Off topic but they shouldnt even have tinkered with that. I've no idea how the new format is supposed to work.
Potential Exelon Mystic Station Redevelopment | Everett
- Thread starter Equilibria
- Start date
I never expected my innocuous question to DZH would turn into a multi-page clash of opinions on this seemingly win-win project. Guys, have we witnessed the evolution of the most ardent large project promoters into a NIMBY?
Also, as it pertains to team net worth, building a dedicated stadium here for the Revs would immediately vault them up to a top 5 richest and popular franchise in the MLS (which would mirror the other Boston teams in their respective leagues) . A mix of improved viewership/attendance from the area, a much more conspicuous location etc. would do wonders to this franchise not to mention, this project would add a very important entertainment landmark that would symbiotically benefit all the new developments in the area -- casino, assembly row et al. Release a unique stadium design, go forth and prosper
Also, as it pertains to team net worth, building a dedicated stadium here for the Revs would immediately vault them up to a top 5 richest and popular franchise in the MLS (which would mirror the other Boston teams in their respective leagues) . A mix of improved viewership/attendance from the area, a much more conspicuous location etc. would do wonders to this franchise not to mention, this project would add a very important entertainment landmark that would symbiotically benefit all the new developments in the area -- casino, assembly row et al. Release a unique stadium design, go forth and prosper
Last edited:
There's nothing wrong with hashing out the value of what's being developed where and what the positive and negative consequences might be. Public input is part of the process. The term NIMBY is usually reserved for people who object to a project just because it is planned to go in their neighborhood.
I don't get the discussion of whether soccer is popular enough. The investor isn't new to the industry and is willing to put a lot of money on the line. I'd say the plan isn't frivolous.
I don't get the discussion of whether soccer is popular enough. The investor isn't new to the industry and is willing to put a lot of money on the line. I'd say the plan isn't frivolous.
JohnCostello
Active Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 299
- Reaction score
- 273
Actually, I think the stadium capacity is too small. Boston will pull 30k a game if the product is good. I'm old. I've been to Foxboro with 16k fans for Patriots games. Things change, the Revs will pull in a lot in Everett if they play well although I will miss the ease of Foxboro.
I, a car-less Boston metro resident, will be buying season tickets once available. I played college soccer and all my teammates - and those who I met along the way - who are still in the area have said the same. Domestic and international fans who rent or live in the MBTA's reach want this. They want the feel of being able to promenade to the stadium after gathering at the local boozer, pub, or eatery. The feeling of riding public transit towards the stadium, with a host of other random citizens all wearing the same colors and badge. It's the electricity that's missing in a car --> parking lot atmosphere...Very similar to Boston's citizens, and those visiting, going to a Red Sox game.
In addition, large futbol sponsors in the region have been signing up serious global talent (i.e. New Balance's sponsorship of Brazil's wonderkid, Endirck)...as mentioned by others, the activity the stadium brings will bring a spotlight to the area (and team!), and hopefully additional economic activity from these sponsors & other new ones.
In addition, large futbol sponsors in the region have been signing up serious global talent (i.e. New Balance's sponsorship of Brazil's wonderkid, Endirck)...as mentioned by others, the activity the stadium brings will bring a spotlight to the area (and team!), and hopefully additional economic activity from these sponsors & other new ones.
Actually, that'd be quite a fun topic. This is an American stadium after all, its going to have a corporate sponsor's name attached to it. Who do we think is willing, or do we want, to splash their brand across this thing? Just sports related Boston has the HQs of New Balance, Reebok, Puma, Converse and DraftKings. I know Adidas has the MLS wide kit contract, but still.
Personally, I think Dunk's might give it a go, having recently relinquished the Dunkin Donuts Center in Providence to Amica.
St Pete and Pinellas County taxpayers paying $730 million (of $1.3 billion) for a 30,000 seat stadium for the Rays (With the Rays promising they won’t leave before 30 years). Thank you thank you thank you, Bob Kraft!
www.bostonglobe.com
New $1.3 billion stadium approved in downtown St. Petersburg for Tampa Bay Rays - The Boston Globe
The new 30,000-seat stadium will be part of a $6.5 billion redevelopment project in what is known as the Historic Gas Plant District.
www.bostonglobe.com
Last edited:
BronsonShore
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2014
- Messages
- 454
- Reaction score
- 1,350
Milan population: 1.4 million metro 3.22 million
Milan - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
LA population: 3.9 million metro 13.2 million
Los Angeles - Wikipedia
Probably the same reason why the sad sack NY Jets are 20% more valuable than the almost always contending Green Bay Packers.
It's not about population size; despite the relative sizes of the cities, AC Milan's global fanbase is larger than the LA Galazy by unimaginable orders of magnitude. Its about how the economic of sports is different in the US than in Europe. In Europe, sports teams have to win in order to make money, and winning costs money; most of the top European clubs barely turn a profit, despite massive revenues. In the US, sports owners have created a rigged cartel system whereby success on the field bears little relationship to how much money the club takes in. It's a no-brainer what the better investment is.
Sorry to keep going off topic, but this really reinforces what I've been hearing re: the NBA's new media rights deals with Disney, NBC and Amazon. I take it the European soccer leagues don't do media revenue sharing the way the North American leagues do? Everyone's going nuts over the NBA soft cap's projected jumps thanks to the massive new media deal. Euro leagues have no salary caps - soft or hard - but also don't benefit from collective media rights?
