New FieldTurf at Jeld-Wen

Discussion in 'Portland Thorns FC' started by holden, Dec 20, 2013.

  1. holden

    holden Member+

    Dundee FC, Yeovil Town LFC, Girondins de Bordeaux
    Oct 20, 2009
    Los Angeles
    Club:
    Dundee FC
    Any word on the certification of the new turf? I don't know if the previous certification carries over, but it expires March 26th. I'm sure the new turf will get 2 stars, just wondering if/when they are doing it.
     
  2. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    #27 Cliveworshipper, May 25, 2014
    Last edited: May 25, 2014

    As I read the information on the FIFA website, the field was certified on 3-27-2014 and will be certified for at least a One star rating until 2017. It must, of course, be re-certified each year for two star.

    [​IMG]


    And the City and team have come to an agreement to cover costs for replacement on a two year schedule until 2035.

    http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/03/portland_timbers_and_city_rene.html
     
  3. holden

    holden Member+

    Dundee FC, Yeovil Town LFC, Girondins de Bordeaux
    Oct 20, 2009
    Los Angeles
    Club:
    Dundee FC
    Every 2 years? Wow! I think it'd be really interesting to see the actual cost of the installation. Too bad the Timbers won't say. I can't believe a 2 year replacement rate for the next 20 years is cheaper than relocating the PSU football games to elsewhere (as one would think that would at least double the lifespan).
     
  4. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    #29 Cliveworshipper, May 26, 2014
    Last edited: May 26, 2014

    Well, the city gets a fixed knowable cost for the life of the contract paid out of stadium use taxes on every ticket, the receipts from which are higher than originally projected. And the team has agreed to pay for the rest. The original stadium contract called for the city to be fully responsible for the turf upkeep to FIFA standards which is showing to be more expensive than they thought. At all stages of the stadium decisions, making costs knowable and fixed has taken priority over the city making gobs of money with risk attached. Zero sum for the city ( way better than it was doing) is what they are after. They got burned a decade ago with another team ownership of the Beavers baseball team and USL Timbers ( not Paulson) when city costs mushroomed.

    There really isn't another stadium in the city that could host the PSU football games, and although it is the largest university in the Oregon system, it has the smallest sports budget and no real room on its campus.

    Remember the original reason the a city courted an MLS team was to make the financials for the stadium viable so PSU could play there. Before the MLS Timbers, the stadium wasn't paying for itself. Tearing it down was contemplated.

    I'm pretty sure the Timbers org. Would like nothing better than finding another place for PSU, but nothing is on the horizon. You can't build a football stadium for that, especially since PSU is a 1AA program.

    Until then the consultants have said real grass isn't practical.
     
  5. holden

    holden Member+

    Dundee FC, Yeovil Town LFC, Girondins de Bordeaux
    Oct 20, 2009
    Los Angeles
    Club:
    Dundee FC
    Well, that's what we don't really know for sure. How much would it cost to build a stadium for them assuming land could be found for it? If Timbers+Portland are paying for 12 FieldTurf replacements over the life of this agreement, and costs are rumored to be around $1,000,000... and conservatively we say that no football doubles the lifespan of the FieldTurf, that'd be $6 Million that could be used to build a stadium. So if $6 Million isn't enough for a PSU football stadium, it does make financial sense for both sides. But that's just based on the rumored amount. Unless we know for sure how much the Timbers had to pay (could be more, could be less), we won't be able to know for sure which would save more money.

    And I wasn't saying anything about them switching to grass, but if PSU moving out enabled them to switch to grass, the money saved would increase more, as the ROI for FieldTurf is supposed to be 8-10 years. So that would mean more money could be put towards a PSU stadium. It still might not pencil out though.

    So to reiterate: I think it'd be really interesting to see the actual cost of the installation. For now though, we can at least be sure that Portland will continue to be the premier artificial turf surface in North America. :thumbsup:
     
  6. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    #31 Cliveworshipper, May 26, 2014
    Last edited: May 26, 2014

    Well, first off, no way switching to grass is cheaper. We aren't talking about dad throwing some rye grass seed on the bald spot in the front lawn here. It the discussion I've heard from Paulson, what is being contemplated is incredibly complex and expensive. Hybrid grass ( real grass grown amongst Turf plugs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desso_GrassMaster ), heated pipes under the field and grow lights to extend the growing season a couple months, and the best grass fields have to be resodded every few years. It's the big time state of the art technology like at Wembley and teams in the premier league use. Daily maintenance is way higher. Not cheap.

