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

Except for the fact that the Krafts are under no obligation to sell their stake in Major League Soccer, nor do they seem inclined to do so. As a result, installing a new investor/operator at the head of the New England Revolution isn't so simple after all.

Actually, I'm also of the mind that the Krafts departing as investor/operators of the Revolution would not immediately solve all of the organization's problems.

Not only has the Krafts' piss-poor stewardship of the Revolution resulted in the lamentable state of the organization, but the level to which they've damaged the franchise - and, by extension, the Greater Boston pro soccer marketplace - is profound enough to require serious work on the part of any investor/operator who might replace them.

I properly identified the problems. The Krafts and the team of executives they've hired to manage and operate the New England Revolution are the very root of the franchise's problems. So much so that they, themselves, are part and parcel of the problems.

Given that the Krafts have given no indication that they're willing to sell their stake in MLS, or change their management and operational philosophy for the MLS franchise that comes with said stake, or hold accountable the management team that is currently failing at the task of effectively operating the franchise in question, than no... I don't believe the problems plaguing the New England Revolution can be overstated.

An organization need not be a "behemoth" in order for bad practices to become institutionalized. The Revolution are proof of that.

The Krafts' apathy as stewards of the franchise has either infected their employees, served to prevent said employees from making changes within the franchise's operational structure that would improve its function, or prevented the Krafts from recognizing that their employees are incapable of effectively managing the franchise. Any way you cut it, the failure has become systemic.

"[G]etting rid of bad practices shouldn't be all that difficult"... yet, within the New England Revolution organization, said "bad practices" linger. Go figure.

 

Heh, slightly changing the topic, but it's a pet peeve of mine how much abuse was leveled at Sinden at the end, as he was actually a very competent GM, one of the best ever. It was said for a time that other GM's were afraid to do deals with him because he'd fleeced so many teams in trades. The issue for him at the end was he had to keep the team under a certain budget that other owners didn't have. I don't disagree that it might have been time for him to go, he was getting older, but what helped turn the team around was the NHL putting a cap in, as the Bruins are easily popular enough that they should always be able to make enough money to cover a cap that's based on average revenue or whatever. I always felt bad for Sinden at the end, as I felt he was getting grief because his owner didn't allow him to spend as much as other teams.

And as you say, Jacobs isn't nearly as despised as he used to be. Yes, people who remember what he did to the team back then still don't like him, but now that the Bruins' spending is on the same level as the rest of the league, he's just not much of an issue any more, and younger fans who don't remember when the B's were at a major disadvantage compared to other teams wouldn't have nearly the same feelings. All that fans want from an owner is that he put the team on an equal footing with the competition, rather than giving the feeling that the guy is holding the team back compared to other teams (hint, hint Mr Kraft).

 

Uh, right, though I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, seeing as my point was that fixing the problems weren't as simple as you were making them out to be. And I'm not sure why you're talking about "obligation to sell", who implied they were? We're just talking about what could possibly done to fix things, not about the likelihood of a fix happening in a certain time frame or whatever.

OK, so you totally agree with me then, on the range of problems at least, if not the depth of them.

And I never said that the Krafts and their people aren't part of the problem, they're a huge part, but you can't just say that they are "the problem" if other problems will exist when those people are removed. In that case, they are part of the problem or among the problems, not the sum total of the problems.

A semantic argument, but I think saying "problems can't be overstated" is meaningless hyperbole. One can use that phrase to imply there are a lot of problems, but if someone were trying to actually identify the problems with the aim of fixing something and making it better, the phrase is just a distraction from trying to do something meaningful

Another totally semantic argument, but the phrase 'institutionalized problem' is generally used to refer to some practice that is so entrenched, it goes on no matter how many changes are made at the top, and also continues on as new employees come and go over the years. It's not an odd situation to see bad practices continue when all the same people stay in place, and they're not asked to change, in that situation it's what would be expected to happen.

 

Fair enough, El Jefe. The general point I was trying to make is that there are certain factions within the league who might view things very differently, and while some owners might push for growth, others are happy to let things remain as they are. Admittedly I was grasping at straws trying to see who might align with the Revs on the "save money at all costs" bandwagon.

