ReAL Sandy? Make Me Sick!!!!

Section 37 · 10-15-2005, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aosthed

What is the outcome AT THIS POINT of any challenge or harrassment of the Sandy selection? 1) NOTHING will now make it happen in downtown SLC, and 2) the erosion of support for Sandy location could only possibly jeopardize getting a stadium altogether.

This is absolutely NOT true. Opposing views on a soccer internet forum will NOT derail a now $75,000,000 project. (number from today's Tribune)

Lack of support for a Sandy location among the general public also will not derail it.

It may, however, derail itself. That is because there is a political process that is involved here. And that has been going well for Sandy, but not for anyone else, which is why there are so many questions right now, especially from Salt Lake County.

County Councilman Jim Bradley: "It's on my agenda to start asking some questions. This was sold to me and others that we needed money for parking."

Councilwoman Jenny Wilson: "To date, there has not been a public review of the $18 million for soccer stadium land, the public needs to know that."

Councilman Mark Crockett: "I'm not sure whether this solves the parking problem, which was the original justification for the money."

All the above quotes are from today's Tribune

prk166 · 10-15-2005, 10:16 AM

I agree with you Section37. This isn't a done deal. Like I said, mom and dad gave the kid a crapload of money to do something, the kids' chose a cheap ass replacement for that and spulrged the extra money on a fancy toy. The parent's aren't going to be happy. If SLC was astute they could really play on this one pliticially. I'm sure all sorts of other towns aren't going to be happy about it.

So it still just may end up elsewhere. And even if it doesn't, you have to wonder what the long term implications will be for Sandy in pulling this stunt.

Scilaci · 10-15-2005, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prk166

I agree with you Section37. This isn't a done deal. Like I said, mom and dad gave the kid a crapload of money to do something, the kids' chose a cheap ass replacement for that and spulrged the extra money on a fancy toy. The parent's aren't going to be happy. If SLC was astute they could really play on this one pliticially. I'm sure all sorts of other towns aren't going to be happy about it.

So it still just may end up elsewhere. And even if it doesn't, you have to wonder what the long term implications will be for Sandy in pulling this stunt.

Can I ask what you are talking about?
Please define:
{Mom and Dad} {kid} {cheap replacement} {parent's} {this stunt}

oussan · 10-15-2005, 11:59 AM

I'm starting to get bugged with the Trib lately. The last three articles they've published have been SLC's anti-Sandy bent. It's like someone on-staff there has a personal grudge and is using their position to make it known.

I think it's fine for the county to review how Sandy plans to spend the money earmarked for them, the main question being, does Sandy's solution properly address the problem for which the money was appropriated?

I also understand that SLC doesn't want to have anything to do with it, but here's what I see: SLC threw $8 million into a pot of $80 million. SLC assumes that because they threw in 10%, 10% of the money Sandy is getting comes from SLC. I don't see any reason to believe that is true, and if so, why not just assure SLC that not a single Salt Lake City penny will go towards Sandy. Whatever the case, at this point it's all moot because I'm sure SLC received more than the $8 million dollars they contributed (or they would surely have withheld any contributions at all) so they should just stop their whining.

In the meantime I just get bugged each day watching the Trib give space to all these RSL-hating politicians:

Jim "the pessimist" Bradley
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600108629,00.html
http://realsaltlake.org/forums/showpost.php?p=5958&postcount=1

Jenny "let's have RSL pay off RES for us" Wilson
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600147560,00.html
http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4002021&postcount=115

Mark "this team is destined to fail" Crockett
http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4002021&postcount=115

Don't be fooled, these are not friends of the team.

oussan · 10-15-2005, 12:17 PM

Now:

Quote:

Originally Posted by October 15, 2005

County Councilman Jim Bradley: "It's on my agenda to start asking some questions. This was sold to me and others that we needed money for parking."

Then:

Quote:

Originally Posted by January 23, 2005

County Councilman Jim Bradley: "It's not realistic to expect Salt Lake County to step up to the table in the next year." If Real Salt Lake proves popular over its next two years playing at the University of Utah's stadium, though, Bradley says "it could be a different story."

One season down... fairly impressive and successful on most accounts... is he still unimpressed? (Or is it that we will never impress these guys?)

And another thing, he knew from the start that Dave didn't have time to wait a couple of years before making SSS plans, just to see if governments wanted to help out. He can try to veil his speech in careful diplomatic neutralities, but Bradley has never had any intentions to support this team, and he never will.

Aerick · 10-15-2005, 02:23 PM

Alot of this is politics, and politicians trying to posture and make sure they look good in the face of this issue. They know that some people are upset about what's going on, and this either gives them an opportunity to show that they are the friends of those who feel slighted, or to try cover up or redirect focus on the problems they helped cause by not allowing RSL to legitimately look at downtown as the eventual location for the stadium.

