Shooter: Gophers/Vikings begin talks to determine a field heating system

Donate To GopherHole
BleedGopher

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
61,972
Reaction score
18,166
Points
113
per Shooter:

The Vikings have begun talks with the Gophers to determine a field heating system while the NFL team uses the University of Minnesota's TCF Bank Stadium.

It's uncertain whether the system will be the blanket-tent-type coverall used for the Buffalo Bills' Ralph Wilson Stadium or underground coils.

Considering the Gophers' field is artificial turf, installing an underground coil system would seem unlikely, especially because the Vikings plan to play only two seasons on campus while their stadium is built.

http://www.twincities.com/vikings/c...rce=rss&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Go Gophers!!
 

I think that Shooter is making a statement he isn't qualified to make. I believe the field is designed for coils. The tent system is expensive to run I'd like to see the full analysis for retrofitting and operating costs. I wouldn't be surprised if they're pretty similar.
 


Bold prediction - the Vikes will want to go with the option that is cheapest to install. Let's face it - when their new stadium opens, they don't need the U anymore, so they will try to nickle and dime the U on every aspect of the stadium sharing agreement. It's like being nice to relatives over the holidays. As soon as they're out the door, you never want to see them again.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
Bold prediction - the Vikes will want to go with the option that is cheapest to install. Let's face it - when their new stadium opens, they don't need the U anymore, so they will try to nickle and dime the U on every aspect of the stadium sharing agreement. It's like being nice to relatives over the holidays. As soon as they're out the door, you never want to see them again.
Click to expand...
You get an absentee owner and they will take any short cut they can get away with.
The NFLPA is basically toothless, so they can probably do whatever they want.
 




The U has the Vikings by the short hairs on this deal A to Z; soup to nuts. The Vikings just plain don't have any leverage. I hope that they grab the Vikes by the nuts and negotiate every last dime and/or stadium improvement we can out of them.
 

I wouldn't count on that. Technically, the U could play hardball, but there are public relations costs for doing that, and the Vikings could play that all day long. Attempting to gouge the Vikings at this point would hurt the U in the long run - it would likely leave the legislature quite uncooperative.
 



Frankly I really don't know that the Gophers would want the coils for generally one game per year at most. It costs a lot of money to maintain them. I forget how much they said they spend at Lambeau maintaining the coil system, but it was a lot of money. The anti-freeze solution needs changing, pumps need maintenance, etc. And heaven forbid there is a leak and some drains into the soil. Unless there is a likelyhood of games in December in the future, I would prefer the blanket/tent whatever if it was up to me. If it fails in the future you just throw it away. You don't rip up the field and remove contaminated soil, replace very expensive components, etc.
 

I am going to wait this out until the negotiations are done before I form an opinion. I really do enjoy reading threads like this one. It makes me laugh.
 

RodentRampage said:
I wouldn't count on that. Technically, the U could play hardball, but there are public relations costs for doing that, and the Vikings could play that all day long. Attempting to gouge the Vikings at this point would hurt the U in the long run - it would likely leave the legislature quite uncooperative.
Click to expand...

We love the Vikings around here, but does anyone like or really care about the financial condition of Zigmond and his cronies? I think generally folks, Vikings fanatics or not, would be amenable to the U squeezing as hard as they can.
 

CWCWCW said:
I will not thank them if I paid for their house.
Click to expand...

Not following the logic. If my relatives want to pay me to use my house on Sunday while I spend all day at the bar, sounds like a win for me.
 



I'm more concerned with Shooter making a conclusion when he doesn't have the facts. It would have been enough to say, that having artificial turf may make coils cost prohibitive, saying it wont be coils is making an assumption. The fact that the two parties are having talks indicates there's not a slam dunk case for either.
 

nsmike said:
I'm more concerned with Shooter making a conclusion when he doesn't have the facts. It would have been enough to say, that having artificial turf may make coils cost prohibitive, saying it wont be coils is making an assumption. The fact that the two parties are having talks indicates there's not a slam dunk case for either.
Click to expand...

:confused:


With Viking games being held in late December and possible playoff games in January I don't really see how a heated/removable covering would work. With days at 10 degrees or less(below zero is definitely possible) and wind, I can't believe the field would not freeze in two or three hours. Keep in mind the tarp has to come off probably 90 minutes before kick-off.....that's three hours just until half-time.
 

