Artificial pitch vote

[chris1883]

Rovers were playing Partick last night. I would encourage everyone advocating for the synthetic pitch ban to go and have a look at the Firhill surface (grass) and compare it to Starks Park (synthetic). Rovers' pitch is far superior. The ball bounces with consistency and runs true at Starks', it certainly did not at Firhill.

It would make a huge amount of sense to me, if prior to the vote the club chairmen, club managers and club captains visit a few ground to see the realities of Scottish Synthetic and Grass surfaces. I worry that they are going to vote based on reasoning's other than the realities of what's out there.

[Ric]

33 minutes ago, chris1883 said:

Rovers were playing Partick last night. I would encourage everyone advocating for the synthetic pitch ban to go and have a look at the Firhill surface (grass) and compare it to Starks Park (synthetic). Rovers' pitch is far superior. The ball bounces with consistency and runs true at Starks', it certainly did not at Firhill.

It would make a huge amount of sense to me, if prior to the vote the club chairmen, club managers and club captains visit a few ground to see the realities of Scottish Synthetic and Grass surfaces. I worry that they are going to vote based on reasoning's other than the realities of what's out there.

I love how people who want to shil for plastic always cherry pick a bad pitch in order to compare. Sure, a grass pitch in Scottish will suffer from our inclement climate. I don't think anyone is denying that a good plastic pitch in winter is better than a bad grass one. That said, the grass does not need to be bad, that is mostly down to costs* and the randomness of modern climate change. However there is absolutely nobody arguing that Hampden should be ripped up and replaced by plastic. Why? Because "club chairmen, club managers and club captains" already "know the the realities of Scottish Synthetic and Grass surfaces". Those realities is that no matter how hard you try, you will never convince fans or players that plastic, when in a direct comparison, is better than grass.

 

(* I mentioned in my previous post that costs should be covered, or at least assisted, by SPFL and/or SFA, however the plastic grass lot found that idea so egregious that they felt the need to down vote against it, suggesting some  of those who support plastic do so ideologically and not based on the evidence at hand)

 

[Wee jeemie]

I’d hope if it happened they’d give plenty time to change , I remember Aberdeen being saved from relegation due to the Falkirk stadium not being standard , I can this shit Aberdeen side being saved again but this time due to Raith having a plastic pitch , mair lives than a cat 

[chris1883]

12 minutes ago, Ric said:

I love how people who want to shil for plastic always cherry pick a bad pitch in order to compare. Sure, a grass pitch in Scottish will suffer from our inclement climate. I don't think anyone is denying that a good plastic pitch in winter is better than a bad grass one. That said, the grass does not need to be bad, that is mostly down to costs* and the randomness of modern climate change. However there is absolutely nobody arguing that Hampden should be ripped up and replaced by plastic. Why? Because "club chairmen, club managers and club captains" already "know the the realities of Scottish Synthetic and Grass surfaces". Those realities is that no matter how hard you try, you will never convince fans or players that plastic, when in a direct comparison, is better than grass.

 

(* I mentioned in my previous post that costs should be covered, or at least assisted, by SPFL and/or SFA, however the plastic grass lot found that idea so egregious that they felt the need to down vote against it, suggesting some  of those who support plastic do so ideologically and not based on the evidence at hand)

 

I feel we have similar mindsets. My issue is the argument seems to be ANY grass pitch is better than ANY synthetic pitch... which we all know is 100% not the case. In the SPL as soon as a synthetic pitch is mentioned, the mind goes immediately to Livingston's surface - which IMO is one of the poorest synthetic surfaces out there. You then look at the carpet at Starks' - it doesn't look pretty, but I haven't heard any major blame levied at it for anything.

Look, I am absolutely an advocate for grass pitches in the SPL, but there needs to be a standard and we need to bin the silly grass is always better than plastic ideology. Ideally hybrid systems should be in place in Scotland... that, however, would be extreme folly at the cost of around £1.5m.

[houston_bud]

Does no one else quite like the fact that a grass pitch changes throughout the season? 

I don't think any of the grass pitches (in the top flight anyway) are horrendous, but I don't mind seeing teams have to deal with a tricky pitch.

