PN-G doling out green for new turf

[pngfan93]

New turf just got unloaded!

 

[prepballfan]

WOW thanks for the updates!!!!!

 

[pngfan93]

Drove by today. No one was working, so no gates were open. Here's a picture taken from outside the gates.

 

[pngmom4]

Anyone know what they are doing with the old turf?

I spoke with a SB member today. Said, if we get our money back, the turf legally will belong to the company who sold it to us.. Since we are asking for our money back, it makes sense.

 

[PNG Proud]

I just don't see that happening. They offered to replace it, but the SB declined. (Doesn't make sense to me.)
Since we had it removed, I'm sure we own it, and any warranty issues are null & void.
I understand the "no warranty" concern, but I still feel like we could have won a lawsuit to get a replacement AND the remainder of the warranty that we paid for.
Not too happy about the outcome of this one.
Maybe there are some aspects that I'm not aware of???

 

[pngfan66]

Now isn't the School District suing the old turf company ? A defective product suit, with the company even stating it was defective is a hard one to for the defendant. I know they said they would replace it, but track record shows a bad product. So I support the SB in their decision. Why put back in a inferior product ? that has the potential to do the same thing. Kinda like hey Doc, my arm hurts when I do this kinda thing. I say let the attorney's figure it out. Chances are it will be settled out of court. If the school gets enough to break even on replacement cost then nothing lost.

 

[IndianFan]

FieldTurf is installed in hundreds of college and professional venues, and has been one of the best. FieldTurf was a victim of the old 'bait and switch'.

[No. 16] FieldTurf sues TenCate, blaming it for prematurely aging artificial turf fields. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. March 10, 2011. On March 1, 2011,

FieldTurf, a dominant player in the artificial turf industry filed suit in the United States District Court for Northern Georgia seeking compensatory and punitive damages against three defendants - TenCate Thiolon Middle East, LLC, Polyloom Corporation of America and TenCate Thiolon B.V. For Justicia index click here. For a copy of the complaint click here. The gist of FieldTurf’s gripe is best explained by the following gleaned from the Introduction part of the complaint:

This is an action for fraudulent inducement of contract, breach of contract and warranty, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. FieldTurf entered into supply agreements with Mattex (and later TenCate), on the understanding that Mattex’s monofilament artificial grass fiber was superior to the fiber supplied by its competitors. Mattex provided physical product samples and test results as to the suitability and superiority of its product. FieldTurf committed to buying the fiber for use in its construction of football fields, soccer fields and other artificial grass turf systems around the globe.

At a later date, Mattex changed its fiber formula and the manufacturing process that it used to create the fiber. FieldTurf alleges that Mattex stopped supplying the monofilament fiber that it had provided to FieldTurf to secure its business and, for some period of time, supplied a less expensive, less durable fiber. Mattex also made changes to the fiber’s extrusion process in order to reduce costs and raise output, further diminishing the durability of its fiber and increasing the likelihood of premature fiber degradation under certain conditions. Filedturf also alleges that Mattex failed to manufacture this cheaper, less durable fiber with an adequate amount of the ultraviolet (“UV”) stabilizers required to prevent loss of tensile strength, increasing its premature disintegration during the warranty period. In some cases, Mattex shipped FieldTurf fibers that contained no commonly known UV stabilizers. These changes resulted in batches of fiber that degraded prematurely and failed to meet contract specifications or live up to the terms of Mattex’s warranty. In February 2007, TenCate acquired Mattex and for some period of time continued supplying the reformulated Mattex monofilament artificial grass fiber (“Evolution fiber”).

FieldTurf claims to have built more than 100 fields using defective fibers that are degrading prematurely. In addition, more than 20 other fields are exhibiting visual defects in the form of streaking. The customers who received fields built with defective fibers – primarily high schools, colleges and universities whose football fields, soccer fields and other sports fields are built using artificial turf systems – are looking to FieldTurf to repair and, in many cases, fully replace their failing fields. As of March 1, 2011, FiledTurf claims it has spent approximately $4 million on these repairs, and faces pending and future claims of tens of millions of dollars as a result of failures of TenCate supplied fiber. Moreover, FieldTurf claims, it has suffered significant damage to its reputation. FiledTurf alleges that TenCate is directly responsible for these losses, estimated to be in excess of $30 million.

FieldTurf informed TenCate of its intention to assert claims arising from its supply of Evolution fiber and TenCate took the position that FiledTurf was breaching the current contract, which is due to expire on June 15, 2011, and stated that it would not continue to supply any artificial grass products to FieldTurf beyond March 2, 2011. The termination of the supply contract, FieldTurf claims, deprives it of three months’ supply of the fiber. TenCate had served as FieldTurf’s sole supplier of artificial grass fiber for the last four years.

