Bills new stadium will have a grass field

[KSpan]

6 hours ago, Tbe said:

The issue may be keeping the grass alive and in good condition when MLS and NFL games are being held back to back. 
 

I know the NFL ‘bench’ areas where 100+ people trample through it during a game is in the field of play for a MLS game. Grass just doesn’t bounce back that quickly.
 

Turf condition was the main rationale I heard for going to fake turf.

Sporting KC, formerly the Wizards, and the Chiefs coexisted for over a decade in Arrowhead stadium, a harsher climate than in NC, while also hosting concerts and doing things like monster truck rallies. Point being that it can definitely be done.

Edited June 6, 2023 by KSpan

[frankw]

Bring back real grass!

[Jon Snow]

You know what would have been swell of old Tepper. Instead of the disaster he started in Rock Hill he could have put his energy and money into building separate stadiums and a concert hall. He probably would have all 3 built and making bank by now.

He could have had a small city setup around that complex from other developers and most likely get the states to improve infrastructure around it.

He had so many options to choose from and he chose astroturf.

[tukafan21]

The whole grass vs turf debate is just so dumb.

For YEARS everyone complained about how torn up the field is late in the season, you can't have it both ways, either the field is going to be torn up for the last month of the season or we have turf.

It's much easier for a Green Bay or Buffalo to have a grass field because they're pretty small market areas, places that aren't trying to use that stadium for as many events as possible outside of NFL games.  Just playing NFL games in stadiums isn't enough these days to keep most stadiums profitable, they need the concerts, college games, soccer, monster truck, etc events to keep money coming in.

If we have a grass field, those other events on top of the NFL season give us a terrible and torn up field come December.

So which is it?

Do you want grass and a torn up field late in the year or have turf?

It's one or the other.

[ickmule]

Let’s see how Tepper acts when one of his star players is laid up for most

Of the season due to a knee injury caused by that shitty turf. God forbid it’s his new star QB. Dude is a straight up clown for ever taking up the grass. 

[Silent Majority]

Build a damn Bojangles arena type of venue Uptown for the soccer/concert crowd ffs.

[SmokinwithWilly]

3 hours ago, tukafan21 said:

The whole grass vs turf debate is just so dumb.

For YEARS everyone complained about how torn up the field is late in the season, you can't have it both ways, either the field is going to be torn up for the last month of the season or we have turf.

It's much easier for a Green Bay or Buffalo to have a grass field because they're pretty small market areas, places that aren't trying to use that stadium for as many events as possible outside of NFL games.  Just playing NFL games in stadiums isn't enough these days to keep most stadiums profitable, they need the concerts, college games, soccer, monster truck, etc events to keep money coming in.

If we have a grass field, those other events on top of the NFL season give us a terrible and torn up field come December.

So which is it?

Do you want grass and a torn up field late in the year or have turf?

It's one or the other.

It can be done but it's not cheap and requires a dedicated crew and planning. Turf maintenance is a science. One of the biggest things that leads to poor turf quality is piss poor drainage through the soil. If your soil doesn't drain well your roots don't have the strength to hold your turf in place. 

[pantherclaw]

8 hours ago, panthers55 said:

There are better and worse types of artificial turf. We should as least have the best kind. I don't think we do from what I have read.

No argument from me. The best of the best, for our guys!

[1of10Charnatives]

22 hours ago, Tbe said:

The issue may be keeping the grass alive and in good condition when MLS and NFL games are being held back to back. 
 

I know the NFL ‘bench’ areas where 100+ people trample through it during a game is in the field of play for a MLS game. Grass just doesn’t bounce back that quickly.
 

Turf condition was the main rationale I heard for going to fake turf.

That's what I was thinking as well.

[stratocatter]

Tepper could have ten football teams with all his money. 
Point being he owns only one, has All that money, and is not giving his football team a level playing field.

okay not the best characterization but it was hard to resist playing field. 

He is not giving them everything they need because? I have no answer, if he cares about his football team for reasons other than the money he can make. He claims that he does care and want and all that. Don’t see it while that field is what it is. 

[jayboogieman]

 

[onmyown]

lol ‘grass vs turf debate’….’most players prefer’…

Are there players who have come forward and said they prefer turf?

seems like the only preference for turf is by those who don’t actually play on it and that’s not what I’d call a debate, it’s greed

[onmyown]

On 6/6/2023 at 7:00 PM, tukafan21 said:

The whole grass vs turf debate is just so dumb.

For YEARS everyone complained about how torn up the field is late in the season, you can't have it both ways, either the field is going to be torn up for the last month of the season or we have turf.

It's much easier for a Green Bay or Buffalo to have a grass field because they're pretty small market areas, places that aren't trying to use that stadium for as many events as possible outside of NFL games.  Just playing NFL games in stadiums isn't enough these days to keep most stadiums profitable, they need the concerts, college games, soccer, monster truck, etc events to keep money coming in.

If we have a grass field, those other events on top of the NFL season give us a terrible and torn up field come December.

So which is it?

Do you want grass and a torn up field late in the year or have turf?

It's one or the other.

Who cares what we want. What do the players want? We don’t play on it. And we already know the answer.

And what are you on about profitable? Lol they are PLENTY profitable with just the NFL but let’s be real there is never enough profit for some.

You can have it both ways it just comes with less profits. Thats the issue and is not one people want to discuss and for good reason. You can’t not look like a complete ass and POS human by arguing for turf for better profit and worse player safety/health.

 

[tukafan21]

49 minutes ago, onmyown said:

Who cares what we want. What do the players want? We don’t play on it. And we already know the answer.

And what are you on about profitable? Lol they are PLENTY profitable with just the NFL but let’s be real there is never enough profit for some.

You can have it both ways it just comes with less profits. Thats the issue and is not one people want to discuss and for good reason. You can’t not look like a complete ass and POS human by arguing for turf for better profit and worse player safety/health.

 

Well for one, I know players don't enjoy playing up on completely torn up fields like we used to have late in the season because of non NFL use.

And I'm not so sure stadiums make enough on their 8 NFL game days a season to be profitable, it costs a lot of money to run a stadium of that size.  Sure, if you just look at how much money an NFL team makes, they're not losing money, but I'm sure if you looked at the profits/loss statement for solely stadium operations and game day profits, there's no way they're profitable without using the stadium for other things the other 350+ days out of the year.