This

station19 said:
:confused:


With Viking games being held in late December and possible playoff games in January I don't really see how a heated/removable covering would work. With days at 10 degrees or less(below zero is definitely possible) and wind, I can't believe the field would not freeze in two or three hours. Keep in mind the tarp has to come off probably 90 minutes before kick-off.....that's three hours just until half-time.
Click to expand...

The Vikings did the heated tarp thing on Monday night football and Brett Favre had his head smashed in to the frozn turf and got a concussion. Even if Zygi is penny pinching tight wad, do you really want Adrian Peterson or a highly drafted quarterback playing on a field where they can come away with a concusion in December or January and not be able to play. If they want to play in January in playoff games, they will pull there collective heads out of their butts and put the heating coil system in. I have to think with liabiity issues someof the players would even refus to play if the field conditions are frozen. Concussion lawsuits have just started rolling in to the NFL.

Unless the league and the Vikings want to get all of those star players getting hurt playing on a frozen field at TCF in the next two years they will install the heating coils. The heated tarp system would work for keeping it thawed before games but with the temperatures this year what did we spend 20 consecutive days under 20 degrees this year and January to early February is consistently cold with frequent below zero days. It doesn't take a scientist to figure out that without a consistent heat source under the field not only will it freeze during game time it will during inclement weather become a fie that would become almost unplayable. The field most definately would freze over without a consistent warming source to thaw it out. That fied was fairly frozen during the Wisconsin game this year.
 

Heat rises, I understand the tarp idea, but that does little to fully thaw the field. To have a non frozen field the coil route would make the most sense. The heat would have to travel through the entire playing surface before dissipating into the atmosphere. Thus providing that the rock hard surface from the Bears game won't be repeated.

Along with that it could be adjusted as the game went on, should the temp take a nose dive or snow fall pick up ours possible to add more heat to keep the surface more playable and clean than using the tarp. Yes it seems a bit much for coils but there were complaints that no-one should ever have to play on that field as it was for the Bears game. My money is that coils are the route they choose.

Besides the coils, what else after they doing to better winterize the stadium? Adding and heading elements in tnt concourse? Adding new taps in the concessions for beer, or what are those logistics going to be?
 

With the coils, you can continue to heat the field all the way through the game, with the heated tarp, you're going to have over four hours of the turf getting colder and colder once the tarp is removed. The NFL season used to be over by around Christmas - the 1954 NFL Championship game was played on December 26th. Not the regular season isn't over until the end of December. It can get pretty chilly playing outdoors in late January.
 

It also wouldn't surprise me if Zigi and his henchmen know full well they will be installing heating coils but are using this for a bargaining chip to save money somewhere else.

I don't trust them.
 

Just think what 500 Knipco Heaters could do.
 

Indi1006 said:
We love the Vikings around here, but does anyone like or really care about the financial condition of Zigmond and his cronies? I think generally folks, Vikings fanatics or not, would be amenable to the U squeezing as hard as they can.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I don't see how anyone in the legislature (or elsewhere) would begrudge the U for squeezing as much out of a couple of rich out-of-towners as they can. There's no political party in the state that's against free money at no cost to the locals, regardless of their respective stances on the size of government, taxes, etc.
 

RodentRampage said:
I wouldn't count on that. Technically, the U could play hardball, but there are public relations costs for doing that, and the Vikings could play that all day long. Attempting to gouge the Vikings at this point would hurt the U in the long run - it would likely leave the legislature quite uncooperative.
Click to expand...

Disagree here. There is not exactly a Wilf lovefest over in St. Paul. Most legislators held their noses pretty hard when this deal got done. The legislators who voted for the deal did so mainly for the jobs (DFL) and dollars it brought to businesses (R). I am unfortunate enough to have to spend some time (about 15 days a year) listening and talking to legislators and I have yet to talk to anyone who loved getting the stadium done and who thinks the Wilf's and Lester Bagley are great guys. Many of them would have loved to have had the opportunity to stick it to them, but political calculus said to get the deal done. I suspect there are several on both sides who would like nothing better than for the University to take a tough stance with them. Dems will like it so they can stick it to the rich guy and Repubs will like it because the U is trying to be fiscally responsible by getting the best deal they can. The stadium is a done deal so the legislature has done its job, so there is no leverage the Vikings can play against them. Think about it, if someone forces you to do a deal at the point of a bayonette, which they lost after using on you, would you be worried that the next entity that had to deal with them treated them nicely?
 

