Is a privately funded stadium Downtown the only answer?

[prk166]

Originally Posted by Deuce

If the SL County Muppets had not already said the hotel tax money will go to other things. I would be more inclined to hope for that but...

RSL lobbied hard for them get that money... Now RSL gets none of it!

Which is why I don't get how people buy into RSL's FO being incompetent. They were able to set the stage for a simple stamp of approval. The county could've spun it as a tax outsiders are paying and that it enables the RSL complex (stadium, hotel, etc) and arts project X and Z and open space project Y. Deal done, RSL has a stadium and they're in the county for the next 20 years. The RSL FO worked with public officials to get things to that point. So why did things seem to fall apart with the county and not the state?

[Section 37]

Originally Posted by prk166

So why did things seem to fall apart with the county and not the state?

The deal passed the state because money was offered to rural counties. That got most of the state on board.

The stadium money was part of the deal for Reps from SL, but even that was more of a pro- Sandy thing than pro- RSL thing. (Curtis is still insisting that 35 million has to be spent in Sandy even if it's not for soccer) So that deal really had its own momentum beyond the stadium.

It fell apart at the County because Checketts hired a bunch of morons.

[prk166]

Originally Posted by Section 37

The deal passed the state because money was offered to rural counties. That got most of the state on board.

The stadium money was part of the deal for Reps from SL, but even that was more of a pro- Sandy thing than pro- RSL thing. (Curtis is still insisting that 35 million has to be spent in Sandy even if it's not for soccer) So that deal really had its own momentum beyond the stadium.

It fell apart at the County because Checketts hired a bunch of morons.

But that's my point. Those morons realized that even though they wanted it downtown SLC, they saw that they could get the state to enable funding for the Sandy route. They saw that getting it dwntwn was going to be hard, especially with it involving the every so not-popular Rocky Anderson. I think morons would've continued down that path. And instead of having this discussion right now we'd be having the occasional occasional "any stadium news yet?" post.

They're not morons. They just didn't anticipate Corroon's pet open space project. In taking up a tax-and-spend cause like that Corroon needed to fight the RSL stadium proposal to the hilt in order to keep an image of being something other than a tax-and-spend politician.

It's not over yet. RDA money is back in the picture. It would stand to reason Murray and Salt Lake City are still interested. The people at the state level that were interested likely still are. And Sandy is still interested. And technically, this proposal isn't 100% dead yet. And even if it is, there are still other possibilities.

[fuegote]

http://msn.foxsports.com/soccer/story/5573064

[Aerick]

Originally Posted by fuegote

http://msn.foxsports.com/soccer/story/5573064

Great! A soccer press writer who, while trying to be blatanly honest, is actually undermining the sport in the US. How much closer to the edge can I get?????

[RSLChango]

Yeah, it seems like this couldn't have been written at a worse time for us. I have always thought Trecker's criticism was good over all. I guess I just saw the downside. I don't think he gets just how fragile things are in this country and how fast he could be out of a job again.

[Aerick]

Originally Posted by RSLChango

Yeah, it seems like this couldn't have been written at a worse time for us. I have always thought Trecker's criticism was good over all. I guess I just saw the downside. I don't think he gets just how fragile things are in this country and how fast he could be out of a job again.

I just wrote him this note:

"I enjoyed your article, but have to ask, are you trying to destroy soccer in the US? The MLS is probably the best shot we have in this country at growing the sport. While being honest in your public dealings is the desired method, politics is politics, and if you're the nice guy, you get screwed. MLS can't afford to be the "nice guy" and still remain viable. So, despite the fact that your basic premise on the ideal of public dealings is to be commended. It's not a good strategy and calling for it to occur only hurts MLS and soccer in the country.

If you ask me, I can deal with having a succesfull MLS at the expense of an ideal political approach to that success."

[RSLChango]

Well you are much more diplomatic than I could be. Well stated.

[Rover]

Jamie Trecker has a column only because his Dad was one of the best soccer writers we've ever had.

I wouldn't bother reading a word he says about anything outside the greater NY metro area. He's got permanent blinders about life west of the Hudson.

He's also a Eurosnob, just like too many of our east coast soccer writers.

Waste of time.

[GeNioS]

Originally Posted by Aerick

I just wrote him this note:

"I enjoyed your article, but have to ask, are you trying to destroy soccer in the US? The MLS is probably the best shot we have in this country at growing the sport. While being honest in your public dealings is the desired method, politics is politics, and if you're the nice guy, you get screwed. MLS can't afford to be the "nice guy" and still remain viable. So, despite the fact that your basic premise on the ideal of public dealings is to be commended. It's not a good strategy and calling for it to occur only hurts MLS and soccer in the country.

If you ask me, I can deal with having a succesfull MLS at the expense of an ideal political approach to that success."

Did you read this before you hit submit? "While being honest in your public dealings is the desired method...." Desired method....desired method? Send the team to Phoenix any day before I knowingly allow my own government to lie to me, especially over something so overall unimportant in the grand scheme as a soccer stadium.