Revs new stadium | The Boneyard

Revs new stadium

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 25, 2011
Messages
7,188
Reaction Score
8,763
Looks like several of my friends from Boston and I were right. Bob Kraft, who apparently was not offered enough money by Revere and Somerville is now focusing efforts on building a new stadium in the 18K to 22K range in between I-93 and the railroad tracks on state land located between the South End and S Boston, just just South of downtown Boston. This just happens to be immediately next to the proposed location for the main Olympic Stadium for Boston's 2024 potential bid should Boston be selected over (San Francisco, LA & DC) for the US bid. As Kraft is one of the leaders on Boston's Olympic bid committee, along with his friend, John Fish, who is the CEO of Suffolk Construction (the company likely to benefit massively from an Olympic construction boom in Boston), this is not a coincidence.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...dium-boston/s7p5krvDeH1J7UgjlEIFtM/story.html

My prediction, the Olympic Stadium & the Rev's new pitch become on in the same. So, the Revs should have a new stadium around 2026 (2 years after the Olympics).

There is the possibility that Kraft could build a 60,000-seat stadium on the site, and then much like was done in London, have the seating reduced to a more manageable audience for Major League Soccer purposes...the cost of converting the stadium has been more than $200 million, to be completed in 2016...Taxpayers footed the bill.

After privately financing Gillette Stadium, the Krafts so far have not pledged to do the same for a soccer stadium, which probably would cost more than $100 million.

Couple of other notes from the story...

The Revolution have acknowledged that playing in the cavernous Gillette Stadium, located well outside of Boston’s urban core, is not an ideal setting for soccer. In October, the Revolution’s president told the Globe that a preferred size for a new soccer stadium would seat 18,000 to 22,000 fans.

The Revolution are among the few MLS teams not playing in a soccer-specific stadium. Many of the other stadiums are relatively small, intimate venues; the Revs, by comparison, are unable to fill a massive football stadium, despite logging their highest attendance this season in six years: 16,681 on average.

In an interview with the Globe in October, Revolution president Brian Bilello said a smaller stadium would also allow the team to sell high-priced premium seats. Club sections at Gillette are so removed that they are not appealing, he said.

A city stadium would also bring the Revolution closer to the young urban fans who are driving the league’s growth. Four in 10 MLS fans are 34 or younger, according to Nielsen Media Research, compared with 24 percent of Major League Baseball fans.

The most recent talks date back to at least the past summer and have involved the possibility of adding light rail service to the site from South Station, said a source who was briefed on those plans.

 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
9,861
Reaction Score
9,870
Maybe if I initially read the Globe article, I'd know Kraft is talking 5 years from now and not 2022. And, the MBTA Red line runs relatively close to the targeted site now home to warehouses, wholesalers, etc on Frontage Road right off I-93 and close to Dot Ave and West Broadway in Dorchester.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 25, 2011
Messages
7,188
Reaction Score
8,763
Maybe if I initially read the Globe article, I'd know Kraft is talking 5 years from now and not 2022. And, the MBTA Red line runs relatively close to the targeted site now home to warehouses, wholesalers, etc on Frontage Road right off I-93 and close to Dot Ave and West Broadway in Dorchester.

It' not bad site, though I always thought a stadium in Revere where the Wonderland dog park was at the end of the Blue line would be cool. Kraft can say 5 years; but, it's Boston, it will take 10 years just to get it approved. Some city councilman out in JP will complain that the extra traffic that she encounters on her once a month trip to Castle Island will be too much (not really a joke, some one raised that issue when Boston tried getting a new Fenway built several years ago). No way will Boston be able to approve and build 2 stadiums, 1 temporary, in the same area in the 10 or so year timeframe here. Thus, I expect that the two will be tied together, which is what Kraft wants, i.e. someone else to pay for it.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
9,861
Reaction Score
9,870
Sure, it's a reasonably good location. However, someone will complain they can't get there from wherever they may live. After all, it's New England and especially Massachusetts, where whining's a sport unto itself. They don't call 'em Ma.ssholes without good cause!
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2011
Messages
7,188
Reaction Score
8,763
http://espn.go.com/boston/story/_/id/12139076/boston-us-bid-city-2024-summer-olympics

Kraft is one step closer to getting someone else, which of course means the taxpayers at some point down the road, to build him a downtown, 30K soccer stadium in Boston for the Revs. The stadium, if built, would be likely available in 2026 as it will take 2 years after the 2024 Olympics to downsize it from 60,000 seats. The decision will be made by the IOC once the proper bribes are received in 2017. So, if won, the Revs have 11 more years of playing at Gillette. Yippee!

