PDA

View Full Version : Cooper Helping Checketts Get A Deal For Real Salt Lake?


Mack_Dundee
04 Feb 2007, 04:14 AM
Some of these quotes by Jeff Cooper in the Salt Lake City newspaper are curious to me:

1) Stadium plans, he said, would be much like the one proposed in Sandy, with a public-private partnership. The difference, he said, is that these public leaders are willing to put "their money where their mouth is."

2) "It's one of the best-supported teams in MLS — they've just been let down by their public officials," he said.

3) "Here, the public officials are just stepping up to the plate for all the businesses and people in the community that want to see a high-profile team in their hometown."

4) Cooper's group has been looking into purchasing an MLS franchise for some time, and he says the worldwide attention that an MLS team provides is better than that of any other pro-sports franchise.
"The best summer was the Real Madrid and Real Salt Lake game. It's not very often that you have the focus of the whole world on your town," Cooper said. "That's so much bigger than how many tickets you've sold."

So, Cooper is telling everyone in Salt Lake City that will listen that the team is well-supported in Utah, brings international attention to the city, and he offers up that St. Louis has the corporate support of the St. Louis community who are so community-minded that they want to see a "high-profile team in their hometown." Finally, let's not forget the St. Louis government who have, not one, but THREE(!) propects for a soccer-specific stadium. Meanwhile, the Utah government is the the only real villian here according to Cooper because it they who have "let down" the good citizens of that state. He echoed these comments also on the Salt Lake City airwaves having done interviews for a few different outlets and also added that he is convinced that the MLS has tremendous financial upside.

Did Dave Checketts write this guy's quotes? His almost seem directly geared toward pressuring the Utah government into accepting Checketts deal. He touched on ALL of the points of oppositon, everything that Checketts has argued, that Utah has supported the team, that the MLS is a financially sound investment, that the game puts Utah on the international map. Oh, and it's all the fault of the elected officials, not Checketts.

A few days ago the St. Louis Post-Dispatch quoted Cooper as saying they are closer to a possible stadium in Illinois but that it "certainly" wasn't a done deal. Now, a few days later, he has THREE stadium deals that could be finalized in a few days?

Cooper is a smart man, if you listen to him interviewed he is no dope. Why then would he be so visible, so "open" to the Salt Lake media about his plans and enthusiastically list all of the reasons the tax payers of Utah should accept the deal? Why play your hand PUBLICALLY and raise the pressure on those in Utah who can make the deal? Why would you risk appealing to the competitve side of Utah residents on this issue? At least, why would you do it if you actually wanted to make THIS deal? Can anyone name a SINGLE group that has courted a team for relocation in such a PUBLIC way in the media of the RIVAL city? It makes zero sense.

I can't believe Cooper would do this, if there is a little "scratch my back" kind of thing going on here there must be some gain in it for him. Checketts has St. Louis ties and Tim Leiweke of AEG is from St. Louis (Here's a Wall Street Journal interview regarding those days: http://www.gamefaceinc.com/newsltrs/prwsjupattic.htm ) and Leiweke was even Assistant GM of the Steamers, so perhaps Cooper is helping these league heavyweights with his eye more towards a MLS expansion team in the near future.

Having said all that, perhaps the RSL news has inspired the St. Louis business and political establishment to move quickly to try and land the team. And maybe Cooper has another reason to be so public about this that I don't understand, or maybe he's just sloppy. Regardless, I hope Salt Lake City keeps its team and St. Louis gets an expansion team awarded shortly after the deal in Utah is closed.

Atarian
04 Feb 2007, 04:56 PM
I think it is more favor for a favor. Cooper dosent really want to buy RSL, he wants an expansion team, but will take it if need be. He is tring to show SLC gov and StL govments how big soccer really is and more global attention will come on to your city.

flippin269
05 Feb 2007, 05:07 PM
I think it is more favor for a favor. Cooper dosent really want to buy RSL, he wants an expansion team, but will take it if need be. He is tring to show SLC gov and StL govments how big soccer really is and more global attention will come on to your city.

If this is the case, what are the odds of St. Louis having a team play within St. Louis, rather than a different state? I ask because I read in another thread that for St. Louis to use public funds for a stadium, they would need a public vote first. Wouldn't an expansion team announcement give Cooper enough time to ask St. Louis for a vote with a good funding plan?

And if St. Louis said no, use Illinois as a plan B...

McGinty
05 Feb 2007, 07:24 PM
If this is the case, what are the odds of St. Louis having a team play within St. Louis, rather than a different state? I ask because I read in another thread that for St. Louis to use public funds for a stadium, they would need a public vote first.

That is a St. Louis County law which applies to any stadium after the new Busch Stadium. St. Louis City is not in St. Louis County (its a long story, but the City of St. Louis is also its own county). This would only apply if the stadium would be located in the county or if the county were chipping in for a stadium in the city, similar to the deal for new Busch Stadium.

I think the main problem is that the city just gave loads of money for Ballpark Village.

m16t
06 Feb 2007, 07:48 PM
I think the main problem is that the city just gave loads of money for Ballpark Village.

No, they gave (or will give) a percentage of the sales tax revenue that the village generates back to the developers for a set period of time. No money currently in city coffers will go to the village or the team; money will not be diverted from public works, infrastructure or schools into this project.

But hey, most people don't realize that. And you're right -- it's this perception (and the mistaken notion that the city paid for Busch III ... which they didn't) that would certainly veer public opinion toward the negative re. a soccer stadium were it to be built in the city or were a vote needed.

Ideally, a stadium would be downtown. But that won't happen. Wisely, Cooper's talked about using a Dallas/Denver model wherein a stadium is built as part of a Soccer Park on steriods, something that, with the soccer fields "for the children," would curry more favor with the politicians and public.