They do - They're just not worth as much as American ones. The NBA deal is worth $7B a year? For the UK rights, The New deal announced by the premier league a couple months ago is a £1.8b ($2.2B)/year media deal. The thing is, even that is tied to performance - only 50% of the pot is evenly shared, 25% based on how often your matches are played on TV, and 25% of that pot is split depending on where in the ranking you land. So that means a team that doesn't get as much UK TV airtime, or do spectacularly well like Wolverhampton, might only get £70m while Man City gets £120m. The international rights are up for renewal next year, but are worth about the same as the UK rights, and I believe are evenly shared. But if you get relegated, you lose all of that revenue. - (there's parachute payments for the teams most recently relegated because of the expenses of running a premiership team, but it's 50% of the base UK amount, so at most they'll only get a quarter of what they used to - call it an average of £30m.) It's still a huge financial hit to get relegated, but equally expensive to run a competitive premiership team.
The EPL also kicks down to EFL solidarity payments from their media pot of £245m - but that gets divided by the remaining 64ish clubs so they get ~3.8m each. For context, EFL's own newly announced media deal is only worth ~£179m a year, and international rights only brought in £37m/year or ~$47m. That's for a 72 EFL clubs - there's a formula that breaks it down, as Championship obviously gets a bigger piece of the pie than League 2 - but that works out on average to about £7.2m per EFL club which just isn't a lot. Without the EPL solidarity money, on average it's just £3m, or $4m, and my understanding is that league 2 teams get as little as £900k. At the same time, NWSL's TV deal is worth $60m across 14 teams - they're getting more than $5m on average. The TV landscape is just different.
Last edited:
If they dont go 30k, they should definitely build in the ability to easily add capactiy.
I find it mind blowing that CBS have signed a deal with the EFL.
Come a long way from paying $10 in to an Irish pub to watch the biggest club games in the world on the likes of Setanta sport!
A Revs team that's competitive and in the city would be one of the hottest tickets around.
stellarfun
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,711
- Reaction score
- 1,544
The site is constrained dimensionally: on the west by the switching station; on the east by property owned by others; on the south by the river and the to-be-constructed berm to protect against future flooding; on the north by property owned by others. IIRC, the stadium is so land-constrained, that there will only be standing room where what would otherwise have been the east stands. (I do not know if standing room is included in the planned capacity count.) To increase seating capacity would require construction of an upper deck which would increase costs substantially.
I was thinking the same. Makes me think that it's not really soccer they're sizing for, it's concerts. It fits right between 17000 at the Garden and 37,000 at Fenway. Can fit a lot of concerts in a year between games
….which is why concert promoter Don Law, through his wife Sara Molyneux- chair of the CLF - is the puppeteer behind Mayor Wu opposing the soccer stadium.
Longfellow
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2023
- Messages
- 294
- Reaction score
- 719
It's weird how certain people just "get" to be in positions of power like that. I would be happy to for example, be a university president, chair an important nonprofit, have a high ranking MBTA position, and lots of others here would too. And I'd happily take 1/10 the salary these guys command for it. But for some reason you have to be born into it and also be a lawyer (???) to be in charge of anything in the US. Lawyers and businessmen have kind of carved themselves out this whole thing where they get to be in charge of every board ever. They paid the old president of BU 2 million dollars a year. Imagine how much money they'd save hiring me.
Standing room is counted and it's pretty much a given that there will be some sort of standing supporters section on one side of the stadium and very likely two decks of seating on 2 or 3 sides as that's what you see in all modern MLS stadiums.
Yeah the space is limited with the current dimensions especially east and west from the switching station and the other plant. By my rough measurements (roughly 600ft x 580ft)on Google Earth it doesn't seem impossible to fit a stadium with a similar footprint to Geodis Park (30,000/ 650ft x480ft), TQL Stadium (26,000/ 650ft x550ft), or BMO Stadium (22,000/ 600ft x 560ft), it'll just be tight. These measurements are also just the seating and pitch. Usually, there are some other buildings for offices, storage, and other facilities that you can shove into the remaining bits of space.
Also, sorry to bring this back up but with this footprint the last smokestack still fits (super awkwardly) and maybe some of the brick building.
One thing I don't get about the stupid placeholder render is why it's side on to the river. Firstly, I don't know how it would fit at that orientation. Secondly, as shown in the other thread and with @Downburst 's project, there are some nice views of the skyline and bunker hill/Charlestown from the site, especially from an upper deck of a stadium.
I think that if one side is partly open or unobstructed then it should absolutely face the river. There's also precedent for this sort of thing in MLS stadiums, but generally, these stadiums are smaller capacity (<22,000) or have expanded seating and covered up those sides with a second tier of seating in Toronto's case.
Your footprint only really intersects with the 50s era units 4-6, which are concrete and bleh - no real loss. But If we're able to keep the brick building, there may be a happy medium.
That brick power building at one point had a pair of stacks of its own. If you look at Google imagery, where they used to be is fairly evident. The existing triple set of stacks from units 4-6 date to the 50s, and the tall stack belonged to unit 7 which was built in 1975 to replace Units 1-3, which lived in that brick building. So, if we're going for the historic industrial preservationist angle, why not aim for a ~1945 appearance and build a couple of fiberglass replica stacks on top of the brick building? (It looks more balanced to me without them but ymmv.)
(I'm not saying it's likely - it's not historically listed and it's been mostly vacant since the 70s. I have no idea what's it's been used for in the intervening years, but I can't really see how it isn't full of asbestos.)
stellarfun
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,711
- Reaction score
- 1,544
^^^From the Globe, March 2023
^^^ Rendering of the planned new stadium, from the NE Revolution. April 2024.
It appears that the substation and associated switch gear (in the open air) running northward along the east side of Alford St. remain in near-perpetuity. It appears that switch gear will also remain at the north section of the site. Thus, the land purchased by the Krafts is subject to easements reserved for Eversource allowing Eversource to continue using a significant portion of the site for the transmission of electricity..
These easements result in the stadium footprint being displaced toward the east. If the chimneys were to remain, they'd be standing in the pitch.