"Painted Field" for shared time with Vikings?

Donate To GopherHole
Parski1 said:
I'm talking about the wear and tear the Vikes added to the field. Station17 still can't tell us where he came up with replacing the field again after 2 years.
Click to expand...

I read it somewhere as well. It was linked on here. I really don't care enough to search for it though.
 

station19 said:
The first time would be because they have to tear up the field to install heating coils. I am assuming that can't re-install the same turf.

The second would be because the U would not want an inferior field from what they had before the Vikes showed up and started painting the field. I read it in either PP or Strib when the agreement was finalized.

Make that 20 games....2 exhibition games each year. They might play one home game in Europe however.
Click to expand...

Note to self: don't doubt station (here comes a +19)

The Vikings are also responsible, as a Facility Improvement Expense, for the cost of University’s replacement of the turf at the end of the Use Period with new turf with permanent markings as selected by University. The Vikings may offer or propose to University the installation of particular replacement field turf at any time during this Agreement, but University retains the right to make all decisions related to the replacement turf installation at the TCF Bank Stadium.

http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/Facility+Use+Agreement+executed+by+Vikings-04.28.2013+.pdf
 

joshvanklomp said:
Note to self: don't doubt station (here comes a +19)

The Vikings are also responsible, as a Facility Improvement Expense, for the cost of University’s replacement of the turf at the end of the Use Period with new turf with permanent markings as selected by University. The Vikings may offer or propose to University the installation of particular replacement field turf at any time during this Agreement, but University retains the right to make all decisions related to the replacement turf installation at the TCF Bank Stadium.

http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/Facility+Use+Agreement+executed+by+Vikings-04.28.2013+.pdf
Click to expand...

Is that a call Bert?

+19

:clap:
 

joshvanklomp said:
Note to self: don't doubt station (here comes a +19)

The Vikings are also responsible, as a Facility Improvement Expense, for the cost of University’s replacement of the turf at the end of the Use Period with new turf with permanent markings as selected by University. The Vikings may offer or propose to University the installation of particular replacement field turf at any time during this Agreement, but University retains the right to make all decisions related to the replacement turf installation at the TCF Bank Stadium.

http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/Facility+Use+Agreement+executed+by+Vikings-04.28.2013+.pdf
Click to expand...

Also from link:

"Field Markings and Replacement Turf. The field will be marked according to Vikings’ specifications as a Game Day Expense. The Vikings’ field markings will be painted, with the exception of the end zone in-lays, yard lines, teams’ bench areas, photo-security line, and out-of-bounds lines, which will be permanent markings"
 

station19 said:
Also from link:

"Field Markings and Replacement Turf. The field will be marked according to Vikings’ specifications as a Game Day Expense. The Vikings’ field markings will be painted, with the exception of the end zone in-lays, yard lines, teams’ bench areas, photo-security line, and out-of-bounds lines, which will be permanent markings"
Click to expand...

I thought the bench areas would have temporary markings, since the NFL bench area is much smaller than the college bench area. In addition it is trapezoidal, rather than rectangular.
 


station19 said:
The Vikings do not make money by having their logo on the field. You can't just say they make money because 'it builds their brand'. That's the same as saying 'just because'. If the Vikes were to have advertising on the field(like Cub Foods) then yes they would be making money.
Click to expand...

This is a bit of a stretch. Do they increase cash flow? No. Do they increase the value of their asset (brand)? Yes. It's not saying 'just cause'. Go ask Red McCombs. He didn't sell the team for book value.
 

" Oh Little Darlings, yeh,yeh, little darlings, yea,yea, yea...." I believe the Diamonds were the singing group. It should be the Vikings theme song. I hope when the Vikings leave for their erector set POS stadium they fumigate TCF Stadium to get the purple stench out of there.
 

station19 said:
Also from link:

"Field Markings and Replacement Turf. The field will be marked according to Vikings’ specifications as a Game Day Expense. The Vikings’ field markings will be painted, with the exception of the end zone in-lays, yard lines, teams’ bench areas, photo-security line, and out-of-bounds lines, which will be permanent markings"
Click to expand...

Any word on who approves what the permanent markings look like on the field during the Use Period? My guess is both parties have to come to an agreement (since the Vikings have to pay for all the paint they use). A few options I could see happening:

1. Very generic end zone in-lays that say Minnesota and thus wouldn't look out of place with whatever logo is painted at midfield
2. A field that we see now (with the assumption that the U has the final approval on any change during the Use Period), but the hash marks are left off the turf since they would need to be painted. Maybe they have permanent hashes with different colors. Big Ten logo is painted on for Gopher Gamedays as is the NFL logo. Maybe NO logo will be seen at midfield? Perhaps the numbers have a different font and slightly different location (I think the NFL has rules about field numbers to keep playing surfaces relatively the same)
3. Blank end-zone in lays to accommodate painting. Just because they need to be permanent doesn't mean they have to have content in them. Granted, this depends on who gives final approval

Either way I still read this article as saying hash marks will be painted. Neither the article, or the agreement between the Vikings and the U specify if the Vikings logo will be painted on the field. It just talks about field markings. That could be strictly to alter the field of play to meet NFL standards. Now, if the NFL has rules about having some kind of NFL licensed logo at midfield (remember, not all NFL teams put their logo at midfield, some have the NFL shield), that would count as a field marking.

