Official MLS statement from 10/12/18 says Austin in 2021: "While timing for Austin FC is still to be finalized, we are confident that the team will begin play no later than 2021 at the new, privately financed stadium and soccer park at McKalla Place. We applaud the Austin community, city leaders and Precourt Sports Ventures for their commitment to making this happen."
On top of those Louisville's Butchertown stadium is being constructed to meet MLS needs, though the initial capacity will be 11,200. Cushman Field in Las Vegas is now a downtown soccer specific stadium undergoing reconstruction, though I don't think it could meet the minimum MLS capacity.
Have you failed at reading? I was simply asking a question. No need to be so defensive. Didn't accuse you of anything.
Hmm, interesting. What do you propose? We would have to define some things. In my book a ceremonial suits with shovels playing in dirt doesn't count as construction starting. Machinery digging and concrete pouring counts to me. We have had "groundbreaking" ceremonies with stadiums not being built or being built in different locations before.
SEA and ATL should be in the same bucket as NE. Either they all should be pushed or none of them should (there are other reasons to push on the NE organization, but not the stadium). NY isn't the same because Yankee Stadium was in no way designed for soccer at any level.
my guess is that this will happen, but based on what I have seen from PSV, I have major concerns about the long term viability of Austin
I think Columbus, and Toronto are significant turning markers for the league. Columbus was the first team into MLS 2.0 with a SSS. Seeing that stadium age out and building a second stadium is significant. Toronto and to a lesser extent (Portland), seeing a Stadium completely redesigned and expanded beyond its original construction costs also show major changes. I love Atlanta and LAFC and what they are doing for the league, but seeing original teams step up to the plate and grow, means a lot for the health of the league.
Is this near the Austin stadium site? https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/13/tech/apple-campus-austin-texas/index.html Apple's new Austin campus will be less than a mile from the existing one and will be spread across 133 acres, the company said in a statement. It is expected to make Apple the city's largest employer, with a workforce of 5,000 employees and the capacity to add 10,000 more. Looks like it's around 5-6 miles from McKalla Place... https://goo.gl/maps/N3fCF7be8N92
I do too but the folks in Austin don't want to hear about it. They're appreciative to anyone who brings them MLS.
Agreed on the ceremonial groundbreaking. That should not count. Gotta be heavy machinery. Stuff on site getting knocked down/cleared/prepped at a minimum. Gotta be somewhere between site prep and foundation pour. As for the bet, IDK. $$ hard to do. A sig line professing the loser's stupidity and the wisdom of the winner that remains active for X amount if time? Open to suggestions.
I mean, yes and no. If your bucket is just turf & sharing with point ball, then yes, same bucket, along with Vancouver. But the location is boonies compared to ATL & SEA & VAN. Ever been to Foxboro? That ain't Boston. And they are not drawing 70k/40k all the time. For me, that is why I look at NE diffetently. They aren't losing a ton of $$ on rent b/c Kraft owns the whole thing. So it is not urgent. But I think they are a city that could be doing MUCH better than they are. Not talking about boosting a 16k team to 18k. But taking a 17k team to potentially 25k or more. Boston could make that jump, as could Chicago (or maybe Philly/Dallas to a lesser extent). NE is the one without the lease locking them in, though there is an escape clause in Chester.
Man, I made a pretty detailed post detailing the six potential new stadium sites for 2019. And why they need to start in 2019. You quoted said post, and responded with.... how do you get to six? I only count three? Which cities? I basically made the same post. Again. With the same points and cities. Again. I am not defensive. I am irritated. Though the roids I am currently taking are probably a factor.
Sure, but if you pick up the current Revs organization with no significant changes and drop them in a SSS in Boston they' draw...about 20K if you're lucky. Location is secondary (very secondary) to a competent and committed Front Office/ownership. Until NE gets that there's really no point in worrying about where the team is playing.
Your first post did mention 6 but it was not straight forward. I went back and read it again and found them all but it was difficult to follow and find them all. It was rambly. Sorry I missed it. Your second post laid them out very nice and easy and straight forward. PS.. I'm up for the bet. I'll do the sig thing. Let's do it.
Just to jump in here on the Revs situation, rumor has it they may make an announcement of a plan for a new stadium at some point in the first half of the new year. Woo. Hoo. Can you get any more vague than that? In other words, they are fixin' to start thinking about having a meeting to possibly discuss whether it makes sense to consider if there are any viable options, and if so, if they want to possibly consider these options at the appropriate juncture in the fullness of time. There actually are a few possibilities, one area in town between a neighborhood and a highway that could fit a 20,000 seater, but not a lot of room for retail space and parking, another at the old Wonderland dog racing track, now that the Amazon HQ deal isn't happening here, and another site at Suffolk Downs, which is a now closed horse racing track. There is also an old expo center that is on land now owned by UMass, but Kraft wanted the (prime) land for free and being a public university, it wouldn't be fiduciarily responsible when developers would pay. All of them are on public transport lines. The problem is, these are valuable sites and other developers want to build stuff there too. Having said that, the day that the Revs play regular season games in a stadium other than Gillette is the day that the Patriots decide that the stadium (circa 2002) is too old and obsolete, and they build a new palace. Nothing will change in Rev-land unless there is a 180-degree about face in the ownership's philosophy. Bob Kraft is getting older and won't be around forever, but his imbecile son, Jonathan (don't call him "Uday," he doesn't like it) has zero intellectual curiosity and even less creativity or desire to do anything that resembles a quarter-ass effort. So yeah, don't add New England to the list of "possible" stadiums going up in the near future. Besides, there are a lot of other cities on that list and they will surely have some really nice stadiums. We can always live vicariously through them!