Continued public opinion in the form of "The Sandy deal was unethical and should be investigated and/or made to be unjustified" CAN AND WILL cause problems for RSL. In case you missed it, RSL was/is under the gun to get this thing settled. If public opinion strengthens to the degree that Sandy is forced into taking back any offers it originally made to help RSL settle there, RSL will be in a very difficult position. In fact, I could see it forced into a much less suitable site to build the stadium, or worse, having to relocate because it's unable to accommodate MLS's deadlines. Continuing to speak our minds in opposition of the Sandy deal, and the methods used to make it happen may end up coming back to bite us all in the end - big time!!! So those of us that are fans of RSL would do better to bite our tongues and rally behind RSL's decision so as to help influence public opinion in a manner that HELPS RSL, not hinders it.

Bottom line: I'm not insinuating that people should not feel free to voice their opinions and dissatisfaction, but rather that they not "cut off their nose to spite their faces." RSL IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO BUILD THE STADIUM DOWNTOWN NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE COMPLAIN!!!! IT'S TOO LATE FOR THAT NOW!! The time for voicing dissatisfaction has reached the end of any effectiveness. Therefore, it can only serve to cause the team problems. Period.

prk166 · 10-15-2005, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scilaci

Can I ask what you are talking about?
Please define:
{Mom and Dad} {kid} {cheap replacement} {parent's} {this stunt}

Ya, that was pretty confusion of me.

{Mom and Dad} = the state
{kid} = sandy
{cheap replacement} = flat, paved parking lot
{this stunt} = taking money for a compact, multi-level parking lot and using it for something else.

Picture this, the kid goes off to Yale. At least the parents, think the kid is going to Yale. They gave the kid 30k in cash and said have fun at Yale. The kid comes home at christmas break and says "hey, mom and dad, I enrolled in Hartford Community College instead of Yale and used the leftover money to buy a brand new Toyota Matrix"

That's what Sandy seems to be doing here. Seems to me that they're likely to really piss off some people in doing that. And what kind of precidance does this set in the state? I know if I was mayor of Murray or Jordan and I was seeing things, I'd be ticked off. There are reasons the state gave them money for a ramp at the expo. And it wasn't just cuz it looks pretty.

As for it being too late for downtown, why? They haven't put a shovel in the ground yet, let alone have the deed to the land in hand + money in the bank. I don't see how anything else is too late now.

Rover · 10-15-2005, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prk166

Ya, that was pretty confusion of me.

{Mom and Dad} = the state
{kid} = sandy
{cheap replacement} = flat, paved parking lot
{this stunt} = taking money for a compact, multi-level parking lot and using it for something else.

Picture this, the kid goes off to Yale. At least the parents, think the kid is going to Yale. They gave the kid 30k in cash and said have fun at Yale. The kid comes home at christmas break and says "hey, mom and dad, I enrolled in Hartford Community College instead of Yale and used the leftover money to buy a brand new Toyota Matrix"

That's what Sandy seems to be doing here. Seems to me that they're likely to really piss off some people in doing that. And what kind of precidance does this set in the state? I know if I was mayor of Murray or Jordan and I was seeing things, I'd be ticked off. There are reasons the state gave them money for a ramp at the expo. And it wasn't just cuz it looks pretty.

As for it being too late for downtown, why? They haven't put a shovel in the ground yet, let alone have the deed to the land in hand + money in the bank. I don't see how anything else is too late now.

Sure, except that SLC has been taking in county and state money for years with no other payback except knowing that your Cap City has a swell convention center or whatever. Interesting how tax benefit to another city drives SLC to blather.

The stadium--and complex--will be built in Sandy. The guy in charge said so and I'll take him at his word.

Scilaci · 10-15-2005, 07:56 PM

Thank you for the clarification.

Quote:

Originally Posted by prk166

.....
{Mom and Dad} = the state
{kid} = sandy
{cheap replacement} = flat, paved parking lot
{this stunt} = taking money for a compact, multi-level parking lot and using it for something else.
.....

Aerick · 10-15-2005, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prk166

Ya, that was pretty confusion of me.

{Mom and Dad} = the state
{kid} = sandy
{cheap replacement} = flat, paved parking lot
{this stunt} = taking money for a compact, multi-level parking lot and using it for something else.

Picture this, the kid goes off to Yale. At least the parents, think the kid is going to Yale. They gave the kid 30k in cash and said have fun at Yale. The kid comes home at christmas break and says "hey, mom and dad, I enrolled in Hartford Community College instead of Yale and used the leftover money to buy a brand new Toyota Matrix"

That's what Sandy seems to be doing here. Seems to me that they're likely to really piss off some people in doing that. And what kind of precidance does this set in the state? I know if I was mayor of Murray or Jordan and I was seeing things, I'd be ticked off. There are reasons the state gave them money for a ramp at the expo. And it wasn't just cuz it looks pretty.

As for it being too late for downtown, why? They haven't put a shovel in the ground yet, let alone have the deed to the land in hand + money in the bank. I don't see how anything else is too late now.

Good analogy, but taking it further, the kid ends up getting a great education at Hartford Community College (arguably only a tad bit less effective than the potential Yale education), and due to his ability to get the most bang for his buck, he was able to buy a car instead of having to borrow his parents again and again.

Depends on what type of parents they are as to whether they get pissed or whether they're happy for their child. The controlling type of parents might be very upset, while those that only care that their child is happy and has what they need to succeed will be happy about what has transpired. I guess we know which type of "parent" SLC is, eh?