Are quants really only short-term thinkers? Honest question. I always perceived those kinds of people as data-driven, there's a numeric model for every decision type of thinkers. So if you are assessing whether it makes sense to invest money into some kind of program like this, don't you think they'd look at it and conclude that after year 1, it would be a loss, but after 5 years, they'd more than make their investment back? And that kind of thinking (or lack thereof) is why I think the people running the Revs are total imbeciles. You'd think they were a publicly-traded company, where everything is based on short-term results. Can't have a loss this quarter, even if it means double the profits next year! What will the shareholders think?
I think game-day train advocates are seriously underestimating the cost of running two dedicated trains. And, since they are pushing for a commuter stop on the same line, that's a much more viable option to pursue. A round-trip bus from Boston is a much smaller/safer investment, that allows expansion as the demand grows.
For me personally, I have no idea what it costs, I haven't implied that it is comparably cheap, and ultimately I don't really care what it costs. This is the same organization that chose seating fans on one side of the stadium for years because it would make the stadium less expensive to operate on game-days and it would theoretically make the crowd look better on TV. Instead, it killed the atmosphere and made for a negative game-day experience. It took them years to finally realize it was a bad decision, despite the fact that they had people telling them it was a bad decision from day one. The focus has only been on trying to run a profitable organization and not splurging. I don't see the train as a magic bullet. I see it as one piece of what would be an overall philosophical shift in how they go about trying to run this organization. You've been around for a long time, and I would never try to kill you for your optimism, and I think you do take the team to task on some things. But as someone who has been around for a long time, can you honestly say that this organization has done everything in its power to try to be more than just a part of MLS? Have they ever tried to be a leading force that embraces and drives the direction of the league? I don't see how anyone can claim the answer to that is anything but NO. Running the train, running busses...whatever...just put together a comprehensive plan for taking the organization to the next level in all areas of its operations and do something, even if it means you have to take a few losses.
OK, how about "most" things? Maybe "a lot of" things? Hmmm, maybe "many" things? How about "some" things? I'll settle for "barely the minimum amount of" things.
What's the opposite of exaggerate? Minimize? We can agree that the Revs do less than they should, but why try to make it sound like even less than it really is?
They put their games on TV, they pay the electric bill on time so they can play night games, they pay the players and staff on time, they put a team on the field that is better than the 1999 Metros and 2001 Mutiny, and they aren't as woefully inept as Chivas. Y'happy?
I view the Kraft family's role as keeping the seat warm for a committed and passionate owner in the future. They served that role when they kept the league afloat twenty years ago, and nothing has convinced me that they have any interest in doing anything beyond that.
I thought originally it was a 20 year plan but maybe it's 25? Wonder if things change when papa Kraft passes, whenever that will be. He's in his mid 70s so you just never know. Maybe Jr Kraft would sell? Who knows.
My worry always has been Junior fully taking over. On top of that, I've always wondered who'd buy the team and if they'd actually keep it here (long term). Not only do you have to buy the club (upwards of $100M), you have to have a place to play. Till you have a place to play, you're probably paying the Krafts to rent Gillette which increases the $$ outlay even more.
Yes, this has always been the Catch-22 of any sale. Some rich guy decided to buy the team and "run it right" it would still be a very difficult task. Build a stadium somewhere in the "urban core" is going to cost maybe $300-350 M. Even if you closed the deal tomorrow, it would take maybe 3 years before the first game can be played. You can still play in Foxboro for a "market based" rent, and that is going to bleed you dry. Maybe play at BU or someplace like that temporarily? Sure, but that is going to have it's own set of problems. Unless you have the new stadium deal completely lined up an ready to go, and it really will be only a couple of years, you can't realistically do that.
Those numbers for a team sale and a stadium are probably too low. That said, it's why the Rev's remain in Kraft Purgatory. Like I always say... It's a good thing that the Kraft's own the Rev's, and it's a terrible thing that the Kraft's own the Revs!
Along those lines, Boston eventually may need to lose a soccer team to get a soccer team. I still think the biggest potential change is if the Krafts think the NFL bubble might burst and decide to move the team at astronomical prices once Brady retires (opening the door to splitting up their football, soccer and stadium interests).
Add a 2nd MLS team in Boston. Like NY, LA, etc. After all, there's a lot of soccer fandom being left on the table here in greater Boston - missed opportunities each one of them. Isn't that what a 2nd franchise in a market is all about - that there's more potential that could be tapped than the single franchise in place alone is equipped for? Yes, yes, yes, of course I realize it wont happen, wouldn't even be entertained by powers that be in MLS. But - that would certainly add a different dimension/take to Boston as a soccer marketplace if an owner more inclined towards "stewardship" gave it a real, legitimate go with another franchise. i.e., an owner who thinks more along the lines of the high-energy approach that Atlanta, Seattle, TFC, etc. employ. [If no other MLS team is on the horizon, I'm OK with the first EPL team outside of Great Britain ending up in Boston. #EPL2BOS ]
Wait for rkupp to come in and remind us that we are a "small market." Chicago is the #3 market in the US, and their team is just as badly run as ours is. The only thing they have better than us is that when they draw 15,000, it means the stadium is 75% full. Toronto is just a bit smaller than Chicago, and then Houston and the SF Bay area are bigger markets than us. Surely if you're putting second teams in certain markets, you'd do it in Chicago or SF before Boston. Then again, all we really need is a decent owner and we could have a turnaround like Kansas City.
Boston is the 10th largest metro area in the US. It'd be pretty nuts if we got a 2nd team before the 12th largest metro area, Phoenix, got its first (and they even have willing ownership).
Can you imagine if John Henry bought an MLS franchise and put them in Fenway until a better option is built? What a concept... A team outside of their represented city in a place hard to get to and another in the city but in a baseball park. That has never happened, has it?
We're definitely not big enough for 2 MLS teams (now). I think what most people are wishing for here is a team that would push the Revs out.
...or a team that would push the Revs, in some meaningful way, but not necessarily "out". I really would enjoy having two viable legitimate exciting teams from which to choose. (Right now, it is certainly debatable if there is even one, depending on your individual preferences for the level of soccer you want to see in a MLS team.)
I think this is really a fascinating question, because a huge part of the whole family enterprise is now tied up in Foxboro - Revs, Pats, Patriot Place, Gillette Stadium. Even if they wanted to exit a major piece or two of it, it sounds pretty complicated. I worry too about Jonathon's ability to steer the Kraft ocean-liner and if not him, then who? And, what after that? I'd love to know what Bob Kraft's big vision is at this stage of his life. Is it all a family legacy, to be passed down through the generations? Is it just a base of wealth to leave as his inheritance? Is it a legacy operation for sports fans of NE? That is a topic that I'd love to hear a sports/business roundtable on.
There's no urban stadium for the current team and you want to add a second team to the region? To what, play in Fenway? FSG doesnt give a shit about MLS. Won't happen. Even if a more passionate and committed ownership group materialized, the league wouldn't sign off on it. Not only would the league award a club to any of the dozen other cities before we get one again but there isn't a suitable place to put another team. Sure, LA has 2 teams but they each have their own facilities. NYC is a weird Don Garber exception. It probably that does not apply to any other city on the country. At least NYC FC will (theoretically) have their own stadium.