Revolution Stadium groundbreaking "12-24 months"

Well I don't think one can really measure that potential and then try to hold it up in comparison to the returns a bunch of aluminum benches with no concessions might give you at a cost of 15million.

My bet would be on existing Gillette over a stadium version of what now passes as the Quincy Fore River bridge. Let's be rational here.

 

You can't say that for sure at all. It all depends on the value of the potential market growth against the current valuation. I'm fairly confident you don't know the specifics of either.

I didn't advocate the temporary stadium, but I'm also not condemning it. Neither of us know the potential value of moving into a temporary stadium en route to a new stadium. Neither of us know the current value of playing games at Gillette. For you to say for sure it wouldn't make sense, makes even less sense.

I'm glad you decided to take an extreme angle and marginalize the debate. It really helped your cause.

 

I never said I was sure. One thing I am confident of though is that you are rude.

[/quote]I didn't advocate the temporary stadium, but I'm also not condemning it. Neither of us know the potential value of moving into a temporary stadium en route to a new stadium. Neither of us know the current value of playing games at Gillette. For you to say for sure it wouldn't make sense, makes even less sense.[/quote]


[/quote]I'm glad you decided to take an extreme angle and marginalize the debate. It really helped your cause.[/quote]

Cause? I have a cause in this? I thought is was just an opinion based on a guess. Why are you so smug?

 

How is anything I wrote rude? Maybe I've been rude in other posts, but this is clear deflection right here.

ok carry on about how much you dislike me personally. I'm sorry that I made an attempt to disagree with you and point out how you were marginalizing a debate with extreme examples. I'll let you carry on with that in the future.

If you don't want to actually talk about the merits of the debate, then that is fine, but there is no reason to lob personal attacks out there just because you dislike me.

Care to actually talk about the subject, or are you done with me?

 

No, I'm not done with you. I don't dislike you. And I wasn't trying to lob a personal attack. I was just trying to have a conversation. Ok, I'm not done with this subject and not done with you. And if you'd like to add to it, it's ok with me.

 

I understand where you are coming from, and agree that a temporary stadium may not make any sense for this club given their current situation of already having a place to play.

However, it is somewhat clear that Gillette is a bad venue for the current Revs. There could be a number of external and internal circumstances that contribute to it being what it is.

Potentially, a temporary stadium, bridging the gap to a new stadium, could do well to help repair the damaged brand that is attached to this organization. Potentially, it wouldn't do anything, as well.

Obviously these were just words by Garber citing the possibility of something that already occurs in a different situation around the league. Until the Revs decide to pursue this potential endeavor, or definitively say they wouldn't, then it is hard for any of us to really understand if it would be good or bad for them short-term and/or long-term.

 

The problem with Garber floating this idea is that renovation of BC Place Stadium and the construction of the temporary Empire Field facility has been financed by the BC Pavilion Corporation (PavCo), a Canadian crown corporation. In other words, the executive branch of the British Columbia provincial government has financed both projects.

So, what do we think the chances are that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is going to step-up and finance construction of a "temporary" home for the New England Revolution while Bob and Jonathan finalize their plans for a permanent, soccer-specific stadium for the Revs?



Yeah... I thought so.

Next!

 

Gillette a bad place... Check. Agreed.
Potentially, a temp stad. Understand what you are saying, just not sure I agree.

3rd Paragraph. Good point.

Hopefully, they have a real option they are pursuing. I want to hear news of a fast track plan soon.

 

So... where would they put a temporary stadium? You still run into the same problem holding a permanent stadium back...

 

Not that I know much about city planning, and maybe someone else who does could clarify or refute my coming statement, but wouldn't it be a bit easier to appropriate land on a temporary basis? There is unused urban space in the Boston area. Maybe none big enough to fit one of these. I don't know.

 

You may be right.

It just seems to me that if there was land in a suitable location and large enough for a stadium (albeit a temporary one), why not start construction on the "real" stadium?

 

Maybe there is suitable land that would only be available temporarily? I don't know. Just throwing that out there.

Also, the temporary stadium only costs 15 million (in Vancouver), where as a real stadium would costs hundreds of millions.

 

isn't that what the old Foxboro stadium was...LOL I think it cost the Sullivans about $50 in concrete, pipes and duct tape!!

an overblown high school stadium that just happend to have 60k seats...and way more atmosphere than Gillette will ever have...

 

Foxboro Stadium was awesome

 

Maybe the Revs should play homegames in Vancouver. They might draw more fans.

 

this thread's still going?

lol

 

reminds me of that guy in front of you on the highway with his left turn signal on that has been blinking for 15 miles. You want to line him up in your crosshairs and blew him away!

 

$25M to be exact - still, a marvel of economy.

My kids were toddlers when I first started getting season tickets. One of the things I liked best about "Schaefer" was that I could let my kids roam through acres of empty aisles (at midfield!) w/o bothering anyone.

I was there - I'm not buying it. The only thing better was that there were more people there (and there were many things that were worse).

If that's your model of awesome ...

 

Foxboro Stadium had character that Gillette Stadium never will. Most American stadiums have gone very corporate, focusing more on the luxury boxes and stupid ammenities that I otherwise couldn't care about. Gillette Stadium's open lighthouse end, along with the increased capacity, has definitely contributed to a lack of atmosphere at games. I'd much prefer a standard, no frills bowl shaped stadium than a more athestically pleasing stadium like Gillette. I for one miss the quirks of old Foxboro Stadium.

 

Unless "character" is defined as "cheaply-built, serviceable and utilitarian", this is little more than nostalgia-driven revisionist history.

Schaeffer/Sullivan/Foxboro Stadium was, simply put, a dump. In fact, for the vast majority of its history it was, like at least half of the Patriots teams that called it home over 30 seasons, "fifty pounds of shit in a five-pound bag".

 

Perhaps I can interest you in the New Signings XV? thread

Meanwhile ...

 

Was it that much? I seem to remember the figure $6M when it opened in 1971.

Wikipedia says $7.1M:

 

They had to get a bunch of people to do a simultaneous toilet flush to satisfy the inspector of proper water pressure, like very close to opening time LOL!