Dallas has actually been pretty smart about a lot of things, and there are definitely some ideas that they Revs could copy. Denilson may have been viewed as a faisco, but they handled it right. Sign him for short money for the half-season and if he plays well, he gets a big contract. He didn't, so all they wasted was what they paid him for a half-year. The other thing I like what Dallas is doing is fan outreach in the suburban communities. Everyone wearing red on game days, all the stores in town with FCD signage, etc. Good ways to get the community involved and build goodwill without spending a lot of money. This is the kind of stuff that should be right up the Revs' alley but, like so many other "low-hanging fruit" ideas, it isn't even on their radar.

 

Yes, I can say just that. Frankly, it makes perfect sense to do so.

The Krafts' apathetic stewardship of their Major League Soccer property is the core, overarching problem that has created the myriad smaller problems that now grip the franchise. Therefore, while replacing the Krafts as the New England Revolution's investor/operators would remove what has been the franchise's core problem to date, there is every reason to believe that the myriad smaller problems created by the former core problem wouldn't simply disappear right away. Rather, steps would have to be taken by a new investor/operator to repair the damage created by the Krafts' piss-poor operation of the Revolution.

 

heh, fair point, I retract my previous statement, as obviously you can say just that, you can say whatever you want to say, it's a free country, I just think it would make sense to say it another way. But as I said, it's just semantics now.

 

I'm pretty sure the Hunts were mentioned as being in the same camp regarding the salary cap in whatever article was quoted that initially mentioned this possible divide over the upcoming negotiations. I can't remember where it was, possibly earlier on this thread.

 

I was just pointing out that grouping of them was made by someone who at least should be more in the know than we are. Not saying I'm sure it's true that they're together, but my recollection of it (which could be wrong) was that the reporter had heard rumblings of this or whatever, it wasn't just an opinion based on speculation. As to why they might be in the same camp, I wasn't trying to say, and even if they are, their reasons for being there don't matter as much as how close they are when it comes to their thinking on the numbers they're looking for. I don't pretend to have any idea, but like I'm sure everyone here is, I'm very curious to see what will happen.

 

You know the saying, "politics makes strange bedfellows," where two people with totally different perspectives could be in favor of the same thing, but for very different reasons.

None of us have any idea how things are going to shake out with all this. The only thing we know is that there are the "big 4" in terms of spending (LA, NY, Toronto & Seattle), then the Revs at the cheap end, possibly with a couple of other clubs, and then the vast middle ground who want to comptete, but know they can't spend like the big 4. Clubs in that camp might side with the Revs, for no other reason that they want to control costs too. They may choose to spend more than New England, but if it helps them avoid an arms race they can't win, they will also be in favor.

And as long as the Revs aren't hurting the league's bottom line like the League-owned clubs did back in the day, no one cares what they do.

 

I kind of think that if Kraft was so isolated in his philosophy as some people seem to believe, he'd sell out - since he'd be in a completely powerless position to influence the league's direction (completely the opposite of his situation in the NFL, where he's seen as one of the main ownership leaders). I just don't think he's so isolated or that there's majority interest in ramping up spending by the clubs.

 

I didn't say he was isolated in a political sense. A club like Kansas City might be with Kraft on a league-wide issue of controlling costs vs. upping the cap, adding more DP slots or International spots. Even though KC has a polar opposite approach to how they manage their business, they don't want to spend foolishly either.

The only thing I can see going against Kraft would be if the league mandated any sort of minimums--like they have to spend up to 95% of the cap, they have to have at least one over-budget DP, etc. I don't see that realistically happening. The Revs don't lose money, and the other owners aren't going to care unless it really hits them in the wallet. This could go on forever for all anyone cares. The difference with Chivas is that it was Christmas Eve, 1989 in the Ceausescu house, and DC United is a situation that will also change at some point soon. The Revs are in the deadly zone of not losing enough money for it to be a problem, but not coming even close to what their potential could be.

 

Every team is responsible for paying 30% of the gate to help run the league. The fact that the Revs have one of the lowest gates in the league affects every owners wallet.

