New England Revolution Stadium | 173 Alford Street | Boston-Everett

Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium

Major issue with using Fenway is the MLB and MLS seasons overlap. It'd also probably be impossible to figure out a solution to regularly converting the field to soccer usage. You'd need to be able to lay some sort of sod down in the warning track and have it be steady enough to play soccer on. And you'd need to do that about 20 times a year (totally guessing on # of home MLS games).

17 home games, 17 away games, for a 34 game season. If you make it into the postseason you could potentially have 4 postseason home games for a total of 21.

But MLB (spring-fall) and the FIFA-standard league scheduling paradigms (fall-spring) do not overlap; NFL and MLS would overlap if MLS moved to fall-spring which is why it can't happen until every soccer team has a stadium disconnected from the NFL.

Because MLS runs on a spring-fall schedule, you get all kinds of fun nonsense like players abandoning their MLS teams for the World Cup! And so, it is inevitable that eventually MLS will be forced to go fall-spring. Once that happens, soccer could happily coexist at Fenway.

Hartford would undoubtably love to get the Whalers back, but it currently looks like there's a decent chance that the Rockcats are going to relocate there. The construction of two new arenas at the same time would probably be a bit two much. Granted, there was a time we thought the Patriots might be going to Hartford too...:rolleyes:

In the case of the Whalers, they wouldn't need a new stadium. The XL Center is either able to support them right now or with some package of upgrades that would be part of a relocation deal.
 
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium

Hartford is the only other city in New England that could even theoretically support a major league sports team and even then they would have serious problems with providing a competent product due to being such a small market. Also good luck getting any notable players to relocate to Hartford, Connecticut. I also doubt MLS would be very happy with losing Boston, even if their claim to Boston right now is tenuous at best.

There are a bunch of places that a soccer specific stadium could go in Boston, Somerville, Revere, etc. The only reason that it hasn't happened already is that the Krafts are bad owners and haven't bothered.
 
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium

Connecticut would be an issue because of the draw. Do you really want to drive down I-91 to see the Revs in Downtown Hartford? The only realistic team that THAT city could support would be if the Hartford Whalers returned.
 
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium

In the case of the Whalers, they wouldn't need a new stadium. The XL Center is either able to support them right now or with some package of upgrades that would be part of a relocation deal.

I was implying that the two new stadiums would be for the Revs and the Rockcats, not the Whalers and the Revs. Sorry if I made that confusing.
 
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium

Hartford is the only other city in New England that could even theoretically support a major league sports team and even then they would have serious problems with providing a competent product due to being such a small market. Also good luck getting any notable players to relocate to Hartford, Connecticut. I also doubt MLS would be very happy with losing Boston, even if their claim to Boston right now is tenuous at best.

Why can't Providence support a major league sports team, again?

Less than an hour from Boston, has its own fair share of universities (and youth), and its bus network is no worse off than Hartford's (actually, RIPTA probably beats every CTTransit district other than Stamford), and is by population the third largest city in New England - only 4000 or so residents behind Worcester at #2 on the 2010 census.

Providence and Boston have a lot of similarities to Baltimore and Washington, and yet nobody (other than Peter "Fucking Peter" Angelos, but that's another topic) is surprised that Baltimore and Washington can both support distinct major league franchises that are in direct competition with each other. Providence is absolutely capable of supporting a major league franchise whose closest competing franchise would be in New York.

And, as you said yourself - the connection to Boston is already incredibly tenuous. They're not the Boston Revolution and they're not the Boston & New England Revolution. They are the New England Revolution, and they'd stay the New England Revolution whether they play in Foxborough, Boston, Providence, Hartford, or Burlington Vermont. If physically relocating from Foxborough to Providence (a 20 mile move!) represents "losing" Boston - then Boston's already lost to MLS.
 
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium

Why can't Providence support a major league sports team, again?

Less than an hour from Boston, has its own fair share of universities (and youth), and its bus network is no worse off than Hartford's (actually, RIPTA probably beats every CTTransit district other than Stamford), and is by population the third largest city in New England - only 4000 or so residents behind Worcester at #2 on the 2010 census.

