News: Boston Magazine: The Krafts are the Worst Owners in MLS

That is a very good point. The Pats were far more of an embarrassment to their league than the Revs are (and just to be clear, that is in no way an endorsement of how the Revs are run). Thank God for the Jackson 5 and their Victory tour. Although, perhaps I'm just too old school, but I do miss the Pat the Patriot uniforms.

 

Of course not, because answering said questions honestly would require you to concede that the Krafts' stewardship of the New England Revolution has resulted in an organization that is, when compared to other Major League Soccer franchises, an underachiever in most areas of operation.

 

So hiring a coach is the sum of actions required to turn a franchise around? If the Revs hired ____ (your most favorite coach) tomorrow as coach, the 1-day-turnaround is complete? Not seeing it...there really seems to be more to it than that.

I think(?) the Pats were relevant -- the media followed them; and they had a fanbase (right? I'm not imagining that, am I?) despite the undeniable accumulated dysfunction during Sullivan's tenure. Parcells and Orthwein didn't need to solve those "minor" details; they seem to have had much less on their plate.

 

I don't know that having fewer teams means it's necessarily easier, but if you want to mention the number of other teams as a factor, you can't ignore population. Metro area population is a bit hard to define, but from the few sites I just checked, the high estimate for the KC area is less than half of the low estimate for Boston, so you'd think there's a lot more room for teams in Boston.

 

College sports are also a lot more popular in Kansas City (Kansas, Kansas State, Mizzou, etc.), and you have some interest in the St. Louis teams as well (I saw a lot of Cardinals gear in KC when I was there in October).

 

They also hired smart sports people and got out of their way. If you care enough to hire the right minds to take over the front office, you just have to show up to look brilliant.

Don't get me wrong, Henry's investment in Fenway, Grossbeck's fandom, and Kraft's leadership among the NFL owners all indicate that they care deeply about their franchise and the sport they play, but bringing in Epstein/Cherington, Ainge, and Belichick and backing off is just as good. Its worth remembering that when these guys interfere in things, we end up with Bobby Valentine as manager.

This, more than anything, is what the Revs need to do. Burns has a good track record as a college scout and has made some good pick-ups within the league. We need a guy who can go to Chile and bring back a prospect, or go to Spain and bring back a player who has played at the top levels there. Burns isn't that guy, but I think he can work with that guy and be extremely successful.

 

Ok, rather than reply in a snarky fashion, I'll just ask, do you honestly think the point he was trying to make was all the Revs need to do is hire a big name coach/GM, and poof things will be fixed? Perhaps I missed his point, but I kinda thought his point was that even though the Pats had never had a very good name here (even their one Superbowl year was marred by controversy, and the game itself was embarrassing), it was actually easier than you might have thought to fix their ills.

That said, if the Revs were to bring in a widely respected person to run everything, a move which I'm sure would require paying top dollar in the league, and the guy was allowed to control it all on the playing side, while it might not fix everything, do you think that move wouldn't change at least some people's minds and generate some interest from people who have given up on the team?

 

You know what else they all have in common? They're all "Big Four" major-pro sports franchises with anywhere between 54 and 114 years of history in the marketplace. Meaning that they enjoyed - even during their fallow periods - a hold on the attention of potential customers within the Greater Boston marketplace that exceeds that which a Major League Soccer operation - even an MLS 3.0 outfit entering its 19th season - is likely to enjoy. As such, the rebound from "embarrassment" to "benchmark franchise" isn't likely to be as swift - at least insofar as public perception is concerned - for the Revolution as it would be for the Red Sox, Bruins, Celtics, or Patriots.

I'm not saying that the New England Revolution "can NEVER be resurrected" from their current malaise. With the "right owners and investment", I'm sure that such a resurrection is possible.

However, what I am saying is that the road to said resurrection becomes increasingly rocky - and is likely to take more time, effort and capital - the longer the Krafts apathetically operate the Revolution as an afterthought amongst their sports and entertainment holdings.

Further, the more difficult the anticipated resurrection of the franchise appears to be, the greater the likelihood that some potential owners - including some who might well have been successful at reviving its fortunes - pass on the opportunity because the task has become more trouble than its worth.

 

The main point was about how quickly turnarounds can happen.

But the choice of the Pats was not a good example, as they had a fanbase and tons of media coverage even at their low points. Those are two large differences to overlook in a definition of "turnaround".

Yes, hiring better people makes for a better product (but not in a single day). It would likely generate some interest. "Some interest" is also not equal to a "turnaround".