Two reasons, one which is probably more important to history, the other which matters more to me at least. First is that the Fusion folded. History is full of things that happened once, then disappeared, so they didn't affect the course of future events (for example the Vikings in North America). I doubt the people involved with the Galaxy building the then Home Depot Center in 2003 were concerned with a team that died in 2001. More importantly to me, at least, was that Lockhart Stadium already existed. The Fusion altered it for their purposes, but Columbus built a stadium specifically for their soccer team for the first time ever in top level professional soccer in the US. After this, many teams and cities copied this model. This is to take nothing away from Lockhart, which from what I heard was a very nice place. It just wasn't the trend setter that Columbus Crew Stadium was.
It was the very model from which Crew Stadium was built. The two stadiums co-existed for three seasons. It didn't not happen. Crew Stadium was the first SSS built for MLS, but you didn't say that. You said first SSS. Lockhart preceded it by a full year. Lockhart was the first SSS in MLS.
Agreed. Committed ownership is #1. They can make things work incredibly well in a so-so spot (SKC) or underachieve in a pretty good one (NYRB, Houston). But ownership is mostly fixed. We are down to 1 owner per team. The only other changes have been folding the team (Chivas, Miami, Tampa). Or moving it (SJ/Hou). I forget the SJ/Hou details. That was a multiple ownership situation at the time & they sold later? Anywho, beyond ownership (which is not changing), location is the next biggest factor. Even with Hunt/PSV, the Crew get 2-3k more in a better spot. I know folks who have gotten mugged walking to the car at Mapfre. No stuff to do. Egress is an issue. Mud in some spots still. We are in a stadium thread. Talk is going to be of stadiums. Locations. New ones. Old ones. Leases. Effects on attendence. Better chance of a new location than a new owner.
No, it was not. It was built in 1959. General sports facility. Used mostly for high school track. It was not used for soccer much until 1977. Are you really gonna call something a SSS that was used for nearly 20 years for not soccer? The Strikers played there until, what, 1982? Then it went back to track. For 40 years, 35 for track, 5 for soccer. It was not intended as SS when built. The Fusion repurposed it in 1998. Which IS before 1999. Lockhart gets first repurposed soccer stadium. CCS first new built. There is a difference. Soccer specific means built for soccer (to me at least). CCS was, Lockhart was not. Refitted & upgraded is close but no cigar.
So? It's still be the Kraft owned and operated team regardless of where they play. A new stadium would be the proverbial lipstick on a pig. It wouldn't make the team better, it wouldn't make the fan experience necessarily better. A stadium would be nice, but unless there's some titanic shift in the way the organization approaches the team it would likely just be a huge waste of money. And if the organization did change its approach, then there's no reason to think that the fans wouldn't come streaming back to the point that the Revs could start drawing 30-40k/game, making a SSS a limiting factor. Hell, back in 1996 the Revs routinely hit 30k in crappy old Foxboro Stadium until aggressive security and a disinterested front office pretty much killed the interest. The Boston metroplex has a huge potential. The only fix necessary is a change in approach, budget, and mindset of the front office. If that happened, Gillette would be fine. If it doesn't happen, a new stadium isn't going to make things appreciably better. And if you think that the Krafts wouldn't make the Revs feel like second class citizens in their own stadium as it is rented out to every high school and college football team and every concert promoter, not to mention lacrosse and ultimate group willing to pay in an effort to monetize the building, you haven't been paying attention. Short version: A new stadium without new ownership wouldn't really change anything, if the Krafts change their tune, then you'd fine that Gillette Stadium would be fine.
You don't have to go back to 1997. When the Revs were playing the Red Bulls in the Eastern Conference finals, they had 33,000 plus fans and that stadium was rocking. Clearly the location is only so much of a barrier.
If they had won MLS Cup 2002, one can only imagine what 2003 would've been like at that stadium. Ruiz's goal sucked the life out of the stadium.
In the early years of MLS, the Revs drew great crowds at the old Foxboro Stadium. The stadium was kind of a dump, but considering that it was built for about 100 bucks in 1971 (slight exaggeration, but it was cheap, even by 1971 standards), it wasn't so bad. But in those days, the Revs had an operation that was more independent from the Patriots and it showed. Then the Krafts built Gillette Stadium, folded the Revs into the Patriots organization, moved the Revs into Gillette, and decided to only sell one side of the stadium. It's kind of understandable why the Krafts did that, since they built Gillette Stadium mostly out of their own pockets, MLS was swirling the drain in the early 2000s, and the Patriots weren't the money-printing operation that they are now. It's all understandable, but at the same time, the Krafts kneecapped the Revs and continue to do so. Location wasn't a big problem when the Revs were drawing 20,000 a game to a location that is currently the Gillette Stadium parking lot, but it is allegedly one now. It's the reason why I get pretty damn skeptical when people want to throw out Foxborough as the reason why the Revs haven't drawn for a while or when people want to state that the Revs would automagically draw 25,000 a game if they played in Boston or one of the neighboring cities. (My feelings are similar when people want to blame Frisco for FCD's perpetual 15,000 a game average. I know how they'd draw at a more "ideal" location, because I was there 15 times in 2004, surrounded by 9,000 of my closest friends, when the HSG-owned Dallas Burn were playing two miles east of downtown Dallas.) In other words, what @AndyMead just what wrote.