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

Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

tangent said:
Land swap plus some money makes sense. Not full price plus landswap plus 30% sense. Seems like they are $20 million apart.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, the BTU wants the land swap, plus $17.5 million in cash AND have the Krafts pay for the moving & costs of all of the rehab in the new building. Seems like they are really trying to squeeze every dime from the Krafts.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

scorpio02150 said:
Just to clarify, the BTU wants the land swap, plus $17.5 million in cash AND have the Krafts pay for the moving & costs of all of the rehab in the new building. Seems like they are really trying to squeeze every dime from the Krafts.
Click to expand...

Seems like a money grab by the BTU in this case.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

mass88 said:
Seems like a money grab by the BTU in this case.
Click to expand...

That's how the free market works. Kraft has the money - does he value this stadium enough to spend it?
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

Equilibria said:
That's how the free market works. Kraft has the money - does he value this stadium enough to spend it?
Click to expand...

In all likelihood, no. Kraft is a shrewd, tough negotiator. If he feels that he's being taken advantage of, he won't enter the deal.

I still can't get over the fact that this is actually (somewhat) close to happening. The 15 years of false starts will all be worth it if we end up with a stadium at the Bayside Expo site. It is the best location in New England for a soccer stadium, bar none.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

scorpio02150 said:
Seems like they are really trying to squeeze every dime from the Krafts.
Click to expand...


Let's not paint the Kraft's as persecuted here. Im all for BTU getting as much as they can
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

Suffolk 83 said:
Let's not paint the Kraft's as persecuted here. Im all for BTU getting as much as they can
Click to expand...

Two organizations that deserve each other. I don't think either will budge and we will shortly be looking at a new prospective venue floating around. I'd be curious to know who leaked the stalemate.

In general though, I don't see public pressure to rise to the level to force either sides' hand. There simply isn't enough influential interest in getting this done (obviously there is substantial fan interest, just not top politicos).
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

For what it's worth, Kraft paid $175 million for the Patriots in 1994. According to his own words, this was a good $50 million over the top price he told his wife he would spend in negotiations. He had spent the last two decades assembling land around the stadium and the [old] stadium itself.

My point is that when he has an opportunity of a lifetime and everything else lines up, he has been willing to spend more than what one normally would to get over the last hurdle.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

Brookline-ish said:
For what it's worth, Kraft paid $175 million for the Patriots in 1994. According to his own words, this was a good $50 million over the top price he told his wife he would spend in negotiations. He had spent the last two decades assembling land around the stadium and the [old] stadium itself.

My point is that when he has an opportunity of a lifetime and everything else lines up, he has been willing to spend more than what one normally would to get over the last hurdle.
Click to expand...

Yes, he brilliantly executed his game plan with the acquisitions. The underlying issue here is that this is Boston and it's not as easy. Look what happened to him in the Seaport. Without heavy political backing it's incredibly difficult to get something like this done. The mayor has not exactly thrown his weight around on this one, at least publicly.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

As long as we're not like other cities and offer to pay or finance the stadium whatever happens, happens
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

Suffolk 83 said:
As long as we're not like other cities and offer to pay or finance the stadium whatever happens, happens
Click to expand...

Exactly. That will never happen here, other than "infrastructure" funding.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

Suffolk 83 said:
http://deadspin.com/rich-guys-want-to-steal-money-from-st-louis-citizens-t-1789795036

http://deadspin.com/the-new-frontier-in-stadium-ripoffs-1790361138
Click to expand...

The argument that the public should not pay for stadiums because rich people do not need tax breaks to fund the stadiums does not consider the realities of supply and demand. Sport teams are a de facto oligopoly which limits their supply, and therefor demand of land. There is a greater demand for sports team and a greater supply of land available for them to build their stadiums.
Cities and counties do receive value from hosting a sports team, just as they do from any large employer. In addition, I argue more so, because the added entertainment and pride of the sports team will increase the quality of live to a degree. So, in the end the cities and counties will position themselves to be the most attractive (i.e. profitable) for the owners. We live in a quasi capitalist society that values hosting sports teams. Until that changes, or until laws are written to forbid tax break or public financing of stadiums, it is going to happen.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

boston85 said:
The argument that the public should not pay for stadiums because rich people do not need tax breaks to fund the stadiums does not consider the realities of supply and demand. Sport teams are a de facto oligopoly which limits their supply, and therefor demand of land. There is a greater demand for sports team and a greater supply of land available for them to build their stadiums.
Cities and counties do receive value from hosting a sports team, just as they do from any large employer. In addition, I argue more so, because the added entertainment and pride of the sports team will increase the quality of live to a degree. So, in the end the cities and counties will position themselves to be the most attractive (i.e. profitable) for the owners. We live in a quasi capitalist society that values hosting sports teams. Until that changes, or until laws are written to forbid tax break or public financing of stadiums, it is going to happen.
Click to expand...

The economic studies of public subsidized professional sports stadiums have clearly shown that economically they are never a net positive for cities.

