|
|
Post by thestanchion on Oct 29, 2017 10:57:16 GMT
That is the question. 3 clubs in the top seven have artificial pitches. What will happen if they end up in the play offs. I hope the ELF hold firm on their stance.
|
|
|
|
Post by thestanchion on Oct 29, 2017 10:58:07 GMT
Edit EFL
|
|
|
|
Post by southernblue on Oct 29, 2017 11:12:43 GMT
Football should be played on grass.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wortleyblue on Oct 29, 2017 11:20:39 GMT
Football should be played on grass. This^^^^^ |
|
|
|
Post by thestanchion on Oct 29, 2017 12:07:41 GMT
I agree entirely. Perhaps my clumsy paraphrasing of Hamlet led to ambiguity. What I would like to know is have the National League declared any policy on clubs with 3G being eligible for the play offs ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Duff on Oct 29, 2017 12:22:16 GMT
I agree entirely. Perhaps my clumsy paraphrasing of Hamlet led to ambiguity. What I would like to know is have the National League declared any policy on clubs with 3G being eligible for the play offs ? Interesting point, because I don't think they could do so on the basis that were a 3G club to get promotion in theory they would have the opportunity to then replace it with a newly laid grass pitch in time for the new season in the FL. What would happen if they didn't do this, and were then denied promotion, is an unknown as it would then have made a complete farce of the play-offs. |
|
|
|
Post by vtstone on Oct 29, 2017 12:40:39 GMT
I guess this topic is for me while I'm here. I was like you at first. When I heard we were finally building our new place I was thrilled, but what was that 3G lark they were talking about? Didn't like that sound of that at all. I'm old (enough) and remember the plastic pitches of the 80s at Luton et al, and the thought filled me with dread. "It's not the same, we assure you!" they said, before rattling off all the assorted other things outside of Stones games that would go on there. I'd heard all that before too, given my hubby is a Millwall fan and when their place opened they promised concerts, and boxing, and other allsorts which never happened. Fast-forward to the opening against Brighton and I'm thinking "this is weird.. but miles better than the old plastic and still better than the mudheaps we'd played on at Sittingbourne and Ashford". Then lo and behold, they actually followed through with all the usage during the week. Community teams and kids of all ages using it all the time, getting the local youngsters interested in the Stones again. Not only is it free publicity, but pitch hire nets the club six figures a year, something just not possible with a grass surface. When the place was being built, the owners estimated an average crowd of 800, since we'd been away for 24 years and missed out on a generation of fans in town. That was doubled in year one and another thousand or so more in the next few years as people get hooked again. All I'm just trying to say it's the right deal for us. People may not like it, but they only have to play one game out of 46 on it, and it beats having a ton of postponements due to waterlogged/frozen pitches, or playing on a surface where a blade of grass is a distant memory. That said, it doesn't help the first team - we've had a better away record than home since it opened. Takes all sorts  |
|
|
|
Post by thebluecamp on Oct 29, 2017 13:07:09 GMT
I guess this topic is for me while I'm here. I was like you at first. When I heard we were finally building our new place I was thrilled, but what was that 3G lark they were talking about? Didn't like that sound of that at all. I'm old (enough) and remember the plastic pitches of the 80s at Luton et al, and the thought filled me with dread. "It's not the same, we assure you!" they said, before rattling off all the assorted other things outside of Stones games that would go on there. I'd heard all that before too, given my hubby is a Millwall fan and when their place opened they promised concerts, and boxing, and other allsorts which never happened. Fast-forward to the opening against Brighton and I'm thinking "this is weird.. but miles better than the old plastic and still better than the mudheaps we'd played on at Sittingbourne and Ashford". Then lo and behold, they actually followed through with all the usage during the week. Community teams and kids of all ages using it all the time, getting the local youngsters interested in the Stones again. Not only is it free publicity, but pitch hire nets the club six figures a year, something just not possible with a grass surface. When the place was being built, the owners estimated an average crowd of 800, since we'd been away for 24 years and missed out on a generation of fans in town. That was doubled in year one and another thousand or so more in the next few