The Falkirk FC Thread

[Harry Kinnear]

1 minute ago, Div said:

 

SMiSA members were simply asked their opinion as to whether or not they supported the SPFL resolution. Yes or No.

That feedback was passed to the club board and it will be they who cast the vote on behalf of the club. As SMiSA members we were not given any further information or detail as to the resolution other than what was published by the SPFL in their press release, which was to be fair very skimpy on detail.

The SMiSA vote is not binding, it does not necessarily mean the club board will vote the same way, and it does not mean the club board won't come back to SMiSA with more information and ask the members to vote again.

I totally agree with the financial support argument, and I also agree that we need firm guidelines on what is and is not acceptable as a grass surface with penalties applied for failure to deliver those.

Per the Dutch point, again I agree. If there are genuine health and safety concerns about rubber crumb then that should be an issue to be considered at every level of the game.

 

Surely if the Dutch are onto something regarding the crumb, there has to be a worldwide ban on artificial surfaces at all levels in every country. The fact UEFA allow them in the CL tends to suggest to me the Dutch need less visits to the Coffee shop.

[Div]

Just now, Harry Kinnear said:

Surely if the Dutch are onto something regarding the crumb, there has to be a worldwide ban on artificial surfaces at all levels in every country. The fact UEFA allow them in the CL tends to suggest to me the Dutch need less visits to the Coffee shop.

Yeah, I stuck that bit on to the bottom of my post as I tend to agree if it was really that big of an issue then it would have made worldwide news and pitches would have been shut down immediately, especially in the Nanny State we live in these days.

Maybe they are well ahead of the curve in their research in the Netherlands, no idea.

[Harry Kinnear]

Just now, Div said:

Yeah, I stuck that bit on to the bottom of my post as I tend to agree if it was really that big of an issue then it would have made worldwide news and pitches would have been shut down immediately, especially in the Nanny State we live in these days.

Maybe they are well ahead of the curve in their research in the Netherlands, no idea.

Or maybe they are all off their tits half the time, having previously worked there it could be a possibility.

[51 Bairn]

5 minutes ago, Div said:

 

SMiSA members were simply asked their opinion as to whether or not they supported the SPFL resolution. Yes or No.

That feedback was passed to the club board and it will be they who cast the vote on behalf of the club. As SMiSA members we were not given any further information or detail as to the resolution other than what was published by the SPFL in their press release, which was to be fair very skimpy on detail.

The SMiSA vote is not binding, it does not necessarily mean the club board will vote the same way, and it does not mean the club board won't come back to SMiSA with more information and ask the members to vote again.

I totally agree with the financial support argument, and I also agree that we need firm guidelines on what is and is not acceptable as a grass surface with penalties applied for failure to deliver those.

Per the Dutch point, again I agree. If there are genuine health and safety concerns about rubber crumb then that should be an issue to be considered at every level of the game.

 

Understood thanks. 

Not that it is ever likely to come out of the he meeting, but It will be interesting to understand what is actually discussed in it prior to the vote.
 In reality I think most us know how this vote is going to go under the skimpy details released by the SPFL and despite some very salient points raised in an excellent paper to the SPFL working group on this subject , who appear to have completely ignored all of them

[Shodwall cat]

Would be far better a staged phase out. If you have currently got an artificial pitch then it's ok for it's lifetime and as long as it meets the strict standards of quality. If you choose then to replace it with artificial then you would not be able to use it in the top flight. This would save wasting so much money at a time when there isn't a lot washing about.

[scottsdad]

1 hour ago, Div said:

This resolution aims to ensure that all top flight clubs have grass pitches that comply with a high minimum standard and that pitch consultants will be brought in to help clubs get and stay there. That means all twelve clubs, all playing on good quality grass, all competing on an even playing field if you will.

The finances in the top flight are not brilliant but they are night and day to the lower leagues. The financial penalty for failure, and the financial bounty for success, are relatively huge, so for me it makes sense to remove one of the possible complaints that clubs playing on an artificial pitch have any sort of advantage.

