TCF Bank Stadium may play host to MLS soccer for a season

Donate To GopherHole


How many seats does the lower bowl hold? They'd probably not sell tickets in the upper deck except for the first couple games and the post season. I'm sure it's more than the the proposed 20,000 they're building but I'm curious how much more.
 




Thought they don't like playing on turf. Is this while the St. Paul stadiums is being built?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 






They put down sod over the turf for the last soccer match - Manchester City vs ?

Possible option again?
 

I don't think the Euro teams thought the sod was any good to play on either. I believe there are MLS teams that have stadiums with turf so it shouldn't be a big deal. Would definitely be easier to schedule than at target field. I'm all for this and can't wait to buy my MLS season tickets.
 

Laying sod over turf never did make any sense.

I suppose this would mean painting and repainting the field another year.
 

The sod they laid over the turf was a train wreck. They won't do it again. They'll likely suffer with turf for the year, but it's still a better venue than target field for soccer. My main concern at this point is not where we play but whether we can keep our name.
 



I'm not a soccer fan at all and would rather not have to see the stadium shared again. If they do play soccer there hope the Gophers can get some very good money out of it and just keep the Gopher logos on the turf instead of repainting it every game. Wasn't there something about how the Vikings would pay for new turf when they leave and the logos would be sewn in instead of painted?
 

Goldy Gopher said:
I'm not a soccer fan at all and would rather not have to see the stadium shared again. If they do play soccer there hope the Gophers can get some very good money out of it and just keep the Gopher logos on the turf instead of repainting it every game. Wasn't there something about how the Vikings would pay for new turf when they leave and the logos would be sewn in instead of painted?
Click to expand...

The United don't have the money to do what the Vikings did. They'll want lines on the field and not much else. Maybe they'll paint the field how they want it, but the temporary seats are definitely gone.
 

beavergopher said:
Yuk
Click to expand...

True insight. Baseball fans felt the same way about pro football. In 1930.

The Lorax said:
Turf is indeed awful for soccer. Many MLS teams use it though
Click to expand...

The new turf is so much like grass. More and more soccer teams are moving toward it because of the maintenance and the fact that it acts about 90% like grass. Not like the 70's AstroTurf at all. Seattle, New England, Vancouver, Orlando, and defending Champion Portland all play on it. All those franchises are pretty successful. More European and Asian teams are added to that list each year.

Goldy Gopher said:
I'm not a soccer fan at all and would rather not have to see the stadium shared again. If they do play soccer there hope the Gophers can get some very good money out of it and just keep the Gopher logos on the turf instead of repainting it every game. Wasn't there something about how the Vikings would pay for new turf when they leave and the logos would be sewn in instead of painted?
Click to expand...

Yes, we should only use it 7 times a year. Should be shuttered the rest of the year.

mnsportsgeek said:
The United don't have the money to do what the Vikings did. They'll want lines on the field and not much else. Maybe they'll paint the field how they want it, but the temporary seats are definitely gone.
Click to expand...

$150M expansion fee. They have money.
 

Goldy Gopher said:
I'm not a soccer fan at all and would rather not have to see the stadium shared again. If they do play soccer there hope the Gophers can get some very good money out of it and just keep the Gopher logos on the turf instead of repainting it every game. Wasn't there something about how the Vikings would pay for new turf when they leave and the logos would be sewn in instead of painted?
Click to expand...

I agree. The Gophers should not do this unless it provides a good financial incentive. No reason to let the MLS team play rent free or for cheap rent. The Gophers should get as much as the vikings gave or at the least proportional to the attendance and parking and hassle it causes campus. Not all games are on Sundays.
 

Ralph_Wiggum said:
I agree. The Gophers should not do this unless it provides a good financial incentive. No reason to let the MLS team play rent free or for cheap rent. The Gophers should get as much as the vikings gave or at the least proportional to the attendance and parking and hassle it causes campus. Not all games are on Sundays.
Click to expand...

Joke post, right? Most of the season occurs when school is out. Naysayers are not thinking straight on this one. Provincialism. United will pay market rate.
 



I went to a few games in Philadelphia at their new stadium. It was a fun time. Lots of tailgating before the game, usually nice weather and what not. I don't hate soccer and they have some crazy fans too. I would expect that with the popularity of soccer in MN that they would fill a 20k stadium (unless they suck).
 

highwayman said:
The new turf is so much like grass. More and more soccer teams are moving toward it because of the maintenance and the fact that it acts about 90% like grass. Not like the 70's AstroTurf at all. Seattle, New England, Vancouver, Orlando, and defending Champion Portland all play on it. All those franchises are pretty successful. More European and Asian teams are added to that list each year.
Click to expand...
Meh, I've played on it many many times. It's okay, but not for elite level competition. There's a reason the World Cup doesn't allow it. (and why there was such controversy when they made the women play on it this past summer)
 

The Lorax said:
Meh, I've played on it many many times. It's okay, but not for elite level competition. There's a reason the World Cup doesn't allow it. (and why there was such controversy when they made the women play on it this past summer)
Click to expand...


Except World Cup has been played on it several times. Not not allowed. Provincialism. Mind refracts facts. Eventually, all high level sport will be played on artificial turf.
 

highwayman said:
Except World Cup has been played on it several times. Not not allowed. Provincialism. Mind refracts facts. Eventually, all high level sport will be played on artificial turf.
Click to expand...

I'll direct you to: http://quality.fifa.com/en/Football-Turf/About-Football-Turf/What-is-Football-Turf/

They're clearly continuing to try and develop and test new turf (as they're obviously testing it on the U17 and WWC) because it's cheaper than grass. If you think the quality of the turf is anywhere close to grass yet, you've never played soccer before
 

highwayman said:
Except World Cup has been played on it several times. Not not allowed. Provincialism. Mind refracts facts. Eventually, all high level sport will be played on artificial turf.
Click to expand...

...said the sales rep from FieldTurf.

Please elucidate us as to which Barclay's Premier League teams play on artificial turf? I think it will be a generation or more before you will consistently see it in high level competition.
 

highwayman said:
More and more soccer teams are moving toward it because of the maintenance and the fact that it acts about 90% like grass. More European and Asian teams are added to that list each year.
Click to expand...

That's not true. I don't think there is a single European club in ANY of the top leagues (England, Spain, Germany, Italy, France) that plays on an artificial surface.
 




So zero clubs in any of the top 4 European leagues play on an artificial surface. And two clubs in the French league (being generous including Ligue 1 in my top 5) have recently moved to turf. Hardly a major trend.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom