while it is dumb shark, its the only way to keep the fields in good condition. Every good complex that I played at as a kid in club ball had their stuff all locked away unless their were games going on. Maybe one or two could be used for trainings, but thats just how it is. If you want a quality field, you dont play on it often
Not exactly a correct interpretation of events. RSL voluntarily promised the $7.5 million as a sort of backroom compromise to win vital Salt Lake City-based support for locating RioT outside of Salt Lake City (ie, Sandy). But when push came to shove, RSL backed down and tried to claim the "promise" was merely a "gift". That it wasn't a binding promise. Further, RSL pointed to the project's rising costs and SLC's unwillingness to grant RSL future control the planned facilities consessions & signage. RSL's balking at its own $7.5M "promise" infuriated the SLC-based legislators & SLC's then mayor, who all threatened to derail funding for the Sandy Stadium. This late threat forced Checketts to step up and turn over the money. But it wasn't a $7.5M *check*. It was only access to an RSL-secured credit facility. Meaning that if SLC first met a number of conditions and jumped through a number of hoops, the city could would then have access to RSL's credit. The City recently did that, but RSL has been conspicuously silent regarding it's contribution/gift/promise/credit facility. Have circumstances changed enough for RSL to get out of needing to secure $7.5M? I suspect that's what RSL will try to claim. I expect this to get ugly again in the months ahead. Suffice to say, this project remains a long way off from reality. And the once-hyped Real Madrid/RSL Academy is now dead, cold & burried.
I think this is largely correct, but you de-emphasize the expectation RSL says it had from the get go that it would get some naming rights to it. As evidence that this was ALWAYS a consideration they pointed to annotated agreements that had notes to that effect. However, SLC's mayor at the time didn't remember (or chose not to) and knew he had the upper hand in terms of deal leverage as well as public opinion. I tend to believe RSL had some discussed this and were under the assumption that was part of the deal. It's not at all uncommon both for that expectation to exist AND for there to be confusion in complex deal negotiations. If you are the major contributor to a *charitable* project it is common that you get some name credit. Hence, companies give to charity - there's always a quid pro quo. Having said that, I've been in many deals that were drawn out negotiations only to have in the 11th hour come to the realization there is not the meeting of the minds on some issues both parties assumed where understood. In this case, SLC had the public leverage and RSL rolled over to get the deal they wanted most.
Yes. You're absolutely correct. Somewhere on my hard drive is the *document* in which RSL references getting project naming rights/concessions/signage, etc. IIRC, it was not a formal agreement, but rather an informal *bullet points* memorandum of understanding circulated to lawmakers. This led to some of the subsequent misunderstanding. * * * EDIT: found them. These two docs were anonymously leaked back then to my old site, The RSLFM Report: ^^ click to enlarge >>
Whether a check or utilizing an RSL credit facility is irrelevant. Either way- RSL is paying the bill. You seem to insinuate that RSL tried to lie, cheat and steal their way through the situation. I think that's pretty simple-minded, and frankly inaccurate and unfair. RSL had a view of their expectations from the project, the legislators had their own view. Apparantly the "agreements" were surprisingly undocumented, which is concerning because that undermines one of the tenants of our system of government - transparency. But that's another story. So at the end of the day, this turned into a he-said, she-said situation. Also, is your discussion about the "gift" element accurate? It may be, I'm struggling to recall. Here is how I had remembered the evolution: RSL claimed that the 7.5M was in exchange for concessions/naming rights, etc, but the city claimed that it was a pledged "gift", and there was no quid pro quo associated with it. I thought that then RSL said that if it's a "gift" and we don't get the naming rights, concessions that we believed you promised, then we choose not to give this gift. Which then prompted legislators to threaten to try to derail the stadium funding. This document didn't lead to the subsequent misunderstanding. This document was an attempt to clarify the misunderstanding. Rocky Anderson choosing to air his beef with RSL on a local radio show led to the "misunderstanding". I don't know this for a fact, but I assume that the 7.5M in funds needs to be deployed by the deadline next year or they will expire. IF this is the case, then this project will need to actually get underway soon or the RSL funding could be lost. And it's hard to imagine that they would let that happen.
