5/3 News

[Section 37]

I believe that in general, SLCo wants RSL to succeed. They have a County to run, however, and RSL's plan must fit a larger picture.

So far, RSL has demanded SLCo adjust to fit RSL's plan. That's backward.

As far as no other sports team being treated like this, I can't speak to that. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. One thing I have been told by people at both SLC and SLCo is that Larry Miller was much more flexible and accomodating. As far as strictly numbers go, LHM didn't get some sort of sweetheart financing deal. He got the same deal RSL has open to them (1 to 4 public/private dollars).

Old Ska's observations are very astute. We've kind of been a$$holes about this and that makes people not want to deal with us.

[Aerick]

Originally Posted by Section 37

I believe that in general, SLCo wants RSL to succeed. They have a County to run, however, and RSL's plan must fit a larger picture.

So far, RSL has demanded SLCo adjust to fit RSL's plan. That's backward.

As far as no other sports team being treated like this, I can't speak to that. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. One thing I have been told by people at both SLC and SLCo is that Larry Miller was much more flexible and accomodating. As far as strictly numbers go, LHM didn't get some sort of sweetheart financing deal. He got the same deal RSL has open to them (1 to 4 public/private dollars).

Old Ska's observations are very astute. We've kind of been a$$holes about this and that makes people not want to deal with us.

OK, I'm confused now. Please delineate what it was that the RSL FO did to screw this up? From my perspective, they could have been more proactive in dealing with these issues, but I can't see for the life of me what they did to conjure up such vitriolic responses from the county and the press.

As far as "having something to hide", the only thing I can think that they would want to hide is what may potentially look like a less-than-stellar short term financial outlook to non-visionary politicians who can't see 2 months past the next election their up for. From that perspective, it's actually a strategy - even though in this case it may be backfiring. But I can understand why they'd want to keep it from the public eye in order to keep from causing widespread public panic over something that there doesn't need to be any panic over.

[Old Ska]

Originally Posted by Aerick

As far as "having something to hide", the only thing I can think that they would want to hide is what may potentially look like a less-than-stellar short term financial outlook to non-visionary politicians who can't see 2 months past the next election their up for. From that perspective, it's actually a strategy - even though in this case it may be backfiring. But I can understand why they'd want to keep it from the public eye in order to keep from causing widespread public panic over something that there doesn't need to be any panic over.

I'll admit that I am not the world's best businessman. I lack experience and formal education in business, but for the last 5 years I have run a company that provides a greatly needed service to government entities. I have inadvertantly slipped up in business practice, and done a stupid thing or two not out of malice but out of ignorance, but I have never ever hid my company's mistakes. I have always been completely honest and candid in my company's dealings with various government agencies, even when it didn't put me or the company in the best light. Guess what, I have never NOT gotten a government deal that I tried to get (contract or grant). In fact, right now we regularly turn work away. And frankly, county board members are some of the easiest people to work with...try competing with Haliburton for a Department of Defense contract.

I don't attribute any of my company's success to me being particularly brilliant (although I have many brilliant people around me), but anyone who deals with us knows that we will always be completely candid and honest. You can't approach negotiations with local government like a hostle tackover in the telecom industry, and from watching this last round of developments in the stadium deal that is exactly how the RSL FO came across. This is not wise in a state with an "Open Records" law (and I am shocked that no one consulted the team's legal counsel before they let administration people threaten lawsuits in the press, the team simply does not have a leg to stand on in that respect). The problem is that now, who ever they start dealing with, they are going to have to do a significant amount of trust building to even get back to square one.

[Rover]

Let's just face the fact that no matter where and by whom mistakes were made, this was never going to be an easy deal to make because the prime actors on the government side saw no benefit for themselves or the county to do so. The term "non-visionary" is being kind. But their actions and reactions are understandable based on their blindered view.

I do wonder how the Fire can get the City of Bridgeview to pay for their stadium and FCD and Colorado can get their host cities to toss in big money but RSL can't get $35 million of a tourist tax out of the county.

But then, many of us said from the beginning that if Dave Checketts can come up with $100 million from investors to put toward the stadium complex, then he can scale back the current plan and build his stadium now.

I understand wanting a public-private partnership, but the "public" part means you'll have to deal with people who are not on board with the value of your proposal. And when they could publicly show RSL's red ink for the next few years, they had an out from a deal they clearly never wanted in the first place.

I can't spend Mr. Checketts' money for him, but my recommendation is that he builds his own stadium and makes sure the county gets the smallest possible cut of any revenue from it.

[Aerick]

Originally Posted by Rover

I can't spend Mr. Checketts' money for him, but my recommendation is that he builds his own stadium and makes sure the county gets the smallest possible cut of any revenue from it.