The Boston IOC is being smart though. After Sochi, there is huge pressure to reduce Olympic costs and the Boston bid utilizes several ways to accomplish that, by mostly pushing facility costs into other non-Olympic pots, such as new dorms for UMass-Boston, expanded commuter service under the MBTA, a new soccer stadium for the Revs, etc.

PS - Been chatting with my Boston friends all evening, not a single one is happy with this.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
26,569
Reaction Score
32,868
This is sad news for Revs fans. The best thing that ever happened to the Kansas City Wizards was Lamar Hunt selling them.
 

meyers7

You Talkin’ To Me?
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
23,407
Reaction Score
60,446
http://espn.go.com/boston/story/_/id/12139076/boston-us-bid-city-2024-summer-olympics

Kraft is one step closer to getting someone else, which of course means the taxpayers at some point down the road, to build him a downtown, 30K soccer stadium in Boston for the Revs. The stadium, if built, would be likely available in 2026 as it will take 2 years after the 2024 Olympics to downsize it from 60,000 seats. The decision will be made by the IOC once the proper bribes are received in 2017. So, if won, the Revs have 11 more years of playing at Gillette. Yippee!

The Boston IOC is being smart though. After Sochi, there is huge pressure to reduce Olympic costs and the Boston bid utilizes several ways to accomplish that, by mostly pushing facility costs into other non-Olympic pots, such as new dorms for UMass-Boston, expanded commuter service under the MBTA, a new soccer stadium for the Revs, etc.

PS - Been chatting with my Boston friends all evening, not a single one is happy with this.
I might be happy with this, but then I don't live in Boston. I'd like to see it there and like to see upgrades in Boston area, but wonder how much will be taken away from the rest of the state, particularly WMass. We got pretty much nothing during the Big Dig era.
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2011
Messages
7,188
Reaction Score
8,763
I might be happy with this, but then I don't live in Boston. I'd like to see it there and like to see upgrades in Boston area, but wonder how much will be taken away from the rest of the state, particularly WMass. We got pretty much nothing during the Big Dig era.

I suspect UMass Amherst, which is concerned it is falling far behind other state flagships, like UConn, and even to a lesser degree, UMass-Lowell, will be hurt because I have heard that the Olympic Village, which will be built at UMass-Boston, is going to be funded by the new higher education funding plan from Beacon Hill. That will take a big chunk out of that pie. Not surprised though as half the folks on Beacon Hill have not yet realized that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts actually goes beyond I-495 and Worcester.
 

meyers7

You Talkin’ To Me?
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
23,407
Reaction Score
60,446
Not surprised though as half the folks on Beacon Hill have not yet realized that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts actually goes beyond I-495 and Worcester.
Tell me about it. :rolleyes:
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
2,258
Reaction Score
3,376
All I care about is that p-rick Kraft allowing Hartford the chance to court an MLS team to the Rent.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
26,569
Reaction Score
32,868
Just an update on the Rev's stadium plans for Boston. Basically, all politics, all the time and, which is how everything (or nothing) ever gets done in the Hub all mixed in with a little gasoline, i.e. the 2024 Olympic Bid.

http://www.boston.com/business/2015...cer-stadium/1xkcHT63WenUhBjfju7GBM/story.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/print-edition/2015/04/03/a-chess-match-unfolds-in-southie.html

Really wish someone would just buy the team from Kraft and infuse some meaningful effort into that team.

Apparently one of the reasons why the CBA was held up was because of old hard liners like Clark Hunt and Robert Kraft (NFL Guys). Both families basically set fire to gigantic piles of cash keeping the league afloat in its early days and now they want to recoup their investment. Now ironically they have become barriers to progress.

Below is a decent read when you have the time. I think next time around NYC FC, LA, Seattle, Toronto, KC, Orlando and few others will push for more spending.

http://www.hudsonriverblue.com/2015...might-help-move-the-needle-on-salary-cap-free

"A source privy to the CBA negotiations in Washington, DC told me about the "fascinating chasm" between different camps of MLS owners during the negotiations. My source informed me that some of the newer owners were pushing for a higher cap, and more team autonomy when it came to player signings, as well as free agency.

According to him, the LA Galaxy, Seattle, Toronto, and New York City were leading this effort; the Red Bulls, Sporting KC, and Orlando were also involved. This effort would surely improve the on-field product, draw greater fan interest -- and ultimately make MLS much more competitive with top-rank soccer leagues around the world.

Opposing these efforts were MLS' old guard: Robert Kraft (owner of the New England Revolution), Clark Hunt (owner of FC Dallas), and Philadelphia's ownership group -- according to my source, "the usual suspects". That makes ESPN's Jeff Carlisle's report --that "the number of owners at the table was intentionally limited, and helped them maintain a united front" -- make even more sense.

