Div Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 4 minutes ago, HopeStreetWalker said: 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. They will have to. Unless the pitch consultancy firm coming in are going to work for free. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 Just now, Div said: 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? I appreciate you're considering home advantage and the (perceived) added advantage to playing on artificial grass. However you're looking at the odd team here and there. There are proper scientific studies that have looked at this. I'll put it one here again. The effect on home advantage when a team changes from grass to artificial turf – a worldwide study in professional football (International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport) Quote No significant difference in HA was found between the four seasons (p = .85). This result, together with studies showing no injury, physical or performance difference between AT and NT, gives further validation to FIFA in its current promotion of AT. HA = Home Advantage; NT = Natural Turf; AT = Artificial Turf There are loads of other studies on physiology, etc 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blame Me Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Div said: 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? One word - Money. You've now stumbled into comparing apples with oranges. There is rightly much hand-wringing about clubs living beyond their means (both Dundee clubs) and lack of finance generally but this proposal punishes clubs for maximising their revenue and budgets to chase unrealistic grass proponents wet-dreams. Ultimately, pitch experts or not the perceived playability of grass pitches in the winter months will still be decided by school teachers, accountants and policeman regardless of the standard. Edited May 31 by Blame Me 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Div Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 3 minutes ago, Blame Me said: One word - Money. You've now stumbled into comparing apples with oranges. Why have you left out the question I asked before that, as that is what the context was. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 Any new signings yet ? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holiday Song Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 (edited) 11 minutes ago, scottsdad said: I appreciate you're considering home advantage and the (perceived) added advantage to playing on artificial grass. However you're looking at the odd team here and there. There are proper scientific studies that have looked at this. I'll put it one here again. The effect on home advantage when a team changes from grass to artificial turf – a worldwide study in professional football (International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport) There are loads of other studies on physiology, etc Genuine question (as I can't read full article): do they go into any more detail about why only choosing teams with 2 seasons of grass and then 2 season astro are included, and if that is a suitable measure? I can why they are doing that but I'm wondering if there are limitations to that approach (and if so, how big). Edited May 31 by The Holiday Song 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FK1Bairn Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 11 minutes ago, Div said: 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? It's not the quality of the grass/astro/hybrid that counts, it's the quality of the players playing on said pitches. So what if Astro gives the home club "an unfair advantage"? That home club still have to play the other clubs on their own pitch when the fixtures are reversed. Does that then give the club with a grass pitch an unfair advantage? Is an astro pitch that much of an advantage when compared to being vastly outnumbered fan wise at some stadiums, the old "fans are the 12th man" springs to mind? There's far more money flying around in England than Scotland and in the winter months far more postponements because grass becomes waterlogged/freezes 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocco Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 It’s actually laughable that the ugly sisters try using the unfair advantage point about artificial pitches. If they are all about fairness then any game at Hampden should be 50/50 ticket sales and regardless if the opposition team only sells 10K then the rest of their allocation should stay empty in the name of fairness. The fact that Scottish football has decided to focus on artificial pitches above everything else just shows how laughable they are and why most other countries look at us as a joke. Outside of Falkirk I take very little interest in Scottish football. That is how bad the product is and it’s only getting worse with the idiots in charge 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 21 minutes ago, Rocco said: Outside of Falkirk I take very little interest in Scottish football. That is how bad the product is and it’s only getting worse with the idiots in charge Spot on. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proudtobeabairn Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 2 hours ago, Div said: I wouldn't. No. I don't think the resolution can be delivered without central support. Then you should have voted No until the resolution came back with that wording. But you didn't. Let's hope your board have a bit more backbone. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blane Fonda Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 First, they came for the clubs without 10,000 seats and I did not speak out as my club had 10000 seats. Then, they insisted on primacy of tenancy and I did not speak out as my club had primacy of tenancy Then, they insisted on 7000 seats and I did not speak out as my club had 7000 seats. Then, they insisted on pitch protection and I did not speak out as my club had pitch protection Then, they insisted on grass surfaces for playing and I did not speak out as my club had a grass pitch. Soon they will insist on a hybrid grass surface with LED growth lights and Geothermal undersoil heating (for the carbon footprint of course) and only the Old Firm, Aberdeen, and the Edinburgh clubs could speak and everyone else was fecked! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthStander1876 Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 Unfortunately seems a lot of clubs only care when it negatively impacts them. I'd hope if we were ever in the position of clubs in the top flight that we'd do the right thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopeStreetWalker Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 1 hour 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. Got a clarification regarding the SPFL vote on pitches. Does it allow for Grass/Hybrid or do they go as well. You must know 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartA Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 The “quality of football” and unfair advantage arguments are red herrings and disingenuous. There’s no evidence that quality is greatly improved on grass or hybrid compared to good artificial. And we certainly never gained an advantage in the preceding five seasons to this one! Let’s just cut the b/s. It’s protectionism again, utilizing a reactionary preference for grass to push through a disproportionate measure. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugster Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 The deed is fucking done anyway now. https://spfl.co.uk/news/press-release-artificial-pitches 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blame Me Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 (edited) 1 hour ago, Div said: 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? @Div I'd hazard Falkirk fans would say yes - but are we talking about a "good" grass pitch in August, December or February? Your correct - context is everything. Edited May 31 by Blame Me 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blame Me Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 2 minutes ago, Rugster said: The deed is fucking done anyway now. https://spfl.co.uk/news/press-release-artificial-pitches The last paragraph - as the statement before did - putting the cart before the horse! i.e. "We'll contract pitch specialists and set the parameters only once we've decided everyone should switch to grass." If Raith go up, decide to rip up their astro and played on a tattie field - albeit a grass one - that would be acceptable *until* the working group settle on what the standard should be! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double t Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 So what's going to happen when a Premiership club gets drawn away to a club with an artificial pitch in one of the cups are they going to insist the game gets moved to a grass pitch as the home team has an advantage?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Sacramento Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 8 minutes ago, Rugster said: The deed is fucking done anyway now. https://spfl.co.uk/news/press-release-artificial-pitches Can't wait for the shittiest winter and games called off in top flight galore, with Raith, Falkirk Queens and all the others successfully getting their games on. And Div's comments about financial support being required to do this is pathetic. This was one of the recommendations in the paper put forward that was rejected by the top flight clubs, yet he still voted for it. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Tattiescone Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 Yup. There is no money on the table. Never was, never will be. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.