And $10 says the replacement field after the Use Period will use the new Gopher Football font. We have a brand to promote too.
 

Gopherdrummer said:
Any word on who approves what the permanent markings look like on the field during the Use Period? My guess is both parties have to come to an agreement (since the Vikings have to pay for all the paint they use). A few options I could see happening:

1. Very generic end zone in-lays that say Minnesota and thus wouldn't look out of place with whatever logo is painted at midfield
2. A field that we see now (with the assumption that the U has the final approval on any change during the Use Period), but the hash marks are left off the turf since they would need to be painted. Maybe they have permanent hashes with different colors. Big Ten logo is painted on for Gopher Gamedays as is the NFL logo. Maybe NO logo will be seen at midfield? Perhaps the numbers have a different font and slightly different location (I think the NFL has rules about field numbers to keep playing surfaces relatively the same)
3. Blank end-zone in lays to accommodate painting. Just because they need to be permanent doesn't mean they have to have content in them. Granted, this depends on who gives final approval

Either way I still read this article as saying hash marks will be painted. Neither the article, or the agreement between the Vikings and the U specify if the Vikings logo will be painted on the field. It just talks about field markings. That could be strictly to alter the field of play to meet NFL standards. Now, if the NFL has rules about having some kind of NFL licensed logo at midfield (remember, not all NFL teams put their logo at midfield, some have the NFL shield), that would count as a field marking.

And $10 says the replacement field after the Use Period will use the new Gopher Football font. We have a brand to promote too.
Click to expand...

My take is the 'exceptions' will be the same as they are now or very similar. I could be wrong though.
 



joshvanklomp said:
Note to self: don't doubt station (here comes a +19)

The Vikings are also responsible, as a Facility Improvement Expense, for the cost of University’s replacement of the turf at the end of the Use Period with new turf with permanent markings as selected by University. The Vikings may offer or propose to University the installation of particular replacement field turf at any time during this Agreement, but University retains the right to make all decisions related to the replacement turf installation at the TCF Bank Stadium.

http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/Facility+Use+Agreement+executed+by+Vikings-04.28.2013+.pdf
Click to expand...

BTW thanks for finding the link.
 

Wonder if parski will apologize for being wrong......doubt it
 


Gopherdrummer said:
Any word on who approves what the permanent markings look like on the field during the Use Period? My guess is both parties have to come to an agreement (since the Vikings have to pay for all the paint they use). A few options I could see happening:

1. Very generic end zone in-lays that say Minnesota and thus wouldn't look out of place with whatever logo is painted at midfield
2. A field that we see now (with the assumption that the U has the final approval on any change during the Use Period), but the hash marks are left off the turf since they would need to be painted. Maybe they have permanent hashes with different colors. Big Ten logo is painted on for Gopher Gamedays as is the NFL logo. Maybe NO logo will be seen at midfield? Perhaps the numbers have a different font and slightly different location (I think the NFL has rules about field numbers to keep playing surfaces relatively the same)
3. Blank end-zone in lays to accommodate painting. Just because they need to be permanent doesn't mean they have to have content in them. Granted, this depends on who gives final approval

Either way I still read this article as saying hash marks will be painted. Neither the article, or the agreement between the Vikings and the U specify if the Vikings logo will be painted on the field. It just talks about field markings. That could be strictly to alter the field of play to meet NFL standards. Now, if the NFL has rules about having some kind of NFL licensed logo at midfield (remember, not all NFL teams put their logo at midfield, some have the NFL shield), that would count as a field marking.

And $10 says the replacement field after the Use Period will use the new Gopher Football font. We have a brand to promote too.
Click to expand...




Disagree. Our 'brand' is the block M at midfield. Do you want to change that or have the endzone and midfield be different? The same with the other Gopher sports venues.
 



Gopherdrummer said:
And $10 says the replacement field after the Use Period will use the new Gopher Football font. We have a brand to promote too.
Click to expand...

This would make me very happy! I love the new uniforms, font, and color scheme, I hope they keep them forever!
 

It is nice to see a senior finally get some credit here! Congratulations staion19. You have gotten all those ones back that Parski tried to take away form you.
 

station19 said:
[/B]

Disagree. Our 'brand' is the block M at midfield. Do you want to change that or have the endzone and midfield be different? The same with the other Gopher sports venues.
Click to expand...

I was not suggesting the Block M be replaced. As you said, almost all sports venues now have a giant block M. But when the new unis were introduced, Nike gave Gopher Football a custom font that no one else uses. We instantly saw the AD go all in putting that font where ever they could for anything Gopher Football. A big discussion when the turf is replaced over the next few years, will be whether or not to use that font for the numbers and the lettering in the endzones. The font is also a part of the Gopher Football brand. Some AD's go even farther and have all sports teams leverage the same font (see MSU), we haven't gone that route.
 

station19 said:
I assumed they would have to replace the field when they install the heating coils. I could be wrong on that.