Veruca
09 Feb 2007, 01:35 AM
I think it is more favor for a favor. Cooper dosent really want to buy RSL, he wants an expansion team, but will take it if need be. He is tring to show SLC gov and StL govments how big soccer really is and more global attention will come on to your city.

I can hear Gerber saying this, "If you help us keep RSL in Salt Lake, then we will make sure that you get a team in St Louis in the next round of expansion. And all you have to do is act interested in taking the team to StL"

And since that is his end goal, to get a team in StL, then why not help out the league you want to be in.

Atarian
09 Feb 2007, 03:31 AM
I am sure that Coopers bid for RSL was just a ploy to get the stadium in Salt Lake. Now Checketts may help Cooper get a stadium deal by talking with the cities. With all thats happen, I am sure that St Louis is a sure thing for the next expansion team.

mitchs3
09 Feb 2007, 04:15 PM
That is a St. Louis County law which applies to any stadium after the new Busch Stadium. St. Louis City is not in St. Louis County (its a long story, but the City of St. Louis is also its own county).




The more publicized one (due to the lawsuit filed) is the St. Louis COUNTY law and it application to the hotel/motel tax moneys used for a small part of the new Busch Stadium; however, St. Louis CITY did pass a similar law preventing the use of City funds for professional sports stadiums even before the County did. Thus, the public vote problem does apply in St. Louis City, too. From the St. Louis City Code (http://www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/code/data/t0391.htm):Chapter 3.91 PROFESSIONAL SPORTS FACILITYSection:Editor’s Note:Ord. 66509 was derived from an initiative petition filed by the Coalition Against Public Funding for Stadiums.Voter Approval Date: November 2, 2002.


...

3.91.030 Voter approval required.No financial assistance may be provided by or on behalf of the City to the development of a professional sports facility without the approval of a majority of the qualified voters of the City voting thereon. Such voter approval shall be a condition precedent to the provisions of such financial assistance. (Ord. 66509 § 3, 2004.)St. Louis County would have a similar problem -- only as to County funds, though. If Maryland Heights wanted to spend some of that casino revenue to expand SportPort into one of these Frisco TX-like Stadium Plus Youth Fields type of complexes, they could. Not sure why that hasn't been pushed; maybe they don't want the traffic. Collinsville is fine with me if they can get it done, but the proof is in the ...

I hope Cooper is getting something in return for serving as the foil on this; I would assume so.

McGinty
09 Feb 2007, 04:44 PM
Bah. I knew there were restrictions, but I couldn't remember if they were the same as the County's law.

Does that law preclude the city for building a youth complex and provide incentives for commercial development around a non-city funded stadium, and then spending money on upgrading roads and utilities to the area.

mitchs3
09 Feb 2007, 05:01 PM
Bah. I knew there were restrictions, but I couldn't remember if they were the same as the County's law.

Does that law preclude the city for building a youth complex and provide incentives for commercial development around a non-city funded stadium, and then spending money on upgrading roads and utilities to the area.

Your guess is as good as mine. It would be for a court to decide I'm guessing. The same folks who filed the County suit are the ones who sponsored the City vote if I'm remembering right -- the Coalition Against Public Funding for Stadiums. Even if they weren't using City money for the actual stadium, if they were providing 'related' support, that group would probably sue and try to tie the thing up in court. I remember when New Busch got built folks saying they were glad we had three almost new stadiums because we'd never be able to get another one built.

The 'burbs seem to be where these SSS's wind up, for better or worse.

Angus Podgorney
09 Feb 2007, 05:25 PM
There's an article in the Post-Dispatch this morning about how Checketts is seeking a minority stakes local owner to buy part of the Blues hockey team. He states that his current ownership group doesn't need the money, but he promised the NHL that he would pursue a local minority partner when he bought the team.

The second to last paragraph has this telling statement:

"Meanwhile, negotiations between Checketts and the city continue regarding an amusement tax. In St. Louis, there is a 5 percent tax on tickets to sporting events. Coupled with the city's 7.516 percent sales tax, 12.516 percent of the price of a ticket doesn't go to the Blues, a figure the club claims is too high for survival."

The Cardinals have long complained that the city of St. Louis has one of the highest ticket taxes in MLB. An MLS franchise in the city would be saddled with the same burden.

McGinty
09 Feb 2007, 10:27 PM
The 'burbs seem to be where these SSS's wind up, for better or worse.

They usually have the land, and they usually feel like they are competing against other 'burbs to land the next big project.

And good catch on the city's sales taxes on tickets. I should have remembered that since it was a big issue during the sale of the Blues. It certainly makes playing in the city less appetizing.

m16t
10 Feb 2007, 10:24 AM
The Cardinals have long complained that the city of St. Louis has one of the highest ticket taxes in MLB. An MLS franchise in the city would be saddled with the same burden.

The city dropped the tax for the Cards only when the Birds moved into Busch III.

Angus Podgorney
13 Mar 2007, 02:51 PM
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660202503,00.html

According to this article, the residents of Salt Lake County are upset with the legislature voting to use the hotel tax to fund a soccer stadium and are circulating a petition asking for the repeal of the referendum.

sirfallsalot_2000
19 Mar 2007, 09:34 AM
After looking at the Salt Lake situation again, their stadium still isn't a done deal. The group getting signatures has a long way to go, but the stadium group just switched out an investor because the whole thing was taking too long. Which leads me to ask.....how did SLC get a team in the first place?!? What made the MLS think this was all gonna go smoothly, cause it obviously hasn't. Anyways, the citizens against the hotel tax are pretty peeved, and I still forsee a situation where this all blows up in RSL's face.

I'm not rooting against RSL, but I will keep trackof a situation that could result in STL getting a team.