I think when posters try to say that a very quick turnaround could happen here -- they are not wrong, but are too optimistic and overlooking parts of the work needed. It is unlikely that a quick turnaround would happen.

...regardless of how much fans would like it to be otherwise, me included.

 

Or, on 2nd re-read of the original post, maybe that was not the main point. Maybe the "main point" was

....that the Revs hired the wrong GM and coach.

...or that James Orthwein really knew his business, knew what he was doing, and would be a better owner.

...or that the coach should be able to pick the groceries.

...or the Revs cannot be considered as bad as the Pats until 40+ years have passed.

In hindsight, who the heck knows what the "main point" was. But it was the implication in the post that turnarounds should be quick (posters words were along the lines of "one day") that I was talking about, regardless of the "main point". The main point was not entirely clear, so there you go, I was wrong again, talking as if I even knew what the poster's main point was.

And not having a "very good name here" is different than the hole the Revs are in. The Revs situation goes beyond not having a "good name". The Pats had an engaged and sizable fanbase and lots of media coverage, regardless of the state of their name. The Revs have neither, and seem disinclined to pursue either.

 

Bingo!

This, I believe, is the principal beef that most of us have with the Krafts. They don't give a $#it about the team, or it's fans.

I also believe that they are very afraid of true, adult, passionate supporters of the game because they equate adult footy fans with European style HOOLIGANS. ie. foul mouthed drunken louts with a propensity for physical violence and property destruction.

This means that they evidently wear rose colored glasses when viewing Pats fans, however.

I well remember the first Revs game ever at CMGI Field, when large numbers of Pat's STHers and fans came to the game just so they could get to see the new stadium. You could spot them a mile away because they were the loudest, most foul mouthed, and drunkest people in the place. And they had no interest whatsoever in the proceeding on the pitch.

The Krafts were very afraid.

Smart businessmen? Perhaps.

But how dumb do you have to be to never ask yourselves the following:

Why should sports fans support any team that the owners, themselves, don't give a rat's a$$ about?

Gil

 

In my opinion, the Krafts and the local media are doing the subsequent owners a favor by keeping the Revs so low profile. The low attendance figures should also benefit prospective buyers. The outcome of this could be a lower sale price for the team as a potential buyer can point to the need for a new stadium, the Kraft's inability to get one after years of hard work trying to get one built, the need for a rental stadium in the meantime, and the demonstrated lack of demand for the Revs in the Boston market.

Also, re-visiting the discussion of the Revs/MLS being tarnished in Boston I am thinking more about what exactly is tarnished and who has that opinion. The low profile of the Revs and MLS in Boston should mean that less people have truly been lost for good.

For those who currently have a low opinion of MLS and its quality (something intangible, but something that everybody can recognize), they might have a point. However, things change over time and there might come a time when the quality is high enough for them to give MLS another look. The quality and perceived quality of a product make a huge difference. If the quality is there for enough time, then things will change. Please note, that I am talking about both local and league wide quality (intangible), not just wins and losses. Regarding quality, us fans and even returning players often comment that the quality of MLS has grown a lot since some particular date. Hopefully this trend will continue.

For those who have a low opinion of the Revs, perhaps a change of owners would warrant another chance for the Revs. The new owners should say "Thank you" to the Krafts for everything you have done, but they should also say "Here's how things are going to be different, better, and why you should be excited about the Revs and why you should support the Revs". In this case, the new owners can basically say if you gave up on the Revs in the past for whatever reason, please give us a chance to convince you that the Revs are worth your time, that you do matter to us, and we are committed to winning and making you proud to support the Revs. Then, they need to follow through.

 

The point was that all it takes to turn around a "poisoned" franchise is:
A) a new owner
B) a tangible commitment to winning

 

Or new doors to the locker rooms

 

Plus, and I know many will disagree, I also don't think the region is as "poisoned" for the Revs and MLS as many claim. I think it's more accurate to say that the Revs are generally irrelevant to the wider 'Boston nation' of sports fans, as opposed to having a truly poisoned outlook - meaning that for most, they just don't care much, if they know even know much at all about the team, as opposed to there being a large well of negative feelings toward the team. Yes, there are a number of people here whose image of the Revs is poisonous due to how the team is run, but in the wider scale of people in the area, that number is not very large. Also, irrelevance is also a relative term. The Revs may be irrelevant when compared to the big 4, but I'd say the team is far more relevant than the Breakers or the Cannons, and nobody would say that either of those teams have a "poisoned" reputation generally in the area, they're just not widely followed. When I think of a team having a truly poisoned reputation, I think of how the Trailblazers were viewed in Portland, or the Hornets were in the Carolinas, before the teams moved. I got the impression that those areas had a lot more dislike and anger for their franchises than exists for the Revs here. As someone opined earlier, the Krafts having the Revs keep such a low profile isn't necessarily destructive, not as destructive as pissing off a lot of people in the region.

And as I feel I have to say before people ask if this means I think the Revs are in great shape or the like, I don't, nor does it mean I think the Krafts are "doing right by the Revs", doing a good job, that I support the owners, that being more popular than the Breakers and Cannons is good enough for me, or anything like that, I'm only saying I don't think the team's status is quite as dire or irreversible as others say.

 

The only thing that is worn out is the pathetic effort this franchise has put forth for many many years. They are a joke.

 

This speaks to the "been down so long it looks like up" mindset that has come to inculcate itself amongst an increasing number of Revolution supporters.

The fact that more and more of us are forced to engage in the mental gymnastics necessary to position the New England Revolution's irrelevance and low profile as positives for the franchise is as pointed an indictment of the Krafts' stewardship of the team as could possibly exist.

My God... what a pathetic state of affairs.

 

Though that is exactly why I put my disclaimer at the bottom, I am not saying it's positive, just trying to define how negative, not as negative as other make it. I believe that you need to properly define a problem before you can fix it, and overestimating a problem can hinder solving it just as much as underestimating it.

 

Trail Blazers have never moved. Are still very beloved in Portland.

 

Oops, very true, I was confusing them with the Sonics' move. Portland and Seattle are pretty much the same place though, right?

Anyway, I was thinking back to the "Jail Blazers" era, when I got the impression that the city was none to happy with the team. If the impression of an East coast-centric guy like me was anything close to correct, and if they're beloved now, all the more evidence of how a team's reputation can be turned around.

 

Different things, Revs are killed by terrible ownership and non marketing and a few terrible seasons. Trail Blazers never dropped to levels Revs have dropped to and decline in attendance was 3 or 4 seasons and now back in top 5.

 

Robert Kraft. Jonathan Kraft. The people that the Krafts have hired to manage/operate their Major League Soccer property.

Problems properly identified.

There's no overestimating the problems that the New England Revolution must contend with. Given that they stem from the abysmally apathetic manner in which investor/operators Robert and Jonathan Kraft run the franchise, said problems are pervasive throughout the organization.

Bottom line? The rot in the New England Revolution organization started at the top and has become institutionalized. Infuriatingly disappointing, but true.

 

If that's the problem properly identified, then the solution is amazingly simple, someone else buys the team and the problem eliminated. I guess we disagree, because I think that even if someone else bought the team, there would be other problems that would need to be dealt with even if the Krafts no longer had anything to do with the team.

There's "no overestimating the problems"? So the problems are deeper and broader and higher than anyone could ever express, and for every issue you identify, there are 3 more behind it? Nothing like engaging in meaningless hyperbole when talking about how to properly identify problems.

I also wouldn't really use the term institutionalized, the Revs are not some behemoth of an organization, like a government agency or school district, where there are just too many people who are used to doing things a certain way that the bad practices are almost impossible to root out. That could actually be a hidden advantage of the organization being so lean, getting rid of bad practices shouldn't be all that difficult as they would be in other places.

 

I don't think rating an institution like a sports team can be done in a one dimensional, it's either up or down kind of way. There are many different factors, and I am nothing close to an expert on the Trail/Jail Blazers, I got my impressions from afar, but I don't think it would be controversial to say that they had some problems that the Revs have not had to deal with, while the Revs have had other problems it sounds like the Trail Blazers haven't had to face. If my impression from of the Trail Blazers was wrong I apologize for mentioning it, but the point I was trying to make was I would rather try to fix a team that has a low profile than a team that has become hated, and I don't think the Revs are hated by a very large portion of people in the region.

 

Hated teams are easier to build back up because they are hated for reason. Just go back to 2005 The Bruins were easily the most hated team in Boston and the owner who is still hated was DESPISED. Bruins fans have been considered the most loyal fans in this city of any of the teams so when these fans started hating you and everything you did. And not showing up to games you have a problem.

What changed was signing a competent GM, Coach and VP who was promoted to President. The owner still is a asshole but he changed and allows the team to spend to the cap(and over the cap with IR and LTIR moves). So I believe building a team back up that is hated is easier because the fan base is still around. The Revs have a very limited die hard fan base.