Potential ban on artificial pitches in the Premiership - No to just 12 clubs voting

[chris1883]

My argument has always been an average grass pitch is not as good as a good synthetic surface. A good grass pitch is better than any synthetic pitch. Maintaining good grass pitches in Scotland throughout the winter is a challenge and costly. Even the 'big' clubs struggle to keep their grass in good condition.

For the record - Livi's pitch is not a good synthetic surface.

SIS reckon a natural grass pitch can withstand up-to 30 matches, a hybrid pitch 100, and synthetic 1000+. 

[Specky Ginger]

12 hours ago, Paisley Ton said:

Think it will be OF pushing this. 

While these pitches offer additional use and community use they do effect how the game is played. 

So OF wish to remove any perceived advantage to others. Just like Hearts reducing OF away supporters numbers.

Not sure if their training pitches are grass and artificial.

As for recycling, Ralston golf club got the old St Mirren training surface and has used for walkways.

This has escalated since Rodgers used Killie's pitch to deflect from the fact his team has lost twice on it this season. It never merited a mention when he was winning the treble treble a few years ago.

[TxRover]

The proposal is simply an effort by current Premiership teams to reduce the competition they face to keeping their trotter in the food trough that is “top level” football. The Arse Cheeks throw their scraps into the trough on the condition that the other 8 or 10 or 12 teams vote how they like, as long as they both agree on how to vote. The result of this vote will be a second level with several yo-yo teams playing on natural grass and the rest being teams with no hope of promotion playing on synthetic grass. As you move down the structure, there will be the occasional grass pitch for some “professional teams”, of decreasing quality and condition, and lots of Community use plastic pitches.

Here’s what the majority of Clubs are missing, this is the beginning, not the end. The next move will be to demand a “hybrid” pitch to be in the Premiership, because natural grass is too irregular. Never mind they argued that synthetic pitches, while regular and in better condition than many natural surfaces, were dangerous, they’ll demand the addition of a certain percentage of synthetic materials into the natural grass. They’ll also ignore the fact they argued those materials were too dangerous. There will be a system of supporting conversion to hybrid pitches that only helps an elite few Clubs, under the guise of maintaining the quality of football being played at the “top level”. Oh, they’ll let a few stragglers in, if only to allow a little churn at the bottom of the table, but make no mistake, this is a move to a closed shop.

[Toby]

3 hours ago, stevoraith said:

In Fife? Yes of course there are other facilities. 
But not enough in Kirkcaldy and as I said in my previous post, playing at Starks Park gives the ‘scheme weans’ and the rich bairns, and the ladies teams and the old duffers that play walking football a connection to the club that wouldn’t be there if we moved all of them back to the Michael Woods centre in Glenrothes where most of it happened before we installed the artificial surface. 
It’s about building a sense of connection that makes folk want to be a Raith fan (whether that’s buying shirts or coming to games) for decades to come. 

[jagsfan57]

The community argument has to be a red herring. It suggests that clubs that don’t have artificial pitches can’t or don’t have community aspects to their clubs. 
How much is a hybrid pitch to install and maintain compared to other surfaces ?

[CountryBumpkin]

8 minutes ago, Toby said:

The problem with the Balwearie astro is that its on school grounds and therefore cannot be used by external parties during school times, there are also no facilities there that do not belong to the school. So it would not be able to be used by the players for training, any external community operations during school hours, or when prioritised for school activities.

Personally, I don't have any problem with newer synthetic surfaces such as that at Starks, its a quality surface and provides good additional revenue streams to the club. However, i'd also not be adverse to going back to grass if we were able to find additional space to use for training and all community efforts,I also think that any surface rules must come with stipulations that all clubs in the top flight who have games called off for frozen surfaces, waterlogged surfaces are heavily fined each time. If we're going to vote no to surfaces that are more suited to the challenges of our climate and more suited to prevent call offs, then upkeep and management of a grass surface should be proactively addressed and prioritised by clubs and not an afterthought, like it feels like at Dens.

[itzdrk]

17 minutes ago, Toby said:

Buy it & build a wee bridge over the railway.  Sorted. 

[chris1883]

24 minutes ago, Toby said:

The astro is on school grounds and belongs to them. That said, they do open the sports facilities to external groups outwith school hours and are very busy. I think the issue with Kirkcaldy is that there is a lack of facilities, not that we are saying none.

Football in Scotland has changed massivly in the last 20-or-so years. Mostly for the good -  players are more athletic, the standards have risen and the clubs are more inclusive at all ages [and genders] in terms of development. This all comes at a cost though. Clubs with big supports/ catchment areas have higher supports and more revenue streams which allows them to have things like community training facilities and the likes. Smaller clubs will never have this luxury. Mid-sized clubs try to match the 'big teams', but again there is the money issue.

What teams like Rovers, Livi, Hamilton etc. have done is create a compromise. They have installed synthetic surfaces to use their as ground as their training facility and community offer (indeed, there are plans to build a purpose-built community building at Starks Park to compliment this). If you take away the option to use the home ground as a community facility/ training ground clubs have 3 options.
1. Find somewhere local that can be hired for training and possibly community work
2. Build a training ground/ community facility at great expense
3. Ditch the community work

Ultimately, for me and for many clubs, the banning of synthetic surfaces is not about the game on a Saturday, it is about finances and a clubs ability to have community and development aspects to their existence. For the good of Scottish football, I would much rather see a club have a good synthetic surface AND good development pathways, rather than an acceptable grass pitch and the bare minimum of a community offering.

[vikingTON]

47 minutes ago, TxRover said:

The proposal is simply an effort by current Premiership teams to reduce the competition they face to keeping their trotter in the food trough that is “top level” football. The Arse Cheeks throw their scraps into the trough on the condition that the other 8 or 10 or 12 teams vote how they like, as long as they both agree on how to vote. The result of this vote will be a second level with several yo-yo teams playing on natural grass and the rest being teams with no hope of promotion playing on synthetic grass. As you move down the structure, there will be the occasional grass pitch for some “professional teams”, of decreasing quality and condition, and lots of Community use plastic pitches.

Here’s what the majority of Clubs are missing, this is the beginning, not the end. The next move will be to demand a “hybrid” pitch to be in the Premiership, because natural grass is too irregular. Never mind they argued that synthetic pitches, while regular and in better condition than many natural surfaces, were dangerous, they’ll demand the addition of a certain percentage of synthetic materials into the natural grass. They’ll also ignore the fact they argued those materials were too dangerous. There will be a system of supporting conversion to hybrid pitches that only helps an elite few Clubs, under the guise of maintaining the quality of football being played at the “top level”. Oh, they’ll let a few stragglers in, if only to allow a little churn at the bottom of the table, but make no mistake, this is a move to a closed shop.

Nice try, but any football club that can afford to chuck money at their first team squad to chase top flight football can quite clearly afford (with top flight TV money and risible parachute payments) to convert their pitch to whatever version the Premiership requires. 

[Raithie]

Just now, virginton said:

Nice try, but any football club that can afford to chuck money at their first team squad to chase top flight football can quite clearly afford (with top flight TV money and risible parachute payments) to convert their pitch to whatever version the Premiership requires. 

Correct and the club have budgeted and have plans in place should they need to.

[vikingTON]

3 minutes ago, chris1883 said:

The astro is on school grounds and belongs to them. That said, they do open the sports facilities to external groups outwith school hours and are very busy. I think the issue with Kirkcaldy is that there is a lack of facilities, not that we are saying none.

Football in Scotland has changed massivly in the last 20-or-so years. Mostly for the good -  players are more athletic, the standards have risen and the clubs are more inclusive at all ages [and genders] in terms of development. This all comes at a cost though. Clubs with big supports/ catchment areas have higher supports and more revenue streams which allows them to have things like community training facilities and the likes. Smaller clubs will never have this luxury. Mid-sized clubs try to match the 'big teams', but again there is the money issue.

What teams like Rovers, Livi, Hamilton etc. have done is create a compromise. They have installed synthetic surfaces to use their as ground as their training facility and community offer (indeed, there are plans to build a purpose-built community building at Starks Park to compliment this). If you take away the option to use the home ground as a community facility/ training ground clubs have 3 options.
1. Find somewhere local that can be hired for training and possibly community work
2. Build a training ground/ community facility at great expense
3. Ditch the community work

Ultimately, for me and for many clubs, the banning of synthetic surfaces is not about the game on a Saturday, it is about finances and a clubs ability to have community and development aspects to their existence. For the good of Scottish football, I would much rather see a club have a good synthetic surface AND good development pathways, rather than an acceptable grass pitch and the bare minimum of a community offering.

Complete and utter nonsense to claim that Livingston and Hamilton have been building a model for community engagement that the likes of Ayr, Morton or Patrick have not, on the sole premise of them having an artificial surface. 

You're only digging a deeper hole for yourselves as this special pleading continues.

Edited March 19 by vikingTON

[Fifes Elite Force]

It still irks me that we were told to rip up our artificial pitch when they changed the way the vote was to be conducted away from member clubs (where we looked like we would win) to the clubs on the spl board. We were also given an spl community award a few weeks before. Along with the whole club 11 vote we never seem to come out well in the circumstances where our rivals can vote on issues  effecting us.

 

Tbh though I prefer grass pitches and I probably would prefer all top flight clubs had them. But if they do decide to ban them I think there should be a grace period of 2/3 years before they have to be ripped up. If it was an excuse to stop rovers being promoted that wouldnt be right imo. 

[Raithie]

24 minutes ago, itzdrk said:

build a wee bridge over the railway. 

In one of many of John Sim's 'out there' ideas a bridge or tunnel was mentioned as something the club were thinking about to get access to Balwearie. This was donkeys ago way before the new investors came in.

[CountryBumpkin]

6 minutes ago, virginton said:

Complete and utter nonsense to claim that Livingston and Hamilton have been building a model for community engagement that the likes of Ayr, Morton or Patrick have not, on the sole premise of them having an artificial surface. 

You're only digging a deeper hole for yourselves as this special pleading continues.

Aye, i'm not sure that was the intention in the statement, or at least hope not?. I think all clubs have done well making community ties overall, you can see that in attendances and turnover for the clubs. What Rovers offer is letting everyone play at Starks Park, letting kids enjoy their football on the same pitch as the players they watch on a saturday etc. Its probably really good for kids. It also means that there are less facilities to maintain and pay for given its all controlled within the one stadium. 

What Partick, Morton and Ayr offer, is something different but just as valuable based on their circumstances and infrastructure. 

[Jives Miguel]

I've emailed my club to let them know I support the banning of plastic pitches.

 

Would be absolutely hilarious if any club's potential promotion was impacted by it.

[RedLichtie86]

The argument over the use of Artificial Pitches in the Scottish top flight (and in the Championship in the near future) is mired in half truths and antiquated views. At times too simplistic. Everyone knows playing on grass is best but playing on Astro is not the devil its made out to be. To have these pitches outlawed and only games can be played on grass is like a throwback to the 10000 seater rule that denied clubs promotion to protect the established others.

Over the decades we have seen clubs play on "grass" pitches that resemble a tattie field. Can remember Motherwell's pitch was pretty much mud and we have seen Dundee having 3 games called off this season after some rain. Shall we ban teams with pitches that are waterlogged as soon as it rains? How is playing on a pitch with no grass, cutting up due to poor drainage or not cut to a length that the away team wants any different than an astro pitch? Surely every pitch in the league must conform to a set standard across the leagues with exceptions. How many clubs can say there pitch is 100% perfect?

oh wait thats right, teams in the SPFL are not flush with cash to spend hundreds of thousands on pitch maintenance every season, fund the wage budgets to try and compete with the bigger teams and funding youth/development teams and coaching.

Most teams that have Artificial Pitches installed have them for financial reasons. They generate revenue by hiring out to others (PT teams, Womens, Youth, etc), they provide a pitch for the clubs players (First team, Youths, Womens,) to train on rather than pay to hire someone else's pitch. Pitch maintenance is reduced significantly so the club can spend more money on coaches, players, equipment etc. 

Now if you were to ban ArtPitches from the Premiership the quality of players would drop at clubs that had to rip them up and replace with grass. Especially clubs in the Championship that have less income than Premiership teams. Budgets would be even more tighter and the quality on the pitch would be far poorer.

Even by introducing a grace period in place of 2/3 years a situation could arise where the club replaces the pitch for grass, get relegated the next season and not get near the Prem for well over a decade. The drop in income from relegation with no way to offset costs of pitch maintenance, training etc other than cutting the player budget further than would happen if they still had the ArtPitch.

 

Maybe we should go back to old financial model before the SPFL was formed where the TV money was kept in the top flight. That way clubs can afford to have grass pitches and keep the quality up. Will see FT clubs out with the Prem with the begging bowls out asking for more money in order to maintain FT football like before. 

 

[SirJimmyofNic]

The only way that grass pitches are gonna work in this rain sodden country, is a move to summer football and even then they'd be in the lap of the gods unless proper drainage and costly upkeep were implemented, sure grass is probably a better surface to play on ........... but not between November and March

[Dundee Hibernian]

Noting that the US national "soccer" teams no longer play on any artificial surfaces for a number of health related reasons, the obvious economics benefits for less affluent clubs using these playing surfaces may well be declared void in future by bodies outside of the football authorities.

I'm sure I recently read that they have been removed from general use in some states/US counties, not just due to health concerns, but also because of their environmental effect.

I was swayed after being strongly against them a number of years ago, after seeing the sporting benefits for communities: now I'm not so sure.

[Toby]

7 minutes ago, SirJimmyofNic said:

The only way that grass pitches are gonna work in this rain sodden country, is a move to summer football and even then they'd be in the lap of the gods unless proper drainage and costly upkeep were implemented, sure grass is probably a better surface to play on ........... but not between November and March

What nonsense.

[SirJimmyofNic]

3 minutes ago, Toby said:

What nonsense.

I'm entitlement to an opinion whether you like it or not