Providence and Boston have a lot of similarities to Baltimore and Washington, and yet nobody (other than Peter "Fucking Peter" Angelos, but that's another topic) is surprised that Baltimore and Washington can both support distinct major league franchises that are in direct competition with each other. Providence is absolutely capable of supporting a major league franchise whose closest competing franchise would be in New York.

Boston is a much, much larger city and more powerful TV media market than Providence or any other city in New England. There is not a single compelling reason to locate in Providence over Boston.

Traveling from Boston to Providence is much more feasible than Foxborough but it is still inconvenient and time consuming. Dealing with the commuter rail schedule is a pain in the ass, spending like two hours on travel time to and from a 90 minute game is a pain in the ass.

If no one is going to Foxborough no one is going to Providence.

And, as you said yourself - the connection to Boston is already incredibly tenuous. They're not the Boston Revolution and they're not the Boston & New England Revolution. They are the New England Revolution, and they'd stay the New England Revolution whether they play in Foxborough, Boston, Providence, Hartford, or Burlington Vermont. If physically relocating from Foxborough to Providence (a 20 mile move!) represents "losing" Boston - then Boston's already lost to MLS.

If they were to move to Boston I guarantee you that would undergo a complete rebranding and become 'Boston Nickname' or 'Boston F.C.'

Also its totally possible to put a soccer team in Boston or a directly adjacent city near the MBTA. Many people in this thread and the 2024 Olympics thread have pointed out locations for a stadium to go. Finding some other place in New England to go is unnecessary and not an exercise that the league would even go along with. If the Krafts tried to move to Providence or Hartford then Don Garber would go Chivas on their ass and try to move the team to Boston themselves or grant the franchise to Minneapolis.

The reason that MLS did they seemingly ridiculous NYFC expansion process even though they didn't have any stadium plan lined up was because having another New York team benefitted them in negotiating a new TV contract. Losing one of the most powerful TV markets in North America for Providence or Worcester or Hartford would significantly damage MLS's brand and business to the point where the Krafts would get booted.
 
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium

Boston is a much, much larger city and more powerful TV media market than Providence or any other city in New England. There is not a single compelling reason to locate in Providence over Boston.

Here's one: Boston doesn't need the additional venue space. That's a single compelling reason against locating it in Boston, or Somerville, or Charlestown or Quincy or anywhere else inside of 128.

Traveling from Boston to Providence is much more feasible than Foxborough but it is still inconvenient and time consuming. Dealing with the commuter rail schedule is a pain in the ass, spending like two hours on travel time to and from a 90 minute game is a pain in the ass.

If no one is going to Foxborough no one is going to Providence.

Gosh, you're so right, it hurts. That's why literally nobody ever goes from Boston to Providence, ever. Every single outbound train just straight empties in Mansfield, and I-95 is a graveyard south of 495.

If they were to move to Boston I guarantee you that would undergo a complete rebranding and become 'Boston Nickname' or 'Boston F.C.'

If they were going to rebrand, they would've done it already - they don't need to wait to be inside of 128 to start calling them the Boston Whatevers, and their stupid crayon-drawing flag logo was tired and trite from the moment it was introduced.

The logo's also nearly 20 years old now, the Revs have shown zero indication that they plan on rebranding, and there's real history attached to the team at this point.

I guarantee you they're never going to hit the reset button on their brand identity, because if they were going to at any point it would have been a decade ago.

Also its totally possible to put a soccer team in Boston or a directly adjacent city near the MBTA. Many people in this thread and the 2024 Olympics thread have pointed out locations for a stadium to go. Finding some other place in New England to go is unnecessary and not an exercise that the league would even go along with.

When you dare to dream, everything's possible - but that doesn't make it a good idea. In fact, those places that have been identified as desire sites for a stadium often have better potential uses instead.

If the Krafts tried to move to Providence or Hartford then Don Garber would go Chivas on their ass and try to move the team to Boston themselves or grant the franchise to Minneapolis.

The reason that MLS did they seemingly ridiculous NYFC expansion process even though they didn't have any stadium plan lined up was because having another New York team benefitted them in negotiating a new TV contract. Losing one of the most powerful TV markets in North America for Providence or Worcester or Hartford would significantly damage MLS's brand and business to the point where the Krafts would get booted.

