|
|
Post by dibo (pron. "DIB-OH") on Feb 8, 2007 12:54:13 GMT 10
Is there any economical viability for artificial surfaces and can football be safely played on it? If so, does an artificial surface cost less to maintain? more expensive just ask the hockey players their stuff is different again, but i think it's actually cheaper than the fieldturf and other FIFA approved brands. |
|
kevrenor
Moderator 
Keeping the 'surrounding regions' yellow since 2004 ... Be Mariners, be Yellow, be a Marinator!
Posts: 2,130
|
Post by kevrenor on Feb 8, 2007 13:19:16 GMT 10
Is there any economical viability for artificial surfaces and can football be safely played on it? If so, does an artificial surface cost less to maintain? a lot more expensive than grass, if you want to use it for just regular fields. can be viable for secure stadium facilities (even pluim might be doable), but regular fields i don't think so. plus the fields around are multi-use, so i think it'd be assessed against cricket as well in particular, and wouldn't be suitable for both. costs less to maintain (i think) compared to stadium grass, but loads more than a council park. If Jesus wants to drop by Seymour Shaw Park at Miranda on his way to his girlfriend's place he can report to us on the new artifical turf that Sutherland will play on in the NSW Premier League |
|
|
|
Post by thetoffeemen on Feb 8, 2007 13:37:43 GMT 10
If Council no longer maintain the fields due to non use and therefore no maintenance done does this mean residential/business owner occupiers and football clubs get their rates reduced or his that one in the too hard basket.
|
|
|
|
Post by dibo (pron. "DIB-OH") on Feb 8, 2007 13:45:31 GMT 10
If Council no longer maintain the fields due to non use and therefore no maintenance done does this mean residential/business owner occupiers and football clubs get their rates reduced or his that one in the too hard basket. i'm not quite sure you're making sense. council wouldn't be abandoning the fields, they'd be restricting them to junior use only (and therefore much much lower impact). think about the difference in the force a 14 year old imparts on the turf when turning vs a 25 year old. the 25 year old will weigh a good 20kg more at least and probably be moving a lot faster. it's to preserve the grounds when they can't be watered very often, and the idea is that that way you don't have to attempt complete returfing in the middle of a drought. |
|
marinermick
Moderator
Coming to Bay 16 Soon
Posts: 8,657
|
Post by marinermick on Feb 8, 2007 13:57:28 GMT 10
what he means is - do we get a reduction in our rates because council is now not paying for maintaining the ovals?
|
|
|
|
Post by dibo (pron. "DIB-OH") on Feb 8, 2007 14:03:23 GMT 10
what he means is - do we get a reduction in our rates because council is now not paying for maintaining the ovals? council will be maintaining ovals. they're just not going to have to completely overhaul every oval on the coast if they stop them from being completely destroyed. they're not going to be saving money that would otherwise have been spent. they're preventing extra spending that would be far over and above what would otherwise be budgeted. |
|
|
|
Post by thetoffeemen on Feb 8, 2007 14:23:07 GMT 10
I think this may have gone over your heads boys, lets try again, if you pay for something upfront and then you find out its not necessary anymore, are you entitled to a refund. Council pay a sub contractor to maintain the fields, if the level of maintenance is not as previous because of less wear and tear then he gets paid less. Get it
|
|
|
|
Post by dibo (pron. "DIB-OH") on Feb 8, 2007 14:28:22 GMT 10
I think this may have gone over your heads boys, lets try again, if you pay for something upfront and then you find out its not necessary anymore, are you entitled to a refund. Council pay a sub contractor to maintain the fields, if the level of maintenance is not as previous because of less wear and tear then he gets paid less. Get it my point was that i think while the wear and tear may be less than would have been the case if seniors played, because of the dryness of the grounds it may well be no better than a normal year with all grades playing. |
|
|
|
Post by Jesus on Feb 8, 2007 15:44:30 GMT 10
The fact is council wants to protect junior sport. For health reasons, as well as the pure numbers, and money involved.
They still have to maintain the field as they would. It will just survive better.
A subcontractor is still doing the same work, water is not something they are required to guarentee. So the council will still pay them to maintain, and the current probl;ems are the result of bigger structural issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by curious on Feb 8, 2007 20:22:48 GMT 10
Tamworth district (north west region), have just canceled football for the 2007 season because of the dangerous condition of fields caused by lack of rainfall. Literaly, they are full of surface cracks large enough to brake ankles.
|
|
|
|
Post by jollyroger on Feb 8, 2007 22:45:22 GMT 10
We certainly pay a levy on our rates for parks and recreation. I have my rates notice in front of me right now. $7.97 is the charge this quarter.
The subject of tanks has been brought up in this thread already. I am not sure what size tanks would be needed to provide the necessary water the fields would require. Each field is different and therefore the water requirements would be different at each location.
