Quick question
Given that the old undersoil heating system was disconnected because it would have been dangerous to spike the pitch ... are modern undersoil systems fork-resistant?

I think the main problem was that after 30 years the soil had baked hard and so needed deep spiking rather than the normal garden fork depth spiking - wasn't it ?

Watch out for a "grass tax" at HQ (similar to EHT - Ellery Hanley Tax - introduced to pay his monstrous salary).

Yup, pretty much IIRC. Combined with the old undersoil being quite close to the surface it made deep spiking impractical, and therefore hindered the drainage.

Question for the learned Mr Armadillo, could they as well as installing undersoil heating instal a ground heat pump system to provide hot water for parts of the ground?
Thereby improving the club's green credentials & reducing energy costs?
That together with Solar or PV panels on the new Southstand plus rainwater & greywater recycling could (should) all be included & might provide some green funding towards the ovarall costs of the scheme.
The Rhinos trumpets its community work this would add further to that.

That would suggest there is actually some grass to feed .... Or does sand also need nourishment ?

Having said that, the heating was installed in the early 60s, Leeds didn't have much problems with pitch conditions for the first 30-odd years of its life.

Might be that the undersoil heating issue is a smokescreen for the damage done to the playing surface by the lodgers ?

Once again, I am no expert on U/S heating systems but I understand that our old system was the second system ever to be installed in the UK (after Everton) and used wire as a direct heat conductor to heat the surrounding soil and thus keep the snow and ice of the pitch and it was either on or off!

Modern systems all now use water pipes under the pitch, so effectively they pump hot water around a network of armoured plastic pipes under the pitch (same as underfloor heating in housing), the keep the snow and ice off. As I understand it, these pipes are laid a reasonable distance below the surface and they are not laid in soil/sand any more but a stone or synthetic granular drainage layer and then the soil and grass above this, so they do not need to spike this low anyway. It is also controlled by a series of temperature sensors placed in 'sectors' under the pitch meaning that not only does it work automatically when required but also it varies it's temperature to suit and also it is possible for it to be on in one area of the pitch and not another. So if it is a cold but sunny day and one area of the pitch gets sun and warms up, but other areas do not as they are still in shade, it stays on where required. The soil baking does not happen because of this modern control and of course they don't put soil directly around the pipes any more.

All these are possible and a ground heat pump may be a way to keep the bills down and possibly even supply partially heated water for the new u/s heating system when required. The pay back on these is quite short and it would suit intermittent energy use of stand & u/s heating.

When it comes to Solar and PV I am not sure it would pay, as the stand energy usage is intermittent and therefore pay-back could be decades. Mounting them on the South Stand to provide energy/heated water for the main offices and day to day operational area would be an idea but I would save that idea for the new North Stand roof which is closer to the current offices and day to day facilities.

Now grey water recycling from sinks to flush the toilets might work but I would think that the amounts of grey water generated would be small. You can't put grey water on the pitch because of the soaps/detergents. Rainwater recycling is of course a very good idea and would like to think that the club would collect the rainwater both for use in flushing toilets and also the watering of the pitch in summer. It is just the cost of installing a big enough tank and pump system, maybe under the new stand, and that would be a winner for me. It would also mean that if we got a situation where water became short in the summer months, the club could continue to water the pitch.

A series of small wind turbines mounted on the stand would also be a good idea and that would make more sense than Solar or PV and return cost is not as long.

After last Friday night the under floor heating needs to be in the South stand at least the players get to run about. I just hope sunday is not a repeat (weather wise repeat of the game result is ok) we had last time we played storm never been so wet and cold in my life (and that includes fording waist high streams on exercise in january)

Thanks for the response IA.
My main point was to hope that the club, its architects, M&E consultants & the council (as the planning authority) would seriously consider all the green options.
Because of it's orientation the roof of the southstand could contain a vast PV array that would generate electricity all year round for the club's own use & resale to the National Grid.
If they don't take the opportunity now it will be lost for another 40 years.

Would you really want solar panels on the roof of the stand?

They're expensive and I doubt that sturdy, that getting hit by balls multiple times a season would do them much good

I think that the club & its agents should consider all the green options.
The panels would be installed on the far side of the roof from the pitch & therefore be less vulnerable.
I like the wind turbine idea as well but they are less efficient but cheaper.

PS Wind turbines on top of the floodlight stanchions would be a really cool but probably impractical idea.
& round the cricket pitch too when they install them there for day/night cricket.

I agree and you are correct about the orientation of the stand being good for solar/PV's as well rather than North Stand.

Leicester - IIRC the optimum angle, if fixed, is 30 deg, so they would be on frames facing away on the new higher cantilever roof... they will not get many balls up there!

I'm pretty sure that the pitch will at various points in those 30 years have been relaid during the summer, something that isn't feasible these days given the time it takes a new playing surface to properly bed in.

While having year-round use won't be helping to maintain the pitch to suggest it never needed any work doing to it before the 15-a-side game arrived might be a touch misleading.

Andy - I understand that it has never had a major surface relay since the u/s heating went in because it never needed one.

So now we know ... cheers Mr Dillo.

www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/l ... 6094863.jp Good article from the man in the know.

www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/l ... 6094863.jp Good article from the man in the know.

Thats an excellent article, not only does it put the "ground share" argument to bed it also highlights this fact ...

But the games called off at Arsenal and Liverpool had nothing to do with the state of their pitch but due to safety issues outside the ground.

You should read it very carefully. The headline claims Union not to blame. The article [isays[/i Booth doesn't blame the union side but the direct quotes from Booth that refer to the Union team are not quite so unequivocal

"They think it's all due to the rugby union, but it's not.

"It's a combination of the wettest November, followed by nine weeks of snow and frost – plus the effect of the machines we've had to drive on to the pitch to get these games on"

But, tellingly, he also says this..

"The issues are from the rugby union five metre line to the dead ball line"

Fingers crossed the Tykes go down this year.

How will that change anything? They'll still play on the pitch, unless they go out of business as a result