[DA Baracus]

The SPL doesn't exist. It hasn't existed for over a decade.

[Sortmeout]

1 hour ago, Wee jeemie said:

I’d hope if it happened they’d give plenty time to change , I remember Aberdeen being saved from relegation due to the Falkirk stadium not being standard , I can this shit Aberdeen side being saved again but this time due to Raith having a plastic pitch , mair lives than a cat 

That wasn’t quite how it happened. They were only saved from a playoff.

[DA Baracus]

21 minutes ago, Sortmeout said:

That wasn’t quite how it happened. They were only saved from a playoff.

A mini playoff tournament that was to feature ourselves, Aberdeen and Falkirk.

[gannonball]

36 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

The SPL doesn't exist. It hasn't existed for over a decade.

Everyone knows this but rebrand is so bad it rolls off the tongue as if your trying stave off a sneeze.

[Wee jeemie]

13 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

A mini playoff tournament that was to feature ourselves, Aberdeen and Falkirk.

Really there might’ve been a play off meant to happen , but don’t think Falkirk were to be involved as they won the the league that season and should’ve went straight up 

Aberdeen were in a play a few seasons later involving I  think airdrie and maybe someone else 

[Ranaldo Bairn]

2 minutes ago, Wee jeemie said:

Really there might’ve been a play off meant to happen , but don’t think Falkirk were to be involved as they won the the league that season and should’ve went straight up 

Aberdeen were in a play a few seasons later involving I  think airdrie and maybe someone else 

No, we won the league in 03. The playoff was about 2000.

[DA Baracus]

On 13/03/2024 at 10:26, Wee jeemie said:

Really there might’ve been a play off meant to happen , but don’t think Falkirk were to be involved as they won the the league that season and should’ve went straight up 

Aberdeen were in a play a few seasons later involving I  think airdrie and maybe someone else 

I think we're talking about different seasons! I'm referring to 99/00.

Edited March 15 by DA Baracus

[DA Baracus]

2 hours ago, gannonball said:

Everyone knows this but rebrand is so bad it rolls off the tongue as if your trying stave off a sneeze.

It wasn't a rebrand. The SPL ceased to exist. It was a separate organisation, different from the SFL (which also ceased to exist). Previously there were two league bodies, now there is just one.

Rolls off the tongue fine to me.

Edited March 13 by DA Baracus

[Wee jeemie]

1 minute ago, DA Baracus said:

I think we're talking about seasons! I'm referring to 99I

[Wee jeemie]

My apologies I got it wrong , my memory letting me down sorry 

[Ranaldo Bairn]

Just now, Wee jeemie said:

The top bit about the shameful Motherwell affair was in 2003!

The bottom bit is simply listing yet another carve up in Scottish football history.

[gannonball]

13 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

It wasn't a rebrand. The SPL ceased to exist. It was a separate organisation, different from the SFL (which also ceased to exist). Previously there were two league bodies, now there is just now.

Rolls off the tongue fine to me.

Again this is stuff we all know. The fact so many people still use the old term (which wasn't even on the go for that long in the grander scheme of things) tells you how terrible the new ones are, especially as they lazily copied the names of the leagues down south.

[DA Baracus]

8 minutes ago, gannonball said:

Again this is stuff we all know. The fact so many people still use the old term (which wasn't even on the go for that long in the grander scheme of things) tells you how terrible the new ones are, especially as they lazily copied the names of the leagues down south.

I don't like the current league names but don't have an issue with the name 'SPFL'.

[capt_oats]

3 hours ago, chris1883 said:

I feel we have similar mindsets. My issue is the argument seems to be ANY grass pitch is better than ANY synthetic pitch... which we all know is 100% not the case. In the SPL as soon as a synthetic pitch is mentioned, the mind goes immediately to Livingston's surface - which IMO is one of the poorest synthetic surfaces out there. You then look at the carpet at Starks' - it doesn't look pretty, but I haven't heard any major blame levied at it for anything.

Look, I am absolutely an advocate for grass pitches in the SPL, but there needs to be a standard and we need to bin the silly grass is always better than plastic ideology. Ideally hybrid systems should be in place in Scotland... that, however, would be extreme folly at the cost of around £1.5m.