"Not exactly a correct interpretation of events." Neither's yours, FM. "When push came to shove" was when the city told RSL that, um, our plans are a LOT smaller than what we worked out with you, and, um, it's going to cost twice what we told you, and, um, we were just kidding about sharing the revenue stream with you. That's what that second letter you posted is about ("it appears the scope has been reduced..."). Also, I remember reading just a couple of weeks ago a quote from Bill Manning clarifying that, contrary to what the Trib reported, the $7.5 mil pledge won't "expire," and that RSL is still committed to helping build this facility. I know it's your M.O. to question everything the front office does through a pessimistic lens, but assuming that every other entity involved is pure as the driven snow isn't exactly intellectually honest. For example, I don't think SLC has ever *really* wanted this complex. Carlton Christensen and other west-side civic leaders have and do, but the mayors (both Anderson and Becker) and their staffs don't want the headache of maintaining something this large on the "lawless" west side. If the complex does go away, I do expect RSL to take the fall for it--"We just couldn't work it out with our financial partner" will be the city's motto; you'll crow "I told you so," and soccer in Utah will take yet another step backward. Doom and gloom doesn't build soccer complexes, or youth academies, or successful relations between RSL's front office and the communities and consumers around it. I don't care if you don't go all Pollyanna about the FO--just a little less sniping at *just* RSL would be nice.
Punx & realslfan, I'm not taking sides. Just relaying the facts/events as I know them. For better or worse, I followed & chronicled the minutiae of the stadium funding politics in excruciating detail. I believe I possess ample documentation to back up everything I described. All parties had personal agendas--not just Checketts. Trust me, nobody's hands are exactly pristine. There's no need for RSL fan denial or defensiveness about the sausage making of two+ years ago. Punx, please provide link/source for the Bill Manning quote you paraphrased. Regardless, the expiration date is a moot point since the City apparently met it's obligations on time. Also, is "lawless" west side your adjective, or that of Anderson and/or Becker? If the latter...link/source please. Realslfan, there is a material difference between forking over cash and granting conditional access to a credit facility. It's far from an *irrelevancy*. These conditions are ripe for future challenges--regardless of the "helpful" words Punx claims Manning recently offered.
FM--the "lawless" quote is my own; I live on the west side, within a couple miles of where the complex will be built. My feeling that Anderson was just playing politics comes from several Rocky-era issues: Killing the west side mall, blocking the airport TRAX line, and this issue. The bond for the soccer complex was contingent on someone stepping in and putting up half the bond amount--not bloody likely for something on the west side. But RSL saw an opportunity tailor-made for them--cheap land, a demographic that is at least not anti-soccer, and a chance to make nice with the city they'd jilted. Whether or not Becker is anti-west-side remains to be seen. I'm encouraged by the city's apparent endorsement of the Glendale library, for instance, and the fact that the airport TRAX line is now being built. But the mayor inherited the same Parks and Recreation staff that Anderson had, so a lot of this depends on how they spin the project to their new boss, and whether or not he buys the spin. I'd like to see RSL involved much more than they're obligated to be, mainly because it would be a HUGE win for both Salt Lake and RSL. And I can't find the Manning quote. I was sure it was in either a James Edwards or Michael Lewis article, but may have been one of those "other news" blurbs in an RSL-related article. Anyone else recall seeing it?
No defensiveness. When you distort the situation, and someone corrects you - it's not a matter of them getting emotional or defensive. It's a matter of trying to get the correct characterization of events out there. I never implied that RSL was pristine in the situation. In fact, the entire situation brought out the worst in Checketts IMO. As was publicly evidenced on local radio and in the papers.
^^even this sounds a bit defensive^^ I don't think Punx & I really disagree on anything now. But if you still feel I've *distorted* a fact, please be very specific. Let's work it out. I'm genuinely happy to revisit my copius records. Thx.
