BUCS CONFERENCE 2016 FACILITY DEVELOPMENT THE RISE/ROLE OF ARTIFICIAL PITCHES THURSDAY, 14 JULY 2016

Transcription

1 BUCS CONFERENCE 2016 FACILITY DEVELOPMENT THE RISE/ROLE OF ARTIFICIAL PITCHES THURSDAY, 14 JULY 2016

2 History/Origins QPR, Luton, Oldham 1G pitches Not designed for football and created more confusion and misconceptions still seen today Technology and innovation improved to replicate natural turf 3G No such thing as 4G/5G FIFA quality concept and strict performance requirements especially with player surface interaction (fatigue, injury and technique) Recognise some players have concerns around use of 3G pitches FA decision to use in all FA competitions and continued investment in 3G National League now allowing use of 3G Football League considering 75% of coaches polled believed that players were likely to develop better skills by training on Synthetic Turf 72% of coaches who had experienced regular competitive football on 3G believed this to improve the skill acquisition of the players 2

3 3G Investment and process to date 4503G projects supported through Football Foundation since m invested Priority going forward at least 50% of investment into 3G Focus on demand for 3G in each Local Authority Database of existing AGP s working with other NGB s Action Plan for each Local Authority City/Borough wide approach Parklife Or single site investment 3G 3

4 Future investment - Parklife Create a new model that relieves existing financial and technical constraints on the supply of pitches, and meets the evolving demands of grassroots football in the 21 st Century. Objectives: Significantly reduce the reliance of grassroots football on public subsidy in targeted locations Attract new sources of investment (both capital and revenue) into grassroots facilities Build a sustainable national and replicable local model Provide clubs with more security of tenure on their facilities and encourage community involvement and pursuit of football development targets through these sites Improve youth player development by maximizing opportunities for kids to play and learn on the best surfaces -3G FTPs 4

5 Parklife New money for Grassroots Facilities - 130m from football partners for an initial 5 year programme (FA 10m, PL 8m, SE 8m) Based on supply and demand modelling to produce a city/ LA wide investment plan Hub sites identified New charitable trusts established at a local level to hold property and sinking funds Significantly more FTP s, but income generating with revenues used to improve grass pitch maintenance locally football paying for football Medium term key grass pitch sites to also come under Trust control Leagues and clubs are key partners to help deliver the 50% mini and 9v9 target of matches being played on FTP s Explore the opportunity for other partners 5

6 Hub site Dedicated location for delivery of affiliated & recreational football Minimum 2x FTP s (ideally 3), natural grass pitches & ideally standard building design Coach Education space & FA programmes delivered on site-bottom up approach to protecting slots and setting pricing locally Programmed use to cater for club use for training and club/ league use for matches as a priority and then operator can deliver recreational programmes Links to pro-club (community programmes) Some sites may have a commercial offer 6

7 Parklife programme - Current position Sheffield first site scheduled to open in Aug - trust established and operational Sheffield- final phase of sites being developed- total portfolio cost 17m Liverpool 4x sites in for planning, 17 million funding committed and trust established. London Initial pathfinder hub identified London competition Launched 24 th May and closes 16 th July National competition launch post September 2016(TBC) 7

8 Artificial Grass Pitch Strategy Ross Baxter

9 RFU Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) Strategy Announced in December Deliver 100 full sized floodlit World Rugby certified 3 rd Generation Pitches 60 m over 4 years

10 AGP Strategy Why Are We Doing this? 1 Natural Turf Pitches Pitches overused with no excess capacity Detrimental impact on the playing experience 2 Modernising the environment Younger players are expecting more Attract new participants 3 Weather Conditions British winters have got milder and wetter in the last 4 years More games and training cancelled, reducing participation

11 AGP Strategy Key Headlines & What will we deliver? Overused Pitches Natural turf pitches are on average overused by 74%at clubs with 1 or 2 pitches The average training pitch across the country is 58%overused Modernising Rugby Only 10% of AGPs in England are World Rugby regulation 22 compliant.1% of these are at amateur rugby clubs What will we deliver; Two types of AGP, placed strategically to ensure we maximise rugby participation

12 We propose funding two types of AGP, which will be placed strategically to ensure we maximise rugby participation Rugby Turf Rugby Share - 40 Funded entirely by the RFU Built on rugby club land Owned and controlled by the RFU Rugby union will account for majority of the usage The non-rugby usage will generate revenue for the RFU to help maintain the AGPs Part funded by the RFU Built on 3 rd Party land Targeted urban areas Controlled by 3 rd Party owner Guaranteed proportion of usage dedicated to rugby 750k 250K Traditional Grant Majority of investment delivering maximum participation benefits whilst meeting all objectives in the design principles Low cost / risk alternative to generating participation in urban areas where access to rugby club land is limited 12