years as people get hooked again. All I'm just trying to say it's the right deal for us. People may not like it, but they only have to play one game out of 46 on it, and it beats having a ton of postponements due to waterlogged/frozen pitches, or playing on a surface where a blade of grass is a distant memory. That said, it doesn't help the first team - we've had a better away record than home since it opened. Takes all sorts As much as football purists harp on about grass being the be all and end all, I find it difficult to disagree with your post. First and foremost, if (as is widely suggested) the home team has an advantage with a 3G surface, then Maidstone do not appear to be 'cashing in' points wise. More importantly, the income generated (a claimed net six figure sum in your case) must be seen as a lifeline to clubs without a sugar daddy investor. In addition to the financial rewards, community involvement (which is what we should be about) and advertising, should make 3G more (not less) attractive to 'clubs like us'. Not saying that I prefer 3G, or would want 3G, but the overall benefits appear to outway the negatives. It is very much a case of "horses for courses", and as vtstones says, "it takes all sorts". |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Duff on Oct 29, 2017 15:02:13 GMT
As much as football purists harp on about grass being the be all and end all, I find it difficult to disagree with your post. There is an argument for it in terms of revenue as it allows far more constant use and therefore hire out income. If we can get a separate all weather training pitch of our own that argument disappears anyway (and it may be no more expensive to do that than go 3G). But other than that I don't see any positives except for lazy clubs who can't be bothered doing the prep necessary for a good pitch. With proper drainage, covers and the types of advanced grass seed available now there is simply no excuse for massive bald pitches or mud baths like in decades past. Our pitch has been fantastic for many years thanks to some great grounds staff and as a result we have never suffered to any degree from cancellations and fixture pile up, except where it is a result of others, so I would not be in favour of 3G myself. |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Oct 29, 2017 16:23:44 GMT
Football should be played on grass. Agree entirely |
|
|
|
Post by superman on Oct 29, 2017 17:10:51 GMT
Notice that EFL to debate introduction of 3G pitches at their November meeting. Economics might eventually out way supporter opinion, and once 3G allowed in EFL more and more clubs will take this route. Personally think that football should be played on grass, but suspect that at some point synthetic pitches will become allowed and the uptake will be widespread within a few years. Could we afford not to go down the synthetic route if that was the case?
|
|
|
|
Post by btb on Oct 29, 2017 19:55:06 GMT
No problem with the new surfices other than the saftey element. There are some big noises coming from America about the rubber causing cancer. Personally I'd rather watch football on grass but there are so many positives for clubs in the lower regions having these pitches.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Duff on Oct 29, 2017 20:09:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by btb on Oct 29, 2017 21:34:06 GMT
Who knows what the truth is but personally I wouldn't believe anything the authorities say. And I also wouldn't want to be a parent of a goalkeeper. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Duff on Oct 30, 2017 7:58:21 GMT
Who knows what the truth is but personally I wouldn't believe anything the authorities say. And I also wouldn't want to be a parent of a goalkeeper. Agreed. There is a lot of big money in 3G due to the tyre companies being desperate for something that they can recycle their old tyres into rather than use landfill, and while an alternative more natural 3G using coconut matting and cork barely gets a look in because it is much more expensive to produce. Personally I wouldn't want my lad playing on 3G for any length of time, and I suspect that the real health issues will be decades in the making one way or another. |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lime on Oct 30, 2017 8:25:24 GMT
