Green field with no markings... and possibly NO HEATING COILS

Donate To GopherHole

“We are going to tear it up,” said Lester Bagley, the Vikings’ vice president of public affairs. “A new field will be put in without any of the markings. So it will be a green field that we can paint our logo on Sundays and Gophers logos on Saturdays.”

“We’re a US Bank team,” Bagley said. “This is TCF Bank Stadium. We’re a Pepsi team, this is a Coke stadium. So we’ve had to negotiate those sponsorship agreements.”

Go Gophers!!
 

That's a bad deal. We were sold on the deal by the claim that the Vikings would install heating coils. Now they "aren't sure" if they want to put in the heating coils? If they don't want to put in heating coils, fine, but then leave the turf alone. The Block M on the field is valuable advertising for the U, too valuable to give up just so the Vikings can paint their logo. The Vikings need TCF more than the Gophers need the Vikings to play there. I'm not suggesting that the U gouge the Vikings, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. Just because you're not gouging them doesn't mean you have to be a doormat.
 

Schnauzer said:
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/06/06/details-on-the-vikes-temporary-home-tcf-bank-stadium/

Why tear up the field and replace it if you don't intend to put in the heating coils that everyone has talked about since day #1? Must remove the block M and Maroon end zones at any cost??
Click to expand...

Saw that yesterday. Pretty lame wasn't it. Took it as posturing on the Vikings part, hoping to get the U to kick-in on some of the cost. The Players Association, not to mention the Commissioner with his "player safety" campaign, would go ballistic if they thought the Vikings could be playing December, let alone January games on a rock hard field.
 

They're gonna give you a brand new field after they leave, so what's the big deal?
They're gonna have the Gopher logos on Saturdays, so what's the big deal?

As for the heating coils, you realize they're deciding between that and a heated tarp right? It's not like they're going to go without any heating mechanism.

As for the advertising you guys are worried about losing, don't you think the Vikings feel the same way?
 


I have always been a Gopher fan first and then a Viking fan, so it's not that I don't like the Vikings. This is a bit over the top though. Leave the field intact if the Vikings are not going to pay for the heating coils. I am not in favor of the Vikings even playing at TCF, let alone putting their mark on the field. To me that was one of the pluses of letting the Vikings play on the Gopher's field. We would get to see the block M during the game. Next are they going to cover all the seats with purple chairs and cover the national championship and big ten title years.
 

How many rows of temporary seating in the West endzone will it take to get to 5000 seats? They'll have to work around the scoreboard to make that happen. I could care less about the heating coils and logos on the field. The block M will be there on Saturday, the gophers don't need heating coils, and the Vikings are paying millions.
 

Iceland12 said:
Saw that yesterday. Pretty lame wasn't it. Took it as posturing on the Vikings part, hoping to get the U to kick-in on some of the cost. The Players Association, not to mention the Commissioner with his "player safety" campaign, would go ballistic if they thought the Vikings could be playing December, let alone January games on a rock hard field.
Click to expand...

I took it the exact same way. I hope the Vikings remember they are getting a half a billion dollars in public funding. Why appear as you are 'bullying' the U?

If you aren't going to install heating coils there is absolutely no need to replace the field when the Vikings begin play at TCF. Leave the end zones and M as they are. Paint Vikings and NFL logo on the field for Vike games and remove/paint over for Gopher games.

The Vikings will be 'tenants' not co-owners of TCF.
 

joshvanklomp said:
They're gonna give you a brand new field after they leave, so what's the big deal?
They're gonna have the Gopher logos on Saturdays, so what's the big deal?

As for the heating coils, you realize they're deciding between that and a heated tarp right? It's not like they're going to go without any heating mechanism.

As for the advertising you guys are worried about losing, don't you think the Vikings feel the same way?
Click to expand...

The big deal in regards to the logos at midfield is that the block "M" is a permanent fixture in the turf at this time. Exchanging that logo out each the Vikings play and back again would require either painting it on which wouldn't look good in the long term or an interchangeable logo which creates seems in the turf which heightens the risk of injuries.

The heating coil issue was to be part of the original contract the U signed with the Vikings / NFL. Again, this permanent fix creates better field condidtions than a covered heating tarp would. Do you think the NFL would want a replay of the original NFL game at TCF Bank Stadium without the coils come every December and January game?

What advertising would the Vikings be losing out on without their logo for 2 years? The Vikings are one of 32 teams professional teams with backing of a billion dollar entity - the NFL and its billion dollar corporate advertising clientele. The U is one of 120+ D1 schools whose games are not nearly as viewed on TV nationwide as a typical NFL game.

Why again should the U fight this?
 