I read somewhere in the agreement that the Vikes would be replacing the field to the original state when they are through playing at TCF(which only makes sense). Not going to bother looking for a link.

I still don't understand why the Vikes would want to make the field look all Vikings. What do they really gain. Advertising income I could understand. How about if one end zone is purple and gold Vikings(on Viking days), and the other end zone is maroon and gold MINNESOTA?
Click to expand...

They will have to replace the turf to put in the heating coils, but once that's good, the turf would still be good for a number of years. It would be a waste to replace it after two years.
 

RodentRampage said:
They will have to replace the turf to put in the heating coils, but once that's good, the turf would still be good for a number of years. It would be a waste to replace it after two years.
Click to expand...

It's the Vikings waste to pay for. And it's a waste that will get the U a field with permanent Gopher details that don't need repainting. Sounds good to me.
 


badgergopher said:
This is a bit of a stretch. Do they increase cash flow? No. Do they increase the value of their asset (brand)? Yes. It's not saying 'just cause'. Go ask Red McCombs. He didn't sell the team for book value.
Click to expand...

So Red McCombs made a large profit on the sale of the Vikings because he had VIKINGS painted on the field for two years.
 

Everyone, I put a lot of the information from this thread, including the PDF, on The Daily Gopher for more fans to read. For a quick read, I suggest you checkout my post, specifically the comments from GoAUpher, who gave a summary of the PDF. I think if you read this you will become much happier about the deal. By the way, station19 was correct, as others have already pointed out.
 

RodentRampage said:
They will have to replace the turf to put in the heating coils, but once that's good, the turf would still be good for a number of years. It would be a waste to replace it after two years.
Click to expand...

If they were to replace the turf(when the coils are installed) with the same as it is now, you may have an argument. Since the Vikings will be 'altering' the Gopher field they by all means need to replace it.
 

Norsk_Gopher said:
Everyone, I put a lot of the information from this thread, including the PDF, on The Daily Gopher for more fans to read. For a quick read, I suggest you checkout my post, specifically the comments from GoAUpher, who gave a summary of the PDF. I think if you read this you will become much happier about the deal. By the way, station19 was correct, as others have already pointed out.
Click to expand...


Whoooooo boy, are we gonna hear it now.
 

joshvanklomp said:
Note to self: don't doubt station (here comes a +19)

The Vikings are also responsible, as a Facility Improvement Expense, for the cost of University’s replacement of the turf at the end of the Use Period with new turf with permanent markings as selected by University. The Vikings may offer or propose to University the installation of particular replacement field turf at any time during this Agreement, but University retains the right to make all decisions related to the replacement turf installation at the TCF Bank Stadium.

http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/Facility+Use+Agreement+executed+by+Vikings-04.28.2013+.pdf
Click to expand...
Hopefully with the correct maroon and font in the end zones this time.
 


station19 said:
I know I read the replacement(when the Vikes leave) somewhere. Like I said it only makes sense.

The Vikings do not make money by having their logo on the field. You can't just say they make money because 'it builds their brand'. That's the same as saying 'just because'. If the Vikes were to have advertising on the field(like Cub Foods) then yes they would be making money.

When the Vikes played at Ford Field that was a field that was already painted and for the DETROIT LIONS, not the MINNESOTA GOPHERS. I'm pretty sure when the Bears played at Illinois the field still said ILLINOIS.

As far as my idea for one end zone being purple and gold VIKINGS and one end zone being maroon and gold MINNESOTA.....that was for Viking games. It would be all maroon and gold for Gopher games. That way they would only have to paint one end zone each game. That way the Vikes would have their brand and still pay respect to the University. How could anyone be upset about that?

Edit: The agreement also states the Vikings will pay for all operational costs. The way the U allocated costs for the beer garden the U could take in way more than 3 mill per year.:)
Click to expand...

i think you are correct about this. i think i remember seeing the field at memorial stadium still reading "illinois" when the bears played there for a year or two while soldier field was being renovated.

to those disagreeing with the pro-U of M sentiment on this issue, why should the gophers have to treat the vikings any different than the illini treated the bears?
 

supadupafly said:
i think you are correct about this. i think i remember seeing the field at memorial stadium still reading "illinois" when the bears played there for a year or two while soldier field was being renovated.

to those disagreeing with the pro-U of M sentiment on this issue, why should the gophers have to treat the vikings any different than the illini treated the bears?
Click to expand...

Illinois didn't have to rip out their turf to install heating coils and the Vikings are going to pay for two sets of new turf. It's known as being accommodating.
 

No matter what the University and the Vikings agree to, there are going to be people who complain. What else is new?
 


Killjoy said:
It is nice to see a senior finally get some credit here! Congratulations staion19. You have gotten all those ones back that Parski tried to take away form you.
Click to expand...

What did I take away from Station19 you goof?

Good job 19 you found the link....props to you. Turf will be replaced twice which is a pleasant surprise. Still hope the M never leaves the 50.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom