Artificial pitch vote

[bob_mcshug]

Re the pitch decision, the other thing that I find pretty outrageous (but not unintentional) was the random 2 year transition period rather than banning them and saying ' no new ones allowed and clubs who currently have them need to replace at the end of the pitch lifespan [5 years?]' 

 

No money in scottish football as it so forcing clubs to rip up pitches sooner than they have just sums up the disregard clubs have for other members. 

[Benidorm]

8 hours ago, Swello said:

The truth is likely to be that a lot of interests lined up here. I would imagine in a lot of clubs (like mine or yours) the "football department" were probably vociferous in getting rid of plastic pitches as managers (and some older pro's) never stop complaining about them. The boardrooms also like the idea of getting rid of them as it increases survival chances by weakening the teams below, who either can't get promoted or have to change their budgets if they do.

When you consider that the boards, playing side & (let's face it) the vast majority of supporters at established top flight clubs are all lined up against artificial surfaces, the vote was always a foregone conclusion as soon as it was made top flight only (and that is where the real contentious part of this is).

The funny thing is the big losers from this will likely be players. Without these pitches I'd say it would be very touch and go whether clubs like QotS and Hamilton could remain full time and at the very least it'll impact squad sizes at all affected clubs. It'll just tighten things even more when it comes to full time contracts.

I'm actually surprised more clubs like Ayr, Morton or ICT never went through with it even if the initial outlay is quite big.

[DA Baracus]

2 minutes ago, Benidorm said:

The funny thing is the big losers from this will likely be players. Without these pitches I'd say it would be very touch and go whether clubs like QotS and Hamilton could remain full time and at the very least it'll impact squad sizes at all affected clubs. It'll just tighten things even more when it comes to full time contracts.

I'm actually surprised more clubs like Ayr, Morton or ICT never went through with it even if the initial outlay is quite big.

Another aspect the "what will folk in other countries think should they ever randomly happen across a game on TV on an artificial pitch?!!!!!!" crowd don't give a f**k about.

[vikingTON]

2 hours ago, Harry Kinnear said:

If you tolerate this then your football club will be next.

 

Did you include that pathetic line in your letter to Rishi Sunak? 

[Andy groundhopper]

Only one thing regarding artificial pitches - they must look solid green (i think E.K looked good, maybe wrong) and not the hideous one's used by many clubs. They look crap both live and on tv. Hopefully the SFA and SPFL help clubs improve their grass pitches with grants etc. Artificial stays.

[DA Baracus]

16 minutes ago, Andy groundhopper said:

Only one thing regarding artificial pitches - they must look solid green (i think E.K looked good, maybe wrong) and not the hideous one's used by many clubs. They look crap both live and on tv. Hopefully the SFA and SPFL help clubs improve their grass pitches with grants etc. Artificial stays.

Once again, all current SPFL pitches adhere to UEFA standards. Pretty sure that includes the colour as there's artificial American football pitches that are blue and other colours.

[vikingTON]

40 minutes ago, Benidorm said:

The funny thing is the big losers from this will likely be players. Without these pitches I'd say it would be very touch and go whether clubs like QotS and Hamilton could remain full time and at the very least it'll impact squad sizes at all affected clubs. It'll just tighten things even more when it comes to full time contracts.

I'm actually surprised more clubs like Ayr, Morton or ICT never went through with it even if the initial outlay is quite big.

It's not just an initial outlay. They also need to be maintained and then replaced on a regular basis. If you're running hires through the week, you have running costs in energy, staff etc. And despite the desperate claims made by a handful of clubs, there is actually a ceiling on demand for traipsing around a wide open pitch on a Tuesday night in January. Plastic pitches are not the essential precondition to run a football club outside the top flight: they're only one option to generate revenue, that like almost all others comes with attendant costs and risks too. They're not the free money printer some folk seem to think. 

The biggest threat to the sustainability of full-time clubs outside the top flight is in fact 'lower league clubs throwing large sums of money they don't have at utterly mediocre players' - in the name of 'ambishun' to play in the top flight. That two of the biggest culprits of the latter practice in the past few years - Falkirk and Raith - are the two clubs foremost in their squealing about the injustice of this decision reduces sympathy to about -7000.

Hamilton can join them after announcing that they'll be charging £26 per adult - prior to this vote - to try and recoup the costs of their equally loss-funded squad used to win promotion. 

Just now, Harry Kinnear said:

Nope but I did include @virginton is a c**t and funnily enough Rishi agreed.

Continuing in a pattern of embarrassing yourself then, seems legit. 

[DA Baracus]

2 minutes ago, virginton said:

Hamilton can join them after announcing that they'll be charging £26 per adult

Surely not?!!!

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, bob_mcshug said:

Re the pitch decision, the other thing that I find pretty outrageous (but not unintentional) was the random 2 year transition period rather than banning them and saying ' no new ones allowed and clubs who currently have them need to replace at the end of the pitch lifespan [5 years?]' 

 

No money in scottish football as it so forcing clubs to rip up pitches sooner than they have just sums up the disregard clubs have for other members. 