The blank field has some advantages.

If McGuire wants to move Minnesota United from Blaine, a blank field ready to make soccer markings is available.

If the U wants to start a lax program or host the MSHL lax championship, blank field.
 

station19 said:
I took it the exact same way. I hope the Vikings remember they are getting a half a billion dollars in public funding. Why appear as you are 'bullying' the U?

If you aren't going to install heating coils there is absolutely no need to replace the field when the Vikings begin play at TCF. Leave the end zones and M as they are. Paint Vikings and NFL logo on the field for Vike games and remove/paint over for Gopher games.

The Vikings will be 'tenants' not co-owners of TCF.
Click to expand...

Damn right 19. These cheap bastards should be putting in the best heating system money can buy.
Take half a billion in state funding, put in the heating coils or GTFOta here.
 

Doesn't this go against the agreement the Vikings already made with the U? I know it was posted in a previous thread, but didn't that include language that endzone markings, sidelines and a few other elements would be permanent? So that would mean not a blank field.

Plus if you let them push the U around and not agree to the same type of field as in the signed agreement, then what guarantees the Vikings wouldn't back out of installing new turf once they leave? I say don't budge on what was agreed upon in the first place. Not to mention a heated tarp wouldn't be able to operate during the game, unless this is a tarp that is installed under the field (I am not familiar with what Buffalo has).
 

Full disclosure here, I'm not a Vikings guy in the least (Detroit Lions fan, save your jokes - I've heard them all), and my disenchantment with the NFL seems to be continually growing these days. This nonsense doesn't help.

I understand the whole 'being a good neighbor' with the Vikings, but if the much more historic Chicago Bears franchise could find a way to play their games at Illinois' Memorial Stadium during Soldier Field renovations, 3 hours out of Chicago, without ripping up the field and changing logos, how is it that the Vikings can't abide this? (I realize the Vikings will be at TCF much longer, but the Vikings are fortunate to even have this option.
 



norman dale said:
The big deal in regards to the logos at midfield is that the block "M" is a permanent fixture in the turf at this time. Exchanging that logo out each the Vikings play and back again would require either painting it on which wouldn't look good in the long term or an interchangeable logo which creates seems in the turf which heightens the risk of injuries.

The heating coil issue was to be part of the original contract the U signed with the Vikings / NFL. Again, this permanent fix creates better field condidtions than a covered heating tarp would. Do you think the NFL would want a replay of the original NFL game at TCF Bank Stadium without the coils come every December and January game?

What advertising would the Vikings be losing out on without their logo for 2 years? The Vikings are one of 32 teams professional teams with backing of a billion dollar entity - the NFL and its billion dollar corporate advertising clientele. The U is one of 120+ D1 schools whose games are not nearly as viewed on TV nationwide as a typical NFL game.

Why again should the U fight this?
Click to expand...

The Vikings are buying the U a new field when they leave, so longterm isn't really an issue here.

The heating blanket wouldn't create the same issue as there was in the Bears/Vikings game. The field won't be covered with a foot of snow before they put the tarp on for the first time.

Do you really think the M is going to be such a big boost in advertising for the U?
 

joshvanklomp said:
Do you really think the M is going to be such a big boost in advertising for the U?
Click to expand...

Let's follow that logic to its conclusion: Should ripping up a perfectly good field just to replace that M with a viking head be such an important thing, especially considering we are now potentially taking the original reason for ripping that field up, heating coils, off the table?

If it is no big deal, it works both ways, right?
 

Schnauzer said:
Let's follow that logic to its conclusion: Should ripping up a perfectly good field just to replace that M with a viking head be such an important thing, especially considering we are now potentially taking the original reason for ripping that field up, heating coils, off the table?

If it is no big deal, it works both ways, right?
Click to expand...

There's been no indication that a Vikings logo would be put midfield.
 

joshvanklomp said:
There's been no indication that a Vikings logo would be put midfield.
Click to expand...

“A new field will be put in without any of the markings. So it will be a green field that we can paint our logo on Sundays and Gophers logos on Saturdays.”

I suppose we can argue about the word "midfield" but I think anyone reading the quote above can guess what it means.
 

Gopher Bandanna Guy said:
Full disclosure here, I'm not a Vikings guy in the least (Detroit Lions fan, save your jokes - I've heard them all), and my disenchantment with the NFL seems to be continually growing these days. This nonsense doesn't help.

I understand the whole 'being a good neighbor' with the Vikings, but if the much more historic Chicago Bears franchise could find a way to play their games at Illinois' Memorial Stadium during Soldier Field renovations, 3 hours out of Chicago, without ripping up the field and changing logos, how is it that the Vikings can't abide this? (I realize the Vikings will be at TCF much longer, but the Vikings are fortunate to even have this option.
Click to expand...

