3G pitch

[brisfitboy]

Feb 3, 2018 13:20:11 GMT sallycat said:

Feb 3, 2018 13:08:46 GMT baboonfish said:

Not necessarily sallycat. It could be disputed which pedant had the ultimate claim over the battle in question but be accepted that one of the claimants would eventually be declared THE pedant. For example, in a disputed Kingdom it could still be the King's throne despite the position of King being contested by multiple parties.

Fair enough - I didn't think of that - but one could argue that in order to be crowned THE pedant, you'd have to win said battle first, in which scenario they would both (or all) start out on an equal footing!

Therefore would not John’s friend be one of the king’s in waiting?

[trev]

I had no idea John was so popular!

[brisfitboy]

He wasn’t though was he?

[mca]

Dos letting off alot of steam on Twitter last night. Seemed proper upset and from what i read appeared to have changed his mind on what to do with the pitch. Complete sympathy with him, it's a terrible decision to have to make and he thinks he's putting the club at risk by ripping up the pitch, looks like he won't be a part of it. The meeting and the vote simply had to happen before the end of the season.

[Amber Aleman]

Feb 5, 2018 6:28:13 GMT mca said:

Sods letting off alot of steam on Twitter last night. Seemed proper upset and from what i read appeared to have changed his mind on what to do with the pitch. Complete sympathy with him, it's a terrible decision to have to make and he thinks he's putting the club at risk by ripping up the pitch, looks like he won't be a part of it. The meeting and the vote simply had to happen before the end of the season.

That was of course meant to be 'Dos', not 'Sods'! (The curse of auto-correct.)

Clearly Sutton's experience over the last two Saturdays has brought the pitch issue into sharper focus. I'm of the firm view that the club should keep the 3G, whatever the circumstances. If that means deliberately losing matches this spring in order to avoid finishing in a promotion position then being relegated, so be it.

[mca]

Feb 5, 2018 8:37:51 GMT Amber Aleman said:

Feb 5, 2018 6:28:13 GMT mca said:

Sods letting off alot of steam on Twitter last night. Seemed proper upset and from what i read appeared to have changed his mind on what to do with the pitch. Complete sympathy with him, it's a terrible decision to have to make and he thinks he's putting the club at risk by ripping up the pitch, looks like he won't be a part of it. The meeting and the vote simply had to happen before the end of the season.

That was of course meant to be 'Dos', not 'Sods'! (The curse of auto-correct.)

Clearly Sutton's experience over the last two Saturdays has brought the pitch issue into sharper focus. I'm of the firm view that the club should keep the 3G, whatever the circumstances. If that means deliberately losing matches this spring in order to avoid finishing in a promotion position then being relegated, so be it.

Oops. Just spotted that myself. Was a typo, wasn't calling our manager a sod!

[trev]

In a debate about the wider benefits of 3G over grass, an inadvertent reference to "sod" is more than forgivable, given the context.

Yet again, Dos adopts a shrewd (anti-Sod, natch) position, on social media, using Twitter as a forum to consolidate his case for 3G. Let's hope there's enough sensible, enlightened souls out there able and willing to listen to reason, to ensure that the all-important vote in June goes our way...

[trev]

..but as Dos says, this isn't just about us. This is about making a change which will benefit ALL clubs playing at and around our level, as well as the wider community...

[mca]

Feb 5, 2018 9:31:02 GMT trev said:

In a debate about the wider benefits of 3G over grass, an inadvertent reference to "sod" is more than forgivable, given the context.

Yet again, Dos adopts a shrewd (anti-Sod, natch) position, on social media, using Twitter as a forum to consolidate his case for 3G. Let's hope there's enough sensible, enlightened souls out there able and willing to listen to reason, to ensure that the all-important vote in June goes our way...

Isn't the problem that the meeting and vote is too late? If they vote against 3g and we've accepted promotion, up goes the pitch and the entire business model? And If for perfectly valid reasons the club decide to keep the pitch as it's transformed the way the club can run, and turn down promotion, That's a double relegation. It's rubbish all round,and if the official stance is keep the pitch, bang goes any motivation the players have. Really crumby situation

[trev]

I don't know of course, but I suspect there is much canvassing going on behind the scenes. We're just seeing the tip of the iceberg here...

[Stewart]

Feb 5, 2018 8:46:57 GMT mca said:

Feb 5, 2018 8:37:51 GMT Amber Aleman said:

That was of course meant to be 'Dos', not 'Sods'! (The curse of auto-correct.)

Clearly Sutton's experience over the last two Saturdays has brought the pitch issue into sharper focus. I'm of the firm view that the club should keep the 3G, whatever the circumstances. If that means deliberately losing matches this spring in order to avoid finishing in a promotion position then being relegated, so be it.

Oops. Just spotted that myself. Was a typo, wasn't calling our manager a sod!

I have corrected the mistake, I hope you don't mind!

[Amber Aleman]

There is a possible compromise should the EFL not vote in June to allow 3G from next season. That would be to allow it for a trial period of (say) two seasons, from 2018/19. That would enable Sutton or Bromley to compete on 3G in L2, if promoted, with the proviso that if either is still in the EFL at the end of the trial then the 3G may have to come up. With a bit of luck, other clubs' experience of playing on 3G at least once a season (and seeing the benefits it brings) would convince them that it's no bad thing and they'd then vote to allow it permanently.

[unclescrunky]

Feb 5, 2018 9:58:02 GMT trev said:

I don't know of course, but I suspect there is much canvassing going on behind the scenes. We're just seeing the tip of the iceberg here...

I really hope that's the case but to me it didn't read that way ( the tweets) - more an acceptance of what is a totally unfair situation where effectively the EFL are saying - "if you don't have a big investor or live with the fear of financial ruin you can't join our club. Moreover if you have a sustainable revenue income and a club that grows and benefits the community - not interested." Whilst its easy to say - the vote should be called before the end of the season to resolve this stupid situation - of course if you then "lose" a couple of games that opens the debate about match fixing. I just hope Dos's comment about "maybe time to start watching The Saints" was tongue in cheek and doesn't hint at something darker.

[markf]

Feb 5, 2018 10:07:02 GMT Amber Aleman said:

There is a possible compromise should the EFL not vote in June to allow 3G from next season. That would be to allow it for a trial period of (say) two seasons, from 2018/19. That would enable Sutton or Bromley to compete on 3G in L2, if promoted, with the proviso that if either is still in the EFL at the end of the trial then the 3G may have to come up. With a bit of luck, other clubs' experience of playing on 3G at least once a season (and seeing the benefits it brings) would convince them that it's no bad thing and they'd then vote to allow it permanently.

Is that your compromise or one that has been suggested by the powers that be? if the former, what do you think the chances are?

[cheshire]

Feb 5, 2018 10:39:20 GMT markf said:

Feb 5, 2018 10:07:02 GMT Amber Aleman said:

There is a possible compromise should the EFL not vote in June to allow 3G from next season. That would be to allow it for a trial period of (say) two seasons, from 2018/19. That would enable Sutton or Bromley to compete on 3G in L2, if promoted, with the proviso that if either is still in the EFL at the end of the trial then the 3G may have to come up. With a bit of luck, other clubs' experience of playing on 3G at least once a season (and seeing the benefits it brings) would convince them that it's no bad thing and they'd then vote to allow it permanently.

Is that your compromise or one that has been suggested by the powers that be? if the former, what do you think the chances are?

Sounds like a common sense compromise...so on that basis not much chance at all...