I don't know, I guess I just don't get warm and fuzzy about hollow campaign promises. Barring some huge advance in technology, they will play with football lines at some point. It's inevitable.
It's just Seattle, the Revs and now Atlanta for the NFL, with NYC FC in this conversation given they have to convert the Yankee Stadium infield for MLS home games. Short of same day, Seattle (and even the Revs once or twice!) have proved it can be done.
It's not only possible but it's not that far off according to this article. The Sounders work hard to never, ever have football lines and they consider a "compromise" the seahawks logo, which is a lot better than hash marks. Do you think the Krafts would shell out for this technology? That's an example of a small but important demonstration of commitment to their MLS team. That said, if they do buy it, it tells me they're going to be in Foxboro for awhile (it's probably not cheap technology).
It seems Seattle works hard at having no lines, but the numbers show they don't have to work hard to remove lines. Since 2009 Seattle with NFL/College games within 1 Day= 1 2 Days=5 3 Days=4 Since 2009 NE with NFL/College games with 1 Day=10 2 Days =3 3 Days=2 UMass Same day=4 So the NFL does a better job at scheduling games avoiding Sounders games same weekend. Than the NFL does with the Pats. Seattle 2014 possible 1 Day=5 2 Day=2 New England possible 1 Day=5 2 Day=0 UMass has one game schedule at Gillette on a Revs wknd but that is day before 9/7 game. But personally I am expecting Revs/Fire game to be moved back to the 6th. Pats haven't opened up at home since 2010. Or Pats have Monday Night home opener and Revs play game with lines. Will know more next week when NFL schedule released.
That's a remarkable difference. Does Seattle host college football games too? The Revs draw well in the late summer/fall, and terribly in March. This could be their influence at work - squeezing a few extra home games in September/October despite the conflicts with the Pats/UMass.
Since the Braves are moving to the suburbs, it seems a shame that they couldn't take over their stadium. It's not that old, it was build for the 1996 Olympics. Since Blank owns the team, that's a non-starter. Speaking of "campaign promises" about the lines, anyone remember when they first put in the turf at Gillette, and the Revs said something similar, although not quite as unequivocal? Then later on they realized that it was difficult, expensive, time consuming and they had to pay people, so it became more of a "Well, y'see, it's a complicated situation, because there is more to it than just scrubbing the lines off..." But somehow Seattle manages pretty well overall. I wish we had someone with some influence who could juggle the schedule around so that the Revs and Pats would play home when the other is away as much as possible. Too bad there is just no way to work that out in this organization. As I said in another thread, if Blank is more of an owner along the lines of Seattle, Portland, KC, Columbus, etc. they will do fine. Soccer has a different demographic than other sports and hasn't been around long enough that transplanted New Yorkers are going to shun the local team in favor of the Red Bulls. Blank didn't spend all this money to buy an MLS team so he can just Kraft his way through the motions.
I might have missed this but I'm interested in the "downsizing technology" for the new Atlanta stadium. I've heard the seats will be pushed back to make the field wider, and maybe they're gonna put curtains on the upper decks? I was kind of expecting something cool like the whole field gets elevated up to the upper-deck level, or there is another retractable roof at the upper-deck level?
How will the new team in Atlanta impact the Silverbacks? They have a relatively new, small (but expandable) stadium.
It looks like there's some sort of ceiling that comes out to cover the lower sections. Not sure what it's made of. It's a great idea, IMO.
I don't see Yankee Stadium as a problem (except for the Yankees!). The stadium is just going to add to the attraction of the game (same deal if the Revs played at Fenway. Site lines would suffer, but a LOT of folks would go just because of Fenway). If Atlanta jumps out with great attendance, an NFL stadium will be no big deal. If they don't, it'll be a problem.
@MicheleTossani According to @tuttosport Varese's forward Leonardo Pavoletti is on the radar of two unspecified @MLS teams"
big kid http://www.transfermarkt.com/en/leonardo-pavoletti/profil/spieler_64793.html. Looks like he has had some success in Serie B. 25 years old. Be very very surprised if the Revs have ever even heard of this guy
Yankee Stadium doesn't have the lure it use to with the old Stadium. Fenway /Red Sox tickets are easy to get now. I think you are overestimating the amount of people who would go to see the stadiums. The people who will go want to see soccer or want to take in a sporting event.
I couldn't agree more. This is exactly the kind of kid we should be chasing. It's ... too much to hope, right?
I'm not sure if it's related but I heard the Rev Management people who were off on that recent scouting trip ate a lot of Pasta on the trip
So MLS is going to cash an expansion fee check while another team plays 2nd fiddle in a NFL stadium while a perfectly functioning club is going to get squeezed out of the market? How is this good for soccer in America?