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

Ron Newman said:
Why should it have a roof?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm going to echo Ron's statements: why does it need a roof?

In my opinion like American football, soccer was meant to be played in the elements. If it's raining, you have to adjust same as in the NFL or NCAA football. The roof is really just for the crowd since soccer games aren't cancelled because of the rain, only for lightning (as they should be).

I wouldn't mind having the pitch (field) open and the seats covered so that the fans don't get wet, because that would keep the integrity of the game as well as have an amenity for the fans.

And you're 100% right Jass: the Revs are one of the premier franchises in the MLS right now, and that's not going to be the case if they don't build a new soccer specific stadium. Gilette is great for the Patriots don't get me wrong, but for soccer it could be the worst venue in the MLS. I don't care if the stadium is in Boston but it needs to be some where that has access to public transportation. How many college kids from BC/BU/Northeastern/etc. would jump on the T to go see a Revs game? I'm guessing more than would be able to drive out to Foxboro to see them.

The question becomes does Bob Kraft want to take the Revolution out of his new "Patriots Place" and leave it solely for the Pats. Not that the Revolution are major parts of it anyways, but I assume that those 15,000+ people going to the Revs games would shop/eat/etc. at those places as well and that's loss of revenue from that aspect of it. I still don't see how they can afford not to build a soccer specific stadium some where in or around the city. It makes sense both financially and in terms of growing the league and game in this country.
 
No, not a roof over a field. Usually soccer stadiums have open fields to let the grass grow. A system to have the grass roll out would be too expensive.

However the seating area needs a roof. Not only for viewer comfort from rain or sun, but for atmosphere as it keeps the noise in.

It also looks much more professional. Compare the Red Bull Park (under construction)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/80/XjfoOv95.jpg

with the first MLS stadium, Columbus Crew Stadium
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/Columbus_crew_stadium_mls_allstars_2005.jpg

which in my opinion looks like an amateur park.


The problem is, the Krafts are cheap. The revs are one of the only team to pay their team under the salary cap (around 2 million for the entire team). Meanwhile most of the other teams are using their designated player slot to bring in players who make more than the entire Revolution roster.

While their cheapness hasnt hurt performance, I hope it doesnt result in a cheap stadium.
 
I don't know much about the financial situation of the Revs, but I have to dispute your assertion that Kraft is cheap. He personally financed the construction of a stadium that is among the very best in the NFL (excluding the grass fiasco of last season), putting him in a small minority of owners who have not used public funds.

On another note, a long commercial with a lot of computer animations about the new Patriot's Place development ran during the pre-season game on Friday. If anyone missed it, I bet they'll run it again during the next game.
 
underground said:
I don't know much about the financial situation of the Revs, but I have to dispute your assertion that Kraft is cheap.
Click to expand...

I'll back Jass on this one, Kraft is cheap. I understand he personally financed Gilette stadium. However the Revolution have one of (if not the lowest) payrolls in MLS. They haven't used their designated player slot on a foreign player yet, which begs the question: what are they waiting for?

The way the Revs are scoring right now (see: rarely) they could use to bring in a striker or a creating mid-fielder with their designated player slot. A guy like that could make this team the clear-cut favorite for the MLS Cup. Kraft is too cheap to bring in a guy with the exemption because they're going to cost a million or two.
 
jass said:
It also looks much more professional. Compare the Red Bull Park (under construction)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/80/XjfoOv95.jpg

with the first MLS stadium, Columbus Crew Stadium
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/Columbus_crew_stadium_mls_allstars_2005.jpg

which in my opinion looks like an amateur park.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer-specific_stadium

Estimated difference in price between Red Bull Park and Columbus Crew Stadium is $191.5 million. That is a large chunk of extra change to spend on an MLS team
 
Last I checked, the Revs were on top of the Eastern Conference, or pretty close to it, without shelling out millions for a celebrity who doesn't play. Of course the Galaxy aren't typical in their use of the designated player slot, but I see Kraft running this team the same way he runs his other one.

Until this past off-season, the Pats were among the stingiest teams in the NFL and have three SB championships to show for it. Maybe Kraft just figures the same model would work here...