Just because the Revs don't lose money doesn't mean their poor running of their franchise does not affect other owners, it does.

If NE, Chivas and DC were averaging closer to the 20k range at the gate, the league might be able to lower the 30% number league wide.

 

He is isolated in his philosophy (anybody else running their team like does?) but he is far from powerless. He literally got the commish his job. The late Lamar Hunt and Bob saved Don from the garbage heap known as NFL Europe and extended him a lifeline. He's always going to have leverage and influence so long as The Don remains in his office, which looks to be for the foreseeable future.

 

http://www.burgundywave.com/2014/4/22/5638196/game-of-thrones-soccer-mls-what

"New England Revolution - The Night's Watch
A once abundant Castle Black is a place where the unwanted and castouts turn when they have no where else to go, and the Night's Watch welcomes them with open arms. The Revolution have gathered a number of castaways of their own--Lee Nguyen, Daigo Kobayashi, and Teal Bunbury to name a few--in hopes of regaining the strength they once held. And while he may not be a castaway himself, will Kelyn Rowe have the leadership potential ofJon Snow in their effort to beat the odds?"

 

If the mess going on with the Clippers (and the legal writings on what the NBA can do about it) has taught me anything it's:
-the Revs owner could be worse
-forcing out team owners is often extremely difficult (edit: this presumably varies across leagues, but I'm guessing it's pretty similar)
-MLS should be commended for how well the Chivas mess was dealt with and how once things got out of control it was handled relatively quickly

 

MLS took over the Chivas franchise. NBA hasn't taken over the Clippers yet though.

 

Well, baseball forced out Marge Schott who owned the Reds. She was pretty bad, letting her Saint Bernard take regular dumps on the field before games, collecting Nazi memorabilia and describing Hitler as a "great man," and being a notorious cheapskate toward those who worked for her (non-players).

Sterling has always been a buffoon, and lots of folks aren't all that shocked. I remember several years ago a player saying he was treated "like a dog," but for all I know it could have been because his contract offer was only $8.5 million when he thought he should be getting $10 mill. Woof woof indeed!

 

http://www.courant.com/hc-april-30-1999-patriots-abandon-hartford-deal-20140424,0,156262.htmlstory

Anyone else remember what our savvy owner was doing 15 years ago?

 

Funny you should mention that, since that was the defining moment of when the Revs did a 180-degree turn from being one of the league's best franchises to the path that led them to be one of the worst.

At the time, we used to rag on the Metros with 60-90 day jokes, but even at the time I wrote an article that they eventually would be in a new stadium, even if it was going to be a long way off, but we would be playing in the Patriots' shadow forever. If the Pats had moved to Hartford, the Revs would have had the old stadium to themselves. Some people might think it was a dump, but it was our dump! The Revs were relevant at the time, and with the relative low cost of playing at the old stadium, it is reasonable to think they could have continued on the path where they were, in the top 1/3 of the league in attendance every year and considered one of the better markets.

Once they moved into Gillette, it wasa all over. The same thing basically killed the Tampa Bay Mutiny, as the higher expenses of the new stadium made it impossible to break even on MLS-level revenue. That was the time when Rev-only staff was cut to the bare bones, virtually no money was spent on marketing, advertising or any kind of crowd building. It was all "If you build it they will come," and once people saw CMGi field for the first time, they didn't come back for the Revs. It didn't help matters that parking cost more than the cheapest ticket and everything else inside the stadium was much much more than it was in the old place.

Yep, that was the moment everything turned pear-shaped.

 

Playing hardball.

You seem to forget that one of the biggest problems with the old stadium was that it was very expensive to staff for smaller (than NFL) events.

I really doubt that Kraft would have kept operating that stadium if the Pats moved to Hartford. Either the Revs would have gone too or they would have had to come up with some alternative stadium plan (just as they are trying to do now).

And, if a 20K crowd doesn't create atmosphere in Gillette, then 20K in an old cement dump wouldn't have either.

 

...but a 20k crowd did create atmosphere at that "old cement dump."