Artificial pitch vote

[chris1883]

Just now, RandomGuy. said:

How much would you want in a "pot" to help, considering we could have 2 teams needing help every Summer for a few years?

I'm not advocating for a 'pot' to cover the full cost. My thought is that if a club is promoted to the SPL and they have a rule than mandates a grass surface the cost to install a new grass surface suddenly becomes prohibitive in gaining promotion. It would be like going down the 10k seat stadium route again which nearly bankrupted a number of clubs.

So in 2022/23 the championship prize money was: £672,750 for First. Second got £568, 100. Third got £478, 400. If any of these team have a synthetic surface and are promoted they could suddenly have a bill exceeding their prize money just for a pitch. This would instantly make them noncompetitive.... which is unfair. A fund which could support the installation of a new pitch (be it a grant or a no-interest loan - or half and half) would soften the blow to a certain extent.

I just worry that if we start implementing rules that price teams out of competing with no real support we will simply make the same mistakes we did at the implementation of the SPL.

[Todd_is_God]

25 minutes ago, bennett said:

I've watched a few BBC Scotland Friday night games where the artificial pitches look pretty decent and don't seem to affect the play.

The two Premiership artificial pitches are horrible to look at and obviously affect play. I was for banning them but I'd be willing to accept them if they were of an acceptable standard. 

It's absolutely mental how many people (usually OF fans who don't even go to their own team's games) who want them banned because of the way the lights shine off them on TV.

Scottish football could do with getting over itself and didtching the myth that "you never see a good game on artificial pitches" before it's too late.

This isn't about plastic pitches - look at the number of clubs outwith the top flight that have them now. Some even rely on them to be able to keep the lights on. This is nothing but a move by the "big" clubs to protect their interests and put a barrier between the "wee" clubs and their opportunity to take their place eating at the trough.

This vote passing would be as damaging and backwards a step as the 10,000 seater rule.

[RandomGuy.]

Just now, chris1883 said:

I'm not advocating for a 'pot' to cover the full cost. My thought is that if a club is promoted to the SPL and they have a rule than mandates a grass surface the cost to install a new grass surface suddenly becomes prohibitive in gaining promotion. It would be like going down the 10k seat stadium route again which nearly bankrupted a number of clubs.

So in 2022/23 the championship prize money was: £672,750 for First. Second got £568, 100. Third got £478, 400. If any of these team have a synthetic surface and are promoted they could suddenly have a bill exceeding their prize money just for a pitch. This would instantly make them noncompetitive.... which is unfair. A fund which could support the installation of a new pitch (be it a grant or a no-interest loan - or half and half) would soften the blow to a certain extent.

I just worry that if we start implementing rules that price teams out of competing with no real support we will simply make the same mistakes we did at the implementation of the SPL.

I know you werent on about paying the full amount, but how much do you think would be "fair"?

Pitch costs £1.5m to fit say, then youve also increased the clubs maintenance costs. Maintenance costs should probably have help for the first season, then left to the clubs. I just dont know what level of "help" youre suggesting if the difference from prize money to pitch fitting could be £1m+

The last paragraph is exactly why clubs are pushing for it.

[RandomGuy.]

Just now, Todd_is_God said:

Scottish football could do with getting over itself and didtching the myth that "you never see a good game on artificial pitches" before it's too late.

Our game against Livingston the other week was one of the worst games of football ive ever seen in my life at any level, a large part because the pitch was so shite that the ball never rolled smoothly once. Thats after we spent "six figures" getting it all sorted and relaid last Summer.

[gannonball]

3 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

This vote passing would be as damaging and backwards a step as the 10,000 seater rule.

Behave.

[Todd_is_God]

Just now, RandomGuy. said:

Our game against Livingston the other week was one of the worst games of football ive ever seen in my life at any level, a large part because the pitch was so shite that the ball never rolled smoothly once. Thats after we spent "six figures" getting it all sorted and relaid last Summer.

I'm sure the fact that both yourselves and Livingston aren't very good isn't a factor here at all, and if it was played on grass it would have been a great game...

A properly maintained artificial pitch is just as conducive to playing good football as its grass equivalent. And vice-versa.

[Todd_is_God]

Just now, gannonball said:

Behave.

How would it not?

[Leith Green]

Just now, Todd_is_God said:

A properly maintained artificial pitch is just as conducive to playing good football as its grass equivalent.

Thats probably fair - but the issue at the moment is that there are a couple of absolute shockers.

[Crawford]

I dislike plastic pitches and how the ball moves on them, but banning them is simply stupid.

Lower league teams getting promoted already have a huge squad rebuild bill if they expect to stay up. Adding a complete resurfacing to be in the top flight for potentially 1 year would see a yo-yo team facing an existential crisis.

There should be a standard to the plastic pitch that must be exceeded. Beyond that, shut up and leave it.

Edited March 9 by Crawford

[Todd_is_God]

Just now, Leith Green said:

Thats probably fair - but the issue at the moment is that there are a couple of absolute shockers.

Then introduce a framework to ensure clubs continue to meet minumum standards. I don't think that's unreasonable.

[Leith Green]

2 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Then introduce a framework to ensure clubs continue to meet minumum standards. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Neither do I, as it happens.

It seems too binary a choice at the moment.

[gannonball]

4 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

How would it not?

