Artificial Surfaces
regularly, to ensure an AGP is being properly maintained.
By advising AGP owners and operators to log each occasion that their surface is swept, drag brushed, power brushed and inspected, as well as the number of hours per month that these works are completed, the Cranfield report emphasised the need to record and document maintenance as being a key aspect of AGP maintenance. Dr James, now Technical Director at the sports surface designers TGMS Ltd explains; “The amount of maintenance should be linked to the hours of use on a pitch. All pitches will need routine maintenance to help clean infill from environmental contamination, but the more the pitch is used the more
maintenance is required because of wear, compaction and contamination from use. Keeping good records of use and pitch condition is essential.”
The findings of the Cranfield report
were upheld in 2009 by Dr Colin Young in his SportSURF presentation ‘Maintaining Performance’. Here, Dr Young focused on the need to provide adequate maintenance for AGPs at a level comparable to that which is freely afforded to natural turf pitches. By this time, it was more widely understood that AGPs are anything but ‘maintenance- free’, yet still the provision for appropriate maintenance was often found lacking.
The potential financial rewards of an AGP have long been clear, particularly
when it is utilised for both club and commercial use. However, as with anything, the more an AGP is used the more it requires maintaining. A car, for example, covering close to 50,000 miles a year will require more consumable parts and more frequent servicing than a car that travels just 10,000 miles a year. AGPs are no different and, in his presentation, Dr Young stated that all too often little provision is devoted towards maintenance, citing unclear responsibility and lack of funding as key reasons for this. Dr Young’s presentation outlined a plan to remedy this failing, namely the introduction of a new procurement framework, being developed between the FA, Football Foundation and the RFU,
APRIL/MAY 2013 PC 63
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 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156