Working in construction, i recently tendered a project that required an above ground water tank with a capacity of 750,000 litres. The nett cost of the tank (supply and install) was approximately $120k + an additional cost of $20k for the ring beam footing system underneath to support it (cost price- excl builders supervision, prelimaries & margin etc). They are a panelised system and relatively easy to construct. This excluded the electics, pump systems, and the necessary retriculation/ irrigation system that would be required to make the system work.
Smaller tanks would never fly, you might just as well get your mates down to the local ground and piss on it rather than get a 10,000 ltr tank. However a problem with larger tanks is the necessary catchment area required to fill them. The average 120m2 roof on the amenties block at your local field would never work. Not to mention that the tank would probably be higher than the catchment point which in itself is a problem. Perhaps filling the tanks with desalinated water might work???.
All this would lead to a new problem. It would hardly be worth having such systems around the grounds if there isnt enough maintenance guys on each ground coordinating the watering. I couldnt imagine what it would cost each year to administer the systems around the coast if they were implemented.
|
|
|
|
Post by offtheball on Feb 9, 2007 6:23:59 GMT 10
Water is not the problem. Have a look around the grounds at the moment green as! Plenty of rain on the Coastal fringe for this reason huge tanks are not needed, just big enough to irrigate when we get a couple of weeks without rain and to water areas that have been returfed. How many weekends washed out last year?
The problem is lack of grounds and more players than ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by jollyroger on Feb 9, 2007 7:28:21 GMT 10
On the subject of grounds, what sporting body has staked a claim for the new field under construction on Empire Bay dr between kincumber and bensville?
|
|
marinermick
Moderator
Coming to Bay 16 Soon
Posts: 8,657
|
Post by marinermick on Feb 9, 2007 7:39:07 GMT 10
On the subject of grounds, what sporting body has staked a claim for the new field under construction on Empire Bay dr between kincumber and bensville? the bensville bandits |
|
|
|
Post by Jesus on Feb 9, 2007 9:33:17 GMT 10
I believe terrigal rugby league and kincumber will be playing there. Others too possibly. Leaving the current kincumber and terrigal fields to soccer. Unless there is another ground under construction?
|
|
|
|
Post by offtheball on Feb 12, 2007 15:45:44 GMT 10
Lucky no one can train because of the drought, otherwise it would be washed out!
|
|
oziboy
Local league player
Posts: 66
|
Post by oziboy on Feb 20, 2007 10:10:20 GMT 10
From Central Coast Express Advocate 15th Feb 2007
Surfaces may be too dangerous
GOSFORD Council has warned that several key sporting fields may be closed this year as a consequence of the drought.
The council's recreation facilities co-ordinator Karen Tucker said Frost Reserve at Kincumber and Heazlett Park at Avoca Beach were two venues in particulary poor condition.
``They will be monitored regularly but they may prove too dangerous and if that is the case they will be closed,'' Tucker said.
Heazlett Park is the home of the Avoca Sharks Rugby Club and the club has been pro-active in doing its part to ensure the ground survives the season.
``For six months the ground has been virtually unplayable,'' secretary Robert Burns said.
``By pushing the council and offering to pay for some of the work we are working together to get the ground to a playable standard.
``We'll get it over the line for this season but it remains a short-term solution.''
The Sharks and the council are both funding the repair of Heazlett Park with the rugby club contributing $3000.
Frost Reserve is home to both the Kincumber Roos Soccer Club and the Kincumber Colts Rugby League Club.
Colts president Paul Cranstone said: ``The ground is over-used.
``With little water available the situation is only going to get worse until the new ground at South Kincumber is ready next year.''
Gosford and Wyong councils have drafted a sports ground management strategy in consultation with Central Coast sporting associations.
The strategy includes the prohibition of all pre-season training and limiting clubs to two nights of training a week.
The councils are purchasing equipment to evaluate the grounds in terms of their ground coverage, hardness and stability.
Evaluations will be carried out fortnightly and findings will be posted on the councils' websites.
``We won't just be contacting clubs to tell them grounds are closed but will work through a consultation process with them to get the best out of the grounds,'' Tucker said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Farthing on Feb 20, 2007 13:31:59 GMT 10
On the subject of grounds, what sporting body has staked a claim for the new field under construction on Empire Bay dr between kincumber and bensville? That will be the Kincumber Colts rugby league club field if it ever gets finished, and the Football Club will have all of frost reserve |
|
marinermick
Moderator
Coming to Bay 16 Soon
Posts: 8,657
|
Post by marinermick on Feb 20, 2007 13:35:00 GMT 10
If anyone drives past Ourimbah they will notice that it is looking an absolute treat - always does this time of the year. By the end of the season it will be a dust bowl.
This just proves that the problem is not the drought but overuse at training as there is only one area lit up and so many teams that have to compete for oval space.
As has been mentioned before the problem is the council's lack of planning and development of ovals, not the drought.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenpoleffc on Feb 20, 2007 16:03:19 GMT 10
Why cant OUFC pump water out of the creek or use bore water that is rumoured to be under the site???
Agree it looks fabulous, maybe some lights on the little kids pitch area might take some strain off the main pitch.
|
|