And again, Providence and Boston are not mutually exclusive markets - especially not when you consider that the branding isn't going to change. New England is New England, and the team playing in Providence will have exactly zero impact on the televising market in Boston.

But have you looked at the state of the TV (and radio) market in Boston recently? The Revs get less airtime than every other major league sport. NESN/WEEI are, at best, silent on the Revs - having been listening to WEEI somewhat regularly I can assure you I've heard more coverage about their cheer squad (and about why soccer is a terrible sport from a guy who wasn't even made to apologize for it afterwards) then I have about their players, and once World Cup fever subsides I doubt I'll be hearing very much more about soccer. Haven't tuned into CSN/WBZ as much, but I somehow doubt that the situation is very much different with those guys.

So the argument that there's a strong TV market (or really, a TV market with anywhere to go except up) doesn't really hold water with me.

As for Don Garber - let him try and move the team himself. I doubt he's going to have any more success than the Krafts would in moving the team into Boston. Hell, I somehow doubt he'd be able to wrestle control of the team away from the Krafts - given their managerial neglect, if he could have Chivas'd them he would have by now.

Remember, MLS probably doesn't exist without the Krafts. Getting rid of them, wresting control of and rebranding an original franchise - that's on an entirely different level then taking over LA's second team from guys who showed up to MLS a decade later.
 
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium

You have this backwards. Soccer needs to be played on natural grass more than any other sport. It's American football that tears up the grass...

The only MLS stadiums without natural grass are Portland (built for baseball) and New England, Seattle, and Vancouver (all built for football). All the soccer-specific stadiums have grass. Toronto originally had FieldTurf, but they then spent $3.5 million tearing it all up and putting in grass. In fact, whenever they hold big internationals at Gillette they actually lay temporary natural sod over the FieldTurf, as the world's best players flatly refuse to play on the plastic stuff.

My bad, and thank you. Yes, I guess it was football that to' up the field and it was not really good for soccer. The amount of wear and tear made it difficult or impossible to rehab in time for games.

I'll stick with soccer doing to much damage to the field at Fenway, but also don't dislike the idea of playing there, even if for just a few years while a new stadium is being built.

I suppose another reason this wouldn't happen would be Kraft not wanting to line Henry's pockets, when he can make that money himself. He and his group own the team, and want to pocket those profits.
 
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium

TV money is the driving factor of all team relocations, plain and simple. No one in their right mind is taking a sports team from a league trying desperately to grow and moving it from a top 10 media market out to a city that doesn't even crack the top 100. That's beyond ridiculous. It's basically suicidal.
 
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium

TV money is the driving factor of all team relocations, plain and simple. No one in their right mind is taking a sports team from a league trying desperately to grow and moving it from a top 10 media market out to a city that doesn't even crack the top 100. That's beyond ridiculous. It's basically suicidal.

Providence is #53 according to Nielsen. When it comes to urban area population, which very helpful in determining a fan-base to draw from for regular attendance, Boston is #10 and Providence is #39.

The move wouldn't be as unbelievable as you might think. I know it is not a good comparison for feasibility for a multitude of reasons (i.e. distance traveled, a different sport, etc.), but when the Supersonics moved to Oklahoma City, they were leaving the #14 urban area for the #51 urban area. So there is some precedent elsewhere.

By the way, the Providence's urban area population is larger than Salt Lake City's urban area population, which hosts a successful MLS franchise.
 
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium

The move wouldn't be as unbelievable as you might think. I know it is not a good comparison for feasibility for a multitude of reasons (i.e. distance traveled, a different sport, etc.), but when the Supersonics moved to Oklahoma City, they were leaving the #14 urban area for the #51 urban area.
But moving the Sonics to OKC WAS unbelievable, and moving a team back (Sacramento, Minnesota, LAC, and even OKC) or starting a new franchise gets talked about all the time. And at least OKC is a growth area. Providence as a growth market? It's a nice town, but no. The Nielson media market rankings have them below Buffalo, a city with a football team desperately trying to move to Toronto. Meanwhile, you'd be leaving a Boston media market that Nielson ranks 7th, and that's A) been growing recently, and B) is home to some of the biggest spenders in the country. Why, if you were the business people in charge of MLS, would you do that?
 