Besides, if he were really cheap, he wouldn't be talking about a soccer-specific stadium in the first place.
 
Equilibria said:
Last I checked, the Revs were on top of the Eastern Conference, or pretty close to it, without shelling out millions for a celebrity who doesn't play.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about a David Beckham. Beckham isn't even a top 20 player anymore. He's been brought in more for publicity than for what he's going to bring in terms of talent. Although while not top-20 in the world, in the MLS he's probably on of the best players in the league.

It doesn't matter where the Revs are in the standings. If they want to win the MLS cup they're going to have to spend some money.


Until this past off-season, the Pats were among the stingiest teams in the NFL and have three SB championships to show for it. Maybe Kraft just figures the same model would work here...
Click to expand...

It could, but it won't. They already lost Clint Dempsey who was a top 3-5 player in the MLS. If they had Dempsey right now, I wouldn't mention them not using their exemption slot at all. They'd also be a MUCH, MUCH better team with Dempsey. Granted the US soccer federation probably wanted Dempsey to get some European experience to make his game better and the MLS got like $4 million for him in transfer funds, but I still would have preferred to see them go all out to keep him.

Besides, if he were really cheap, he wouldn't be talking about a soccer-specific stadium in the first place.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense. He really has no choice but to build a soccer-specific stadium. Every other team in the league either is planning to build one, has one built, or is in the process of building one. The Revs don't make much money at all in terms of ticket sales. If they build a soccer specific stadium it could do a lot in terms of making it more appealing as a "hot ticket". Look at the Bruins, everyone bashes them (and they deserve it) and no one goes to their games, it's not a "cool" place to go, it's not something the casual fan even cares about. Last season the Celtics were brutal yet they still had a lot of people going to games, it wasn't by any means a "hot" ticket, but (for whatever reason) people had interest in going. I think a new stadium could do the same.

Kraft had to build Gilette by the way, the way football was becoming it made more sense to build something with almost all your own money (rather than getting help with taxes) and then for years making money off that investment. Gilette is a gold mine for the Krafts, and will be even more so with Patriots Place.
 
Four points; 1) I wasn't aware that you could improve on 1st place; and 2) financing the stadium on one's own was clearly not the only viable option, seeing as how the vast majority of stadiums built at that time were publicly financed; 3) the Patriot's reputation for cheapness is based on the opinions of Boston's horrible bullpen of sports journalists who are still pissed off that the Pat's wouldn't over-pay to keep Malloy, Bledsoe, Law, or any other of their favorite washed-up old players, and who fail to look at the contracts given to Brady, Seymour, and Colvin as counter-evidence; and 4) Kraft has clearly shown that he doesn't skimp when it comes to buildings, as Gillette is at the for front of cutting-edge stadiums, and is soon to be enveloped by a massive development project.
 
Calling Bob Kraft cheap is absolutely absurd. If you want to say that he is cheap when it comes to the Revolution payroll that may be so. But if you had the first clue how many millions Bob and his wife donate to countless charities you would never say the man is cheap. If he was really cheap, he would have moved the Pats to Hartford where he got a sweetheart deal and instead he chose to stay in Foxboro and spend millions of his own money. Just because he MAY have instructed the Rev's front office not to spend millions on an overpriced foreign player (we don't even know if it was Bob Kraft himself who made that decision) doesn't mean he is a cheap man. His actions in this community, both in his business endeavors and personal life, in the last 10-12 years totally contradict that assumption.
 
underground said:
Four points; 1) I wasn't aware that you could improve on 1st place;
Click to expand...

Really? I guess the Red Sox couldn't have used another bat at the trade deadline either. They're in 1st place, I guess they couldn't improve. You're right, why bother to improve when you're in first place. Bill Gates is the richest man in the world, he should just stop trying to make money. What a ridiculous statement that you can't improve a 1st place team.

They do lead the league in goals scored, but they score them in bunches (much like the Sox score runs) and struggle against some of the better defensive teams to open up the field and create. If they used an exemption on a MF who could create on the run, they'd be a lock to win the MLS Cup.