Notice that EFL to debate introduction of 3G pitches at their November meeting. Economics might eventually out way supporter opinion, and once 3G allowed in EFL more and more clubs will take this route. Personally think that football should be played on grass, but suspect that at some point synthetic pitches will become allowed and the uptake will be widespread within a few years. Could we afford not to go down the synthetic route if that was the case? The financial advantages are huge for the clubs with synthetic pitches. The extra £100k+ that clubs claim they can bring in from hiring them out, maybe the thing that makes the club viable. Problem is, that then gives them an advantage over those with grass pitches. If owners can vote on whether to allow them, they'll probably all vote for them. I can see most lower level clubs getting them at some point. It's an income stream. That might be the only way we could be sustainable at this level. I would not want to watch Chester play on one. In fact, I'd go as far as saying I would seriously consider stopping watching us, if we did. As other people have said, football should be played on grass. |
|
|
|
Post by oldnotdecrepit on Oct 30, 2017 8:43:09 GMT
Notice that EFL to debate introduction of 3G pitches at their November meeting. Economics might eventually out way supporter opinion, and once 3G allowed in EFL more and more clubs will take this route. Personally think that football should be played on grass, but suspect that at some point synthetic pitches will become allowed and the uptake will be widespread within a few years. Could we afford not to go down the synthetic route if that was the case? The financial advantages are huge for the clubs with synthetic pitches. The extra £100k+ that clubs claim they can bring in from hiring them out, maybe the thing that makes the club viable. Problem is, that then gives them an advantage over those with grass pitches. If owners can vote on whether to allow them, they'll probably all vote for them. I can see most lower level clubs getting them at some point. It's an income stream. That might be the only way we could be sustainable at this level. I would not want to watch Chester play on one. In fact, I'd go as far as saying I would seriously consider stopping watching us, if we did. As other people have said, football should be played on grass. Excellent post! Agree 100%. Why not have a 3G as well as a grass stadium pitch? Because then the team would lose the advantage over the opposition that they gain from playing competitively on artificial surfaces. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 10:00:58 GMT
Think this is a real 50/50 split for and against because there are good reasons on both sides of the argument.
Personally, I'm probably 60/40 in favour purely because it could be a major revenue stream for a club like ours with limited opportunity to generate money.
Also, thinking a little bit laterally, surely it's not beyond the bounds of science that some sort of cost-effective hybrid could be developed - I'm led to believe that Wembley's so-called "hallowed turf" is about 20% artificial. OK, there's probably not the economies of scale at the moment but, in theory, it could be the best of both worlds. Granted, you maybe wouldn't get the same income compared with a true 3G pitch, but it would be more resilient to use, see what Wembley is used for nowadays.
In an ideal world, of course, I'd prefer grass but feel that 3G (or 4G or 5G etc) is probably going to be the long term way forward, certainly at our level and below
|
|
|
|
Post by bing on Oct 30, 2017 12:33:06 GMT
From a revenue side of things it's persuasive, but I'm firmly against them.
I like that teams have home advantage - I don't even mind it when they shorten the pitch, switch off the heating in the away changing rooms, or even encourage ball boys with towels - but the surface on which you play is absolutely fundamental to the game itself and has to give home sides an advantage.
|
|
|
|
Post by southernblue on Oct 30, 2017 13:21:57 GMT
Football should be played on grass. By that I am not suggesting it should be played whilst under the influence of illegal substances. 😀 |
|
|
|
Post by bing on Oct 30, 2017 13:58:09 GMT
Football should be played on grass. By that I am not suggesting it should be played whilst under the influence of illegal substances. 😀 I reckon it would be like normal football, except when someone misses an easy chance, everyone rolls on the floor giggling like it's the funniest thing ever, apart from one bloke asleep by the corner flag. |
|
|
|
Post by ironman2 on Oct 30, 2017 14:41:46 GMT
Attended the Maidstone game and after talking to one their staff before k.o was told that the 3g pitch cost them £450,000 to put down and would after 4 seasons be replaced at a cost of £250,000 , on consideration that it's hard base would not have to be replaced. He assured me that they don't need any ground staff!
|
|
|
|
Post by jb on Nov 3, 2017 22:13:30 GMT
My thoughts on plastic pitches are the same as the flare at Hyde. Burn them all!
|
|
|
|
Post by Sealand Road Veteran on Nov 4, 2017 8:27:41 GMT
There are hybrid pitches about already, Man Utd have them at their Carrington training complex, not sure what the mix is but they are a mix of sinthetic and real grass.
To be fair it was very hard to tell
|
|
