GoAUpher
Section 246
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,256
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
Some one put on his big boy pants today and is feeling feisty! Those mean old Vikings aren't going to pick on you anymore! No sir!
What improvements are needed for the Vikings to use TCF Bank Stadium?
- Thread starter 2nd Degree Gopher
- Start date
highwayman
Knows Less Than Coaching Staff
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2009
- Messages
- 7,917
- Reaction score
- 1,590
- Points
- 113
Not $11 million dollars expensive.
Yup. I read a few articles about turf installation and radiant heat systems in other football/soccer stadiums. The cost of removing the old turf, installing the system and placing new turf is still in the $2-2.5M range. I assume there is maintenance involved as well.
Umm I have a reason: The University of Minnesota is PUBLIC. The profits from usage of the stadium don't belong to a billionaire from New Jersey once received. That's a pretty logical reason for public money for one, and not the other.
FireDaveLee
Grizzled Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,808
- Reaction score
- 575
- Points
- 113
Nonsense...this wasn't even the strangest post by gopherjay. He's posted multiple praises regarding the vitures of Dave Lee in the past.
RodentRampage
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2008
- Messages
- 9,467
- Reaction score
- 198
- Points
- 63
Heating coils have been around for decades. The field conditions in the 1967 NFL Championship Game in Green Bay (The infamous Ice Bowl) were so because the heating system for the field had failed, not because they didn't have a heating system.
That game was played on December 31. The seasons has gotten longer, and the playoffs go much longer into the winter. This year's NFC Championship Game will be played on the 22nd of January, which is generally colder than New Year's Eve.
The NFL championship game used to be played much earlier than even its 1967 date. In 1960, the NFL championship game was played on December 18th. It simply is not true that teams played this late in the season without heating coils.
Of course, the Gophers aren't playing home games past November, so they aren't needed at TCF. It was hard to justify the added expense when trying to get funding for the stadium. But if the Vikings want to spring for the cost of heating coils, I don't mind.
RodentRampage
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2008
- Messages
- 9,467
- Reaction score
- 198
- Points
- 63
The city of Minneapolis pays to mow the grass in the public parks. I wouldn't expect the city to pay to mow my grass, because the park is public and the other is private.
Also, the U will be using TCF Bank Stadium for decades. If we could have gotten funding to renovate Memorial Stadium, we'd still be there for decades to come. It may well be that no one alive today will be around for the final game at TCF Bank Stadium. With NFL stadiums, 20 or 30 years, and they want another new stadium.
If the Vikings were to leave, there would immediately be a movement to bring another team to the Minnesota, and a new stadium would be built costing at least as much. I'm not saying that a new stadium for the Vikings shouldn't be built, but it doesn't logically follow that just because a new stadium was built for the U with some government funds that a new stadium must be built for the Vikings with government funds.
I'm all for letting the Vikings play at TCF, if they work around the U's schedule, leave it as they found it, and that the U gains from it, whether from direct funds or stadium improvements. Even if the announcers don't spend a lot of time talking about the U, that block M is advertising all on its own.
ruppertflywheel
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 12,226
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
FWIW, I thought coils should've been added in the first place. Didn't TCF come in under budget?
GoAUpher
Section 246
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,256
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
Nope. Every penny got spent. That's why there wasn't originally going to be brick lining the interior wall around the field...they didn't have the money. That neat detail only went in because of a last minute donation of 500K plus from a booster.
As for "should have been added in the first place"...why? Only 1 Gopher game could have benefited from it (Iowa 2010) and even then it really wasn't a factor. I'm glad the U put the 1-2 million it would have cost into something else about the stadium given how infrequently the Gophers will need it. That said, the Vikings are of course welcome to add that feature in.
GoAUpher
Section 246
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,256
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
It would drive them away if the Vikings were there for 3 seasons? Really? (facepalm) Care to offer some reasons for what seems like a ludicrous assertion?
University of Pittsburgh has landed a couple of Top 35 classes over the last few years. Doesn't seem to be driving recruits away there.
GoAUpher
Section 246
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,256
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
And that's an even worse situation given the fact that Pitt is playing in the Steelers' stadium and not the other way around.
You can't be serious.
