FWIW, MLS is saying the story is incorrect.— Ben van der Meer (@benvsacbiz) September 19, 2019 1174749114518556673 is not a valid tweet id Not specific, just said the report was incorrect in his reporting and there would be more details later.— Ben van der Meer (@benvsacbiz) September 19, 2019 Also... Not entirely true— Michelle Dapper (@KCRAdapper) September 19, 2019 Now, then...back to our regularly scheduled DOOOOM...
"Some call me Commissioner Garber. Others have dubbed me 'The Soccer Don'. As for you? You may call me... DOOM."
Also... Not entirely true— Michelle Dapper (@KCRAdapper) September 19, 2019 Now, then...back to our regularly scheduled DOOOOM...[/QUOTE] Well, Michelle Dapper seems to have the best information on expansion so I'll be very happy if and when she breaks the story that we're in. Having said that, it would be nice if she would provide some details beyond "not entirely true." She's a reporter, right?
She didn't say "entirely false" either. Look, the deal is ALMOST (but not quite) done. And everyone expects it will be done soon. Touchdown under routine instant replay check. PAT team on the field awaiting the go ahead for the kick.
Agreed. My point is that she is a journalist. If she has information that refutes or provides context to another outlet's reporting, it's reasonable to expect that she provide that information, especially regarding a story of great interest to the market she serves. *Edit - I'm not arguing how close Sac is to landing a team. I'm just taking issue with the reporting.
To be honest, Dapper doesn't need to "report" a G-D thing. All she has to do is point out that Gonzales at CBS, and Breton and Bizjak at the SuckBee two weeks before, didn't have their story straight. Her proof? The fact that by the time their reports had gone public, MLS had not, and still has not to this date, provided any sort of announcement as to SRFC's acceptance into MLS. I'd hope that, by now, none of the local media outlets will go live with this story until they actually hear the straight dope from either MLS or SRFC HQ. This emphasis on being "first" on this story rather than "accurate" ain't doing anybody any favors. EDIT TO ADD: The longer this goes on, the more likely it is that SRFC would and will have a 2022 MLS start date. We would need to get approval by some time in mid-October to have a realistic shot at a 2021 start date outside of a months-long roadie like Portland did this year or playing part of the season at Cal Expo. If the announcement's gonna come - and I'm still way out there on the doom ledge of "if" - I would not expect to see an announcement until the all-star break of the 2020 season, so as to allow other bids (CLT, PHX, LV) to gain steam.
If that's true, then KCRA owes you and Knave a heck of a lot of back-pay. What you call her proof is no better than just turning out to be right, just as you and Knave have turned out to be right through keen observation. Good for her and I'll trust her more than Breton & little known soccer writers with an internet connection. However, she's implying that she has information contradicting the story. Either that or she should say that she's been informed by her source in the ownership group, front office, league office, city government, construction contractor, or some guys who post on Big Soccer that the story is not entirely true. (Edit: I have every reason to expect that from a reporter.) I'm just saying it's poor journalism. Because it is.
Twitter is not journalism, It's a mode for communication. Had she written an article saying "not entirely true" but no details then sure, thats bad.
The only "poor journalism" on this story was courtesy of Gonzales at CBS, and Bizjak and Breton at the Bee.
