Magazine - The Industry needs Wembley answers!
SEARCH
POPULAR ARTICLES
NEWS ALERTS
Want to get news alerts delivered direct to your inbox?
Edit your email preferences.
RECENT COMMENTS
By Editor in General News on 25th Nov 2007 14:40
The Wembley Pitch is the flagship for our industry. In its current condition it is seriously undermining our profession.
I would like to pose a few questions that I believe need to be answered honestly and accurately from someone within the FA and/or at Wembley to explain why the Wembley pitch was in such a poor state for what was one of the most important football matches played in years.
How is it that nearly every other stadium pitch in the UK has a surface that is playable and performs vastly superior to the current Wembley one?
The condition of the pitch was totally unacceptable. I believe it has set our industry back years in terms of raising the standard of Groundsmanship. I am sure there are hundreds of practicing Groundsmen who were shocked to see the pitch in such a poor state and want to know what the problems are?
Many may speculate, or have some ideas of their own, as to what has led to the current situation. But, as an industry, we need answers - truthful answers.
This is the National Stadium we are talking about. It should be representing the best practices our industry has to offer in terms of pitch management.
There should be no expense spared. The groundstaff should have the latest equipment, best materials and adequate resources available to maintain the pitch to the highest standard.
Every possible aid should be available, and on hand at a moments notice, to help keep the pitch in order. Lighting rigs, under soil heating, sub-air systems, covers, tents, fans, irrigation equipment and the very best machinery to aid the process of repairing and pitch recovery.
The actual cost of all this equipment, manpower and appropriate resources is chicken feed compared to the amount of money spent in other sectors of the Wembley Stadium.
The income generation from having a quality pitch is huge. It has been reported that the FA and the football industry will have lost over £1 billion worth of business from England's failure to qualify for the European Championships.
Who has overall responsible for the decision-making regarding the pitch? Is it the Head Groundsman, Steve Welch, or is he working under orders from others and, if so, who are they? Are his hands tied?
What are his duties and responsibilities?
Does Steve Welch have the appropriate support? Who are the specialists who advise? We need to know who they are. What is their experience? Do they understand all the issues when it comes to managing and maintaining a stadium pitch?
Who else is party to the decision making process regarding the maintenance and welfare of the pitch?
Is there an underlying fault with the original pitch construction? Were the correct materials specified and were they installed properly during the construction of the pitch?
Was the imported turf rootzone compatible with the original laid pitch rootzone materials?
Why does the pitch not drain freely? Is there a capillary tension problem with the pitch profile? Is there a root break between the turf layer and the original rootzone ?
Why was the pitch in such poor condition? Was it purely a lack of appropriate maintenance between events? Or not having enough time to achieve the inputs required?
Who sets the fixture calendar at the stadium? Does he/she liaise with the groundstaff? Does Steve Welch have any control over these fixtures or events?
Are maintenance schedules planned in advance and events planned around them?
The NFL Football Match - did anyone consider the potential damage that was likely to be caused by this event? What contingencies were there in place? Why was it not turfed straight after the game? What maintenance regimes were undertaken after the game? Was there any deep aeration regimes carried out to improve the porosity of the pitch? Why were the old lines and NFL pitch markings still visible?
We need to have more honesty and transparency from the FA, Wembley and the Head Groundsman.
The Wembley Pitch is the flagship for our industry. In its current condition it is seriously undermining our profession. Many institutions and industry governing bodies have spent years trying to raise the profile of the turfcare professional and the role they have as curators of turf.
There are still too many people who believe that groundsmen only cut grass. I am sure this stigma will continue if we cannot get our National Stadium Pitch performing, as it should.
So please, can we have some answers to the questions posed?
There are many inside and outside our industry would like some honest answers?
We all want to see the Head Groundsman, and anyone else who has been given the responsibility of managing this wonderful stadium, the best chance of success. Our sporting nation deserves it!
Read more articles in General News,
by Editor
or from November 2007.
There are 19 comments on this article
24 Nov 2007 by Peter Leroy
And the answers are ?
Written as though Laurence may already know some answers ?
Some very thought provoking enquires by Laurence in this article and yes, I am sure there are answers or responses that could be offered. Not excuses, more, responses.
Having had some experience over the years of enjoying both the pats on the back and the wrath of the media and other expert souls, I am very much aware that there are going to be very few who would be in a position both technically and politically to be able to offer the answers to Laurence's enquiries.
Should the Head Groundsman be "able" to respond, then he does so at his own risk.
It is Steve who will "take the rap" for the "misgivings" of others.
If he says that "others" are to "blame" then he may seem to be looking for excuses. If he mentions a word about contracts such as "Maintenance Contracts" following "Hand Over", then he appears to be again, making an excuse.
Would the "Field" designers for Multiplex step up and explain why they chose various rootzone designs and materials ? Why were specific suppliers nominated ?