As much as I think stadiums, sports and concerts can add to city life I'd much rather see taxes spent on a hundred different things that are more deserving of more funding than subsidizing professional sports.

Boston has been a good example of a city that can be very enthusiastic about its sports teams and still hold to the principle of not subsidizing them to a large extent. Sure, there are special accommodations made from time to time, but not like the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars from other cities. Any public investment should be limited in scope and size to be a small percentage of the overall project.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

Sorry for the derailment mods...

Of course sports teams are net positives for cities, that doesnt mean we should give them tax breaks. We already grant them the right to be oligopolies which they wouldnt be if the government didnt make that happen. These cities that pay for the teams stadia take that money from school systems and parks and whatever else they have to.
There's a simple solution to the problem and thats a federal law not allowing public funds to finance private stadia. That way cities and states arent pitted against each other.
This is corporate welfare thru and thru and people who don't like welfare for the poor really should be up in arms about this but they're not. We really should be more outraged by stadium financing and all other types of corporate welfare but we're not because they look like us and theyre what we admire and aspire to

Our population is a natural resource, we shouldnt give anyone a cent for exploiting that natural resource whether its our forests, our oil or our cities and theyre vast income potential for private enterprise.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

Equilibria said:
That's how the free market works. Kraft has the money - does he value this stadium enough to spend it?
Click to expand...

Kraft can go to Suffolk Downs, Somerville, Widett Circle, etc. The BTU, per Shirley's article is stuck with a dilapidated building.

He should say "screw it", turn to his other options and let the idiots stew in their lost opportunity. The next real estate buyer of that BTU property will not be offering them "moving costs".

Watching in horror at what is happening with the SD-LA Chargers, the STL-LA Rams, the Oak-Las Vegas Raiders, the (now) Suburban Georgia Braves and how the old cities were left and how the new cities are being shaken down, gives me more appreciation for everything about Kraft and for Boston's very enviable business position of strength.

BTW, I live 30 miles away from the taxpayer funded "Stadium City" area of Baltimore and have been to the taxpayer funded "Stadium City" areas of Cleveland, Cincinnati, St Louis, etc. No fan in New England has to buy a PSL. Boston/New England is very smart, yes, but very fortunate to have a Bob Kraft instead of a Dean Spanos, Woody Johnson, Stan Kroenke......or basically most every other major sports league owner out there.
 
Last edited:
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

tangent said:
Boston has been a good example of a city that can be very enthusiastic about its sports teams and still hold to the principle of not subsidizing them to a large extent.
Click to expand...
And Boston can play hard to get: we are a rich, sport-crazy town that's fully willing to fill venues even at steep prices...prices that public subsidies won't lower (if you wanted attendance to be more democratic) and prices sufficient to pay for unsubsidized venues.

New England has also lent itself to a natural monopoly in one-team-per sport (unlike Chicago or NYC) and no close alternative (unlike Baltimore-Washington or SF or LA), and not bi-polar, like New Jersey (Philly vs Meadowlands).

We're a regional hub of a unitary region with a strong services economy and a single media market. We're hot stuff and can afford to act like it: No subsidies for sports venues.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

Suffolk 83 said:
There's a simple solution to the problem and thats a federal law not allowing public funds to finance private stadia. That way cities and states arent pitted against each other.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with this. On the surface, the massive cost of the stadium will never pay itself back in the form of public benefits, especially because in many cases the owner will play the same game again in 15-20 years and abandon all of that investment. BUT... the fact that another city is willing to play that game forces their hand and cities end up pitted against each other handing over 9 figure sums to wealthy private enterprises. It's ridiculous. Local law can't solve the problem, it needs to be Federal.

That said a GOP Congress would never touch something like this.

John Oliver on the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

chmeeee said:
Totally agree with this. On the surface, the massive cost of the stadium will never pay itself back in the form of public benefits, especially because in many cases the owner will play the same game again in 15-20 years and abandon all of that investment. BUT... the fact that another city is willing to play that game forces their hand and cities end up pitted against each other handing over 9 figure sums to wealthy private enterprises. It's ridiculous. Local law can't solve the problem, it needs to be Federal.

That said a GOP Congress would never touch something like this.
Click to expand...

So now we are getting a little far into the weeds on what the government should being doing. Federal law would have almost zero impact because the State could just override said law. Owners should not be asking for the money and states (or cities) shouldn't give the money. End of story. There is zero reason for a law on this matter. Stadiums are no place for any form of government.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

As I've mentioned to a bunch of my fellow Revolution fans freaking out on FB, this is all posturing.

Remember, there was time back in the late 90s when a new Foxboro Stadium was all but dead and the Pats were going to Hartford was almost a definite.

How'd that all work out?

This is just a power play by Bob Kraft, using every big Boston business's favorite mouthpiece Shirley Leung, to put public pressure on the BTU to lower their demands.

Now we wait for the next move in this game of development chess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top