The Sacramento City Council just established a public financing authority for building the soccer stadium. Councilman Jeff Harris calls it a step forward towards getting an MLS team.@SacRepublicFC— Michelle Dapper (@KCRAdapper) September 24, 2019 I was under the impression that all the steps toward a MLS team had been taken. It's just a matter of timing, and getting minor details ironed out. Etc., Etc., Etc. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Hold up...for several years now the narrative/battle cry if you will has been "Shovel Ready." As an outsider, I have no clue about the situation on the ground in Sacramento. My perception says that what Nagle and company were saying publicly differed (slightly, somewhat, possibly greatly I have no idea) from what was actually true behind the scenes. It makes some sense as to why they focused on Miami's struggles to finalize their ownership group and stadium situation. MLS had already made the decision to expand to Atlanta, NYC, Minneapolis-St Paul, Orlando, and Miami. It would be surprising, although not an entire shock, if MLS HQ did not inform Sac Republic officials that they had already made expansion decisions for the immediate future (back in 2014-2016). Sacramento made no bones about wanting to be in MLS, and campaigned about taking Miami's place. That plays well with fans, but may not have played well with existing MLS Owners/Investors. Particularly when/if they'd already been told/advised on what they'd need to do to be considered for and ultimately awarded an expansion team. It's quite clear why MLS came out with their expansion criteria and then started excepting expansion bid proposals (RFP's in business parlance) from groups that want in. It was/is a way to get the serious bids to the top. Sacramento is clearly a serious bid, and from all accounts is close to being awarded a team. There's a lot of politics in Sports unfortunately. It sucks that the fans of SRFC have been caught in the middle of all of this. I hope that you do get into MLS. I imagine that this saga/story will make a helluva book someday should one be written. Hell, even a long form article on The Athletic about this journey would be a heck of a read.
Right now, the only thing we know is DOOM. We do not know if a public financing authority moves the needle one bit for MLS's approval process, however I would imagine it would make it easier for some of those infrastructural improvements to be paid for. I'm just astonished that the quivering remains of the STOP movement haven't risen from their grave like so many other examples of Sacramento's political undead. I just tire of all these politicos announcing "steps" being taken toward an MLS team over the past three years...put them all together and we could probably walk up to Donner Summit by now.
I mean them announcing steps taken isn’t surprising. They have to make it look like they’re doing something, particularly if it falls through.
The City Council formally approved creating an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District back in April: https://www.sacbee.com/sports/mls/article229023294.html Sacramento sought to boost its bid Tuesday night by offering the Burkle group an incentive package that includes roughly $5.4 million worth of development fee waivers and tax rebates. The incentive package also involves setting up a special infrastructure financing district around the stadium site in the railyard to capture tax revenue to pay for up to an estimated $27.2 million in infrastructure around the stadium. Today's action creates a governing board for that financing district. https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Clerk/Legislative-Bodies/Boards-and-Commissions The Stadium Area Public Financing Authority (SAPFA) will serve as the governing board of the Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District (EIFD). The first action of the SAPFA will be to order the preparation of the Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFA). Upon approval of the IFA by the Sacramento City Council, the SAPFA will conduct a public hearing on the formation of the EIFD and, upon conclusion, approve the IFP and officially establish the EIFD. SAPFA cannot establish the EIFD without Council first approving the IFP. I think the term sheet signed in April will become, for all practical purposes, the IFA, but I'm just speculating. There seems to be no required lead time for calling a public hearing, at least according to page 13 in this document... https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-/...Council-Rules-of-Procedure-05222018.pdf?la=en Have fun deciphering all that.
It is not a "big step" towards the cty's commitment. It's merely the "next" step to help the financing of infrastructure improvements (street lighting, light rail stations) made by the developer. In fact, most of those improvements will need to be made whether a stadium is built there, or (failing to secure an MLS team) whether any other commercial development is eventually approved instead. For those not familiar with the situation, the city at this point has limited commitment to the stadium specifically. Practically everything the city has built so far in the area to get "shovel ready" was going to need to be built for any type commercial development anyway. For example, the city is not committed to selling bonds or float development loans for the stadium. This week's actions set up the administrative authority that allows the city to meet their part of the agreement. Nice to see, but no biggie, IMHO.
Yes. Columbus did something similar about a month ago IIRC. Created the org that is going to oversee the funding/construction (contracting?) of the stadium & surrounding developnent. My understanding was (and I am not a construction guru) that it was just something you do shortly before you start building the thing. And you do not do it unless you are pretty sure you have a green light for the project. On the other hand, it is not some huge financial commitment if things go belly up. Some wasted time and a bit of money paying those on the commish, but not huge $$.
Just build the frickin' stadium! It doesn't have to have all the bells and whistles for now. It doesn't even need to have 4 stands. I remember sitting in a temporary stand at Charlton Athletic when they first moved back to The Valley.
For sone reason, Americans and/or MLS want it done before it stars. With the exception of Miami , Orlando and NYC...