4) Kraft has clearly shown that he doesn't skimp when it comes to buildings, as Gillette is at the for front of cutting-edge stadiums, and is soon to be enveloped by a massive development project.
Click to expand...

Doesn't anyone realize he HAD NO CHOICE but to build a new stadium? It doesn't matter that he had to pump his own money into it, it's going to make him more money than he knows what to do with. If he kept the old Foxboro stadium, he wouldn't be maximizing revenue. Gilette added seats and more importantly added luxury boxes and suites which companies shell out HUGE money for. The Patriots could have stayed in Foxboro and made a little profit from their stadium, and made some more from the NFL Television deals. Or they could have done the smart thing and do exactly what they did and build a stadium that would maximize revenue. I bet the Patriots in terms of both Patriots games, concerts, and other events held at Gilette make over 100 million a year. The stadium cost what about $800 million to $1 billion dollars? So in 10 years, it pays for itself. The old Foxboro stadium wasn't making even close to that money and so it made business sense to build something new and it's great for the fans as well because it's a better place to watch a game.
 
BosDevelop said:
Calling Bob Kraft cheap is absolutely absurd. If you want to say that he is cheap when it comes to the Revolution payroll that may be so.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I'm saying. Then the legions of Bob Kraft lovers came running from wherever rock they stay under talking about the Patriots moves, charity, and whatever else. I'm talking about him being cheap when it comes to the Revolution. You can't deny that.

Just because he MAY have instructed the Rev's front office not to spend millions on an overpriced foreign player (we don't even know if it was Bob Kraft himself who made that decision) doesn't mean he is a cheap man.
Click to expand...

I wish people who didn't know anything about soccer would just shut the fuck up and either watch the games or read about the game. Overpriced Foreign player? Yeah bringing in Juan Pablo Angel like the NY Red Bulls and having him score 10 goals (so far) for $2 million a year was a horrible decision. Beckham was a publicity stunt by the league. Blanco on the Fire has only played in a few games, but if he plays anything like he's capable of he'll score 10+ goals a year in the MLS. I hardly see how adding guys who will be in the top 10 in goal scoring is a bad idea. Not all of these guys are going to cost millions either.

Kraft has to have made the decision not to shell out money to a designated player. What manager would decide "nah, I don't think I'll use a million or so dollars to improve my team, I think I'll just keep the roster as is." Please. The Revolution don't even want to pay Shalrie Joseph who is one of the best players in the league. They want to get a bunch of young guys who cost little money and keep paying Taylor Twellman a decent chunk and see what happens. So far it's been working but they lost Dempsey, and if they lose Joseph this team won't be in 1st place next year and people will be asking where the hell the money is being spent.


His actions in this community, both in his business endeavors and personal life, in the last 10-12 years totally contradict that assumption.
Click to expand...

Well, that's great. I applaud him for his effort to give back and he's done a great job in doing so. Just like the Red Sox ownership and Celtics ownership.

When it comes to the Revolution he's not spending as much money as a lot of other teams and for a few million (if that) he could have improved this team to the extent to be pretty much a lock for the MLS cup.
 
The argument here isn't over whether or not Kraft is skimping on the Revs payroll; that's a given. The argument is over whether his skimping on the Revs payroll is a sign that he will skimp on the new stadium. It's also a given that Kraft absolutely had to rebuild Foxboro Stadium. However, the point being made is that he personally financed it when he could have demanded public funding lest he move the team to Hartford. The Revs payroll aside, I think if we look at Kraft's work in totality, not piecemeal, we have to be optimistic about his chances of building an awesome, soccer-specific stadium in Somerville.
 
