|
|
Post by unclescrunky on Feb 5, 2018 12:08:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Feb 5, 2018 12:12:30 GMT
We do, but they need to change the wording. We're signing an incorrect petition. Sutton comply with FA regs and will continue to do so even after promotion, regardless of pitch.
|
|
|
|
Post by unclescrunky on Feb 5, 2018 12:15:50 GMT
We do, but they need to change the wording. We're signing an incorrect petition. Sutton comply with FA regs and will continue to do so even after promotion, regardless of pitch. Yes wording needs to be changed agreed - we need to get as much traction on this as possible (when corrected) to try to sort this crazy situation out. |
|
|
|
Post by SG on Feb 5, 2018 14:57:03 GMT
The message also needs to be much wider, it's not about Sutton United per se, it's about 3G and lower-league (whether that's Leagues One/Two or the non-league game) football as a viable long-term business. If the petition is all about SUFC, nobody outside of our club is going to give a toss.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amber Aleman on Feb 5, 2018 15:09:22 GMT
I've signed and shared on Twitter, but have held back from encouraging others to sign because of concerns about the wording.
I don't know how these things work, but is it possible for the originator either to amend the wording or retract this petition and replace it with a different version? (Entirely his decision, of course.)
|
|
|
|
Post by davethegrave on Feb 18, 2018 21:57:06 GMT
Yes - it's not the FA at fault here. It's the old fuddy-duddies at the Football League who have no idea and obviously don't give a toss about their members.
|
|
|
|
Post by Del on Feb 18, 2018 22:30:13 GMT
Yes - it's not the FA at fault here. It's the old fuddy-duddies at the Football League who have no idea and obviously don't give a toss about their members. I don't get that impression .The Football League are its members and they get to vote on rule changes. The fact that its being discussed and voted on suggests that they are in favour but at the end of the day its up to the clubs and no amount of petitions will change that. Maybe a letter suggesting the benefits sent to each club would have more affect. |
|
tonyd
1st team Player
Posts: 1,496 
|
Post by tonyd on Feb 18, 2018 22:35:48 GMT
Yes - it's not the FA at fault here. It's the old fuddy-duddies at the Football League who have no idea and obviously don't give a toss about their members. I have to say I disagree on both counts. It’s not old fuddy-daddies at the football league, it’s the chairmen of the member clubs, who are predominantly hardheaded business men. And I do think the FA should be taking the lead. They are responsible for football in England and they ought to be insisting the EFL accepts 3G, as it’s right for increasing participation and skills. |
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Feb 18, 2018 23:15:51 GMT
Worth remembering that last time they voted on this it was a pretty even split between for and against
|
|
|
|
Post by os on Feb 18, 2018 23:27:45 GMT
I can't understand the logical argument against 3G pitches, I have heard when the game was introduced it was meant to be played on grass, but then we didn't have substitutions, corner flags or the 'D', but we have now. Some say 'like on the Wrexham forum, that the pitches play differently, and you have to change your style, but isn't that what sides have to do almost every week in the winter on muddy boggy grass pitches??
The argument against 3G pitches are illogical, and only supported by those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo: Would Boreham Wood support 3G if they lost the Arsenal backing tomorrow 'Yes they would'. Would Ebbsfleet support 3G if the Arabs went a walking 'Yes they would'
|
|
tonyd
1st team Player
Posts: 1,496
|
Post by tonyd on Feb 19, 2018 7:19:55 GMT
I recall that one of the arguments put forward by the EFL clubs was a fear that they would have to invest in 3G in order to stay competitive. So I think that many of them are aware of the longer term benefits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Feb 19, 2018 12:46:46 GMT
It’s not old fuddy-daddies at the football league, it’s the chairmen of the member clubs, who are predominantly hardheaded business men. Tony, I don't think they are hardheaded business men because the 3G option is financially a no brainer. I prefer to describe them as Luddites who do not embrace new thinking and new ways of doing things, preferring to preserve the old and the archaic to keep football in the dark ages. |
|
tonyd
1st team Player
Posts: 1,496
|
Post by tonyd on Feb 19, 2018 20:36:56 GMT
It’s not old fuddy-daddies at the football league, it’s the chairmen of the member clubs, who are predominantly hardheaded business men. Tony, I don't think they are hardheaded business men because the 3G option is financially a no brainer. I prefer to describe them as Luddites who do not embrace new thinking and new ways of doing things, preferring to preserve the old and the archaic to keep football in the dark ages. But they have to stump up half a mill to install the pitch. Unless they have a friendly property developer who’s prepared to lend the money (interest free!) there’s not many League 2 clubs prepared to do that rather than sign a striker! |
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Feb 19, 2018 20:49:48 GMT
Tony, I don't think they are hardheaded business men because the 3G option is financially a no brainer. I prefer to describe them as Luddites who do not embrace new thinking and new ways of doing things, preferring to preserve the old and the archaic to keep football in the dark ages. But they have to stump up half a mill to install the pitch. Unless they have a friendly property developer who’s prepared to lend the money (interest free!) there’s not many League 2 clubs prepared to do that rather than sign a striker! I tend to agree that if given the choice between spending £500k on a player vs £500k on a 3G surface the majority of the hardheaded businessmen in the EFL would opt for a short-term quick fix. Very few clubs invest in their infrastructure preferring to spend income generated on other things and becoming a hostage to short-termism. That’s why so many clubs find themselves in trouble. |
|
|
|
Post by brisfitboy on Feb 19, 2018 22:21:30 GMT
I tend to agree that if given the choice between spending £500k on a player vs £500k on a 3G surface the majority of the hardheaded businessmen in the EFL would opt for a short-term quick fix. Very few clubs invest in their infrastructure preferring to spend income generated on other things and becoming a hostage to short-termism. That’s why so many clubs find themselves in trouble. But isn’t that indicative of the mindset of our financial “leaders” cum lenders in this country. Just look at the various banks’ policies, they are only too willing to lend you money for expansion etc., but then demand that you repay in full a couple of years later. No long term policy for them it’s make a quick buck and let’s find another mug. Thank God for people like James Dyson who have a vision and fight for it. |
|