RailBaronYarr
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 1,285
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
Correct me if I'm wrong on the publicly funded portion of the U's stadium... isn't all the money funded from the state a "bond" that actually needs to be paid back? That was my understanding. And just because the U is a public institution does not mean they should or can be forced in to letting the Vikings use their stadium. If Target Corporate needed to demolish their HQ to put up a new one, would the government offices downtown or the U's empty office buildings (if they had any) be forced to let Target use them? No. Not even if Target offered or was required to pay for the usage. The U can evaluate if the deal works for them - logistically, can they handle the traffic, noise, security, etc, strategically - is it the right move to have seats added, changes made, the image, etc, and benefit-wise - is the money they pay enough to cover costs and then some (obviously stewardship to local companies and other sports teams weighs in here on how much "profit" the U should make).
The Vikings have multiple stadium offers on the table between the Corridor site, Arden Hills, Shakopee, and current Dome site. There is only 1 that requires playing at a different stadium. The burden is on them to recognize that even though playing at TCF may not be as good financially as if it were upgraded or they played elsewhere, their alternatives may cost just as much, and the worst alternative (for them) is leaving MN entirely.
The Vikings have multiple stadium offers on the table between the Corridor site, Arden Hills, Shakopee, and current Dome site. There is only 1 that requires playing at a different stadium. The burden is on them to recognize that even though playing at TCF may not be as good financially as if it were upgraded or they played elsewhere, their alternatives may cost just as much, and the worst alternative (for them) is leaving MN entirely.
GoAUpher
Section 246
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,256
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
The Dome site is a bad choice for a variety of reasons. The Vikings don't want it and I doubt most movers and shakers in the City want it either. That's why the big 2025 plan (or whatever it's called) doesn't have the Vikings on the Dome site. Only the mayor seems really on board with the idea. The Vikings letter was intended to point out that his primary motivation (cost) needed to be adjusted slightly to included the additional costs of building on that site. Consider it a polite public rebuke.
If the stadium gets done right it likely means it gets done at any location besides the Dome site. In that regard, I think this whole discussion is probably moot before the decision even begins. That said, it's still a nice diversion.
Lakeville Goldy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 1,801
- Reaction score
- 81
- Points
- 48
That's a ridiculous statement. If the Gophers played at the Vikings stadium (like in the Metrodome years) and they are not treated like the primary tennant, then yes; but if the Vikings are playing at the Gophers stadium it's a non-factor at worst (especially since it's temporary) or a promotional point ("our stadium is one of the few college football stadiums in the country deemed adequate to host NFL games"). No way would a recruit not come to MN because the Vikings are here for a couple years.
Gopherdrummer
Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 525
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
I wouldn't be surprised if the U jumped all over this. Indeed if heating coils would be installed on the Vikings' tab there are a few reasons for the U to go all in.
1. The Iowa game in 2010. Field crew members were chipping ice off the turf, and in doing so, ripped chucks of turf on the field. To potentially do that every year would be costly to fix.
2. A new field gives the U a chance to go all in with the apparent rebranding by Nike. Change the font. You could even get a little creative with the field. West end zone reads "Ski" with a giant "U" at midfield followed by "Mah" in the East end zone. Probably too extreme for the U. It would be kind of cool though.
1. The Iowa game in 2010. Field crew members were chipping ice off the turf, and in doing so, ripped chucks of turf on the field. To potentially do that every year would be costly to fix.
2. A new field gives the U a chance to go all in with the apparent rebranding by Nike. Change the font. You could even get a little creative with the field. West end zone reads "Ski" with a giant "U" at midfield followed by "Mah" in the East end zone. Probably too extreme for the U. It would be kind of cool though.
GoAUpher
Section 246
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,256
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
Especially since the U will certainly take the opportunity to get video of Vikings players talking about how nice the locker room is, etc (just like they did when Larry Fitzgerald ran his training camp at the U back in 2009 or 2010).