Who over-saw the sub-contractors during field construction ? Were the sub contractors as skilled as claimed ? Was the field instal hurried due to construction delays on the roof and other sub contract work ?
Who from the F.A. was responsible for the field placement ? Who was the clerk of works ?
Who were the field maintenance sub-contractors and were they skilled in such work during the hand-over period and maintenance period of the contract ?
It is simply inconceivable that the Head Groundsman would not have some input as to the equipment and machinery required for ongoing maintenance ?
He surely was a part of the field development sub-commitee prior to the hand over ?
I am sure there are many more who could raise questions just on the construction and maintenance period for the project ?
Having handed over the field (playing surface) who would Steve have had available from Multiplex or the F.A. that would be knowledgable enough to assist him ?
So many names, so many faces that will never rise to the surface in this discussion, and yet Steve Welch is expected to answer for "all" of the "faceless" people ?
Slightly unfair ?
This is the world of "Sports Politics", a world where people in high offices downtown accept the glory but blame the groundsmen or allow them to take such for "their" errors.
I am aware of several well known groundsmen around the world who have a similar story and yet are unable to respond when many similar questions raised by Laurence are mentioned in those countries.
"Stadium Use", one of the greatest inputs a groundsman should have. He or she is vital on any commitee that decides on venue use.
For some old timers in the industry the words "We are going to bury the ground on you so that we can raise revenue, then we will have funds to build you a new ground, so shut up, take the heat and be a good boy."
I just hope that Steve is a man of courage and fortitude and thinks long and hard before responding, should he ever do so.
Anyone else above him will either remain silent and hope this discussion "dies" or go on with some diatribe that will bamboozle all for its gobblygook.
Just my thoughts
24 Nov 2007 by BC Last edited 25 Nov 2007
The main reason this situation allows others to comment and criticise such as myself is for many of the reasons stated previously by the editor. In a nutshell the public perception is that this pitch is the best. Thus, is what we have seen these last six months the best that british g/men are capable of? I am sure many of you would be angry to suggest that it is. Wembley stated that the surface would be excellent if not better than the previous pitch. This is not the case. The events are of simililar type and timing. The stadium is vastly different, but i would be adamant in my view that given all our advances this makes little difference these days. Having been privy to the entire project, the design and the final interview for the hg position i can tell you exactly what the problems are. Also i am not politically correct and will tell it like it really is. You see the truth often hurts which is why people avoid telling it. So I have an offer to pc and its readers. The whole story signed off by me. In return I ask only one thing-that the username 'bert' tell me who he is on this site.
I intend to live forever, so far so good...
24 Nov 2007 by Leeboy Last edited 24 Nov 2007
Matt, you stated in a previous thread that you signed a confidentiality agrrement when you went for the Wembley job and were prevented from talking about it,so how can you tell us 'the whole story'? Without being disrespectful, I would rather hear what the 'whole story' was from someone involved at the current time.
25 Nov 2007 by BC
another personal attack with only your last sentence having any relevance. Of what importance are my morals to an interview over 2 years ago you or anyone else? We will both be responsible for the two biggest club finals in europe next year. If 'my' pitch is crap i will take all responsibility. This exchange sums up exactly what the problems in the uk are. Good luck to you all and it is not a construction problem. P.s. Arsenal has been the best stadium pitch by a country mile in uk for last 12 years.
I intend to live forever, so far so good...
25 Nov 2007 by Tony Hayes
I do not believe that the pitch construction can be problematic, it had been conceived from years of experience in modern pitch construction. The problem lies within the turf (quality), which is preventing it from being a free draining surface.
The big question is why the pitch cut up so badly during the american football game and then why it wasn't re-turfed and replaced after that.
To me this is of paramount importance, if the england players had run out on a brand new surface would they have still played without pride and conviction?
It can't have helped their mood running out on a swamp. They looked just as nervous as they did when they played on the russian plastic surface.
25 Nov 2007 by Leeboy
Where was the 'personal attack', and what has Arsenal got to do with any of this?
26 Nov 2007 by Charles Johnson
While I am fairly interested in what is the problem with and the fix for the Wembley pitch, especially if we can learn something, I am not at all interested in this bitching between you gents.
Having done away with anonymous bickering Pitchcare has been very good in the last year, so please let's not go back to bad old ways.
26 Nov 2007 by Leeboy Last edited 28 Nov 2007
I think you will find that there isnt any bitching from me if you read it correctly, so to say 'gents' is perhaps a little wrong.,
27 Nov 2007 by Weedy
It is the Accountants taking over as with so may other industries once again.
One surface, one sport please! Ask any Grounds Manager of a Private School or College who years ago used to renovate pitches during the school/college recess. That was before 'renting the venue out' in the holidays became an attractive proposition.