The only clubs forced to rip up anything are those currently (and remaining) in the top flight, who get the lion's share of money distributed domestically and (of increasing importance) UEFA solidarity payments. Clubs outside of the top flight are not forced to do anything at all. 

Next. 

[Harry Kinnear]

1 minute ago, virginton said:

It's not just an initial outlay. They also need to be maintained and then replaced on a regular basis. If you're running hires through the week, you have running costs in energy, staff etc. And despite the desperate claims made by a handful of clubs, there is actually a ceiling on demand for traipsing around a wide open pitch on a Tuesday night in January. Plastic pitches are not the essential precondition to run a football club outside the top flight: they're only one option to generate revenue, that like almost all others comes with attendant costs and risks too. They're not the free money printer some folk seem to think. 

The biggest threat to the sustainability of full-time clubs outside the top flight is in fact 'lower league clubs throwing large sums of money they don't have at utterly mediocre players' - in the name of 'ambishun' to play in the top flight. That two of the biggest culprits of the latter practice in the past few years - Falkirk and Raith - are the two clubs foremost in their squealing about the injustice of this decision reduces sympathy to about -7000.

Hamilton can join them after announcing that they'll be charging £26 per adult - prior to this vote - to try and recoup the costs of their equally loss-funded squad used to win promotion. 

Continuing in a pattern of embarrassing yourself then, seems legit. 

My iPhone wouldn’t let me type Viking and kept changing it to Virgin, it would appear it knows you as well.

As an aside do Morten have any aspirations to get in the top flight, do you honestly think the clubs up there will accept standing in the pissing rain in an open terracing, won’t happen. I can take criticism from fans of clubs that stadiums are decent but Cappielow is a shit hole, your pitch might be nice but your stadium isn’t.

[DA Baracus]

Just now, Harry Kinnear said:

As an aside do Morten have any aspirations to get in the top flight, do you honestly think the clubs up there will accept standing in the pissing rain in an open terracing, won’t happen. I

Morton's ground is already compliant should they be promoted. It has been since the SPFL began.

[vikingTON]

Just now, Harry Kinnear said:

My iPhone wouldn’t let me type Viking and kept changing it to Virgin, it would appear it knows you as well.

As an aside do Morten have any aspirations to get in the top flight, do you honestly think the clubs up there will accept standing in the pissing rain in an open terracing, won’t happen. I can take criticism from fans of clubs that stadiums are decent but Cappielow is a shit hole, your pitch might be nice but your stadium isn’t.

I'd rather watch a game from any part of Cappielow - never mind the splendid opportunity presented in the Cowshed - than any part of your three-sided, Legoland dump in Grangemouth. 

[Harry Kinnear]

Just now, DA Baracus said:

Morton's ground is already compliant should they be promoted. It has been since the SPFL began.

For how long though, they’ve changed the goalposts here, nothing to say they won’t do it again. If top flight away fans get pissed off getting soakings at Cappielow nothing to say they won’t change them again.

[DA Baracus]

2 minutes ago, Harry Kinnear said:

For how long though, they’ve changed the goalposts here, nothing to say they won’t do it again. If top flight away fans get pissed off getting soakings at Cappielow nothing to say they won’t change them again.

Ah right, I get you.

Fair point.

[bob_mcshug]

6 minutes ago, virginton said:

The only clubs forced to rip up anything are those currently (and remaining) in the top flight, who get the lion's share of money distributed domestically and (of increasing importance) UEFA solidarity payments. Clubs outside of the top flight are not forced to do anything at all. 

Next. 

And if Airdrie, Falkirk, Hamilton or Raith go up next season? 

[Harry Kinnear]

7 minutes ago, virginton said:

I'd rather watch a game from any part of Cappielow - never mind the splendid opportunity presented in the Cowshed - than any part of your three-sided, Legoland dump in Grangemouth. 

Ah the old Grangemouth line, that’s a cracker not heard that before.

[C4mmy31]

4 hours ago, 0Neils40yarder said:

...because grass parks are better and players enjoy playing on it more

We get it, you have a personal dislike for them,.

Good enough for Messi to have no problems playing on one, says a lot about the mindset of an SPFL footballer.

 

[foreverarover]

13 hours ago, 0Neils40yarder said:

That's all fine...if they want to keep a plastic park due to the prohibitive costs, then keep it, but don't expect to be in the Premier league with it.

 

Standards have to be met...grass parks included, and clubs falling short should be taken to task 

 

Raith Rovers are outbidding teams in their own league for players, so I'll no be having the 'too poor' argument on them 

That's because attendances have more than doubled and hence all income massively up. Keep up. 

[foreverarover]

11 hours ago, 0Neils40yarder said:

Why did Killie decide they were replacing their plastic with grass prior to the vote? Why do almost all top leagues top flights play on grass? Why do professional footballers prefer to play on grass?

Killie have built a training centre with astro so they can change back to grass 

[DA Baracus]

16 minutes ago, foreverarover said:

That's because attendances have more than doubled and hence all income massively up. Keep up. 

Don't forget all the pie sales!