SPENDING
Due to the current recession spending, especially of public money, is being increasingly scrutinised with strict justification requirements being put in place so that increases can be capped or managed accordingly. Consequently, long-term plans are being reviewed, in particular operating budgets with, in some cases, reductions being made
T
he sport and amenity sector is not immune to the recession and these reductions have, in many cases, had an impact on the maintenance budgets available for sportsfields. How do we deal with these reductions at an operational level while maintaining the performance and playing quality we have achieved in the past? Options include alternative funding sources, or higher fees and subscriptions that increase the finance available for providing playing surfaces. Inevitably, the latter option is likely to be highly controversial. A preferable option in the first instance is a ‘back to basics’ approach, where the focus falls on the essentials - i.e. those tasks that need to be carried out to provide a quality playing surface. This process involves systematically evaluating current performance, practices and inputs. The key is to then apply the most cost effective practices and inputs to gain the best outcome.
Field performance
When thinking about maintaining sportsfield performance, consideration needs to be given to how this is measured. Is it through:
• Field closures • Audit results - internal or external • Usage records • Benchmarking • Past records to work from
Given the present economic climate what standards are appropriate?
Once you have determined the
performance level that is to be maintained and how it is currently measured, or will be measured in the future, you can set maintenance requirements to meet these performance targets.
Management inputs
The first part of your strategy should be to prioritise the fields under your control and establish a quality or expectation for each. This allows you to provide different levels of quality depending on factors such as usage, expectation etc. In other words, the same overall budget will be used, but inputs to each field will be apportioned on the basis of the expected standard.
Maintenance inputs
Next, consider those tasks which are currently carried out to maintain the sportsfield(s). Having identified all the maintenance requirements and tasks, determine which tasks are considered as essential maintenance, e.g. mowing, fertilisation, weed control, pest control, line marking, field monitoring, or additional tasks that aim to improve the surface. e.g. verti-draining, oversowing, turfing etc. The next step is to question why these tasks are being carried out and if they are all necessary? How do we apply the resources we have available and is this being done in a cost effective way that maintains performance? Inevitably, what is considered additional
maintenance for one situation could be viewed as essential in another. Therefore, it is important to tailor a maintenance programme to your individual needs. Start with the essential tasks required
on the field. Core maintenance cannot be eliminated, but perhaps it can be reduced, or the way in which it is applied can be altered to improve outcomes. An example of this is the addition of a growth regulator to the line marking paint to give longer intervals between marking, thus providing savings for labour and materials. Other strategies that may allow inputs to be reduced are: Thresholds - adopting a policy which
involves setting threshold levels for pest and weed content, below which chemicals will not be applied - opposed to carrying out pesticide and herbicide applications at set times to all venues. These thresholds can be revised in accordance with budgets and public feedback. Mowing - mowing frequency should be based on a height specification rather than a calendar basis. When growth slows mowing frequency can be reduced without impacting on the playing surface. Mowing specifications (height, presence of seedheads etc.) for areas outside the playing surface can be reduced. Selection of appropriate equipment for
mowing, i.e. most fuel efficient, correct cutting heads, sizing of machinery for the areas being maintained is important. For example, the use of rotary mowers rather than reel mowers could assist in cost reductions with minimal impact on playing quality.
Consider the use of growth regulators such as PrimoMaxx. Research has shown savings in the order of 50% are possible. Fertilisation - adequate fertilisation is essential to maintain turf cover. The important issue is to apply those nutrients which are limiting (most commonly
CUTS
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132