Gothamite

North American Pro Soccer 2018

Recommended Posts

In theory St. Louis should have a club but the ownership group wants a tax payer funded stadium and that's a no go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tigers said:

Would love to see another New England side come in that forces the Revolution to alter their name.

 

Personally I think St Louis should get a side before many others.

 

Why would another team force the Revolution to change its name?

 

As for St. Louis, they had a great shot. The league wanted them.  But they chose to work with a billionaire who got huffy and walked away when denied $60M in taxpayer money.  Same geniuses who bungled the Rams stadium deal.  MLS is far better off without them.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe another team could come up with a New England-based name that's so awesome the Revs change their name out of shame.

 

Unlikely, of course, but we can dream. Maybe when they open a new stadium. Also a dream.

 

New England is such a downer MLS market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

Maybe another team could come up with a New England-based name that's so awesome the Revs change their name out of shame.

 

Unlikely, of course, but we can dream. Maybe when they open a new stadium. Also a dream.

 

New England is such a downer MLS market.

 

I think you mean “upper,” because they act as a reminder of what will happen to the Pats once Bob Kraft passes the torch to his son.

Edited by SFGiants58
Misspelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I hate singular names on principle, their name isn’t actually that bad.  At least they have a plural shorthand for players.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They came across the TV the other day and I was marveling at their logo. It's so bad and still so very 90's Xtremetubular. If there's one team in professional sports who needs a logo refresh, I think I'd start with them first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gothamite said:

As much as I hate singular names on principle, their name isn’t actually that bad.  At least they have a plural shorthand for players.  

 

3 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

They came across the TV the other day and I was marveling at their logo. It's so bad and still so very 90's Xtremetubular. If there's one team in professional sports who needs a logo refresh, I think I'd start with them first. 

 

I think this is exactly it right here: The name isn't bad, it's the logo.  I mean, the name is in reference to something that happened in the 1700s but the logo (as @McCarthy just said) is so 90s, there's a clear disconnect. 

 

I saw this online recently.....(certainly not my work, I don't have the ability)  and thought they have the right idea. 

New England Revolution Soccer Logo Mockup by André Araujo, via Behance  #mls #sportlogo #sportlogos #soccer #newenglandrevolution #nerevs #revs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Why would another team force the Revolution to change its name?

 

As for St. Louis, they had a great shot. The league wanted them.  But they chose to work with a billionaire who got huffy and walked away when denied $60M in taxpayer money.  Same geniuses who bungled the Rams stadium deal.  MLS is far better off without them.  

 

 

 

Thanks for the info on St Louis, it's a bit of a bummer that that would happen to an area that could of been of benefit to the MLS.

 

Not Revolution persay but the New England part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, even if a club comes to Connecticut or Providence, the Revs will stay “New England”. We still have the “Golden State Warriors” and “Florida Marlins” and “California Angels” were a thing for decades, changed only as part of naming rights agreements with cities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think that they should just call themselves Revolution FC, but I think I may be alone in that thinking :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Kaz said:

I still think that they should just call themselves Revolution FC, but I think I may be alone in that thinking :D

 

You're not! I've thought this for a decade! As much as I generally dislike the MLS faux-internationalist branding scheme, I think this one would work a la Arsenal or Celtic. Assuming an eventual move, "New England" is and has always been clunky (as if Burlington and Bangor and New Haven are teeming with Revs fans) but avoiding putting "Boston" in the name officially would stave off some of the other pedants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So DC United's new stadium opens tomorrow and their supporter group controversy is still going on. Unusual situation to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, 4_tattoos said:

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2018/07/12/13924/nycfc-returns-to-old-bronx-stadium-site-with-new-rube-goldberg-funding-plan/

 

Quote

This, you will notice, cleverly manages to arrange that no subsidies go directly to NYC F.C. — the team’s owners would be leasing private land, which would continue to pay property taxes. This enables Bagli to note that the soccer stadium is “not asking for the avalanche of free land, tax breaks and public funding” that went into other New York–area sports venues.

However, until we know who would pay what for which land, and whether the developers would pay fair market rent and property taxes on the garage land, it’s still entirely possible that the developers would be getting significant subsidies, which they could then pass along to NYC F.C. via cheap stadium land rent in appreciation for the Yankees allowing the entire deal to be done in the first place. (Needing the Yankees to approve the reduction in parking spaces is the only way it makes sense for the developers to be involving NYC F.C. at all, since you’d think otherwise it would be easier just to buy the parking parcels and forget about the GAL land.) And there there’s still the estimated $100 million in parking garage payments that the city is still owed, which it would never get if it handed over the land for private development, but which it also might never get if it kept the parking garages because nobody wants to pay to park in them, so you tell me how to calculate the value of that.

That, needless to say, is a lot of ifs — and as Bagli is just going by what NYC F.C. told him (plus what the city told him, which appears to have been mostly “nothing is final yet”), there’s no way to put a number on how much if anything this would end costing taxpayers … yet. If nothing else, it appears that the Steinbrenners and Sheik Mansour are taking a page from the Brooklyn Nets playbook, and creating a financing plan that’s so complicated that even I can’t fully understand it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, Beckham and Miami still hit another snag.

https://www.local10.com/sports/soccer/commissioners-kick-aside-beckham-soccer-stadium-plan-vote-to-july-18

 

 

And he and his group hired a commissioner's aunt as a consultant. (Sloppy Greg Cote in the background)

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/beckham-miami-mls-group-hires-city-commissioners-aunt-10521512

Edited by dfwabel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dfwabel said:

 

I’m a big fan of his, but there are times when he’s more knee-jerk “anti-stadium construction” than “anti-public subsidies”.  And this is one of those times. 

 

He starts off with the important part: 

 

Quote

This, you will notice, cleverly manages to arrange that no subsidies go directly to NYC F.C. — the team’s owners would be leasing private land, which would continue to pay property taxes. This enables Bagli to note that the soccer stadium is “not asking for the avalanche of free land, tax breaks and public funding” that went into other New York–area sports venues.

 

We don’t know many details about this plan, but there’s a lot to like so far.  The city is on the hook for that failing garage, and selling it to the developer (which contractually can only happen under specific circumstances) would save the city money.  That is a good thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far DC United's new stadium looks pretty good on TV. The blank white walls of the field level suite sticks out though. Should've probably painted that area in the team's colors or put some ads/logos up there to make it less visually plain. Nonetheless it looks way better than RFK did post Nationals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now