For a Forbes profile of the Krafts see:
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2005/0919/122_2.html

The Patriots are ranked as the second most valuable NFL franchise. They are either the third or fourth most valuable sports franchise in the whole world. The Redskins and Manchester United are ranked higher
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/30/06nfl_New-England-Patriots_307338.html

The Pats have a much higher team valuation than the Red Sox.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/33/07mlb_Boston-Red-Sox_330700.html

No U.S. soccer franchise makes it into the top rank of soccer team valuations.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/34/biz_07soccer_Soccer-Team-Valuations_MetroArea.html

The Celtics are ranked 13th in NBA team value.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/32/biz_06nba_Boston-Celtics_326173.html

The Bruins are the 6th most valuable NFL franchise.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/31/biz_06nhl_Boston-Bruins_313364.html
 
The Bruins are a prime example of how success does not linearly translate into value.
 
underground said:
The argument here isn't over whether or not Kraft is skimping on the Revs payroll; that's a given. The argument is over whether his skimping on the Revs payroll is a sign that he will skimp on the new stadium. It's also a given that Kraft absolutely had to rebuild Foxboro Stadium. However, the point being made is that he personally financed it when he could have demanded public funding lest he move the team to Hartford. The Revs payroll aside, I think if we look at Kraft's work in totality, not piecemeal, we have to be optimistic about his chances of building an awesome, soccer-specific stadium in Somerville.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly it. I dont want to talk about the Patriots or charity, just the Revs.

Based on the revs payroll, and the NFL line during revs games (exception: Beckham game), Kraft is cherap when it comes to the team.

On top of that, hes going to be one of the last teams with a stadium.

Im just hoping this doesnt mean hes going to set up a highschool stadium and call it a day.
 
jass said:
Thats exactly it. I dont want to talk about the Patriots or charity, just the Revs.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I was saying he was cheap in the context of the conversation of the Revolution. Then people come running and posting Forbes values for the Patriots, and all this. Who cares? We're talking about wanting to spend money on the Revolution which includes a soccer specific stadium in or around the city.

Personally-- I believe that even though he may not spend as much on the players and other areas as he should, the Krafts aren't going to build a shoddy stadium just for the sake of having a new stadium for the Revs. If anything, he'll go the opposite route and build one of the best venues in the league.
 
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium

I was just thinking about this the other day, and I really hope something eventually comes of this.

I agree with BostonSkyGuy...Kraft is a businessman and if he's going to build a new stadium, it's going to be a great attraction. Shitty attractions don't make money. I think Revolution attendance would increase if they played in Boston where it is accessible by public transportation. I would go to every single game of the year if I could just hop on the T.

I think 25,000 - 30,000 would be a good size. If soccer games like Brazil vs Venezuela can attract 54,000 fans like there were at Gillette last week - that might be an incentive to build a little bigger than other MLS stadiums. Although I do hate to see half-empty stadiums. Here's a list of soccer- specific stadiums for context:

ScreenShot002.jpg
 
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium

A note about that chart:

Buck Shaw stadium is a baseball field and is only being used while they get their new park built (2010 I think)

Toyota Park is designed for expansion, to around 25,000 I think.

Colombus had capacity reduced to add in a stage.

DC plays at RFK, and are the only team there, so its really their stadium. They are however planning a new one with capacity around 25,000.


Point is, 25,000 seems to be the sweet spot.
 
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium

It's a tricky thing, predicting future attendance. Half-full stadiums are no fun. But it isn't any fun either when you can't get tickets because the games are sold out and adding additional seats is tricky (Fenway Park). But you're right 25,000 seams like the magic number.
 
Re: Somerville Soccer Stadium

disturbanist said:
It's a tricky thing, predicting future attendance. Half-full stadiums are no fun. But it isn't any fun either when you can't get tickets because the games are sold out and adding additional seats is tricky (Fenway Park). But you're right 25,000 seams like the magic number.
Click to expand...


I'd rather have a team/stadium where it's difficult to get tickets rather than a team where you can just walk up to the box-office and grab however many seats you want. This generally means the team is good and the stadium is decent (even historic in Fenway's case)

Being a huge soccer fan myself, I think for the MLS 20,000-30,000 is a good number. The Revs draw pretty good way out in Foxborough so I don't see them having a problem filling 20,000+ seats in an urban area with access to public transportation.

When you have better talent coming in for exhibition games (say Chelsea, AC Milan, Juventus, etc.) during one of their tours and Boston is part of that, you can always play the Games at Gillette because you know they're going to sell out even with 50,000+ seats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top