13 AGP Strategy Rugby Turf Primary Drivers Clubs and local rugby communities with high growth potential Clubs and local rugby communities with overused natural turf pitches Usage Principles Set/targeted number of hours for; Priority access for host clubs Local clubs Local community i.e. schools, colleges universities Commercial

14 AGP Strategy Rugby Share Rugby Share forms a key strand of the AGP Strategy with a budget of 10m grant funded investment over 4 years in order to deliver 40 pitches The investment will be paid to partners looking to develop an AGP, who in return for the investment will allow access to the facility for the RFU and its affiliated clubs, Constituent bodies and education institutions The primary objectives of the Rugby Share investment are as follows: 1. Reduce pitch capacity issues in areas where access to freehold / long leasehold is not available 2. Expose a new demographic of participants to rugby in less traditional areas 3. Provide an alternative to the rugby turf model to provide an AGP solution to areas where growth is high

15 Rugby Share Which areas will we consider for investment? Area with a pitch capacity deficit Area with high growth potential this should consider: Nearby All Schools, other development activity and regional variances in rugby growth potential (not just population density) Partners with the ability and willingness to develop a site, including considerations around; Rugby Union programmes Community links Partnership funding Business plan Areas where we cannot develop a Rugby Turf facility, or in areas that still have a pitch capacity deficit even after a Rugby Turf investment

16 Rugby Share Which partners will we invest in? We will adopt a preferred partner approach -this does not exclude any potential partners, it simply allows us to focus on the sites which we believe will achieve the best investment return Preferred partners have been identified for the following reasons 1. Access to available capital (i.e. more likely to get off the ground) 2. Cater for our target age group (16-24) 3. They offer ease of access to our users other operational considerations i.e. changing room access Possible Partners; Universities, Colleges Local Authorities Rugby clubs and CBs Other NGBs / Commercial operators Schools

17 Rugby Share What do we want our investment to achieve? 9 Peak Example Evening training & matches Saturday and Sunday matches 02 Touch 8 Off-Peak Rugby Development Education matches and training This model assumes that Clubs and Schools will pay a preferred partner rate of no more than; 30 per peak hour 20 per off-peak hour The proposed approach for testing our Standard Investment Model will be to distribute a prospectus to a range of partners in target areas.

18 Next Steps Covered Today 1. RFU AGP Strategy Rugby Turf 2. RFU AGP Strategy Rugby Share Next Steps RFU to circulate our investment model prospectus July EOI Consider how a partnership approach with your local clubs could support your offers Speak to Area Facility Manager about your facility needs and identify how it aligns with local needs Make contact if you require support with RFU technical guidance and requirements

19 AGP Framework Quick Look Ted Mitchell

20 Overview What were the issues pre framework? What do we want the framework to achieve? Frameworks

21 Quick Quiz How many Rugby compliant AGPs in England? 71 How many of these at Universities? 18 How many of these at Colleges? 11

22 Quick Quiz What is the longest period of compliance? 12 years What is the shortest? 2 years

23 Spot The Difference

24 Testing -results so far Why did we establish the framework? 229 Pitches tested for the FA 3G register allowing affiliated matches 65 pitches problems/issues : Shock Absorption 34 pitches problems/issues : Ball Roll 63 pitches - problems /issues: Undulations/sub base 21 pitches - problems /issues: ripped/open seams/carpet folds 24

25 Pre-framework Individual contracts individually procured Professional services : range in consultants Construction: contractor led Issues with finished product Very poor accountability and warrantees High risk approach for significant investment

26 What did we want to achieve? Consistent quality in finished product Long term return on investment High level of accountability and warrantees Consistent approach to feasibility & design High quality build methodology Value for money construction Value for money on fees

27 The solution A manufacturer led AGP framework A cradle to grave consultancy service (FMC) All delivered in partnership : RFU, FA, FF, Sport England and England Hockey.

28 AGP Supplier Framework Manufacturer led Single point of accountability OJEU compliant procurement X 5 suppliers in place Tenders on project scenarios Mini tender every project

29 Framework Managing Consultant Cradle to grave project management Liaison with and management of suppliers OJEU procurement and task based fees Consistency and value for money KSIs Key Stage Inspections RLF, SSL and Labosportappointed

30 Summary We believe the framework and FMC minimise risk, protect investment, deliver high quality AGPs and provide excellent value for money. Framework and FMC is available to any organisation working in partnership with an NGB.