I totally totally understand 15.... but it was sold to the taxpayers as a park for "all of us". When in reality, it is a park for a select few who pay even more additional fees on top of the taxes we overspent on building the place. I know all about fields and whatnot and hear loud and clear what you're saying. Nice fields are not overused. The thing that keeps golf courses so nice is the constant maintenance and keeping people the hell off of them. Ha. It would just be nice if when they gave a "gift to the community" with our tax dollars that they'd actually let us use them once in a while. The main issue I have with the softball complex is the way the fields were actually designed and placed. If any of you come to Orem and meet me I will drive you down there and explain my true complaints with the place. I mean that. If anybody is involved with the building of the new facility or you are just concerned with what could go wrong.... PLEASE SERIOUSLY come visit Orem and let me show you the massive mistakes they made so they aren't repeated. I am not even talking about the locked up goals and locked up fields. I am talking about overall design, layout, and the crowning and such. It is a complete mess. As far as the other part of my complaint... the sad thing for me when it comes to the locked goals is that it just wreaks of racism and greedy revenuers (a word my grandpa would have used!). There are VERY organized and competitive leagues that are made up of mainly Latino players in this town. I love watching them play on Sundays and wish I had my health back so I could get out and play. They are basically having to scrounge up a field that nobody cares about at the junior high or an elementary school (many of these aren't even sized properly or are extremely dangerous because of the fact that they are underwatered, never resodded, infested with bugs, or the students dig pits and such in them). I feel like the taxpayers bought this park with the idea that it was going to open up a bunch more fields (and none of the youth leagues play on Sunday) but the city has made darn sure that the independently run Latino leagues can't use the fields that their tax dollars helped pay for. My best friend is a principal at an elementary here and he said they come out every weekend and play at his school. It has become a place where they can play and not be bothered because the neighbors support them and nobody makes a fuss about it (which isn't the case elsewhere), and he has gotten to know the folks and has had positive interactions and feels good that he can provide a field for them.... even though there are brand new well maintained fields 3 miles down the road. I asked him how his field's quality is and he said "TERRIBLE", because it is the same turf they put down 30 years ago when they built the place, the field isn't regulation size, and it isn't lined or anything. It is a bumpy dangerous mess that leads to injuries and players are having to bring their own nets and they try to maintain the field but are fighting a losing battle. Sorry for the rant. I just see some real inequity in usage of fields, but that is a totally separate issue from the awful design flaws, which was really where my concern was, and I was hoping that those who designed the sports park here will not be doing yours up North, and if they are... I hope you all are aware of what you will be "sold" and what you will be "given" will probably end up being two totally different things and the quality you were hoping for won't be there. Look into the contractors and such if you can and if you are concerned, come for a visit and I'll give you the guided tour of the park and point out the flaws (although they are quite obvious once you get there). Trust me!!!
I grew up in Utah County and I got used to seeing most of the goals locked up when not being used for games, etc. However, I've spent the summer in Wisconsin and seen plenty of soccer fields, and not a single set of goals has been locked up, and the nets are always on the goals too. Having seen this, I wish the Utah county fields had left their goals unlocked as it would have made playing pick up games with friends that much easier. I can understand a High School team wishing to keep its field in good condition, but public fields are supposed to be public right? If people are running them ragged, then the city should build more fields to spread the use out. If the clubs want their own fields to be in the best shape possible they should make their own arrangements, but I think most publicly funded fields should be open to the public.
if you want to see the reasoning for locking up the fields at Orem go look at the West Jordan complex. When that thing was built, it hosted regionals and many thought it was going to be a staple in the rotation. After a couple years though... its awful. Half of this is due to the grounds keeping crew not knowing how to keep up soccer pitches and the other half is because they simply got over used. Fields A-D were supposed to be the premier fields of the complex. A especially cuz it has lights... now, go look at those pitches. Simply awful and in a state where they almost need to just re-sod the whole thing. One of the best complexs I have played at was in Las Vegas. I cant remember the name of the place, but its where they host pretty much any tournament there (at least they used to). All the pitches are nice and grass and well kept, but the whole thing is fenced off. Same goes for the complex in Florida (the disney one that hosts what is considered the biggest youth tournament now, even over dallas cup). All of the fields are well kept, but they are not at all open. I agree they need to build more fields, but if you want some elite ones (which they want that orem one to be cuz it is likely the place they will have state and regionals at) they have to be locked up.
I see tons of youth tournaments in St George nowadays. Must have their golf grounds crews taking care of them.
