Millsy
1st team skipper
Posts: 2,246
|
3G debate
Aug 26, 2017 13:20:23 GMT
via mobile
Post by Millsy on Aug 26, 2017 13:20:23 GMT
That argument doesn't make much sense to me anyway. If a team is allowed to play on a rutted, half bald, soggy pitch that they're used to and their opposition isn't, how is that less advantageous than a uniform surface that's similar to what many clubs train on? Even if there were an unfair advantage, one could argue that it's the league who are perpetuating that by ensuring that few clubs will choose to use one. You're explaining my 'joke' there, cheers
|
|
|
Post by sallycat on Aug 26, 2017 17:02:10 GMT
More agreeing with the sentiment behind it, but that level of subtlety doesn't always work for everyone anyway
|
|
|
Post by os on Aug 26, 2017 18:50:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Stewart on Sept 7, 2017 13:30:52 GMT
Another splendid article can be found HERE
|
|
trev
1st team skipper
In Matt We Trust
Posts: 2,477
|
Post by trev on Sept 7, 2017 13:38:53 GMT
Another splendid article can be found HEREI think this article highlights the most persuasive argument in support of 3G pitches - that they are in the significant wider public interest. If we are forced to rip up our excellent playing service due to promotion, then this will have an adverse knock-on effect in the wider community, as many teams will be deprived of a pitch to play and train on. It would not surprise me if there were numerous meritorious claims for compensation against the FA for the ensuing loss of amenity, perhaps even a group action. The FA would be well advised to reconsider their position.
|
|
markf
Top Performer
Posts: 3,317
|
Post by markf on Sept 7, 2017 13:51:21 GMT
It isn't the FA who are blocking promotion, it is the EFL. The fact we were permitted to play teams from each division on the 3G in the FA Cup last season suggests the FA don't have an issue.
|
|
trev
1st team skipper
In Matt We Trust
Posts: 2,477
|
Post by trev on Sept 7, 2017 13:59:45 GMT
Thanks for the clarification, Mark.
|
|
|
Post by Del on Sept 7, 2017 14:47:39 GMT
The Football league can put it to a vote of their member clubs but then it would be up to the clubs to decide.
|
|
|
Post by Stewart on Sept 24, 2017 14:08:52 GMT
3G has been discussed on the Tranmere forum, here is the link if you wish to read it. link
|
|
|
Post by baboonfish on Sept 24, 2017 15:46:14 GMT
Mostly reads like supporters of a Championship/League 1 size team with little or no understanding of the non-league game (understandably because that's the case) and with the usual ingrained memories of the awful 80s plastic pitches. However, does bring up the farcical possibility of two teams playing at Wembley desperately trying not to win.
Personally I think the club should go on as normal this season, and SHOULD we win the league or playoffs (the latter being an almost hilarious joke with our play off record, I honestly see the former as less unlikely) be prepared to install grass once all legal channels have been exhausted. By the time we as a club are actually ready for league football, or any of the 3 clubs in question win promotion, I would expect the issue will be resolved and 3G will be allowed for L1/L2 level. Worrying about it too much now is counter productive, and I am sure the 3 clubs in question will be doing what they can in the background.
However, Bromley are doing none of us any favours by not watering their pitch. Anyone who was there on bank holiday monday will attest that their pitch was not looking or playing anywhere near as well as ours.
|
|
|
3G debate
Sept 24, 2017 19:42:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by fox on Sept 24, 2017 19:42:48 GMT
Would we really have to rip it up? Surely we could rent a ground like the new plough lane for a season?
Then depending on how season/votes goes decide.
|
|
|
Post by backhome2016 on Sept 24, 2017 21:03:50 GMT
For me it is a no-brainer. The 3G pitch needs to stay for the community as well as the financial model of this club. Imagine taking promotion and laying down a grass pitch, with all the expense of 3G removal as well. The need to remain a League 2 club then becomes vital, with the added cost of transfer fees, wages, etc, etc but with the loss of the 3G revenue stream. That means our financial model goes out the window. And what if we were relegated back to the National League? We'd be playing on grass, not hiring it out, possibly enjoying cancelled games as soon as a heavy shower comes along... nightmare. We need to stay 3G!
|
|
|
3G debate
Sept 24, 2017 22:16:58 GMT
via mobile
Post by baboonfish on Sept 24, 2017 22:16:58 GMT
Problem is the rule stating the team would be relegated to the conf north or south. It appears we would have to either withdraw our right to be promoted in march or contest the play offs without winning as if we apply for eligibility for the football league and then refuse promotion we would be relegated to the south. All very hypothetical and as I said not really worth worrying about. Obviously as you point out groundsharing is another option while legal channels are exhausted
|
|
|
Post by pinewalker on Sept 25, 2017 0:35:23 GMT
However, Bromley are doing none of us any favours by not watering their pitch. Anyone who was there on bank holiday monday will attest that their pitch was not looking or playing anywhere near as well as ours. This isn't necessarily neglect. Every artificial pitch needs to be tested, I believe every season. Those tests are carried out both on a wet and dry surface. The bounce and run of a particular branded high quality match ball have to fall within a range. The test results on a wet or dry pitch will not be the same. It might be the case that Bromley's pitch when dry meets the spec. Bromley will have been told if they must water the pitch to maintain compliance.
|
|
|
Post by Stewart on Sept 25, 2017 10:48:30 GMT
However, Bromley are doing none of us any favours by not watering their pitch. Anyone who was there on bank holiday monday will attest that their pitch was not looking or playing anywhere near as well as ours. This isn't necessarily neglect. Every artificial pitch needs to be tested, I believe every season. Those tests are carried out both on a wet and dry surface. The bounce and run of a particular branded high quality match ball have to fall within a range. The test results on a wet or dry pitch will not be the same. It might be the case that Bromley's pitch when dry meets the spec. Bromley will have been told if they must water the pitch to maintain compliance. I thought the pitch was watered because it suited our style of play? It seems I'm wrong
|
|