Unfortunately, the best way to do that is to court other counties, which many of us would absolutely despise, but would be the best way for Checkett's to say (perhaps 10 years or more down the road) "I told you so".

Look what FC Dallas did with their stadium. I remember reading that they had originally approached another city (probably in another county) and they fought it and now FC Dallas resides up north in Frisco, which may not be the ideal situation for them, but the other city/county isn't benefiting at all, and never will.

The part I really don't understand is how the county can get away with what's it's doing. I know they preach "responsible politics", and that should definitely be encouraged at all levels, but in my opinion this is a spin phrase for "I can't see immediate benefits, and potential long term benefits mean nothing to me because I'm only in office for a short time and banking on long term benefits is the fasttrack to political suicide" or something like that. Are they or are they not getting a butt load of free money earmarked by the state legislature that wouldn't have been made available without RSL's lobbying? Is it not feasible that, despite the short term financial implications (interest only payments and a total payoff of 87 million), that this will still pay for itself and more in the long term with out-of-county money flowing in for the games and concerts and highschool/collegiate playoffs? How long will it take to payoff the 30 million in interest in 2020's dollars? And if the soccer team remains viable and the sport continues to grow and succeed in the US, how easy will it be for the county to recoup 30 million in 2020's dollars and beyond?

You're right, "non-visionary" is being kind. It's so non-visionary it's irresponsible non-use of county funds. This is a long term investment opportunity that they may well have missed the boat on. Perhaps that's why they're politicians and not businessmen?

[Rover]

Originally Posted by Aerick

Unfortunately, the best way to do that is to court other counties, which many of us would absolutely despise, but would be the best way for Checkett's to say (perhaps 10 years or more down the road) "I told you so".

Look what FC Dallas did with their stadium. I remember reading that they had originally approached another city (probably in another county) and they fought it and now FC Dallas resides up north in Frisco, which may not be the ideal situation for them, but the other city/county isn't benefiting at all, and never will.

The part I really don't understand is how the county can get away with what's it's doing. I know they preach "responsible politics", and that should definitely be encouraged at all levels, but in my opinion this is a spin phrase for "I can't see immediate benefits, and potential long term benefits mean nothing to me because I'm only in office for a short time and banking on long term benefits is the fasttrack to political suicide" or something like that. Are they or are they not getting a butt load of free money earmarked by the state legislature that wouldn't have been made available without RSL's lobbying? Is it not feasible that, despite the short term financial implications (interest only payments and a total payoff of 87 million), that this will still pay for itself and more in the long term with out of county money flowing in for the games and concerts and highschool/collegiate playoffs? How long will it take to payoff the 30 million in interest in 2020's dollars? And if the soccer team remains viable and the sport continues to grow and succeed in the US, how easy will it be for the county to recoup 30 million in 2020's dollars and beyond?

You're right, "non-visionary" is being kind. It's so non-visionary it's irresponsible non-use of county funds. This is a long term investment opportunity that they may well have missed the boat. Perhaps that's why they're politicians and not businessmen?

I don't think Checketts would go outside Salt Lake County, but at this point you have to wonder what RSL's next step will be.

In the FCD case, it was the City of McKinney which backed out in the 11th hour, setting the stage for Frisco to jump in. Similiar objections from McKinney as we're hearing from Salt Lake County. Even so, McKinney and Frisco are both in Collin County, north of Dallas, and both are fairly wealthy suburbs. One had leaders with vision, the other didn't. So Frisco residents get the stadium and McKinney residents get to drive to Frisco to see games.

Ironically, the County Council is made up of a number of politicians who call themselves businessmen, and I'm sure they're all about fiscal responsibility and that's fine. What they lack is vision. I also suspect that once the legislature made it clear that it was up to the county to distribute the hotel tax money it only became a matter of time before those who had no interest in soccer or south county would find other, more important uses for the money. To make sure the money went to their own projects, they needed the stadium project to look like a loser--hence the leak.

So we have seen very little in the way of leadership from our elected leaders in this whole process. Some photo ops, but that's about it.

[SpiffCoug]

Originally Posted by Rover

I also suspect that once the legislature made it clear that it was up to the county to distribute the hotel tax money it only became a matter of time before those who had no interest in soccer or south county would find other, more important uses for the money. To make sure the money went to their own projects, they needed the stadium project to look like a loser--hence the leak.

So we have seen very little in the way of leadership from our elected leaders in this whole process. Some photo ops, but that's about it.

This was one of my first thoughts too. Some county officials saw that the hotel tax was expiring and saw the stadium deal as a way of extending it. And oh gee! The stadium is a bad deal, but since we've already extended the tax, we may as well put that money to a "better" use.

You just have to wonder if it was a ploy by some county officials to keep their coffers more full, which is odd considering the surplus they've been experiencing.

But like with Ellinger, I say patience. Let's wait to hear from RSL and see what the next proposal is.