If the U tried to turn the thumbscrews on the Vikings, the articles in the news wouldn't likely be written to show the U favorably. Then we get legions of angry Vikings fans screaming at their legislators about how unfairly the U is treating the Vikings. The Vikings deal passed on a bipartisan basis, despite legislatures not much liking the Wilf's, because no one wanted to face the wrath of pissed off Vikings fans.
 

If the Vikes go cheap and opt for the tarp at least they'll have no one to blame but themselves when the punter goes on a tweetfest about the concrete-like turf.
 

RodentRampage said:
If the U tried to turn the thumbscrews on the Vikings, the articles in the news wouldn't likely be written to show the U favorably. Then we get legions of angry Vikings fans screaming at their legislators about how unfairly the U is treating the Vikings. The Vikings deal passed on a bipartisan basis, despite legislatures not much liking the Wilf's, because no one wanted to face the wrath of pissed off Vikings fans.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is a story to anyone beyond a small group of diehards on either side. The bill passed largely thanks to tremendous DFL support (a majority of Republican's in both houses were against the bill 20-16 against in the Senate and 38-33 against in the House) that wanted to use the stadium as a de-facto jobs program and to appease their union donors. Look at the list of legislators who voted for the list and you would be hard pressed to find many who would penalize the University for playing hardball with the Wilfs. I get the argument that there will be some Viking fans who will complain (they already thought it was unfair the way they were painted in the recent Strib article), but it will be far from anything of even remote substance or groundswell. I think you overestimate the majority of Vikings fans that care about their business operations. Most care only what happens on the field and this has no impact on that. The Wilf's are not going to come out and say we skipped spending $ X in FA spending because the U made us put in heating coils. Can you imagine the response the press would have to that? The ownership group is already effectively paying nothing out of pocket for the new stadium. Like I said, there is no one who will get mobilized to support the Vikings here, legislators would love to force the Wilfs to spend more, the press knows that the better story would be "Billionaire owners get a free stadium and now nickel and dime U" and fans are apathetic because they are getting their stadium regardless of whether the Wilfs pay the University a few more bucks.
 

The vikes can pay for the coils and fund an endowment to cover the maintenance in perpetuity. :D
 

The coils are at least worth a little messing with the Vikes ownership.
 

I guess I have a different take on this. The Vikes know they will be moving into a new stadium in 2 years. They have no incentive to sink their money into long-term improvements at the Gophers' field.

My point: If the Vikes say they will not put in heating coils, the U really can't do squat about it. I'm not a lawyer, but as I recall, the agreement talks about upgrades to the field, but does not specifically mention heating coils. I doubt there is anything on paper that is legally enforceable. The Vikes can also point to other teams that use the blanket as proof that heating coils are not "necessary" in this climate.

In the end, the Vikes will do as much or as little as they want to, and short of complaining, the U will have no recourse but to accept it. The Vikes will respond with, "hey, you're getting free improvements to your field. What are you complaining about?"
 

Has the University ever expressed a preference for coils over the electric blanket? I understand that the coils will cost a lot more to maintain and the Gophers only play through November so the heated tarp would seem fine for their purposes. It's the Vikings who will play though December and possibly into mid-January, so they are the ones who will need the coils. The Bears game isn't really a fair test of the usefulness of the tarp since they were trying to thaw a field that had been buried under snow, not one that had been tarped all the time and was never frozen solid.
 

Seems to me that if the U doesn't want the coils long term and the Vikes/NFL want them because they work better (No sure they do) then the U could require the Vikes to pay to uninstall them after the two years.

I don't agree with the Vikes can do anything they have a contract line, they U owns the building and land and the Vikes aren't going to be doing anything without their approval and agreement.

I suspect that the U will be willing to go either way, just as long as the long term impact after the two seasons is taken care of by the Vikes...ie uninstall whatever you install.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom