Artificial pitch vote

[Sortmeout]

33 minutes ago, foreverarover said:

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

We certainly haven’t built it yet, still in the planning stage.

[Scooby_Doo]

41 minutes ago, foreverarover said:

Killie have a very wealthy owner who is paying for a new training facility otherwise we'd be keeping the astro

FTFY.

[Rugster]

13 hours 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.

Fans being pissed off wont matter a f**k. They’ve shown on numerous occasions they don’t give a flying f**k about fans. 

[madton]

14 hours 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.

I mean worst case scenario, if the rule changed to be covered, we could simply segregate the cowshed and give the away team the far end and/or the normal away side of the main stand. 

Could probably give away 1000 spaces in the cowshed no bother and 600 in main stand. We've allowed Ayr and Thistle fans in the cowshed in recent times.

We'd lose revenue obviously when the big boys( and St Mirren) come to town 

We could also just buy a roof as they won't be able to say no straight away,  need some sort of timescale on it like they are doing now.

 

[Aufc]

21 hours ago, djchapsticks said:

And yet despite this, Morton have one of the very best playing surfaces and groundsmen in the entire country. This is where the 'we can't afford lamps to keep the surface in good condition' argument crumbles. I guess Morton don't have these either but their playing surface is consistently great.

Which is a shame because they then fill they team with absolute hackers like Alan power and Kirk broadfoot and resort to punting the ball

[dardo]

11 minutes ago, Aufc said:

Which is a shame because they then fill they team with absolute hackers like Alan power and Kirk broadfoot and resort to punting the ball

But at least they never died like Airdrie. 

[Div]

Having agreed to ban the artificial pitches in the top flight, and undertaking to set a high standard for the grass pitches in use in the Premiership the SPFL now need to outline what support is going to be given to promoted clubs who need to transition, and also what the criteria and penalties will be for failing to maintain the grass pitches at the required level.

The passing of the resolution on Friday was surely only the first step in this initiative?

[vikingTON]

17 hours ago, bob_mcshug said:

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

If they believe in the full merits of their case, then I'm sure they'll refuse to accept promotion and put the vital interests of their community organisations, women's clubs, under 10s futsal games etc. before the narrow interests of their professional men's team. 

Either way, they are not 'forced' to remove their current surface, in the same way that Buckie and Beith are not 'forced' to comply with licensing requirements to be promoted from their level to the next one. 

Having a choice between two options you don't like is not compulsion. 

12 minutes ago, Div said:

Having agreed to ban the artificial pitches in the top flight, and undertaking to set a high standard for the grass pitches in use in the Premiership the SPFL now need to outline what support is going to be given to promoted clubs who need to transition, and also what the criteria and penalties will be for failing to maintain the grass pitches at the required level.

The increased revenue from top flight football prize money more than covers transition costs. The club's 'affected' by the change are just grifting for money that they do not in fact require. I don't blame them for trying to secure their best interests, but that's another myth that should be filed in the bin. 

Edited June 2 by vikingTON

[Ranaldo Bairn]

29 minutes ago, Div said:

Having agreed to ban the artificial pitches in the top flight, and undertaking to set a high standard for the grass pitches in use in the Premiership the SPFL now need to outline what support is going to be given to promoted clubs who need to transition, and also what the criteria and penalties will be for failing to maintain the grass pitches at the required level.

The passing of the resolution on Friday was surely only the first step in this initiative?

Correct, first paragraph, naive second one. I predict not one brass farthing will go to any such affected team.

Might I humbly suggest you use such clout as you have on social media to highlight this issue?

[Scooby_Doo]

21 minutes ago, virginton said:

If they believe in the full merits of their case, then I'm sure they'll refuse to accept promotion and put the vital interests of their community organisations, women's clubs, under 10s futsal games etc. before the narrow interests of their professional men's team. 

Either way, they are not 'forced' to remove their current surface, in the same way that Buckie and Beith are not 'forced' to comply with licensing requirements to be promoted from their level to the next one. 

Having a choice between two options you don't like is not compulsion. 

The increased revenue from top flight football prize money more than covers transition costs. The club's 'affected' by the change are just grifting for money that they do not in fact require. I don't blame them for trying to secure their best interests, but that's another myth that should be filed in the bin. 

You're missing the point. These teams invested in artificial surfaces as they were cost effective, had community benefits, and crucially, were absolutely permitted within the league rules, and happily approved by FIFA and UEFA. Now, the top league has arbitrarily changed the rules without and sound reasoning. In fact, I've yet to see any reasoning from the SPFL as to why they need to be banned.

Is it because they don't have any?

[topcat(The most tip top)]

38 minutes ago, Scooby_Doo said:

You're missing the point. These teams invested in artificial surfaces as they were cost effective, had community benefits, and crucially, were absolutely permitted within the league rules, and happily approved by FIFA and UEFA. Now, the top league has arbitrarily changed the rules without and sound reasoning. In fact, I've yet to see any reasoning from the SPFL as to why they need to be banned.

Is it because they don't have any?

It’s been established that we don’t need to show sound reasoning to f**k you over

As Roy McGregor would put it ….Take your medicine!

[Div]

1 hour ago, vikingTON said:

The increased revenue from top flight football prize money more than covers transition costs. The club's 'affected' by the change are just grifting for money that they do not in fact require. I don't blame them for trying to secure their best interests, but that's another myth that should be filed in the bin. 

A newly promoted club will have two months to transition from plastic to grass, but wouldn’t have access to any of their prize money until nearer Christmas when the first tranche is paid out.

Even if was in the form of a loan I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect the league to support a club which is now faced with complying with a rule that didn’t exist when they invested in their current pitch. 

 

[Moomintroll]

12 minutes ago, Div said:

A newly promoted club will have two months to transition from plastic to grass, but wouldn’t have access to any of their prize money until nearer Christmas when the first tranche is paid out.

Even if was in the form of a loan I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect the league to support a club which is now faced with complying with a rule that didn’t exist when they invested in their current pitch. 

 

But the twisted sisters don't like them so everyone else can fonk off because they don't matter. Everything exists merely to suit the two of them.

[Moomintroll]

15 minutes ago, Div said:

A newly promoted club will have two months to transition from plastic to grass, but wouldn’t have access to any of their prize money until nearer Christmas when the first tranche is paid out.

Even if was in the form of a loan I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect the league to support a club which is now faced with complying with a rule that didn’t exist when they invested in their current pitch. 

 

I absolutely agree with what you are saying but they simply will not care because Liewell & Vagina neck decree it thus.

[Lurkst]

On 01/06/2024 at 10:28, Pizzo said:

 The ground is starting to show it's age and the steelwork looks like it's gonna need some pretty serious maintenance soon. I'd imagine all the 90s stands are similar as most were built on the cheap. 

 

On 01/06/2024 at 10:31, RandomGuy. said:

McDiarmid is the same. Becoming neglected and old now.

Who knew that forcing clubs to spend all their money building stadiums they couldn't afford to maintain, or build, would be causing issues years later?

St Johnstone and Kilmarnock's stands were built before there was a requirement for all seater stadiums.

[HibeeJibee]

31 minutes ago, Lurkst said:

St Johnstone and Kilmarnock's stands were built before there was a requirement for all seater stadiums.

St Johnstone's were though even in late 1980s it was being openly discussed as threshold for Premier Division participation, and McDiarmid acted as a template.

Kilmarnock's weren't, as work began shortly after agreement was reached during 1993-94 between SFA, SFL and the Scottish Office that all top divisions stadiums should be all-seater with a minimum capacity of 10,000 by 1997-98 (which was later extended to end of 1998-99). This agreement avoided a post-Hillsborough government licensing scheme like England & Wales.

Work had begun - and in several cases finished - on Almondvale, Excelsior, Stark's Park, Broadwood, the Ballast Stadium etc. on layouts to meet precisely 10,000 seats before SPL was founded.

It's actually a myth that SPL invented 10,000 seats. What they did was turn it into a hard-&-fast rule (with no waivers or graces); before reducing it to 6,000 in 2004 (effective from 2005-06).

It was then abolished entirely in 2013 when SPL became SPFL.

[Lurkst]

38 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

St Johnstone's were though even in late 1980s it was being openly discussed as threshold for Premier Division participation, and McDiarmid acted as a template.

Kilmarnock's weren't, as work began shortly after agreement was reached during 1993-94 between SFA, SFL and the Scottish Office that all top divisions stadiums should be all-seater with a minimum capacity of 10,000 by 1997-98 (which was later extended to end of 1998-99). This agreement avoided a post-Hillsborough government licensing scheme like England & Wales.

Work had begun - and in several cases finished - on Almondvale, Excelsior, Stark's Park, Broadwood, the Ballast Stadium etc. on layouts to meet precisely 10,000 seats before SPL was founded.

It's actually a myth that SPL invented 10,000 seats. What they did was turn it into a hard-&-fast rule (with no waivers or graces); before reducing it to 6,000 in 2004 (effective from 2005-06).

It was then abolished entirely in 2013 when SPL became SPFL.

Consider myself corrected

I had forgotten about Jim Farry's obsession with the Taylor Report.

 

[btb]

4 hours ago, Div said:

Having agreed to ban the artificial pitches in the top flight, and undertaking to set a high standard for the grass pitches in use in the Premiership the SPFL now need to outline what support is going to be given to promoted clubs who need to transition, and also what the criteria and penalties will be for failing to maintain the grass pitches at the required level.

The passing of the resolution on Friday was surely only the first step in this initiative?

It can be done without outside support, remember 2006 when we had to install USH despite having an alternative pitch protection system and despite already having planning permission for the new stadium, and where were the Falkirk & Dunfermline fans then - in the top flight and laughing there arses off.

I'm just glad were inside the tent pissing out on this occasion - makes a change!  

Edited June 2 by btb

[Musketeer Gripweed]

3 hours ago, Div said:

A newly promoted club will have two months to transition from plastic to grass, but wouldn’t have access to any of their prize money until nearer Christmas when the first tranche is paid out.

Even if was in the form of a loan I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect the league to support a club which is now faced with complying with a rule that didn’t exist when they invested in their current pitch. 

 

Raith Rovers could have been promoted last weekend and the first round of league Cup fixtures are 13th June. That's only about 6 weeks. Impossible to get a grass pitch in that time period. Be lucky to get a contractor on board in that time.

[vikingTON]

6 hours ago, Scooby_Doo said:

You're missing the point. These teams invested in artificial surfaces as they were cost effective, had community benefits, and crucially, were absolutely permitted within the league rules, and happily approved by FIFA and UEFA. Now, the top league has arbitrarily changed the rules without and sound reasoning. In fact, I've yet to see any reasoning from the SPFL as to why they need to be banned.

Is it because they don't have any?

What 'point' is being missed exactly? 

The idea that Raith or other clubs invested in an artificial surface for the sake of the community is utter revisionism. Their Walter Mitty backer did so explicitly to raise more revenue to throw at their large squad of utter mercenaries. 

It is the prospect of not getting that first team playing in the top flight that provokes their genuine anger; not the plight of the 'community' groups who will all be thrown overboard without the slightest hesitation if it secures the professional men's team promotion. 

5 hours ago, Div said:

A newly promoted club will have two months to transition from plastic to grass, but wouldn’t have access to any of their prize money until nearer Christmas when the first tranche is paid out.

Even if was in the form of a loan I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect the league to support a club which is now faced with complying with a rule that didn’t exist when they invested in their current pitch. 

 

Given that those future funds are guaranteed and demonstrable, a football club can secure credit to make the required changes in the meantime. 

No such 'transition payments' (read: bribes to stop complaining about it) were awarded for previous clubs to make far more significant changes to meet stadium criteria. Somehow almost all of them managed to get the job done when their top flight status depended on it.