Revolution Stadium Groundbreaking "12-24 Months" Part VI

Of course. But it's a business decision that has done more good for American soccer than any other decision in history. It's folly to pretend that the man is evil, and it's folly to hold him on a pedestal (with Phil and Lamar). But in the middle ground, there lies a single, undeniable truth.

Soccer in the United States is better today for Bob Kraft's involvement than it otherwise would be.

Not only that, but I would strongly argue that Bob Kraft does care about soccer in New England. He wants the Revs to succeed. But he suffers from the problem that he's a businessman and not a great soccer mind. He sees the dollars and cents instead of the Xs and Os. But he's not a Football guy either. The reason the Pats are better off than the Revs is because Kraft found the right football guys (Pioli and Belichick) and gave them the power, something he hasn't done with the Revs.

Your specific concerns, that he's a "passive" investor (despite shelling out more money than he needs to for the purchasing of two DPs), that he doesn't care about developing American soccer (depsite the work the Academy is doing, especially with Empire now affiliated), that he only wants USMNT games (despite the last 4 USMNT home games being held at non-MLS venues and the lack of evidence to suggest more USMNT games come to Foxborough because of the Revs) and International Friendlies (because there's no way the Honduran Powerhouses would come play at a stadium without an MLS team, despite FedEx Field hosting one of the best friendlies on this year's American calendar), simply don't hold up to close scrutiny

 

I don't agree with that at all. If you look at his specific universe, New England, The game was much better off 15 years ago than it is now. There were more professionals from this area, there were certainly more people interested in the professional game here, The USMNT came around more often. Over the years that excitement and interest has dwindled each and every year since Kraft purchased the team.

The success/failure of this franchise goes FAR beyond have "good football" guys running the day-t0-day operations of the club. If he truly wanted the Revs to succeed, and wanted soccer to grow in this area, he would be doing far more than the bareest of minimums.

Despite the work the academy is doing? HAHA!!! They were last among the teams in MLS to start an academy and have produced a whopping grand total of ONE player! I'm also willing to bet they are the last team to be affiliated with another youth club. So big deal, they are keeping up with the Jones' so they don't fall too far behind the rest of the league. Like usual, they are putting the smallest investment possible into something so that they don't really have to risk anything. WOO HOO!!!!

Weren't we talking about the initial investment and the terms over the first few years? If it is reasonable for him to project how many USMNT games would be held in MLS stadiums in 2012, then I'm sure it would also be reasonable for him to project the possibility of developing a retail site around his stadium many years earlier.

Obviously you look at the dynamics now, and equate them to the way they were in the 90's and early 2000's They aren't the same now, and sure, that's all because of great ol Grandaddy Kraft! Please.

 

15 years ago, or 18 years ago?

Like paying money out of his pockets to sign Designated Players? Like going axiomatically over the bare minimum

No, the smallest investment possible would be nothing. "So they don't fall too far behind the rest of the league" is not the concern of the Kraft of your myths and legends. If he "Doesn't Care" like you claim, than he doesn't care.

You keep trying to peg me as someone who suggests that Kraft is a genius, a demigod...I'm not. He's made poor decisions. But you'd be hard pressed to find 10 New Englanders who've done more for the sport

No, we're talking about currently. This comment from you (emphasis, mine)

 

Kraft invested $5 million to launch the Revs under the pinko-commie socialist soccer of the single-entity MLS, where the "government" (league) would be calling most of the shots and heavily regulate what the individual businesses could do. Of course, he also had to pony up money to cover the losses, so his total investment was a lot more than 5 mill.

The whole thing is about franchise appreciation. Whatever the net losses Kraft spent over the years ($50 million?), how much could he sell the team for right now? To him, it's just like a stock. You hope you can sell it for more than you paid for it.

While he isn't a "football guy," he is a serious football fan. He was a season ticket holder to the Pats a long, long time before he bought the team. His original seats weren't even all that good -- lower level on the 20 yard line. As a Pats "fan" he would be interested enough to tell his guys that a "Revs-like" performance is not acceptable, and they better get their act together. Since he doesn't feel that way about the Revs, there is no pressure on Burns, et al to do better.

Is he the worst owner in MLS? I dunno, you tell me who is worse. Colorado? Chivas? Dallas? Cowlumbus? They all have things we don't. Am I glad that he did make the investment and that we have a team here? Of course, even if it makes me angry to see what other owners have done in their citites. I'm glad we have a team, but at what point does the statute of limitations expire?