TenCate supplies FieldTurf with other products as well. FiledTurf claims that TenCate’s refusal to fill FieldTurf’s pre-existing orders for products other than Evolution fiber will deprive FieldTurf of access to those products and could cause its default on a number of important, largescale projects, thereby harming its business and reputation.

http://www.synturf.org/lawsuits.html

 

[PNG Proud]

Now isn't the School District suing the old turf company ? A defective product suit, with the company even stating it was defective is a hard one to for the defendant. I know they said they would replace it, but track record shows a bad product. So I support the SB in their decision. Why put back in a inferior product ? that has the potential to do the same thing. Kinda like hey Doc, my arm hurts when I do this kinda thing. I say let the attorney's figure it out. Chances are it will be settled out of court. If the school gets enough to break even on replacement cost then nothing lost.

Understood, BUT, I've been in business well over 30 yrs., and from time to time, we get a bad batch of product. That doesn't mean that every one is bad, only the one that was delivered to me! When that happens, the manufacturer replaces it, at no cost to the customer, and I re-install it, at no cost to the customer, but the mfg. pays me, since it was their defective product. Now, when that occurs, the customer gets the remainder of the warranty that they originally paid for (pro-rating may apply, but in this case it probably would not).
All I'm saying is, it would be nice to see the school district get everything they (WE) paid for, instead of ripping it up and HOPING for the best.
Too late now tho..... I think we'll be lucky to recover anything at all.

 

[pngfan93]

Now isn't the School District suing the old turf company ? A defective product suit, with the company even stating it was defective is a hard one to for the defendant. I know they said they would replace it, but track record shows a bad product. So I support the SB in their decision. Why put back in a inferior product ? that has the potential to do the same thing. Kinda like hey Doc, my arm hurts when I do this kinda thing. I say let the attorney's figure it out. Chances are it will be settled out of court. If the school gets enough to break even on replacement cost then nothing lost.

Understood, BUT, I've been in business well over 30 yrs., and from time to time, we get a bad batch of product. That doesn't mean that every one is bad, only the one that was delivered to me! When that happens, the manufacturer replaces it, at no cost to the customer, and I re-install it, at no cost to the customer, but the mfg. pays me, since it was their defective product. Now, when that occurs, the customer gets the remainder of the warranty that they originally paid for (pro-rating may apply, but in this case it probably would not).
All I'm saying is, it would be nice to see the school district get everything they (WE) paid for, instead of ripping it up and HOPING for the best.
Too late now tho..... I think we'll be lucky to recover anything at all.

They said that they were going to nullify our warranty after replacing the field.

 

[IBLEEDPURPLE]

It seems if I remember reading somewhere that there was an issue with timing - as in the company that originally installed the turf was willing to "repair or replace the turf", but we would be on a waiting list and it would most likely not be done this year?

 

[PNG Proud]

Now isn't the School District suing the old turf company ? A defective product suit, with the company even stating it was defective is a hard one to for the defendant. I know they said they would replace it, but track record shows a bad product. So I support the SB in their decision. Why put back in a inferior product ? that has the potential to do the same thing. Kinda like hey Doc, my arm hurts when I do this kinda thing. I say let the attorney's figure it out. Chances are it will be settled out of court. If the school gets enough to break even on replacement cost then nothing lost.

Understood, BUT, I've been in business well over 30 yrs., and from time to time, we get a bad batch of product. That doesn't mean that every one is bad, only the one that was delivered to me! When that happens, the manufacturer replaces it, at no cost to the customer, and I re-install it, at no cost to the customer, but the mfg. pays me, since it was their defective product. Now, when that occurs, the customer gets the remainder of the warranty that they originally paid for (pro-rating may apply, but in this case it probably would not).
All I'm saying is, it would be nice to see the school district get everything they (WE) paid for, instead of ripping it up and HOPING for the best.
Too late now tho..... I think we'll be lucky to recover anything at all.

They said that they were going to nullify our warranty after replacing the field.

That's my point exactly! How do they have the right to nullify a warranty?????? That's where the lawsuit comes in. Personally, I think we could have held out another season, and not spend bazillion dollars to replace it!

 

[PNGDAD15]

The problem I see is if they don't replace it and lets say a seam separates. If the state sees this as a hazard I believe they could rule it unplayable because of safety. I believe they are just being proactive and taking care of it before it does become a problem.

 

[IndianFan]

I suspect that the decision makers reviewed the situation and felt it was in the best long term interests of the district.

FieldTurf may still be having supply issues anyway.

 

[pngfan93]

I went by the stadium this afternoon. They are making serious progress. I'm hearing the field should be done in time for practices to start.

 

[restless natives]

Appreciate the photos!

 

[NDNTime]

Its looking good!!! Time to get the opcorn: ready!!! :woohoo:

 

[prepballfan]

Thanks for the pics :woohoo:

 

[PNG Proud]

The problem I see is if they don't replace it and lets say a seam separates. If the state sees this as a hazard I believe they could rule it unplayable because of safety. I believe they are just being proactive and taking care of it before it does become a problem.

Good point! Hadn't thought of that.

 

[pngfan93]

I took some more pictures when I renewed my season tickets this morning.

 

[modmouse78]

anyone have any new pics of the progress. thanks in advance