As it turned out, two of the three owners at the table were Kraft and Hunt -- the other being Vancouver’s Greg Kerfoot. The three owners were joined by some LA Galaxy brass, MLS Commissioner Don Garber, and deputy commissioner Mark Abbott. My source explained that these owners carried the day against the newer, bolder owners. Kraft more or less argued, "We lost way too much money in the early years and aren’t ready to lose more."
 

UCFBfan

Semi Kings of New England!
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
5,874
Reaction Score
11,758
So is that saying LA Galaxy ownership is for more spending like the newer owners or against like Kraft & Comp? Curious because I feel like they seem to always land the bigger named European players and would think they'd want more flexibility in adding more.

Hope the newer owners win out. MLS really needs to start taking that next big step up in competition. They are getting solid fan support, have almost all soccer specific venues, and are getting name brand players in their twilight. They need to now give teams the chance to land bigger players more in their prime and up the play of the average MLS player.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
26,569
Reaction Score
32,868
So is that saying LA Galaxy ownership is for more spending like the newer owners or against like Kraft & Comp? Curious because I feel like they seem to always land the bigger named European players and would think they'd want more flexibility in adding more.

Hope the newer owners win out. MLS really needs to start taking that next big step up in competition. They are getting solid fan support, have almost all soccer specific venues, and are getting name brand players in their twilight. They need to now give teams the chance to land bigger players more in their prime and up the play of the average MLS player.

LA Galaxy is in the "spend more". And they definitely don't like the goofy rules. Which is funny, because many of the goofy rules that have come about over the years were designed to directly benefit the Galaxy. Not surprised that the "Big market" teams were pushing for more spending. Surprised that KC was in that group because they are a small market, but they are no longer a mouth to feed and they are in the top three in the league for merchandise sales.

This is today's big controversy. Last year Bruce was fined for criticizing the league because they blocked them from signing Sascha Kliesjtan. The Galaxy even traded players to move up in the allocation order to sign him. Six months later, he signs with the Red Bulls.

http://www.lagalaxy.com/news/2015/05/bruce-arena-labels-mls-discovery-signing-process-blackmail-job
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2011
Messages
7,188
Reaction Score
8,763
Really wish someone would just buy the team from Kraft and infuse some meaningful effort into that team.

Apparently one of the reasons why the CBA was held up was because of old hard liners like Clark Hunt and Robert Kraft (NFL Guys). Both families basically set fire to gigantic piles of cash keeping the league afloat in its early days and now they want to recoup their investment. Now ironically they have become barriers to progress.

Below is a decent read when you have the time. I think next time around NYC FC, LA, Seattle, Toronto, KC, Orlando and few others will push for more spending.

http://www.hudsonriverblue.com/2015...might-help-move-the-needle-on-salary-cap-free

"A source privy to the CBA negotiations in Washington, DC told me about the "fascinating chasm" between different camps of MLS owners during the negotiations. My source informed me that some of the newer owners were pushing for a higher cap, and more team autonomy when it came to player signings, as well as free agency.

According to him, the LA Galaxy, Seattle, Toronto, and New York City were leading this effort; the Red Bulls, Sporting KC, and Orlando were also involved. This effort would surely improve the on-field product, draw greater fan interest -- and ultimately make MLS much more competitive with top-rank soccer leagues around the world.

Opposing these efforts were MLS' old guard: Robert Kraft (owner of the New England Revolution), Clark Hunt (owner of FC Dallas), and Philadelphia's ownership group -- according to my source, "the usual suspects". That makes ESPN's Jeff Carlisle's report --that "the number of owners at the table was intentionally limited, and helped them maintain a united front" -- make even more sense.

As it turned out, two of the three owners at the table were Kraft and Hunt -- the other being Vancouver’s Greg Kerfoot. The three owners were joined by some LA Galaxy brass, MLS Commissioner Don Garber, and deputy commissioner Mark Abbott. My source explained that these owners carried the day against the newer, bolder owners. Kraft more or less argued, "We lost way too much money in the early years and aren’t ready to lose more."

Thanks, very interesting. Kraft loves to spend other people's money and not his, just look at the saga the Rev's stadium has become, or his attempt to land a casino liscence, or how he used Hartford to get Gillette built. Doubt that will improve anytime soon after his fallout with the NFL over inflategate.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
19,227
Reaction Score
14,041
Thanks, very interesting. Kraft loves to spend other people's money and not his, just look at the saga the Rev's stadium has become, or his attempt to land a casino liscence, or how he used Hartford to get Gillette built. Doubt that will improve anytime soon after his fallout with the NFL over inflategate.
You see his woman? He'll do fine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
301
Guests online
2,013
Total visitors
2,314

Forum statistics

Threads
157,991
Messages
4,130,096
Members
10,016
Latest member
RipBenEmek


Top Bottom