Field rentals? Player preference?

[*Ari Wallach]

Rentals:
I was at the boe meeting tonight and during the meeting boe members were discussing the press booth and a boe member said "Would this (nice/enclosed) booth help us with gaining more field rentals?"

I thought there would be no further usage of the field - especially of outside/rental groups?


Player preference:
I drove past the field tonight there were a few groups of kids kicking a soccer ball around. I can tell you that won't happen on a non-natural turf field...I have played on all surfaces over the years and no one ever goes out to kick around on synthetic turf.

A survey of 1,511 active NFL players by the NFL Players Association found 73% of the players preferred playing on natural grass, 18% on artificial and 9% had no preference.

---
Ari Wallach
www.synthesiscorp.com
@ariw
p +1.347.878.6995

[David Skolnik]

Meeting was interesting, in part because Board members seem to wrestle with the financial concepts as much as anyone else.  The rental question points to the larger issue that, even at this date, rather late in the process, the information being put out is not only complicated, but continually changing. 

We don't really understand the financials, especially in the context of multiple uncertainties of the upcoming years, and we don't really understand the proposed usage. 

While not completely related to the Work Session topic (Financial), the conversation about limitations of the 3D imaging, that had been discussed at previous public forums, suggests that visualizing the actual impact of this proposal is not coming easy, to anyone.

Ari's survey info was interesting.

David Skolnik
(914) 231-7565

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ReynoldsField" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ReynoldsFiel...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6554 - Release Date: 08/05/13

[Douglas Rushkoff]

I am very disturbed about the intention to rent (and market) the field. 

Over the past few months, the board stated that such plans were not on the table or even in consideration. The meeting last night revealed that not only are such plans in consideration, but that it has been an ongoing topic for them. 

This erodes what had been my growing trust in their process, and throws me into a crisis of confidence. 

[*Ari Wallach]

There was video being taken of the meeting so that can verify(or not) what I heard... 

---

Ari Wallach

www.synthesiscorp.com

@ariw

p +1.347.878.6995

[Steven Brent]

Agreed, that certainly complicates things.

<signature>

• Phone: 646-789-5624
• Google: google.com/profiles/scbrent
• Twitter: twitter.com/stevenbrent
• LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/stevencbrent

</signature>

[Wendy Naidich]

I just need to clarify the board’s intent… There is no way the board is interested in renting this field to outside groups.  One board member asked one question at one meeting.  That is the extent of the discussion that we have had about this since we originally said that we are not going to rent the field. 

 

I can’t say it more strongly that this board has no intent to rent the field.  Please do not assume that one question indicates a change in intent. 

 

Wendy

[Steven Brent]

Wendy, thanks for clarifying. So the field is to remain exclusively for the use of Hastings school athletics?

[David Skolnik]

Ari -
You were not alone as an observer, so, intelligible video or not, you have ample verification of what was discussed.  While, as an opponent of the currently proposed plan, there is little 'percentage' for me in quelling Doug's crisis of confidence, I will be generous in appreciating the possibility that the Board is not totally of one mind, and that they do, in fact, need to have these meetings to discuss things.  It would be a mistake to take a passing comment as a hidden agenda, but it does tend to reinforce my earlier point, that there is much that is genuinely unclear.

David Skolnik

Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6555 - Release Date: 08/06/13

[Wendy Naidich]

It for the use of Hastings athletics and it’s also used by AYSO and another Rivertowns soccer group (not having soccer players, I can’t remember the name).  We’ve had these teams use the field for years and our kids play on those teams. 

[Steven Brent]

I

​ can see where you are coming from. As important as it is to understand the current intentions of the BOE, there is also a need for some sort of binding agreement as to future usage. Though I could certainly understand the Board wanting to keep its options open, particularly (as you mentioned) in light of the potential for revenue generation. I'm not going to second-guess them one way or another, so hopefully more concrete information will be made available. If this is all written in stone already somewhere and I missed it, apologies.

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, David Skolnik <davids...@optonline.net> wrote:

Steven -
That's not quite what Wendy said, either, and it would likely be inappropriate for her to make such a statement on behalf of the Board, especially in this venue, as the board policies are pretty clear as to the responsibility for 'official' statements.  The field is, even now, used by other than 'hastings school athletics', as Wendy says.   A simple declaration would not adequately convey the usage, even now, let alone what a different Board, at another time, might feel inclined to do.  This Board's position is likely as Wendy states, however, short of a legal restriction, policy is mutable, over time, especially with an economic incentive.

