilmembers are against the idea of even putting a bond on the ballot. Time to break out the bribes!

Anyone going to the public meeting tonight?

Oh, and nicely done, dysko