    As to what a stadium costs, even 5k seat soccer stadiums for d1 soccer cost $6 million or more. Look at what Notre Dame's or Tennesee's pitches cost. A state of the art football stadium, even one that seats only 20K is probably ten to fifteen times that cost. (Stanford remodel a few years ago was $200 million) Just the remodels at Providence Park cost between $36-50 million, depending on what you want to count.

    As to the land, there is Lincoln High School right across the street. It is used by a couple high schools besides Lincoln occasionally for soccer and football, ( and track), and PSU uses it for practice sometimes. I think they actually paid for the latest Turf field there. There is also a practice field on the PSU campus proper, but making room for stands would be a big deal. All three venues are in this picture.
    [​IMG]


    The Lincoln site has been discussed. There were metal stands there for a few thousand you can see in the picture, , but they were condemned a few years ago and sit empty. Current seating is portable bleachers. The school district keeps talking about making it a regional facility for several high schools but there is no funding. It is also considered green space, so the neighborhood would have to be compensated somehow and be on board. Neighbors use the track.

    But that also carries with it the upkeep of a FieldTurf pitch ( they replaced it a couple years ago) Think something along the lines of Seattle's Memorial stadium. I don't think you save any money for the city.

    A stadium on the campus site probably entails covering over the freeway you see. I can't imagine that would be cheap.


    At any rate, any PSU stadium would probably involve a cooperative effort between Peregrine, the city, Portland Public Schools, and PSU. Kind of like herding cats.
    And it would be in the middle of the most densely populated neighborhood in the state of
    Oregon. It will take years even once everyone is on board. It is a lot like the density issues USC has trying to even build a little Soccer stadium in the middle of a city.


    And it is complicated by the fact that PSU has just committed to a $44 million remodel of the Basketball arena, and that is only partially funded. They are also talking about going 1A eventually - even BCS. If they build a stadium, they will want to at least have the capability to expand to a big time venue.

    As to the most recent costs, FieldTurf says this on their site:
    I'm not sure the product used at PP is "typical". It is often said to be the only one of its type in the country. It might be safe to add a buck or two per sq.ft. The pitch at Providence is 96,000 sq.ft. Even if the "typical" product was put down, that would be $456,000.

    I'm sure that doesn't include the E-layer.

    The figure will come out in the city audit sometime after the new fiscal year. Every fourth or fifth time they will have to replace the Foam E layer underlay if it lasts as long as projected, and that was quoted as a million bucks on the MLS site in a previous post on this thread.
     
  7. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Clive, I'm wondering about PSU football's possibly using the stadium in Hillsboro, seating capacity 7,000, which exceeds their attendance for any game in 2013. Their women play soccer there, why not men's football? The issue, of course, is it isn't in downtown Portland where PSU is located. But, it's only 15 to 20 minutes from the campus.
     
  8. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    #33 Cliveworshipper, May 26, 2014
    Last edited: May 26, 2014

    They have played a couple football games there. I think high schools book that venue a lot. Liberty HS nearby is also a possibility, but they already have a thing going with FC Portland, which built the fields.
    Both those venues here:
    [​IMG]


    I think they see the possibility of playing that far out of town (13 miles from campus) as counterproductive to the image they are trying to foster as an urban university. They keep talking about how they want to raise the profile of the program, and I think they believe that won't do it. They view women's soccer and their football program differently.

    And they seem to keep hoping to raise the attendance to above current levels. If they ever really raise athletic spending they could, but not as it is now. But why would they go out there? Providence is a better venue on several levels, and they are locked in as part of the lease agreement with Peregrine until 2025 or 2028 or something.

    It seems to me that Peregrine has to make moving out attractive. I don't see Hillsboro as meeting that.

    Sometimes dreams and realities don't connect.
     
  9. holden

    holden Member+

    Dundee FC, Yeovil Town LFC, Girondins de Bordeaux
    Oct 20, 2009
    Los Angeles
    Club:
    Dundee FC
    #34 holden, May 26, 2014
    Last edited: May 26, 2014
    The Wembly Desso pitch cost £250,000 ($421,075). Yes, it's not cheap, but it's still cheaper than the "typical" FieldTurf install you quoted below. So once they had the entire grass setup installed, it would be a lower cost to just do maintenance + the turf replacement every 2 years (if needed that frequently) than a new FIFA 2-Star rated FieldTurf pitch install every 4 years. As I said, the expected ROI of FieldTurf is 8-10 years. Even if you compare it with the expensive Desso GrassMaster system, I don't think it gets down to 4.