Steve has been employed for his practical, technical and commercial credentials in Turf Culture and Sports Turf Management so let him make the decisions seen fitting to his role at the stadium. We all know that this is not possible. Being Grounds Manager of Wembley must be worse than being Head Green Keeper of a Golf Course with so many sub Committees of 'experts' whose only experience of Turf Culture is a few 100 sqm of lawn at home that is probably really poor in quality.
The concept of continual replacement of the turf suface cannot be justified if a well rooted and stable surface that is relevant to the sport being played upon it is to be expected after the appropriate 'growing in' period. Replacement is not a cheap option but often deemed to be the ultimate answer. I thought Rye Grasses were quick at establishment....
As an Industry, we should be getting behind one of 'Our Boys' (and 'Girls of course,) something that we are normally good at but not when so much Media intrusion is surrounding the venue.
I do think that it is time that Steve and the many other decision maker at Wembley took an opportunity to provide some answers and feedback to The Trade in the hope that normal service may be resumed. I guess that the problems will go on until the traditional end of year renovation period next May when the problems of the pitch over the past 12 months can be fully analysed and a plan put in place to prevent them in the future. Oh, I forgot there are a few Rock Concerts and Religous Festivals booked in as soon as the FA Cup has been won. An endless cycle....
27 Nov 2007 by Tony Hayes
Thats all very fluffy Weedy, almost pointless to be honest, the point is someone needs to answer for the abomination that was allowed to occur, whether that's the management, the consultants, the suppliers or the groundstaff.
27 Nov 2007 by Charles Johnson Last edited 28 Nov 2007
I'm not sure if I should be apologising to you Leeboy, for encouraging contributors to use this forum to get at the answers rather than each other. Just in case, I'm sorry.
It certainly wasn't a personal attack, and it isn't the first time I have poked my nose in when I have felt a good debate has turned sour. In this case, having got a sharp reply from you, perhaps my comment was unhelpful.
Perhaps my opinion that we should focus on the issue rather than attack each other is not the debate Pitchcare would like us to have,
My original point, made after Wembley was cut up by that stupid American Football game, has still not been answered, as Tony has rightly just said. We should not try to defend how poor the pitch at our flagship stadium is, to do so as the best groundsmen in the country would be laughable, we need to identify and explain the problem and fix it .
And, do a helluva lot better in future if we want to be taken seriously as skilled professionals.
27 Nov 2007 by Peter Leroy
And that, Charles, is the meaning or purpose of my thought.
Identify, explain and hopefully resolve.
I feel a sense of hesitance by the many in this situation.
The owners (and marketing arm of), the builders / architects, the sub contractors and then on to any staff that are able to respond to any or some of Laurences original enquiries.
I would imagine that to begin it is important to understand, or know, just what were the specifications for the field. The owners or builders would have those.
What was actually installed ? Perhaps the sub-contractors would have such information.
What led to the choosing of the field profile and materials ?
When was it installed (the field) and how long and how was it maintained before "traffic" was allowed. The management team would have that information.
Once it is known just what is the "in ground" situation, it can then be useful for the debate to know just what field management practices have been under taken.
Useage is an enormous difficulty for any management team. Trying to find and justify the balance between needed income and a natural surface ability to withstand such use.
Perhaps those who have information could be interviewed by Pitchcare staff for a follow up article ?
27 Nov 2007 by ticky21 Last edited 27 Nov 2007
i dont care what rhym or reason everyone comes up with, from the amateur groundsman up to premiership groundsman and all the consultants, contractors and advisers in between, the bottom line is the pitch was built wrong, remains crap and made this country look complete incompetents, a huge c**k up all round...but no one will have the balls to give the full and honest details as to why it ended up no better than a farm paddock, the biggest cock up IMO was to dig it 6 odd feet deeper than the existing pitch, to my way of thinking that's a POND...and what happened to the drainage and ventilation system that was supposed to be installed into it, (50,000 gallons of water can pass thru the turf in one hour,!!!) this is from wembelys own website...the FA should have just bit the bullet and returfed, then we would not be having this debate now,
Ticky supports British farmers...!!
28 Nov 2007 by Yetanotherdave Last edited 28 Nov 2007
Why should they give us answers? No groundsman in the country would like the grief that wembley has to put up with. How many of us have our own grief to contend with? Us golfies have thousands of Greenkeepers playing on our courses.
Any consultant or groundsman should stop commenting on the radio, if you want to protect the industry, then surely they should refuse to comment on anything Or even put post such as this one for people to Slate. Unless talking about their own patches. If our industry needs answers then why broadcast more questions? Forums are wrong, unless used constructively. .
28 Nov 2007 by Joe Hendy
I still don't see any answers?
By taking the wembley job, you are signing up to any problems or praise that comes with it. It's like any high pro file position. If the pitch was right in the first place then Grondsman/consultants would not need to go on the radio, there would be nothing to discuss.
The public and the paying football fan have every right to an explanation. Wembley must be the most expensive stadium in the world at EIGHT HUNDRED MILLION POUNDS, and for that they should expect nothing but the finest of playing surfaces.
As far as turfing goe's, why can they not just seed it with the finest Ryegrasses the UK has to offer? The STRI list is updated every year with better ryegrasses, surely groundsman have never had it so easy?
Southampton football club, that is a playing surface to be proud of. Being a championship club they cant have the largest of budgets, but that pitch always looks good on the t.v.
28 Nov 2007 by Barry Pace Last edited 28 Nov 2007
Round and round we all go, why, what, if, who..........
The answers will probably never truly be told.
What do we know...................
A new stadia with unknown microclimate.
A new Groundsman working initially under (we are told) restrictions on regime according to those laid down in specifications that he has had no control or input over, while he works towards learning how this 'baby' reacts to all that he is allowed to do (microclimates).
A surface that was turfed then sat due to delayed opening when it could have probably been seeded although this is irrelevant when you look at the usage of this stadia and the probable need for regular returfing after covered events.
A massive project budget which only a very very small percentage was actually spent on the important bit again.
What, more importantly dont we actually know.......
What resources and budget do they have.
What 'freedom' of maintenance regime is allowed.
With the range of usage that the surface will have to put up with who actually budgets for, agrees and allows the correct remedial/repair/time needed to get this living breathing surface back into shape.
What was the actual construction specification .... little information about the truly important bit is available off the official site bar a download pdf or a one liner saying how big the pitch area is....... we know exactly how many litres of paint the place took or how many smoke or heat detectors there are and the informative 'brochure' tells us:....
The pitch is made up of an underlying web of
heating and drainage pipes plus 22,161 tonnes of
stone, gravel, sand and soil. The grasses used for
the turf have been selected from 250 different
varieties with each square metre of turf containing
150,000 to 200,000 leaf blades.
It is possible for approximately 50,000 gallons of
water to drain through the pitch in one hour.
(I take it they didnt do a recount on the grass density after the NFL game lol and the percolation rate was achieved between 10 and 11am in a laboratory about 2 years before they actually built it......)
There is talk of 'split' rootzones the make up of the profile is critical to its performance and abilities, it would be good to know what they are actually working with.
Do we know whether the pitch has been returfed since original laying or are they still working with that surface.
Does all this nice underlying pipework prevent proper aeration to occur at the lower depths of the rootzone.
All of the above is totally relevant to the condition of the surface. If we have only partial or no true knowledge of these elements then all we spout, state or comment on is pure conjecture and has no relevance other than to wind up a few and if viewed by unknowings such as the outside Journos who are actively viewing this site to glean info be taken completely out of context and used against.
We have all commented before on returfs and the problems with integration, compatibilty, practicalities and timings and a lot do have major problems associated with the process, is this down to the turf or is it down to tight windows of opportunity and the luck of the weather window, it seems to me its the returfs undertaken in or followed by very wet or cold that suffer the most, have you ever watched a 'blotter' floating over a freshly laid surface, scary........
For those that ask, could they have reseeded, well after the summer concerts (according to the diary) with only 4 weeks including take down between Metallica and the first match this really is not practical, plus I wonder if it would look good for the very lucrative Tours business which is very noticable when you are there.
Comparing it to any other surface that is established is always difficult especially when an 'older' stadia with known variables and lessons, comparing to Emirates should possibly open our minds, but on the understanding that usage will be very different along with a very strong top level management understanding of the importance of the surface and its effect on play, I bet they told people what they wanted and how to do it, so not too much influence on debate can this part.
I will await more information before I comment further beyond the following:
'The powers that be......... They couldn't get the choice of team manager right so how the hell do we expect them to get something as important as the pitch correct'.......................
And if I was Steve and was watching what they were doing to the pitch today I would be crying........... but at least he will get a new surface after to deal with from scratch.
Plastic.... it's The End I tell you... THE END!!!!
28 Nov 2007 by petermarkcraig
Gate 13 I honestly do not know who you are but judging from your sparring with Lee I assume you hold a prestigious position at a top football club and got close to selection for the Wembley post.
What penalty/punishment would you suffer for breaking the confidentiiality clause you signed, if you indeed signed one?
Of course the grass looks good. The sun is shining.
30 Nov 2007 by Derek Tomlinson
What chance now with the pitch having a tarmac race circuite bult on it...yes they maybe realying the pitch but the size and weight of the machinery being used to lay the tarmac is going to have seriouse implications on sub soil, drainage and compaction come on Wembley Management give the groundsman and his staff a 'sporting' chance.
Want to post a comment in response to this article?
Login now, or register if you are not a Pitchcare member.