That might or might not be the case but is it a coincidence that much smaller clubs like Hamilton and Livingston punched miles above their weight in the top flight for many years whilst playing on plastic? Some would argue not.

Two things. 

I put research papers in the other thread showing - a worldwide study and others - that shows no advantage to playing on plastic. Let's put that to bed - it does not exist. 

Second - what happens if a club playing on plastic is promoted to the top flight? Have you considered the implications on such a club? 

[Silvio Tattiescone]

Given that it's now known that grass pitches cause more injuries than artificial turf, how long before we get a slew of ex-players suing clubs for failing in their duty of care re H&S? 

[HopeStreetWalker]

2 hours ago, Div said:

Seems I've been tagged in a number of posts in this thread recently so I thought I'd respond.

I'm a SMiSA member, have been from day one, so I was part of the recent vote, and like the vast majority of members I voted in support of the resolution.

So, suggesting that I've "changed my tune" because of the outcome of that vote is completely incorrect.

It's worth noting that SMiSA actually have a red line in the agreement that saw us take ownership of the majority shareholding of the club which states that our club cannot switch to an artificial pitch without the consent of SMiSA members. Source; https://www.smisa.net/buythebuds/kibble-vote

St.Mirren fans have almost universally disliked artificial pitches for the last decade. Granted, that dislike is based on the pitches we've been competing on the majority of that time, so likes of Hamilton/Livingston/Kilmarnock. I completely accept that pitches have developed since then and the likes of Falkirk's pitch, and the one at Airdrie look far better.

The use of artificial pitches in the lower leagues is completely sensible. The finances in those leagues are horrific and the use of artificial pitches both to generate additional revenue, and to reduce costs, is totally understandable.

For the record I don't buy the "artificial pitches generate more injuries" line - it makes little sense to me - and I completely agree that you get good games on astro, bad games on astro, good games on grass, bad games on grass. However...............

My view is that in the top flight of our professional game, we should be striving to be the very best we can be. I'm sure everyone would agree that football on a good grass pitch is preferable to any artificial pitch. We haven't always had good quality grass pitches in the top flight, as we saw last season, and that is an important part of the new resolution which seems to have been missed in the whole furore about banning the plastic.

This resolution aims to ensure that all top flight clubs have grass pitches that comply with a high minimum standard and that pitch consultants will be brought in to help clubs get and stay there. That means all twelve clubs, all playing on good quality grass, all competing on an even playing field if you will.

The finances in the top flight are not brilliant but they are night and day to the lower leagues. The financial penalty for failure, and the financial bounty for success, are relatively huge, so for me it makes sense to remove one of the possible complaints that clubs playing on an artificial pitch have any sort of advantage.

That might or might not be the case but is it a coincidence that much smaller clubs like Hamilton and Livingston punched miles above their weight in the top flight for many years whilst playing on plastic? Some would argue not.

So, le'ts take that away, give our best players the best possible surfaces on which to entertain in front of our biggest crowds, in our most televised league. I cannot see how that is construed as being a bad thing?

Now in terms of getting there, my own personal view is that a central pot of money needs to be set aside to be used for any club gaining promotion that need to transition to grass. I do not want the shop to be any more closed than it is. I do not want to see any club denied promotion because they cannot afford or are unwilling to switch their pitch. The league as a whole needs to ensure that the transtiion to grass is affordable, taking a leaf out of the Dutch book.

And talking of the Dutch, it's surely also worth considering the possible health issues around artificial pitches that have led to them being banned in the Netherlands top league?

 

Can you clarify. When you refer to 'Grass' is it grass and grass alone or does it include the Hybrid Grass/Artificial pitches as used by Celtic, Rangers, Hearts.

Thanks

[StuartA]

Thing is, it’s setting an unnecessarily high minimum standard that creates a clear and demonstrable disadvantage to several clubs. Why for example is hybrid allowed? 

It’s fundamentally an abuse of power based on preference rather than need and can’t be considered anything other than protectionism. 