    But like I said, I wasn't even thinking of grass originally. I was thinking of it prolonging the lifespan of the FieldTurf.

    Yeah, but does PSU really need a stadium of that caliber? I tried searching for their attendance figures, and last ones I could find had them averaging around 5,800 in 2012. Stanford seats 50,000+. Not exactly comparable.

    Except they won't have to replace it every 2 years to keep up to FIFA and MLS standards. It should be able to last closer to the expected ROI break-even year and still be adequate for football standards.

    Yes, and the typical product is not a FIFA 2-Star pitch. That's a premium product. I've seen high school football stadium FieldTurf installs quoted as being $600,000 and they are nowhere near the quality of the pitch at Providence Park. Hence, why I'd really like to know how much it really did cost.

    According to the article, the Timbers were not passing on the full price of the new turf to Portland. So will it still include details of the full price or just the price that Portland has to pay?
     
  10. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    #35 Cliveworshipper, May 26, 2014
    Last edited: May 26, 2014
    That's just the pitch. It doesn't include the grow lights, the Turf heaters, or the costs of running those. And I think you underestimate the costs of maintaining the grass pitch. UP has a staff that seems to ALWAYs be working on theirs. They have a guy with a Turf Management degree just for the Soccer and baseball fields.Just mowing it three times a week is a task. And the UP pitch only sees maybe 3o -35 days a year use that are well distributed. ( 20 days during the season for the two teams, 7-8 Spring games a couple National team camps) The teams don't even practice on it. No other sports are allowed on it. Even then it shows wear by tournament time. It would take several grass pitches to support the activity a Turf field sees. UP, for example, has the equivalent of two grass and one Turf practice fields. Barça just installed a practice field that is the same as a Jeld Wen to save their stadium pitch.
    Grass just won't support the activity. PP (Civic Stadium) switched to Turf in the 70's, before NASL soccer because the place was always a mud hole in the late fall. Grass doesn't grow here that time of year, especially in the shadow of the Multnomah club.

    Right now PP sees about 100 days minimum. It is used for Portland State, Timbers, Timbers reserve, Thorns, U23, and Timbers Academy dates. High schools book the State championships, and from time to time other dates ( add gold cup, all star, champions league, etc.) the Thorns do most of their practices there, so they would have to join the Timbers in Tualatin, which is an added cost. It would take several grass pitches to support all that.

    Well, yeah. They don't need Stanford's stadium. But they also don't want to lock themselves into ND's Alumni stadium sized venue for a D1 football program. In years they make the championship, they have put 17,000 in the seats, and that would be a minimum they would accept to leave PP. That is tens of millions. And as I keep saying, they WANT TO GROW the program. Whether they are on track is irrelevant. They don't have to lock themselves into a smaller venue, so I am confident they won't without incentive.

    I don't think any pitches that get used heavily last much beyond 3-4 years. That's what I would expect if they shared with the soccer and Football programs of the local high schools. None of the previous turf fields lasted more than 4-5 years at PP when soccer was USL and didn't have to meet any standards. And remember, PSU doesn't currently pay for any of the pitch costs. As they see it, they have a fixed lease with no issues. A new pitch every two years is just a bonus.

    That's the point I was making. I was saying that cost would be above what FieldTurf calls "typical" and those costs never include stuff like tearing out the old field and such. There are three figures that pop up which MAY correspond to the previous resurfacings that ranged between 650-960K. I'm not sure it matters, though. What is important to each party is their share of it, which seems below the $4.75 a foot figure. I'm sure that's all the city cares about.


    Don't know. But that's all the city cares about. And from now on, they will only pay what is on the payment schedule that is funded by the seat tax.
     
  11. holden

    holden Member+

    Dundee FC, Yeovil Town LFC, Girondins de Bordeaux
    Oct 20, 2009
    Los Angeles
    Club:
    Dundee FC
    Well, I guess I could be. I just believe that the FieldTurf being installed at Providence is that expensive. Even if we go with a conservative $600,000 for the FieldTurf reinstall, that's ~$200,000 for maintenance over two years for it to break even. So what I'm basing it on is the Timbers having a minimum of $100,000 a year to maintain the pitch, if not more. If that's too low, then where can I get a degree in Turf Management, cause that would be an awesome job...

    Well obviously, if they were to switch to a grass pitch, it would be used for first team games only (both Timbers and Thorns), and certainly not for practices. But this is why my initial question was not about switching to grass, you are the one that brought that up.