Lakeville Goldy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 1,801
- Reaction score
- 81
- Points
- 48
In theory the U shouldn't have to, but the legislature can force the U to have the Vikes as tennants if they want, as part of getting a deal done. But I hope the legislature will have the U of MN and Vikings work something out on their own and use that as part of the plan, if the Dome site even is used, which I agree is unlikely. I think if Target was redoing their offices and the U had empty buildings the U would do their best to try to make something work, but fundamentally it should make financial sense for both parties. I expect the same here, or I expect the state to cover the U's losses. I just hope they don't force changes to the stadium that the U doesn't want (more permanent seats, a roof, whatever).
westcoastgopher11
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 2,448
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
I'm down to let the Vikings use TCF for 3 seasons why the new stadium is built. (if it ever gets done that is) They will need to do the following in improvements for me to be on board 100% though;
1. Install weatherizing and infrastructure for alcohol sales. Maybe the legislature lets us do what we want with it and the Vikings can swoop in and pick up the tab for us.
2. Heating coils in the field, never a bad thing to have technological goodies. Every little thing to sell to recruits helps.
3. Seatbacks in all seats, there are already more season ticket holders than seats at TCF Bank so we should push the Vikings on this point. (Maroon and gold colors of course)
If the Vikings agreed to these points and ensured that the stadium was upkept in a proper manner and was left the way they found it (financial guarantees) then let em play. More free exposure for the U every Sunday and the Vikings might do some things themselves to spruce up the place.
1. Install weatherizing and infrastructure for alcohol sales. Maybe the legislature lets us do what we want with it and the Vikings can swoop in and pick up the tab for us.
2. Heating coils in the field, never a bad thing to have technological goodies. Every little thing to sell to recruits helps.
3. Seatbacks in all seats, there are already more season ticket holders than seats at TCF Bank so we should push the Vikings on this point. (Maroon and gold colors of course)
If the Vikings agreed to these points and ensured that the stadium was upkept in a proper manner and was left the way they found it (financial guarantees) then let em play. More free exposure for the U every Sunday and the Vikings might do some things themselves to spruce up the place.
GoAUpher
Section 246
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,256
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
No question the U agrees if the opportunity is there. There is no reason not too (ok, forcing a permanent seating expansion would be a reason but it is clear from the Vikings numbers that they aren't suggesting that).
As for #2, I'd just be glad to see the new B1G logo appear as a seamless part of the field instead of being stitched in like it is now. Not a big deal at all, but still, nice to have the uniformity back. Plus they could get the newest version of the fieldturf and whatever benefits that come with it (prob not as hot on a sunny day, etc).
Public money is used CONSTANTLY for private entities. The Twins, Wild, Wolves. The Guthrie and numerous other arts entities. Go look at where the new "outdoors/arts" sales tax money is going. Lots of private or psuedo-public entities are getting money (like MPR and a steel company). NWA got tons of state money and for what? Private companies get money all the time like Lawson moving to downtown St Paul because of tax giveaways.
A more honest answer would be that you like the Gophers and don't like the Vikings.
GoAUpher
Section 246
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,256
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
I could care less about this one but that's also due to the fact that I'm really tall and the benches offer more legroom.
dpodoll68
Elite Poster
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 19,285
- Reaction score
- 894
- Points
- 113
Or, they could blow up that portion of the field and not have that abomination on the field anywhere ever again. Tomayto, tomahto.
Breakin' The Plane
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2010
- Messages
- 10,697
- Reaction score
- 3,483
- Points
- 113
I'm with you on no seatbacks. We could have left our bleacher seats for seatbacks (non-donation) before last season and decided against it. Plus, if you're on the open end, it's really easy to get out of there by climbing through the bleacher seats, rather than having to file out through the aisles.I could care less about this one but that's also due to the fact that I'm really tall and the benches offer more legroom.
Formo
Sections 109 and 114
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,134
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 38
Chair-backs in the student section would help fill up the section.
Just sayin.
Nope. They all stand throughout the game anyway. Adding chairbacks would be more hindrance than anything else. Winning would help fill up the student section. =)
RodentRampage
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2008
- Messages
- 9,467
- Reaction score
- 198
- Points
- 63
Accusing your opponent of dishonesty doesn't make youe argument any stronger. That public money does sometimes go to private entities doesn't make your case that funding a stadium for a public university means that the state MUST fund a stadium for a private business. If the legislature decides that funding a Vikings stadium is preferable to the Vikings leaving, then it will be funded.