News
£1bn Stamford Bridge hit by family dispute
Little has ever stood between Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich and realising his ambitions for the club.
But plans for a £1bn new stadium are being held up by one family over their right to light ‐ and the lack of it shining into their home when the new Stamford Bridge is built.
The Crosthwaites have lived in their west London cottage for 50 years and it is so close to the Premier League club’s ground that you could almost kick a football from their doorstep onto the pitch.
The new stadium was granted planning permission one year ago and has been signed off by the Mayor of London, but Chelsea have called on the local council to intervene and take advantage of planning laws to stop the injunction effectively ending the planned development.
Les Malin appointed MD for Etesia UK In his third successive
promotion, Les Malin has been appointed as the new managing director of Etesia UK with immediate effect.
After starting his career in the farming industry at the age of 16, Les moved into the groundcare industry in 1993. He joined Etesia UK from Amazone in 2000 as area manager and was appointed general manager in 2006. He quickly became an influential figure within the company and, in 2014, he was promoted to operations director ‐ a move which saw him become the company’s first ever UK director.
New outdoor sports centre for Plymouth
Work to transform old artificial football pitches into a brand new sports facility for Plymouth’s Manadon and Honicknowle communities is now under way.
The work is being funded by the Premier League & The FA Facilities Fund, Sport England and the England and Wales Cricket Board, supported by contributions from the Council and the trust. 30,000 people are expected to use the site annually, which doubles current numbers.
12 I PC FEBRUARY/MARCH 2018 100% safe rubber crumb?
A UK company claims that it has produced the first 100% safe rubber crumb infill for artificial surfaces and, if their website is to be believed, this truly is good news
The company in question is Murfitts Industries and the product in question is PRO-gran which, according to the website, has “... literally ‘changed the game’ in high-performance infill for artificial sports pitches”.
The website further states that it is “a Polymeric Infill that provides exceptional performance, it is the winning formula for 100% pitch safety, both for players and the wider environment. What's more, it has been thoroughly tested and exceeds the EU’s toughest toxicology standards since it releases no heavy metals, PAHs or micro plastics.”
That all sounds very positive, and the company certainly provide enough documentary evidence to support their claims. These are:
• No other artificial pitch infill matches PRO‐gran’s
performance for ball bounce, ball roll, consistency of play and surface stability
• Other benefits include lower surface temperatures, no aroma, no airborne particulates and excellent drainage properties
• With up to 25% reduction in skin abrasion, players are delighted with its performance
The results from various sources, including Labosport and SGS INTRON B.V. (Dutch Soil Decree), have been released in recent months, so the product has clearly been ‘in the pipeline’ a good while. The product meets the criteria for REACH 1272/2013.
So, what is PRO-gran?
It is a Polymeric Infill that combines the dynamic properties of rubber, which is then “coated in polyurethane to make it 100% safe”.
From a marketing perspective, this is all good news for the company and there will doubtless be other rubber crumb manufacturers currently scurrying around playing catch‐up.
And, if the product does what it says on the tin ‐ consistency of
play, lower surface temperatures, no airborne particulates, almost no splash, effective drainage and no aroma ‐ then it is very good news for the health of our children, grandchildren and the countless budding sports stars playing on 3G.
Of concern to detractors, however, is not the claims of the new product, but rather the similar claims of the old product which, in light of worries over its carcinogenic properties, seem now to be somewhat unfounded. If the old was safe, then why the need for the new?
Additionally, these same detractors ask of the new product:
Will the coating not wash off or degrade with all the games being played on it?
And, if it does wash off, degrade or the coating becomes broken, does this mean the rubber then becomes less than 100% safe and it allows chemicals to escape?
Will all new build 3G pitches now be specified with PRO‐gran, or a similar alternative when it
becomes available?
Whilst the FA, the Football Foundation, Sport England, the Premier League, IOG, RFU et al got behind a European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) evaluation of rubber crumb earlier in the year that stated “recycled rubber infill causes a very low level of concern”, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report on ‘Recycled Tire Crumb Used on Playing Fields’ has been delayed whilst their evaluation continues.
Therefore, even after the ECHA’s evaluation, safety concerns remain with the original product. The EPA’s findings are being eagerly awaited.
Of course, the arguments surrounding natural versus artificial will rumble on, as will the environmental issues regarding flooding, end of life disposal and such like. Murfitts claims that the new material will remain in perfect condition for over twelve years have yet to be proven, but the innovation is surely to be applauded, isn't it?
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
