Artificial pitch vote

[Freedom Farter]

Top tier clubs in the following nations currently play on artificial turf pitches: Portugal, Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Russia, Brazil, USA.

Edited March 9 by Freedom Farter

[gannonball]

10 minutes ago, tree house tam said:

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.

So wtf were the clubs meant to do somehow build a new stand or even stadium in a few months after getting promoted? It was a terrible rule that helped keep the drawbridge up.

9 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

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.

 

1 minute ago, Scooby_Doo said:

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.

I get you're points and like I said I'm not totally against plastic pitches in the top level. My main point was that it if was to change it would be nowhere near as bad as the terrible 10 thousand rule.

[kingjoey]

1 hour ago, houston_bud said:

Does a couple of top flight teams having an artificial pitch give kids more opportunities to play?

Most high schools have them as well as councils having ones. I'm all for having more and widening access, but I don't think there'd be a noticeable drop in kids' participation if Kilmarnock and Livingston had to switch to grass pitches. Maybe I'm wrong.

I was surprised to hear that only one highland league club has an artificial pitch. I'd have thought a lot of these clubs would've done well from being able to rent out their pitches.

Living in Montrose, you know how many kids benefit from Montrose FC having an artificial pitch. Over 250 kids in the local youth set up get to train every week of the year on it, which wouldn't happen on their grass pitches. Obviously it's also a good income generator for the club with different organisations using it every night of the week.

[Alert Mongoose]

The best solution would be for the pitches at Killie and Livi to be replaced.  I would argue that UEFA should ring fence Rangers* participation and prize money from this year to fund it. Everyone is happy.

[RandomGuy.]

9 minutes ago, gannonball said:

So wtf were the clubs meant to do somehow build a new stand or even stadium in a few months after getting promoted? It was a terrible rule that helped keep the drawbridge up.

Do you think the 10k rule only came into force when the SPL was created?

[Scooby_Doo]

9 minutes ago, gannonball said:

I get you're points and like I said I'm not totally against plastic pitches in the top level. My main point was that it if was to change it would be nowhere near as bad as the terrible 10 thousand rule.

And my point is that it is. Whether it's £1m or £5m or £10m, it's simply unaffordable for those clubs. Even if they did scrape it together, there is then no playing budget and relegation is certain.

Not every team has a rich benefactor or even the nous to email Hamilton and ask for £1m.

[2426255]

I prefer artificial pitches, because I don't think it's fair to the grass to be trampled on repeatedly and then forced to grow back. I look forward to the day when all pitches are artificial.

Edited March 9 by 2426255

[Crawford]

1 minute ago, 2426255 said:

I prefer artificial pitches, because I don't think it's fair to grass to be trampled on repeatedly and then forced to grow back. I look forward to the day when all pitches are artificial.

 

[coprolite]

39 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.

How does a pitch pay for itself? 

If anything, grass costs more to maintain and would cut off possible income from rental. 

As an investor, i don't see how i get my money back, it's not an investible proposition and i'm out. 

[Todd_is_God]

It also seem inherently unfair that only 12 of the 42 SPFL clubs will be given the power to effectively put an artificial (pun intended) barrier in place for the other 30.

SPFL wide issues should be voted on by all SPFL member clubs.

[gannonball]

14 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Do you think the 10k rule only came into force when the SPL was created?

I never said anything about the SPL? I'm aware the all seater thing came off the back of Hillsborough for the top level but the Scottish Authorities were involved with drawing up the rules too iirc.

6 minutes ago, coprolite said:

How does a pitch pay for itself? 

If anything, grass costs more to maintain and would cut off possible income from rental. 

As an investor, i don't see how i get my money back, it's not an investible proposition and i'm out. 

As in the extra cash from being in the top flight would outweigh the benefits (financially) of having a plastic pitch in the championship if the rule was to change. Like I said it's a rule earlier change I don't really support so I have no real bias about it.

Edited March 9 by gannonball

[LiviLion]

48 minutes ago, Crawford said:

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.

 

47 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.

There are already FIFA standards, which artificial pitches are tested against when laid and throughout the season.

[lubo_blaha]

It’s not something that particularly bothers me but if it’s implemented then there could be certain things in place for clubs who are affected:

1. One years grace period to put a grass pitch in. It’s unfair to expect teams who may only have known they’re going up at the end of May to have the finances available to rip up the astro and bed in grass in the space of six weeks before the league cup groups are to be played. 

2. Grants available for clubs affected, not only to replace the surface but also to install a new Astro in their local area to ensure that the hundreds of people who use their pitch each week have a place to continue to participate.

[RandomGuy.]

2 minutes ago, gannonball said:

I never said anything about the SPL? I'm aware the all seater thing came off the back of Hillsborough for the top level but the Scottish Authorities were involved with drawing up the rules too iirc.