Last edited:
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium

But moving the Sonics to OKC WAS unbelievable, and moving a team back (Sacramento, Minnesota, LAC, and even OKC) or starting a new franchise gets talked about all the time. And at least OKC is a growth area. Providence as a growth market? It's a nice town, but no. The Nielson media market rankings have them below Buffalo, a city with a football team desperately trying to move to Toronto. Meanwhile, you'd be leaving a Boston media market that Nielson ranks 7th, and that's A) been growing recently, and B) is home to some of the biggest spenders in the country. Why, if you were the business people in charge of MLS, would you do that?

I agree that it is smarter to have a team in Boston than Providence. But at the same time, you have to acknowledge that it is smarter to have a team in Providence than in Foxborough (with all else equal, which it is not). It would be silly to move an MLS team from Boston to Providence, just like it would be silly to move a team from Boston to Foxborough. On the other hand, what would be the loss of moving a team from Foxborough to Providence?

If the right situation arises in Providence, they would be well-served to move into a SSS there, rather than stay out in the boonies. The Revs in a new stadium, along the Providence River, in land freed up by the Iway project, would be great for the franchise. Providence can support an MLS team.
 
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium

On the other hand, what would be the loss of moving a team from Foxborough to Providence?
The loss is: A) at least being in Foxboro gets you into the Boston media market; and B) moving the team to Providence means you didn't move it to Boston, which is a major, major opportunity cost. And that doesn't even get into the question of why MLS would want to be in a media market that's A) smaller than Buffalo and B) doesn't show any signs of growth. Especially if it means abandoning the big bucks in Boston.
 
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium

...moving the team to Providence means you didn't move it to Boston, which is a major, major opportunity cost.

This.

Providence leaves a LOT of money on the table. The reason Kraft hasn't moved yet is because he is making money where he is. He has 17 extra events a year in Gillette, plus a handful of other soccer exhibitions. When a dedicated stadium's revenues will outweigh the value-added to Gillette, he'll move. The chance that Providence ever makes that math add up is minimal.
 
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium

The loss is: A) at least being in Foxboro gets you into the Boston media market;

Except it doesn't. They're conflated in the same way that Baltimore-Washington have a conflated media market.

I keep asking people in this thread how and why they can assert that moving to Providence means "losing" a Boston media market that is already incredibly weak at best - and people keep re-asserting the same statement instead of providing anything by way of evidence that a move to Providence is mutually exclusive with serving the Boston media market.

Of course, it's not mutually exclusive, so there's no evidence that you could provide to back up the assertion. You're still in the Boston media market if you're in Providence, or Worcester, or Lowell.

and B) moving the team to Providence means you didn't move it to Boston, which is a major, major opportunity cost.

This.

Providence leaves a LOT of money on the table. The reason Kraft hasn't moved yet is because he is making money where he is. He has 17 extra events a year in Gillette, plus a handful of other soccer exhibitions. When a dedicated stadium's revenues will outweigh the value-added to Gillette, he'll move. The chance that Providence ever makes that math add up is minimal.

You assert this as though shovels are in the ground for a stadium already, and the move downtown is assured.

But it's not. By all indications, the Krafts have at least been pursuing the idea of a move for a number of years now, and absolutely nothing has come of it. You can argue that it's because they've never for a single moment been "serious" about the move, and the minute they decide to move it's going to be like gangbusters - but the evidence suggests that actually, their efforts to move have been and will continue to be stymied, and the reason is clear - because Boston doesn't need the additional venue space, because the value add on Boston's end of this equation makes no sense, and therefore, Boston is not going to be nearly as receptive to this move as the Krafts or Revs fans would like.

I think the opportunity cost is only an opportunity cost if you have a real shot on goal and don't take it - in this case, there's no shot and there might not be a shot for another decade or more. That we're talking about coupling this into an Olympics bid is insanely worrying - does anyone expect the Olympics will seriously land here? If they don't, what's the alternative? Is there an action plan for moving other than "hope to occupy Olympics Stadium after 2024?" Or are we going to seriously allow the Revs to languish in Foxboro for another decade at the minimum even if the Olympics bid goes off?