I'm not sure that is the argument tbh.

The argument as far as I can see is that after several seasons, rightly or wrongly, it's increasingly been viewed as an absolute fucking riddy that we've a top flight league with games being played on the sort of surfaces that you'd see at the local Power League. Now, the Starks Park pitch may be a proverbial bowling green but currently, they're not in the Premiership whereas Killie and Livi are and it's their surfaces that have presumably motivated the lock out.

Whether it's true or not there's a general opinion that players don't like fully artificial surfaces, managers don't like them, fans don't like them and I'd imagine clubs who have prioritised investment on their playing surface to get them to a high standard are generally quite scunnered by others not adopting a similar position.

I mean, both are choices. No one's saying you *have* to spend £1.5m on a nice hybrid pitch just as two specific clubs in the Premiership decided it was worth trading off the quality of their pitch against on the money they'd save by having their 3G.

Killie and Livi both used to have grass pitches, but their going the artificial route presumably wasn't dictated by footballing reasons. I've noticed a couple of posts in this thread talking about how Killie are only reverting to grass because Bowie is putting his hand in his pocket which is fair enough but the rub there is, I guess, if they have a wealthy backer and money isn't an object why aren't they sticking with an upgraded version of the kind of surface they have just now?

Is it because despite all the Lovejoying through this thread there's a general acknowledgement that grass/hybrid surfaces are generally going to be preferable or "better" compared to a fully synthetic/artificial?

I mean, that's not for me to say.

It seems pretty clear there's now a view (presumably with Livi sinking in the way that they are) that for the top league the standard should be that games should not be played on fully synthetic surfaces and chances are they'll be able to implement this without being seen to be penalising any single team (assuming Livi are relegated and neither Raith or Airdrie are promoted).

Is it gatekeeping? Sure you could look at it that way. Should it be a priority? Maybe not. Will this improve Scottish football in any meaningful way? Almost certainly not. Is this being tabled in order to save Aberdeen from relegation? Yes. That's definitely what's happening here.

That said, as things stand, of the top 22 clubs in the country there are only Killie (who AFAIK are replacing their surface imminently), Livi, Airdrie and Raith currently playing on plastic. The rest - a significant majority in anyone's language - are either hybrid or grass.

It begs the question, if the vast majority of clubs in the top two divisions are able to maintain grass pitches is it that unreasonable for that to be a standard for the Premiership?

I guess there's a view that "convenience" and "it's more cost effective" or "our Youth Academy can train on it" isn't really enough of a justification when you're talking about top flight football. Is that particularly fair if you're talking about some of the small clubs with artificial surfaces currently installed? Not really.

However, again, as far as I can tell no one is "banning" artificial surfaces. If you're a team cutting about the Championship. League 1 or League 2 then you can be "maximising income" til your heart's content.

The proposal seems to be that they're just not being allowed in the Premiership and respectfully, if fan owned clubs like Thistle and Morton are able to maintain grass pitches in the Championship then you'd think teams competing at Premiership level should also be able to.

Either way, it's a fair point to mention that if the SPFL are going to get all particular about the quality of surfaces at Premiership level then they should equally be making recommendations on standards being met and maintained on all their grass surfaces.

[chris1883]

4 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

I'm not sure that is the argument tbh.

The argument as far as I can see is that after several seasons, rightly or wrongly, it's increasingly been viewed as an absolute fucking riddy that we've a top flight league with games being played on the sort of surfaces that you'd see at the local Power League.

I think that is the argument, and I think you backed it up by mentioning Power League pitches.

Look, I honestly believe grass is the future for all top leagues - it should be. But we need grass pitches of an appropriate standard. And that standard needs to exceed that of the local park. I remember games relatively recently where there has been more sand on 'professional' pitches than grass.

My comments regarding synthetic is wholly that not all synthetic surfaces are created equally (Livi's is a shocker!), and as a result informed decisions need to be made.

I suppose what I am trying to get across is that if they decide to go to grass, that grass needs to have specific standard that needs to be adhered to. Everything I am hearing at the moment is "grass is better than plastic" - it isn't. Good grass is better than most plastic. Average grass is not better than good synthetic.