From the construction camera today at Audi Field. The sod has been rolled out. One and a half months until the first game...
Never thought I would see the day when Red Bulls and DC United had their own stadiums. This is a big accomplishment. Congrats to DC United fans.
Has been pointed out many many times...this is not the same thing at all. The other two were in money losing stadium rental situations. NER are in an owner controlled stadium.
That has a 65k capacity, with fake grass and they draw 14-18k to most of their games. Then why does he bring up every year that they are looking at sites to build a stadium?
Well they usually bring it up when season ticket renewals go out. So basically they're lying to their fan base and other MLS fans. It's pretty obvious that they aren't going to build a stadium.
Some guy on United's board confirmed that the canopy is just like Bridgeview and San Jose and that material for the entirety was never in the final plan.
That roof will provide extremely little protection from rain without it. Even with it i dont think it would have provided much. That is a lot of effort for a non functional roof IMO.
Roofs are never about rain, they are about sound amplification.* *if you know the history of this trope, you know how to respond. If you don't know the history of this trope, best be careful how you respond...
Yep, they day the Revs play a home league game in a stadium other than Gillette is the day that the Patriots have decided that a stadium built in 2002 is too old and obsolete, and they open a new, even more lavish palace. As much as I would love to see an LA, KC or whatever the latest flavor of the month style stadium, it is never, ever (nevah, evah) going to happen here. Why would Kraft spend upwards of $300 million of (mostly) his own money if he doesn't have to? The only (business) upside of doing this is that he could have more events at Gillette that are currently impossible because the Revs are using it every other weekend from March through October. He could book a few more concerts or whatever, but is it worth it? Land anywhere near public transportation is going to be really expensive, especially a plot big enough to build a stadium. Sure, they could have bars and restaurants, etc. set up there, but it just doesn't make sense if you can have the Revs play for free in the stadium you already own. Yes, it truly sucks to play in a soul-less concrete edifice in a suburban shopping mall with plastic grass and 3 times as many seats as you need. And it sucks that it will never change, and unless a KC-type ownership group comes along and does a KC-style turnaround (which is unlikely for a number of reasons), the status quo will remain, well, forever. At least if they made a quarter-ass worth of effort (not even half-ass, that would be amazing!) to at least attempt to make the fan experience as moderately mediocre as it can be while we're stuck at Gillette, it might be less painful, but it is what it is. As many Rev fans like to say when we need to be cheered up, "We're all just unwilling passengers on a runaway train to doom and annihilation. Brief spasms of joy (like 5 MLS Cup appearances--and 0 wins) are only there to point out the total hopelessness of all human endeavor."
I'm with you. But the Krafts were there at the beginning and own - and indeed constructed - the stadium. Whaddya gonna do?
Maybe go the Chicago route? Rival investor, rival downtown team... Is the market too small for that? Would the Krafts block it or welcome it? Or even give a crap, so long as they have the Revs filling some empty seats, then get to host the mega games, World Cup etc?
When that day does come...If Gillette is not demolished, would retrofitting it as a soccer stadium be of any benefit to the Revs? Serious question. Would being able to remove some corner seats to widen make more room for the field in the corners, put in grass, more permanently cover the upper decks be beneficial?
I think they built Gillette with soccer in mind. Specifically World Cup (and maybe World Super League) which they probably assumed would return sooner than 2026. They had a really nice grass pitch at Gillette. Then they took a big dump on us and installed turf when Parcell or Bellichick's analysts figured out the team had a slight statistical advantage playing on turf. Soccer was immediately and irrevocably fisted. Then the analysts started deflating the balls and the Sox started spying on iphone messages and whatnot. Is this correct? Did they get the wrist in? There was a time when I was a fan of all the New England sports teams. Thankfully, the universe started putting more soccer on TV, and I didn't have to suffer a first world Boston Garden or winning teams.
They don't need to widen Gillette. The one good thing it has going for it is that a full soccer field will fit. As Jonathan "Don't Call Me Uday" Kraft has often said, the stadium "was designed with soccer in mind" and "at the end of the day, it's a great place to watch soccer." They did have a grass field there for the first few years, but the way the stadium was positioned and the high upper decks meant that it didn't get enough sunlight for the field to grow. The other problem was that with all those 150-lb guys trampling all over it, it wore down the grass so the Patriots couldn't properly play. the Pats lost a game once when a receiver slipped while running an out pattern while the ball was in the air, and the CB picked it off for an easy TD. The Pats bye week, which coincided with a Revs playoff game was the week they decided to rip it up and install the turf. Back in the day when the Pats threatened to move to Hartford, we thought a retro-fit of the old stadium might be a good possibility. It would have been good for a few years, but eventually it would have been an RFK-type situation and then they would have actually needed to build a new place. Once that deal fell through, we knew that we could only make "60-90 days" jokes at the Metros for a few more years, and eventually they would get their own place at some point. Unlike us, who never would.
Just tossing this out there... You could argue that we maybe focusing on the Revs stadium issue and its cost to Kraft too narrowly. Kraft operates the Revs, but he is a part owner of MLS. If a stadium in the metro areas could be done (putting aside all the issues and difficulties for a moment) and you could get an atmosphere similar to other downtown stadiums. he would benefit in several ways: - the stadium itself would have value and open additional streams of revenue (naming rights, other events) - the brand and value of the franchise he operates would grow - The value of the league he partially owns would increase through stronger engagement with a significant market. I know I'm not saying anything new here. But if MLS is still a long-term, value investment, a metro area stadium will add far more long term value than remaining where they are. From that perspective, he does have reason to do it.
NE is probably in the same spot DCU was/is. It's going to take a real estate deal in order to get a stadium. Maybe Kraft decides he wants to cash in on his soccer investment and sell the team. It won't be practical without a good stadium situaiton. Any buyer would be tied to Kraft without their own stadium. So, I guess this means if there is genuine stadium building in the works for NE, they're probably about to sell.
I know this happens, but I'm pretty skeptical/cynical about it when soccer's getting the shaft. I mean, the Mayans figured this shit out.
Well, yeah, but look what happened to them. Not saying it’s directly related, but do you want to risk extinction!