Its just youre on about clubs only having a few months to get their grounds up to standard as if it was just sprung on sides. 

They all got 5 years warning of the rule coming into force, while you had teams like Falkirk mewling about how impossible it was for them to reach those standards 10 years after being told it was happening.

The equivalent now would be telling clubs that a "no artificial pitches" rule is coming in for the 2029/30 season, then moaning clubs didnt have a chance to get things in place.

The 10k rule just shafted smaller sides as they also made sure clubs couldn't ground share. Clubs like Falkirk missed out because they never bothered their arse doing anything in the 90s to their grounds and just moaned instead.

[coprolite]

2 minutes ago, gannonball said:

I never said anything about the SPL? I'm aware the all seater thing came off the back of Hillsborough for the top level but the Scottish Authorities were involved with drawing up the rules too iirc.

As in the extra cash from being in the top flight would outweigh the benefits (financially) of having a plastic pitch in the championship if the rule was to change. Like I said it's a rule earlier change I don't really support so I have no real bias about it.

Right, didn't realise you meant if the rule had changed. 

Prize money step up is ~ £550k (min) and you might sell what, 20k more away tickets. Sounds like a choice between new pitch or new players, which is a shit choice. 

[GNU_Linux]

20 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

It also seem inherently unfair that only 12 of the 42 SPFL clubs will be given the power to effectively put an artificial (pun intended) barrier in place for the other 30.

SPFL wide issues should be voted on by all SPFL member clubs.

It being a top flight side only vote is even sillier when you remember the VAR vote was SPFL wide.

[A Diamond For Me]

37 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

Living in Montrose, you know how many kids benefit from Montrose FC having an artificial pitch. Over 250 kids in the local youth set up get to train every week of the year on it, which wouldn't happen on their grass pitches. Obviously it's also a good income generator for the club with different organisations using it every night of the week.

This is especially relevant when you think of how many councils have had to sell of playing fields in the last decade or so.  They're all shutting and selling off assets as their budgets are stretched to breaking point and beyond.  Plastic pitches go some way to alleviating that.

[gannonball]

3 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Its just youre on about clubs only having a few months to get their grounds up to standard as if it was just sprung on sides. 

They all got 5 years warning of the rule coming into force, while you had teams like Falkirk mewling about how impossible it was for them to reach those standards 10 years after being told it was happening.

The equivalent now would be telling clubs that a "no artificial pitches" rule is coming in for the 2029/30 season, then moaning clubs didnt have a chance to get things in place.

The 10k rule just shafted smaller sides as they also made sure clubs couldn't ground share. Clubs like Falkirk missed out because they never bothered their arse doing anything in the 90s to their grounds and just moaned instead.

Telling clubs to build a ground that they are never going to realistically fill with their own fans was absolute bollocks. I get why Falkirk didn't do it tbh albeit they ran brockville right in to the ground. I don't agree with the pitch rule change but its nothing on the 10k. Ironically it actually made our league look more tinpot with so many empty seats at grounds that never get filled.

[strichener]

1 hour ago, welldaft said:

Ban them for the top flight. Anyone telling me that football is enhanced on Livi pitch is having a laugh. Of course grass pitches can be poor, but that is more down to Scottish weather and undersoil heating.

For me it is about the cost of maintenance. A grass pitch is many multiples more expensive. We spent a £1m+ on the pitch. So what. Well it meant that everyone’s teams could come and play as good football as they are capable of. That is also a £1m that we did not have to pay for players hence why our budget was heavily reduced this season. 

Not fit for top flight football. Get them in the bin. 

 

Your choice.  You could have used the £1m, put in artificial and had significantly less maintenance costs going forward (thereby increasing the money for players).

[RandomGuy.]

2 minutes ago, gannonball said:

Telling clubs to build a ground that they are never going to realistically fill with their own fans was absolute bollocks. I get why Falkirk didn't do it tbh albeit they ran brockville right in to the ground. I don't agree with the pitch rule change but its nothing on the 10k. Ironically it actually made our league look more tinpot with so many empty seats at grounds that never get filled.

I agree the 10k rule was stupid and helped kill a lot of lovely old stadiums, but it was enforced due to a tragedy and the need to improve safety. It wouldnt have been an issue for many clubs it was an issue for if they hadnt run down their stadium to complete disrepair anyway, while clubs had 5 years to get their affairs in order. It raised the floor massively for what clubs could actually get promoted which was shite. 

The pitch rule would be because aesthetics, while being (apparently) rushed through and will force sides who get promoted to spend 7 figures on it. Youll have a situation where someone like Raith gets promoted then spends virtually everything they earn that season on a pitch, which they then struggle to afford to maintain if theyre relegated that season.

All because plastic pitches dont look nice.