David Skolnik

Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6555 - Release Date: 08/06/13

--

[Douglas Rushkoff]

Thanks for jumping in, Wendy. I'm sure you can relate to the way the heart's of those of us on South Calumet miss a beat when we hear anyone on the Board mention field rental. 

Of course, this Board or a future Board can legally choose to do whatever they want with the field once it is built. But it is good to know that there are no current plans to do so. 

I am still very interested in whether changes in the roads around the field can be pre-arranged as part of the entire package. For instance, if residents of Chauncey, South, South Calumet, and Croton knew that the Safety Council would turn Chauncey into a one-way street, they might see this as mitigating the traffic issues. It may sound overly political, but it's really a good way to build consensus and foster compromise. 

[zcod...@aol.com]

I would use the NFL Players Assn. study with caution, as unfortunately for us, our circumstances and field needs are very different from the NFL's.  The grass fields in this survey were NFL fields, which are not used with anywhere near the frequency that we use Reynolds.  Reynolds is used almost daily, for 3 seasons, hosting practices and games for football, lacrosse, soccer, as well as phys ed. classes for the high school and middle school.  

In addition, the NFL players voiced frustration (in the Noteworthy Comments section of the survey, reprinted below) when their grass fields were used for increased play or for other purposes, such as baseball, college games, concerts, etc.   One of the comments even said, "If it's a multi-purpose stadium, mandate that it's artificial. If only one team used by the NFL, then it can be grass. Force Chicago and Pittsburgh to go turf."

Lisa

https://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/Surface%20Survey%202010.pdf  (Note that this survey is from 2010.  I couldn't pull  up a 2012 study.)

Noteworthy comments and feedback as dictated by the players in the final open-ended question of the survey

Most reoccuring comments 

** Artificial Turf is much harder on the body with joint soreness and makes for tougher work. Southern grass fields are the best.

** Fields that are used for baseball and football leave hard infield that is difficult to play on. When you have one foot on grass and one in hard dirt, injuries are bound to happen.

** If it's grass, enough of the highschools, colleges and concerts playing on it the day before. If it's a cold weather grass field, these fields are battered to heck. The grounds crew can only do so much.

** We need a league wide standard/regulation policy for every field if the NFL really cares about the safety of all players.

 ** No baseball or half grass/half dirt infields.

Suggested changes for improvement

 ** Artificial surfaces should be required in cold weather cities.

** We need better practice fields. Level and elminate holes, divots and uneven ground.

** Cold weather grass teams should have road trips late in the season to avoid playing on frozen surfaces. There should be no games played on grass fields the same weekend as another event.

** Even dispersement of rubber material is needed, specifically comfortable give in twists and turns and level in height with no bumps.

** Every stadium should be evaluated properly every week prior to game day.

** If it's a multi-purpose stadium, mandate that it's artificial. If only one team used by the NFL, then it can be grass. Force Chicago and Pittsburgh to go turf.

** More time and money need to be spent on the fields. College surfaces are better.

** Use softer bermuda grass with sand.

** No more non updated artificial turf that is hard and over filled with ground up rubber and cheap top layer grass that you can pull off like a cheap tupae like Kansas City.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Skolnik <davids...@optonline.net>
To: *Ari Wallach <ari.w...@synthesiscorp.com>; reynoldsfield <reynol...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 6, 2013 10:41 am
Subject: Re: Field rentals? Player preference?

[David Skolnik]

The hearts on Hillside are equally afluttered.  While keeping in mind that what's good for SoCal might not be so good for Hillsyd, the procedure would be a bit more involved.  Safety Council, on its own, does not initiate policy.  Normally, in issue is brought to them for review, at the end of which, they will either reject action, or recommend consideration by the Board of Trustees.  An action as significant as changing the direction of Chauncey would require a significant traffic study to determine effects on surrounding streets.  It could not be 'pre-arranged' without such preliminary work.

David Skolnik
47 Hillsyd Ave.

Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6555 - Release Date: 08/06/13

[Douglas Rushkoff]

Indeed. 

This is what I would ask for. 

[Bass, Richard]

Increasing utilization must be disclosed in terms of trips, traffic, etc. 

Sent from my iPhone

Richard Bass

Chief Planning and Development Specialist

Herrick, Feinstein LLP

2 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10016

212-592-6144

917-886-1326 (Cell)

The information in this message may be privileged, intended only for the use of the named recipient. If you received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail and delete the original and any copies. To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication (and its attachments), unless expressly stated otherwise, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter(s) addressed herein.