    Well, if I were in charge, I'd say, until you prove better, you get what you deserve. Build an adequate 10k seater that can be shared with the high schools until they are selling it out every game. Then and only then worry about a better stadium. But I guess that's why I'm not in politics. ;)

    I think you'd be shocked by what the local high schools here use then...

    I know the article was about what the city pays. But my question was, what is the cost total. I know it's hard to get all the parties to work together. And there are many problems with finding another location of PSU and even if they started now it would take years to complete thus not having the same financial impact. I just wondered if the 2 year replacement cycle would be more expensive over the lifetime of the agreement than finding another site for PSU. If my estimation is correct or high, though, then it very well may make better sense as $6 Million would probably be to low for a suitable 10k stadium.
     
  12. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The real issue, probably, is how close the PSU field should be to the campus. Providence Park is within walking distance -- about 10 to 15 minutes with a relatively leisurely walk. There are very few, if any, other potential locations that close to the campus. Some time ago, there was talk about a professional baseball team in Portland, even if minor league, and there was a review of possible sites for a stadium. One possibility was at the Portland Post Office site, if they will move, which is about a 25 minute walk from the campus though 5 minutes using mass transit. But, it doesn't have the "feel" of being near the campus whereas Providence Park has more of that feel.

    Other possibilities are the Lincoln High School field area, which is almost next door to Providence Park and is slightly closer to PSU, but I don't think the Portland Public Schools would give up the high school field's current configuration; or the former Downtown YMCA site and adjacent City park area just south of the PSU campus and only a 5 minute walk, which together probably have enough space for a stadium. But, given the high level of protection the City gives to open space and other factors, it would be a massive and very controversial undertaking to convert that to a football stadium.

    So, if a PSU football stadium needs to be close to the campus, PP probably is where it's going to be.
     
  13. holden

    holden Member+

    Dundee FC, Yeovil Town LFC, Girondins de Bordeaux
    Oct 20, 2009
    Los Angeles
    Club:
    Dundee FC
    From Merritt's recent Q&A:
    So it sounds to me like the new deal with Portland for the turf replacement has changed things.
     
  14. holden

    holden Member+

    Dundee FC, Yeovil Town LFC, Girondins de Bordeaux
    Oct 20, 2009
    Los Angeles
    Club:
    Dundee FC
    And now it sounds like the likelyhood of grass being installed is 0%.
     
  15. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006

    Not really.

    In a Sept 2013 article he only put the odds of grass at 50-50, contingent on PSU finding somewhere else.
    Though PSU has announced plans for a new Basketball arena, there is no movement that I am aware of that they are even contemplating somewhere else for Football.

    http://prosoccertalk.nbcsports.com/...real-grass-adding-terraces-to-jeld-wen-field/

    I don't see anything has changed.
     
  16. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    #41 Cliveworshipper, Jan 7, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2015

    Unless PSU moved, it was always zero.

    That was the case last year and is the case now.
     
  17. holden

    holden Member+

    Dundee FC, Yeovil Town LFC, Girondins de Bordeaux
    Oct 20, 2009
    Los Angeles
    Club:
    Dundee FC
    Hmm... strange he stated it was 50-50 then.... wonder why he would lie about that.
     
  18. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    #43 Cliveworshipper, Jan 7, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2015
    You are being silly and misquoting the author.

    Read the article for comprehension. He didn't lie. The article said he took a guess and the chances are NO BETTER than 50-50. 0% is in that range. What is ruled out was that the odds were better.

    The other part of reading comprehension you aren't getting is that he said both years that no change will happen with unless factors change (which includes PSU playing football there.)
     
  19. holden

    holden Member+

    Dundee FC, Yeovil Town LFC, Girondins de Bordeaux
    Oct 20, 2009
    Los Angeles
    Club:
    Dundee FC
    Either he lied when he said 50-50 and it was 0% as your previously claimed, or you are wrong and it has changed from 50-50 to 0%. Pick one.

    Yes... exactly, you are trying to make it seem like it hasn't changed since there was the PSU issue either way. I am pointing out that he has changed his tune from there being a 50-50 chance if PSU moves out to there being absolutely no chance whatsoever if PSU moves out.
     
  20. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006

    Also in 2013, , at the announcement that PP would be the 2014 All Star host, he said this.

    He has been very consistent. No grass with PSU there, and he's guessing about whether there can be a change. Those odds probably change with every AD and President of the university ( both are different now, as is the coach)

    Whether PSU remains is out of his control. As long as PSU wants to play there, the lease says they have to be accommodated.