Well said Sir.

I have been a Gopher fan since 1960(before the Vikings arrived) and have been a Viking fan since the mid 60's. During the 70's, 80's and even the 90's I was more heavily invested in the Vikings. The public posturing/bullying/arrogance of the Vikings is beginning to make me less and less of a Viking fan.

It's time for President Kaler to make a public statement such as..."The University of Minnesota is proud and happy to provide and in-state stadium for the Minnesota Vikings to play their home games during the years their new indoor stadium is being constructed. We look forward to working with the Vikings to help provide a positive game day atmosphere for their games at our stadium. However any and all changes to TCF Bank Stadium and field will be at the sole discretion of The University of Minnesota."
 

RodentRampage said:
The Vikings need TCF more than the Gophers need the Vikings to play there. I'm not suggesting that the U gouge the Vikings, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. Just because you're not gouging them doesn't mean you have to be a doormat.
Click to expand...

This.

F the Vikings.
 

Gopherdrummer said:
Doesn't this go against the agreement the Vikings already made with the U? I know it was posted in a previous thread, but didn't that include language that endzone markings, sidelines and a few other elements would be permanent? So that would mean not a blank field.

Plus if you let them push the U around and not agree to the same type of field as in the signed agreement, then what guarantees the Vikings wouldn't back out of installing new turf once they leave? I say don't budge on what was agreed upon in the first place. Not to mention a heated tarp wouldn't be able to operate during the game, unless this is a tarp that is installed under the field (I am not familiar with what Buffalo has).
Click to expand...


Good point. The Vikings seem to think that they have the U over a barrel. It's true that there would be backlash if the U tried to turn the thumbscrews on the Vikings, and it would probably result in the legislature meddling again, but there have to be limits. If the Vikings think that they have such great leverage over the U, they may renege on putting in a second new turf after the Vikings leave. I can easily imagine the local media running with the Vikings narrative that the U is being unreasonable in demanding a new turf when the existing turf is only two years old.

The M is too valuable as advertising for the U to give up. The Vikings might like to have their logo at midfield, but 1) it's not their stadium, tough and 2) You're already watching a Vikings game. You should know it's the Vikings.

We should really get this settled now, in 30 years the Vikings may well be wanted to rent TCF again when they get another new stadium.
 

Gopherdrummer said:
Doesn't this go against the agreement the Vikings already made with the U? I know it was posted in a previous thread, but didn't that include language that endzone markings, sidelines and a few other elements would be permanent? So that would mean not a blank field.

Plus if you let them push the U around and not agree to the same type of field as in the signed agreement, then what guarantees the Vikings wouldn't back out of installing new turf once they leave? I say don't budge on what was agreed upon in the first place. Not to mention a heated tarp wouldn't be able to operate during the game, unless this is a tarp that is installed under the field (I am not familiar with what Buffalo has).
Click to expand...

The wording was a little difficult to parse without additional context, but now that this interview provides that context it seems clear the agreement was saying the out of bounds boundary lines/yard lines/end zone lines/etc will be permanent and the interior markings (what is written in the endzones, hash marks, midfield logo, etc) will be painted on for Gopher games and then changed out for Vikings games. Per the agreement, the Vikings are responsible for the costs of the labor/materials to make that happen.

In the long run I don't think it's a big deal. The U would have gotten some benefit from having their brand displayed during NFL games, but I suspect it wouldn't have been massive. Also, it's a boost that don't currently get so the U isn't losing anything. The current turf would need replacing after the 2015 season anyhow (life of FieldTurf is approx 7 years). Instead of having to pay for new permanent Gopher turf, the U gets it free thanks to the Vikings when they leave. Whether it's heating coils or a heated blanket, the Gophers will now own a piece of equipment that will improve field conditions for any extreme weather games without having to pay for it. And the Gophers will still have their traditional markings on the field (albeit in a way that is less vibrant) during the 2 seasons the Vikings are playing at TCF. Additionally, all sorts of other capital improvements (increased beer points of sale, heating areas in the concourse similar to those at Target Field, heat tracing of the plumbing which makes it feasible to hold outdoor hockey, etc) will be made by the Vikings that will improve the stadium further for fans and the U. Again, all at no cost to the U.

Could the U have struck a harder bargain? I'm sure they could. Are they getting screwed in any way? No. TCF is being improved upon and costs that U would have been on the hook for in the future (new turf, field heating tool of some kind, POS improvements for beer, etc) are being made at no cost to the U.
 