 

Do any of those things make Bob Kraft evil? Are any of those things so terrible that Kraft because a net-negative on soccer in New England?

 

Oh, excuse me for rounding off.

DP's? LMAO you are joking, right? That is just another, in a long line of examples, of things he did just to keep up with what the bare minimum of what the rest of the league has been doing for years.

The smallest investment would be nothing at all, of course, but that doesn't make it a smart investment. I'm not doubting that he has looked at it from the point of view of it being a good business decision. I doubt wholeheartedly that it has anything to do with it being a soccer decision. It was a decision made somewhat to appease and mold public perception. He doesn't care about the game. He cares about his investment. He only cares that it is in good enough financial shape that it isn't going to completely rot out from under him. Yes, it's all just keeping up with the rest of the league.

Actually, I know more than 10 New Englanders who have done more for the sport. A lot of them left in the late 90's due to frayed relationships with KSG and the Revs.

 

yes

 

I just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same period of time. So please, inform me of these professional New Englanders playing in 1994. I plead ignorance on this one

You have a funny definition of "minimum". He is, by definition, paying more than the minimum. By definition

See, here's something we agree on. Kraft is involved in US Soccer to make money. Yup, 100%. Just like, y'know, everyone else. But I just don't care why he did something; his intentions are irrelevant to me. I don't care if Bob Kraft was using revenues from the Beckham games to fund a race of hyper-intelligent cyborgs designed to play American Football in Israel in order to take over a movie studio to give his Half-His-Age Arm Candy a place to become famous.

All I care about is that Soccer is better with Kraft than it would be without him

You can feel free to enlighten us

 

Hey man, it's part of their Centennial Tour

 

Kraft is the Al Davis of MLS.

He's a historically significant figure in U.S. Soccer who has run his team into a ditch both on and off the field with gross mismanagement and alienated huge swaths of soccer fans in New England.

Both of these things about him are true.

And per Don Garber's latest Sporting News interview, he practically peed in his pants with praise for Bilello's handling of Fortgate, so the fantasy of "league pressure" on Kraft to do anything about the stadium or the health of the franchise is just that-- a fantasy. I doubt the "team services" people even bother coming up here.

 

Yeah, that Garber piece made me throw up. We all know it wasn't a "reasonable, let's work with the supporters to find common ground" solution, but a heavy-handed gestapo tactics approach, all covered up by lies from the C-zero-O and some beligerent security woman. Now Sunil Freakin Gulati, a man who nobody even knew what he did for the team, is taking credit for "working with" the supporters? I think he was still on the Revs payroll then, but he did such a bang-up job on that that they severely curtailed his role.

And Anchowat, I don't think it makes Kraft "evil," just not a very good steward of the region's soccer team. In a cartel-based sports system, franchises are the only game in town. They shouldn't be a piece of property that an owner can do whatever he wants with it, but unfortunately it is that way. The worldwide soccer model is one where if Man United were run like the Revs, they'd lose fans to Man City or Stockport County or ...

 

Yeah, but the problem with recessions is that it's still a lot harder to get development going than it looks. Lots of development proposals keep sputtering all over (Assembly Square/IKEA, Downtown Crossing, ...).

And, no one can say for sure whether land will be cheaper or not in 10 years. What would people have said 5 years ago about 2012? Japan's been in a recession for more than a generation.

Development projects thrive on the momentum created by other projects. Very few are that convinced that things are going to turn around any time soon. The political stalemate in Washington shows no signs of loosening and that means that any possibility of an anti-recession economic policy is pretty much dead. So, why should anyone be especially eager to help finance a stadium?

Yes.

For all of the individual things that other MLS teams have done, that we've heard complaints that the Revs/Kraft don't do/will never do, after some time, they actually do get with the program: academy, sponsor, DP, ...

History shows they move according to their own schedule, but they do pretty much what the rest of MLS does.

 

Agreed, but God, it'd be nice to watch the Revs be trail blazers for once.

 

Certainly not trying to equate the two, but you could use that exact phrasing to make the point about Civil Rights in the South 40-50 years ago. Sure, right now things are at least legally speaking, similar to other parts of the country, but eventually catching up doesn't excuse them being so far behind and not embracing things that pretty much everyone else could see.

Or, to put it another way, what do you consider a "reasonable" amount of time for the Revs to lag behind literally everyone else in the league? 5 years? 10 years? longer? Right now, DC United is the only team playing in a too-large 1996-legacy stadium built for other sports, but with new ownership in the mix, that could easily change soon. Every other team either has their own place or will be playing in one soon. And before you say it, Seattle plays in an NFL stadium, but they actually half (or more than half) fill it every game. If the Revs were coming close to filling the lower bowl every week we wouldn't be having this duscussion.

They just woke up to the fact that you can't draft a Dempsey every year with a top 5 draft pick. About 5 years after everyone else (including most fans) figured that out. If they actually started planning ahead when we were good, we wouldn't ahve dropped so far.

Oh, but they are on their "own schedule" so it's OK.

 

It doesn't matter what I or anyone else considers reasonable, they are going to take as much time as they need to get a plan they like. When you're planning a long-term project like this, it makes sense to take as much time as you need to get it right.

The other factor, when comparing to other teams' situations, is the current stadium situation. Being in a modern, efficient, owner-occupied stadium probably means they can and should take the time to get it right. It may not be ideal, but there's no reason they can't play in Gillette as long as they need to.

It is what it is. Whether you or I or anyone else thinks it's okay doesn't change anything.

FWIW, I'd rather they take more time than to pick a poor location (i.e., I'm not warming up to Revere yet).

 

The problem from our perspective is that the difference between careful long-term planning and simple stalling is not apparent to the naked eye.

 

Then why keep making announcements like "12-24 months" and the infamous "60-90 days" for news this past March?

Because they KNOW it isn't reasonable and they're trying to stall and con people into re-upping with announcement deadlines that always seem to pass without a peep.

No one is forcing them to make these statements.

 

Au contraire. I suppose it's good to have someone who pretty much believes that everything the Revs do is "reasonable" and will defend it no matter what, since it gives us stuff to talk about. I applaud your stance, even if I don't agree with it.

But at some point there has to be a motivation to either make a move or not. The thing a lot of people have a problem with is public statements that say, "Yes, we know that an appropriate-size urban stadium near mass transit like they have in [city] is the way to go, and we are working on it," yet they have been saying that for years, literally. Every time they drop vague hints like we "hope" to "have an announcement" at some time "soon" just strings the fanbase along that much further. Call us cynical, but a lot of people (rightly or wrongly) believe that we will see the Revs in their own stadium right around the year Nevvah-Evvah.

I would have a whole lot more respect for them if they were going to stay in Gillette forever, if they did things to make it actually work. That would be running buses (and not the supporters group) from T terminals, market to people in the city, do a thing with the colleges to appeal to students (there's the bus thing again) or any number of things that would make the Gillette gameday experience better, so that it wouldn't totally suck out loud and make no one want to go there.

I'd prefer the Unicorn under a rainbow of an urban stadium, but if they aren't going to do that (at least not for a while), they should at least put in a tiny, miniscule bit of effort into making Gillette work better. We won't be Seattle, but at least a half-filled lower bowl and a nominal amount of buzz would be far better while we are waiting for our Brigadoon.

 

THIS!

 

Just a quick recap.

DPs: The first was only technically one, and didn't last a full season. The second was a long-time team stalwart, which counts but isn't really in keeping with the spirit of the rule. The third has promise but he just got here, and as I understand it is also on loan.

Shirt sponsor: Yes, there is one. However this has to be the most anemic partnership in the league. The Timbers have a plane. Chicago got Quaker Oats to promote them all over Chicago. Can you think of anything (I mean, seriously, anything) that United Healthcare has done to cross-promote? I can't. The smoking ban at Gillette is a partnership with Tufts Health Plan, not United Healthcare. Their names are on the shirt, and that seems to be about it. What's the point? Where's the dynamism?

Long-term planning: I don't know what their plans are, but the team has only averaged over 15k a season twice since 2004. The home playoff attendance for the last two years we made it was under 10k. So far this year, as I've mentioned before, we're getting beaten by second division San Antonio.
The team can't get any traction in the local media, and (and usual) the media partners aren't doing much to help. You want a long-term trend? People used to care and now they don't.

 

This seems to be goal-post moving, my Mainer Amigo. When UHC signed up, we were excited, not because of the money or to "be in the club" or anything, but because it demonstrated that someone in the FO cared enough to make a phone call and set this up. And that's still how I feel. UHC should have no expectation to do anything for us than foot the bill