The cost of a newly outlaid pitch would probably pay itself back after a year in the top league, that's probably including loss of earnings but the pitch can also be used elsewhere or sold if they dont have the space. The 10 thousand seater rule required teams to risk building stadiums/stands for a league they may never be in as they forbid ground sharing and left them saddled with debt that clubs ultimatley ended up in admin over. The two aren't comparable for me.

[Salvo Montalbano]

We used to have one of the best grass pitches in the country but a combination of using the undersoil heating, the undersoil heating then breaking and flooding a section of the pitch, playing games in a short space of time to catch up with the games postponed when our USH broke and cut backs to the maintenance budget have meant that at the moment it looks like a tattie field in the Somme during the Great War. Although we'll probably lose, I can almost guarantee that our game today at Stark's Park will be a better spectacle than our recent home games v Arbroath, Ayr and Airdrie. The best game I've seen on TV this season was probably Raith Rovers v Partick Thistle. Good grass pitches will almost always beat an artificial pitch but a good artificial pitch like those in Kirkcaldy and Airdrie will almost always beat a bad grass pitch.

[PSJ.84]

12 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

I'm sure the fact that both yourselves and Livingston aren't very good isn't a factor here at all, and if it was played on grass it would have been a great game...

A properly maintained artificial pitch is just as conducive to playing good football as its grass equivalent. And vice-versa.

Wasn’t quite clear from the post but the game was at McDiarmid, so it was a grass pitch. 

[coprolite]

13 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

I'm sure the fact that both yourselves and Livingston aren't very good isn't a factor here at all, and if it was played on grass it would have been a great game...

A properly maintained artificial pitch is just as conducive to playing good football as its grass equivalent. And vice-versa.

It was on grass, in patches 

[chris1883]

1 minute ago, Crawford said:

There should be a standard to the plastic pitch that must be exceeded. Beyond that, shut up and leave it.

The Rover's plastic pitch looks crap on TV, but plays well. I would say it plays better than most of the grass surfaces I have seen in the Championship this season. But the issue is the way it looks on TV - because it looks synthetic, supporters immediately say it's crap. I agree with you that there needs to be a very clear standard when it comes to synthetic, but I would take that a step further too - and apply a set standard to grass. It is mad that we are considering banning synthetic pitches when 50% of the grass pitches in the SPL are arguably worse than a good quality synthetic.

15 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

I know you werent on about paying the full amount, but how much do you think would be "fair"?

 

I would say that something along the lines of a £100k grant, £100k to purchase a re-usable synthetic surface (for distribution to grass roots) and a £200k intrest free loan (all specifically tied to pitch installation) - I feel that this coupled with the prize money would be a fair starting point for clubs. A 'grace period' of 1 year to establish in the league would also be 'fair', but unlikely to happen!

As you say, it is all about forcing clubs to yo-yo in and out of the SPL to protect those 'middling' clubs.

[tree house tam]

7 minutes ago, gannonball said:

 left them saddled with debt that clubs ultimatley ended up in admin over. The two aren't comparable for me.

What a lot of pish, they chased the dream and never cut cloth accordingly. They couldn't stand a few seasons in the championship while stadiums were either renovated or built. All the while other clubs were cutting cloth accordingly, sat in the championship. They're c***s not victims.

Edited March 9 by tree house tam

[Todd_is_God]

4 minutes ago, gannonball said:

The cost of a newly outlaid pitch would probably pay itself back after a year in the top league, that's probably including loss of earnings but the pitch can also be used elsewhere or sold if they dont have the space. The 10 thousand seater rule required teams to risk building stadiums/stands for a league they may never be in as they forbid ground sharing and left them saddled with debt that clubs ultimatley ended up in admin over. The two aren't comparable for me.

Granted, but clubs that have them will likely base youth academies, training etc on them. After they get relegated then finding the cash to re-instate an artificial pitch / alternative facilities could be prohibitive.

This vote is to deter these clubs from promotion.

[Todd_is_God]

2 minutes ago, PSJ.84 said:

Wasn’t quite clear from the post but the game was at McDiarmid, so it was a grass pitch. 

I didn't pick up on that. Thanks!

[Scooby_Doo]

6 minutes ago, gannonball said:

The cost of a newly outlaid pitch would probably pay itself back after a year in the top league, that's probably including loss of earnings but the pitch can also be used elsewhere or sold if they dont have the space. The 10 thousand seater rule required teams to risk building stadiums/stands for a league they may never be in as they forbid ground sharing and left them saddled with debt that clubs ultimatley ended up in admin over. The two aren't comparable for me.

You're forgetting that it isn't just about the matchday pitch. Killie put a pitch in because we were training in Glasgow, and the carpet meant everyone from the first team, to the womens team and down to the under 10s could train on it in way you can't with a grass pitch

Banning them means teams need to find the money to lay and maintain the new pitch, and build a training facility with all of that again. We're only doing it because we have a multi-millionaire owner putting his hand in his pocket, and we are grateful for it. Not every club has that, not least the ones in the lower divisions. Going from artificial to grass is prohibitive to teams that have been in the Championship for more than a few seasons.

The fact that the richest club in the country has the worst fucking pitch in the country, despite spending millions, should make this a non event.

But it isn't. It's about pulling up the drawbridge once Livi go, and it's disgraceful Super League behaviour minus the Saudis.

Brother Walfrid would not approve.