[Blame Me]

In the time it's taken to reply others have rebutted some of your points @Div  so will focus on the grass aspect.

Thanks for clarifying the context around SMISA's stance. However, It would be good if you or others with similar understanding could direct sceptics like me to where the standards they'd need to adhere to were set?

All I'm seeing and hearing is the commitment to have more money leave the game to "pitch consultants" and contractors without a clear metric to judge them by (yet).

As noted in other public forums - if for whatever reason some pitches can't meet those standards are the SPFL really going to allow their premier competition to have a hiatus whilst the problems are rectified - I didn't have much sympathy for Dundee but if you take their mitigations at face value then unprecedented weather conditions they pointed to don't (and didn't) get resolved week-to-week.

I also agree with @scottsdad that the premise of a perceived advantage can't hold much water when the other 10 all use the same surface? Surely the inverse can also be true (and has more weight) that grass is a bigger advantage, in reality .

Finally, there are so many instances in football where "levelling" the playing field (pun intended) becomes absurd* that proposing it would be laughed out of these working groups and yet this one has gotten to this stage is laughable.

* Effectively banning away fans surely gives certain teams an advantage; reducing pitch sizes to suit/hinder playing styles - which has happened since day dot  - or the wildest one I can think of - Suggesting that our largest clubs can only admit the same number of home fans as away ones as majority partisan crowds provide an advantage. 

The above are so ludicrous they don't pass muster and yet a simple grass vs. artifical question without context of why beyond "aesthetics" has been allowed 

 

[Div]

18 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

Two things. 

I put research papers in the other thread showing - a worldwide study and others - that shows no advantage to playing on plastic. Let's put that to bed - it does not exist. 

Second - what happens if a club playing on plastic is promoted to the top flight? Have you considered the implications on such a club? 

I think you can easily argue that there is an advantage to a team playing on an artificial pitch.

If you look at St.Mirren last season we played 38 league games. 34 of those were on grass, 4 were on artificial pitches.

Livingston played 21 games on an artificial pitch.

You can easily argue, given that Livingston's pitch in particular is horrible and nothing at all like grass, that they gained an advantage.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

I've already mentioned the prospect of a club with an artificial pitch being promoted. I'd be looking for a central fund to be set aside to provide that club with the financial help required to transition to a grass pitch. There's no reason that transition couldn't happen between winning the Championship and starting a new season in the Premiership. A lot of the clubs relay their pitch every Summer.

[Rocco]

My biggest issue with this vote is the timeline to implement the new rule. Clubs who have ambitions of making it to the top league will have spent money on an artificial surface knowing that they should get around 8 years out of it and it will be allowed in the top league. But now a vote has come in, which is almost an immediate ban with no reasonable time to adjust. Why not bring the rule in for 5 years down the line? That would then gives teams time to find a resolution and at least get some good use out of their investment. 
 

By not doing what I’ve stated above it proves that this is just a vote to make it a closed shop as there is absolutely no reasonable adjustment time for the teams it will affect.

[Blame Me]

3 minutes ago, Div said:

If you look at St.Mirren last season we played 38 league games. 34 of those were on grass, 4 were on artificial pitches.

Livingston played 21 games on an artificial pitch.

You can easily argue, given that Livingston's pitch in particular is horrible and nothing at all like grass, that they gained an advantage.

You do know they got relegated 

[Div]

1 minute ago, Rocco said:

My biggest issue with this vote is the timeline to implement the new rule. Clubs who have ambitions of making it to the top league will have spent money on an artificial surface knowing that they should get around 8 years out of it and it will be allowed in the top league. But now a vote has come in, which is almost an immediate ban with no reasonable time to adjust. Why not bring the rule in for 5 years down the line? That would then gives teams time to find a resolution and at least get some good use out of their investment. 
 

By not doing what I’ve stated above it proves that this is just a vote to make it a closed shop as there is absolutely no reasonable adjustment time for the teams it will affect.

It is a two year phase out, so won't apply until season 2026/2027.

