5 teams who are not playing in their stadiums
A look at the clubs that do not have a permanent home.
A professional football club having their own stadium will be one of the most common and important things for a team. A stadium is a home for the club, which they intend on making their fortress.
Similarly, a home venue can instill fear in the opposition and visiting teams find it hard to adapt to the pressure and atmosphere of the game and the fans. When this happens, teams crack and it affects their performances on their pitch.
However, there have been situations over the years when a football club has had to relocate their home due to reasons such as finances, locations, fan base, resources and re-constructions.
They have to had to play in other stadiums and have been forced to make it their temporary home.
This has affected clubs on several different occasions as they have failed to replicate the success they once achieved previously elsewhere.
Here are the five teams not playing in their own stadiums:
#5 New England Revolution
The Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, MA, United States is the home to Major League Soccer's New England Revolution, sharing it with NFL heavyweights New England Patriots. It has served as the home of the Revolution since 2002.
The stadium seats a total of 68,000 people but the capacity is reduced to 20,000 for football. In 2006, the board had announced their intentions on building a new stadium for the club that would be used only for football. But due to external factors, there were delays for several years.
The Revs owner, Robert Kraft, who also owns the Patriots had put forward the plans for a new football stadium in 2014 in front of the city council as a potential site for Boston's bid for the 2024 Olympics. But the failed bid resulted in the plan not going any further forward and New England continues to play in a non-football stadium.