    Maybe you need to talk to PSU about leaving. I'm sure he has more than once.
     
  21. holden

    holden Member+

    Dundee FC, Yeovil Town LFC, Girondins de Bordeaux
    Oct 20, 2009
    Los Angeles
    Club:
    Dundee FC
    I don't need to. You're the one hung up on PSU. I'm saying it sounds like there is 0% chance they'll change, even if PSU leaves. Seriously, why would anyone change to grass when Portland is installing new FieldTurf for them every 2 years?
     
  22. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    #47 Cliveworshipper, Jan 7, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2015
    You don't know what you are talking about.

    The current contract as ammended has a fixed amount the city contributes toward Turf replacement regardless how many times or what kind of Turf is replaced. It comes out of the concession and ticket taxes, which so far are higher than the original estimates. The City is actually doing a little better than projected and their costs are fixed in the amended agreement.

    Peregrine pays the rest.
     
  23. holden

    holden Member+

    Dundee FC, Yeovil Town LFC, Girondins de Bordeaux
    Oct 20, 2009
    Los Angeles
    Club:
    Dundee FC
    #48 holden, Jan 7, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2015
    OK... sorry, for the confusion. I'll amend my statement: "Seriously, why would anyone change to grass when Peregrine is installing new FieldTurf every 2 years with financial support from the city to the tune of $4 million through 2035" Happy now? I didn't think I needed to go into the intricate details of the deal they made since you are the one that posted the article here that discussed this in the first place. Sorry for over-estimating your ability to infer pre-existing knowledge.

    Here exactly is the amount of money the city is providing per year:
    [​IMG]

    Now that we have that out of the way, how about you actually answer my question? Or is it that you realize that I'm right and nobody in their right mind would and instead tried to nitpick at some little thing because you had no other argument?
     
  24. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    #49 Cliveworshipper, Jan 7, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2015

    You aren't right about anything.

    Call it nitpicking, but you tried to make it sound like the city is picking up the tab for replacement on a two year cycle instead of the original eight year cycle in the original agreement.

    That's just wrong. As wrong as your insistence that Paulson ever promised anything about grass. That's just a lie.

    The original agreement called for the city to pay the entire amount for replacements and if the Turf failed before that, then Peregrine would kick in 20%. The city agreed to that.

    When it became obvious that the high use rate ( with Football) was wearing out the pitch faster, the city wanted to fix its costs over the life of the lease and instead renegotiated to kick in a slightly higher amount out of the stadium fees and ensure the stafium would not be supported by taxpayer money.

    Now Peregrine foots the bill for the advanced replacement schedule.


    Here is from the Oregonian:
    So the city paid $343,000 for the last Turf replacement and Peregrine the rest. That doesn't even cover the rubber under mat. The City never even thought about what they originally agreed to, by their own admission. And now Peregrine bears most of the costs for whatever they do in the future.


    The city got burned by a previous stadium deal in the 1990's that failed. ( not Paulson) Their main concern is that the stadium costs a born by the fees and are knowable. The city got all they wanted there.

    Paulson is taking all the risk. Plus, at the same time, he kicked in $1.1 million to help install four Turf fields and concessions at Delta park, one of the most heavily used soccer venues in the NW.

    And it is clear that if Paulson switches to grass, he pays all the costs. It would be stupid of him to do that and allow PSU to tear it up on his dime.
     
  25. holden

    holden Member+

    Dundee FC, Yeovil Town LFC, Girondins de Bordeaux
    Oct 20, 2009
    Los Angeles
    Club:
    Dundee FC
    #50 holden, Jan 7, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2015
    Seriously, sometimes trying to discuss things with you is worse than watching a soccer game on gridiron lines...

    I already said you're right about that and amended my statement. OK? So get over it. Learn how to be a gracious winner. Now on to you actually answering what I'm asking. If you do not actually answer it then I will just assume I am correct and that you are continuing to nitpick about something that was not my point because you have no possible counter argument.

    I never said Paulson promised anything about grass. You're the only one who has said anything about promises.

    The item from the Q&A that I quoted here is no promise. I read it and I inferred that he is making a statement that there is no chance of grass being installed now, compared to the 50-50 chance that he had surmised before. I say that is a change in his statement. That is all. There is nothing inherently promised there (except now he's promising there will be no grass in 2016... which is the opposite of what you accuse me of saying he promised... funny that. Reminds me of all the arguments you keep trying to have with me about them installing grass even though I have never ever stated that Portland should switch to grass. Do you not see how frustrating trying to discuss something with you is?).
     

Share This Page