Magazine - Artificial Grass Pitches

11 Jun 2004 by guess

Performance Test #1: Dropping oranges from a height of six feet

Performance Test #2: Removing rubber particulate accumulation from one's mouth.

Performance Test #3: Wondering why after light rainfall all the rubber has washed to the surface, giving the apperance of Morecambe Beach with seaweed after tide out.

Performance Test #4: Greedy chairman holds non-sporting event then wonders how to get back levels of pitch after movement has caused six inch ruts everywhere.

25 Jun 2004 by Peter Leroy

I notice that buried in the information files on the FA website are some costs relating to maintence of suggested synthetic surface fields. 10,000 per annum (which could be higher) and then in the fine print they suggest that the "carpet" may need changing every 5 years at a cost of some 30,000 (and that would be a cheap job)

So these "better" fields are ever so more economical than the current very high standard natural surfaces ?

Well let's just do some math on that very topic.

years 1 to 5 @ 10000 p.a. = 50,000
Year 5 requires resurface = 30,000
year 6 to 10 @ 10000 = 50000
year 10 resurface = 30000

Total cost for 10 years of field = 110,000

ok so lets say we deduct 10000 at year 5 as it is covered by the cost of resurfacing and another 10000 deducted for year 10

10 year cost = 90,000 for a so called maintenance free or low maintenance synthetic field.

How much does it cost for a natural field, properly constructed to International standards to be maintained for 10 years ?

These costs for synthetic fields are obviously based on a sample standard product .

What happens when the "new and improved" and therefore more costly field comes along ?

Are the stadium owners going to be able resist having one of these new surfaces ? Pride , ego etc. .. not likely and so the cost is escalating each year.

Natural surface maintenance costs are relatively stable.

And we haven't even approached the thoughts of the players ?

Some years ago I played field hockey, yes folks the days when we played on grass. ok, bumpy, sand traps and mud galore at times. But at least most could play the game without being "Olympic" runners.

Having ventured onto a synthetic surface as a hockey player I can tell you the speed difference is amazing. I could not play on todays fields.

Returning to the FA documents and suggested maintenance practices.

Much is suggested to vacuum or rake the pile so that it stands up.

The reason really being to slow the ball down enough for the player to be able to run with it.

Now most players probably run flat out at around 15 mph on a natural surface. I wonder how fit (see more fitness managers and trainers) those same players will have to be on a synthetic surface ?

Oh I can hear the opposite call of "yes, but the field will be properly maintained and speed tested prior to the game"

And virginity is renewable too !

I note that I am unable to find any documentation relating to a synthetic surface in extremely cold climates or weather.

ok I can live with pyrotenax (heating) cables etc. being installed.

Are they to be installed on every single synthetic field in the 4 divisions and Premiership league of the FA, and that is only the beginning, don't forget European grounds. I wonder how many there are of those ?

A manufacturer and their share holders must rub their hands when counting how much is to be made from sports ruling bodies insisting that fields become synthetic. Those same companies will of course consult media groups who require income from sponsors who in turn insist that the sport go ahead no matter the climatic conditions.

And then we can move to sports injuries and turf versus synthetic. And that boys and girls is yet another story of mixed result.

Just my thoughts for now

Peter