The devil will be in the detail but I do not see how they can deliver the resolution without offering financial support to promoted clubs who need to transition.

That would not make any sense. To me anyway.

[Div]

Just now, Blame Me said:

You do know they got relegated 

Yes, they got relegated after a six year stay, operating with the lowest budget in the division by miles every season (apart from when Hamilton were in the division, also punching well above their weight and also with an artificial pitch).

They won 19 points at home and 6 away last season.

Home advantage is obviously a thing in football, be it grass or astro, but those numbers are very pronounced.

They did recruit well and played some good stuff at times during their six year stay, but you cannot look at the numbers and say hand on heart that their pitch definitely didn't give them any sort of advantage?

[The Holiday Song]

I think the team x did poorly thing therefore no advantage isn't totally correct... they'd maybe have been even worse.

[HopeStreetWalker]

4 minutes ago, Div said:

It is a two year phase out, so won't apply until season 2026/2027.

The devil will be in the detail but I do not see how they can deliver the resolution without offering financial support to promoted clubs who need to transition.

That would not make any sense. To me anyway.

Not unless it is blatant self-interest by some clubs something SPL and SPFL have a long lamentable track record on.

Are the top division clubs going to forfeit a % of the league position prize money for a fund for the transition package? not on your puff. 

[The Holiday Song]

If there is a central fund to help teams put in a grass pitch, I'm not against the ban. The issue to me is the removal of the all weather pitches for a number of communities (although I have no idea on how often the ground's piches are used).

[Div]

13 minutes ago, Blame Me said:

In the time it's taken to reply others have rebutted some of your points @Div  so will focus on the grass aspect.

Thanks for clarifying the context around SMISA's stance. However, It would be good if you or others with similar understanding could direct sceptics like me to where the standards they'd need to adhere to were set?

All I'm seeing and hearing is the commitment to have more money leave the game to "pitch consultants" and contractors without a clear metric to judge them by (yet).

As noted in other public forums - if for whatever reason some pitches can't meet those standards are the SPFL really going to allow their premier competition to have a hiatus whilst the problems are rectified - I didn't have much sympathy for Dundee but if you take their mitigations at face value then unprecedented weather conditions they pointed to don't (and didn't) get resolved week-to-week.

I also agree with @scottsdad that the premise of a perceived advantage can't hold much water when the other 10 all use the same surface? Surely the inverse can also be true (and has more weight) that grass is a bigger advantage, in reality .

Finally, there are so many instances in football where "levelling" the playing field (pun intended) becomes absurd* that proposing it would be laughed out of these working groups and yet this one has gotten to this stage is laughable.

* Effectively banning away fans surely gives certain teams an advantage; reducing pitch sizes to suit/hinder playing styles - which has happened since day dot  - or the wildest one I can think of - Suggesting that our largest clubs can only admit the same number of home fans as away ones as majority partisan crowds provide an advantage. 

The above are so ludicrous they don't pass muster and yet a simple grass vs. artifical question without context of why beyond "aesthetics" has been allowed 

 

To be clear I don't think the perceived advantage is one of the main drivers of the new resolution, but it does help to "level the playing field" if you pardon the pun.

Would even Falkirk fans admit that leaving finances aside, playing the game on a good grass pitch IS preferable to playing on an artificial pitch?

If not is there a reason that in England, a country with a very similar climate to ours, there isn't a single artificial pitch at any of their 92 clubs from Premier League down to League 2?

 

[Blame Me]

3 minutes ago, Div said:

They won 19 points at home and 6 away last season.

Home advantage is obviously a thing in football, be it grass or astro, but those numbers are very pronounced.

With all due respect that statistic, like the one I'm about to use, is open to interpretation.

St. Mirren won 28 points at home and 19 points away. You and 9 other teams play on grass including St. Johnstone who also won 19 points at home but fared slightly better than Livingston away gaining 16 points which I can correlate was because they played on grass like the others. 

How is that not an advantage that 10 others had over Kilmarnock and Livingston?