The Orem soccer fields weren't built for any elite tournament hosting business. They were built for the citizens of the city to use (at least that is how it was sold to us). The soccer fields aren't locked up (except for the goals. The softball fields are. Softball fields have dirt infields and don't get worn out easily so there is no rational reasoning for locking the fields down. It is just a matter of preventing those who aren't paying ADDITIONAL funds on top of tax dollars used to build the place to actually use the fields. Every other field in Utah County is open to playing softball as far as I know and there isn't a problem. Pleasant Grove's fields are great and always open. I used to have to drive over there and hit because my own city didn't provide us with a field we could use. I think it is ridiculous that the school district is willing to share their property with the community and even offers out their property for FREE to the city for city sports, but the city won't reciprocate and allow the citizens access to their facilities. The district makes nothing for Junior Jazz basketball and the district actually has to pay workers to clean up/set up and open and close gyms on Saturdays and evenings for practices and games. But the city won't allow the kids and others to go out and play on THEIR fields. I realize that isn't the situation with the setup in Salt Lake and it is being built for a different purpose. There are just two different issues I had a gripe with. The design issues were a real concern and that is why I recommend just making sure the same people aren't involved because what they say they are going to build and what they actually built are much different (meaning fields weren't graded properly, there are SERIOUS drainage problems which led to bug infestations, the fields are laid out improperly/sized very strangely, etc.).
I suspect this is not the case at the Vineyard complex, but at many fields around Utah, the goals themselves are not owned by the complex but rather by the clubs or leagues which use them most often. Those entities lock them up to protect their goals and nets, but also to discourage people from freely jumping on and using/wearing out the same fields they pay a lot themselves to use. You have to remember also that the reason for those "Additional funds" is that these facilities require "additional funds" to maintain which is pretty well correlated with the amount of use they get, and that's what the leagues and such are paying for. By going out and playing on a field, especially in wet conditions, you are costing somebody money. Whether or not some of those funds should have been budgeted for from the beginning to support open public use is a different question, and one of the concerns might well have been that the funding wouldn't get passed at all. Another issue is insurance. When a team or league wants to officially reserve most fieldspaces in Utah, they have to have $1,000,000 in liability insurance. I imagine this is the same for other sports like softball. My guess is that some cities or departments pay a lot extra for their own insurance to cover people who just walk up and use facilities unofficially, and some cities, possibly Orem, just spend a few bucks and put locks on everything.
Yeah, we have to sign waivers and everything to play now because of insurance issues. But there is an implied risk when you are going to use a city facility on your own time and you don't need to sign a waiver to use the swings or shoot hoops at the city park or to run on the track. If I go and swing a softball bat with my buddies during a Saturday fun session and drill a linedrive at somebody's head and kill him.... the city is not responsible, neither is the softball association, the bat manufacturer, or anybody else. We have assumed responsibility and the courts are on the side of the facilities in those cases to my knowledge. I've played with lots of softball lawyers over the years and we've had this discussion many many times. You should read the thousands of pages of discussions we've had over broken windshields and the liability at softball complexes during sanctioned games/sanctioned practices/and open play. It is pretty funny, but there is court case after court case cited and they are all pretty comical and it is amazing what a record there is on stuff strictly related to parks usage. I understand what you're saying about the soccer goals and fields. It is of course true and makes sense. I have no problem with people locking up their goals on private property or if they own the goals. I have no problem with the steps being taken to preserve fields that are set aside for specific use. It is a wise idea and the leagues deserve a nice place to play, especially considering the highway robbery charges that the kids families are paying to play. I just hope your fields in Salt Lake aren't designed by the same people that did this swamp. It is awful. You won't be able to see all of the problems from Google Earth. You need to walk through the complex and check it out. It is really bad.
in order to have a winning season, we have to win out... there is no 10-10-10 ability this season. Its either we have a winning season or a losing one. Too bad this doesnt determine the future of JK...
We still have a chance of winning the annual *Close But No Cigar* award! Or my other favorite - *First Loser*
Last week, Fox 13 showed a clip of an RSL practice. My cousin recorded it and posted it to his Facebook page, viewable here. (I tried finding the video on the Fox 13 website, but they don't have anything posted since July.) In the clip, everyone was paired off, and they were holding hands as they were dribbling, shooting, tackling, etc. I've never done this drill before (or seen it), so I'm a little confused as to what is going on here. Not the best drill to show on live TV, and I have no idea what's going on. Anyone able to help me out here?
My best guess is that it could help players learn to fight through shirt pulls and othe types of holding. Maybe... perhaps... could be...
At first I thought they might've been combining Red Rover with soccer. But then no one tried to run through and break the pair's hold.
priceless: http://web.mlsnet.com/index.jsp the picture for the article about the playoff chase with the DC wall on it is just too much...
My friends and I play at the county complex in West Jordan by the Target in Jordan Landing. They don't have nets, but there are a lot of fields out there and they leave the goals out (both full size and youth).