Is the thought of moving to Providence so unattractive that you'd really rather leave the team in Foxboro indefinitely and wait for the market to change in Boston enough so that another venue space of this size would be welcomed into the city? Even if it's going to take 15, 20, 30 years; even if leaving them as second-class citizens behind the Pats is doing real and irreparable harm to the Revs brand and MLS for all that time, the perceived "loss" attached to a "move" 20 miles south is somehow worse than that?

I don't buy it.
 
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium

Couple things:

1) I think Boston could absorb another 30k+ person outdoor venue for soccer, concerts, events. It is not saturated.

2) The Revs are currently a distant 5th in the Boston market. Moving to Providence does nothing to develop the Boston market. Sure they may be marginally more successful than they are in Foxboro because of the providence market, but really it just puts more distance between the team and Boston fans. I am the prototype of a person that would go to a soccer game if the stadium were local and could become a better fan. Move it to providence and it gets as much tv time as the Pawsox, which is none. The Boston market offers huge upside growth and I think it is very different from the Baltimore. I think the scale there is a little more balanced.
 
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium

Except it doesn't. They're conflated in the same way that Baltimore-Washington have a conflated media market.

I keep asking people in this thread how and why they can assert that moving to Providence means "losing" a Boston media market that is already incredibly weak at best - and people keep re-asserting the same statement instead of providing anything by way of evidence that a move to Providence is mutually exclusive with serving the Boston media market.
One issue is you're assuming the Revs continue to be broadcast on CSN after a move to Providence. CSN aren't currently broadcasting something like UConn basketball (one of the most successful college teams in the country mind you), so why would they broadcast a team that's not only less popular than the college basketball they already aren't showing, but is also now in a town 1+ hour drive away? And what are CSN's advertisers going to think? Are they going to keep paying the same amount to run ads? I mean, you and I know it's not that far, but if you're paying for ad time and someone says to you "it's basically the same place, but an hour away" are you going to want to pay the same price or ask for a discount? And if CSN takes a hit on ad revenue, what then? What if they drop the Revs? Is anyone going to pick them up if little CSN can't make the numbers work?

Again, why would MLS leave the big bucks of Boston for the relative small bucks of Providence? Who's filling those luxury boxes in Providence? Which corporations are springing for pricy season seats? Who's paying to advertise on the shirt, Dels?

And the idea that Boston's current market for soccer is weak is besides the point if even true. The idea is growth. Where's the growth in Providence? Personally, I'd argue Boston's current market for soccer is incredibly strong, it's just not being met by the half assed Revs organization. Football at Fenway sells out, and the bars are packed during WC with a few even packing people in on Saturday morning. The issue is that the Revs aren't currently providing what people are looking for. Actually provide the service the soccer consuming public wants, and if the media still doesn't respond, then I'll concede your point. That's not happening though.

I mean, I understand the idea that they have land and we don't, and that they aren't "that far" from us, but the economics of running a major league sports franchise, even for MLS, just don't add up. MLS needs to maintain the best possible presence in major media markets to squeeze top advertising and TV deal dollars, and they need to be in a position to entice as many big spenders (often corporate) as possible to buy luxury boxes, season tickets, etc. That's just not happening if you move to Providence, regardless of the space to build a nice stadium.
 
Last edited:
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium

I keep asking people in this thread how and why they can assert that moving to Providence means "losing" a Boston media market that is already incredibly weak at best - and people keep re-asserting the same statement instead of providing anything by way of evidence that a move to Providence is mutually exclusive with serving the Boston media market.

Of course, it's not mutually exclusive, so there's no evidence that you could provide to back up the assertion. You're still in the Boston media market if you're in Providence, or Worcester, or Lowell.
Except, it's a one-way street. Sure, people in Providence, Worcester, and Springfield can get Boston media. I'm sure they're well informed about what's going on in Boston.

The major Boston media outlets don't give two craps about anything outside of 495. Or to put this another way, when was the last time a Boston TV station showed Providence College basketball highlights?
 
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium

When was the last time Providence College basketball had a highlight?
 

Back
Top