Let's be honest here, the U never even allows snow to cover the M on the field. I highly doubt that they'll allow the logo to be replaced in the middle of the field. I can see a green field that allows any other logos to go wherever the Vikings want in the end zones and remainder of the field, but I would be VERY surprised to see them allow the block M to be replaced in the middle of the field.
 

RodentRampage said:
Good point. The Vikings seem to think that they have the U over a barrel. It's true that there would be backlash if the U tried to turn the thumbscrews on the Vikings, and it would probably result in the legislature meddling again, but there have to be limits. If the Vikings think that they have such great leverage over the U, they may renege on putting in a second new turf after the Vikings leave. I can easily imagine the local media running with the Vikings narrative that the U is being unreasonable in demanding a new turf when the existing turf is only two years old.

The M is too valuable as advertising for the U to give up. The Vikings might like to have their logo at midfield, but 1) it's not their stadium, tough and 2) You're already watching a Vikings game. You should know it's the Vikings.

We should really get this settled now, in 30 years the Vikings may well be wanted to rent TCF again when they get another new stadium.
Click to expand...

Nothing Bagley said contradicts the agreement as previously released though. The Vikings are clearly driving for the best deal, but they also aren't changing terms or anything like that. This is just more public detail that fleshes out what the language in the deal actually specifies (as it was unclear at the time of release).
 

GoAUpher said:
Could the U have struck a harder bargain? I'm sure they could. Are they getting screwed in any way? No. TCF is being improved upon and costs that U would have been on the hook for in the future (new turf, field heating tool of some kind, POS improvements for beer, etc) are being made at no cost to the U.
Click to expand...

Ruining a perfectly good meltdown. Just. Stop.
 

Gopherlovin said:
Let's be honest here, the U never even allows snow to cover the M on the field. I highly doubt that they'll allow the logo to be replaced in the middle of the field. I can see a green field that allows any other logos to go wherever the Vikings want in the end zones and remainder of the field, but I would be VERY surprised to see them allow the block M to be replaced in the middle of the field.
Click to expand...
My guess based on the wording of facilities agreement and the context Bagley's comments provide is that the Vikings logo will come off the field as soon as their game is done. However, given the desire to keep the Gopher logos looking their best on Saturday I suspect that means the field will be green for the remainder of the week until it is painted as close to gametime as possible.
 

Gopherlovin said:
Let's be honest here, the U never even allows snow to cover the M on the field. I highly doubt that they'll allow the logo to be replaced in the middle of the field. I can see a green field that allows any other logos to go wherever the Vikings want in the end zones and remainder of the field, but I would be VERY surprised to see them allow the block M to be replaced in the middle of the field.
Click to expand...
prepare to be surprised
 

The three P's

joshvanklomp said:
They're gonna give you a brand new field after they leave, so what's the big deal?
They're gonna have the Gopher logos on Saturdays, so what's the big deal?

As for the heating coils, you realize they're deciding between that and a heated tarp right? It's not like they're going to go without any heating mechanism.

As for the advertising you guys are worried about losing, don't you think the Vikings feel the same way?
Click to expand...

The non profit, called the NFL can subordinate its revenue to the Gophers every day of the week. Don't lower the flag!
 

station19 said:
It's time for President Kaler to make a public statement such as..."The University of Minnesota is proud and happy to provide and in-state stadium for the Minnesota Vikings to play their home games during the years their new indoor stadium is being constructed. We look forward to working with the Vikings to help provide a positive game day atmosphere for their games at our stadium. However any and all changes to TCF Bank Stadium and field will be at the sole discretion of The University of Minnesota."
Click to expand...

I like this statement very much, especially the last sentence, fire that off to Kaler and Teague! We're doing the Vikings a favor here, not vice versa. Let's not be treated like its some great honor to have a professional team grace our facilities, and we should now be supplicant to all the Vikings demands.
 

GoAUpher said:
Could the U have struck a harder bargain? I'm sure they could. Are they getting screwed in any way? No. TCF is being improved upon and costs that U would have been on the hook for in the future (new turf, field heating tool of some kind, POS improvements for beer, etc) are being made at no cost to the U.
Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying, but I keep coming back to why do the Vikings need to push the whole field issue when the Bears didn't get it in Champagne. Seems like the Vikings' requests are a bit petty to me, in the grand scheme of what's coming with their new digs.
 

Gopher Bandanna Guy said:
I hear what you are saying, but I keep coming back to why do the Vikings need to push the whole field issue when the Bears didn't get it in Champagne. Seems like the Vikings' requests are a bit petty to me, in the grand scheme of what's coming with their new digs.
Click to expand...

Because the Bears didn't pay to replace the Illini turf twice or even once.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom