|
3G
Jan 12, 2014 19:48:55 GMT
Post by farawaystone on Jan 12, 2014 19:48:55 GMT
|
|
|
3G
Jan 13, 2014 10:25:46 GMT
Post by Sennockian69 on Jan 13, 2014 10:25:46 GMT
The message is unfortunately sinking in at the same speed as the pitches are drying up.
|
|
|
3G
Jan 13, 2014 10:40:36 GMT
Post by signalstone on Jan 13, 2014 10:40:36 GMT
Anyone know what the date is for Oliver's presentation to the Conference. Think its February some time.
|
|
|
3G
Jan 13, 2014 22:13:48 GMT
Post by farawaystone on Jan 13, 2014 22:13:48 GMT
|
|
|
3G
Jan 13, 2014 22:25:08 GMT
Post by daveu on Jan 13, 2014 22:25:08 GMT
He's also got his facts completely wrong. The replacement cost is nowhere near the initial outlay because you only have to replace the carpet and infill, the sub-base should last pretty much forever.
|
|
|
3G
Jan 13, 2014 22:29:02 GMT
via mobile
Post by islandstone on Jan 13, 2014 22:29:02 GMT
I wonder what the accumulated annual cost of a grass pitch is? Mowers, Alan titmarsh, re-turfing etc. Also the cost of complete re-turf.
|
|
|
3G
Jan 13, 2014 22:29:13 GMT
Post by Adie Ohruru on Jan 13, 2014 22:29:13 GMT
You would have to be pretty rubbish at business to only take a grand a week from it as well
|
|
|
3G
Jan 13, 2014 22:33:50 GMT
via mobile
Post by russc on Jan 13, 2014 22:33:50 GMT
I think that article is fair enough, he's questioning the financial viability of 3G, rather than questioning the validity of its use. Finding 400,000+ for a pitch is going to be a stretch for many clubs even if they are convinced of the returns. That doesn't represent an argument against allowing them, nor do I think that argument was being made in the article. I think the Brentwood manager was being a little pessimistic in assuming £1,000 a week would be hard to earn. OK, Maidstone United may benefit from low competition and an affluent catchment area, but it exceeds that figure by more than four times in pitch fees alone. Add to that the financial advantages of keeping Saturday games on, and a reduction in outgoings to hire other facilities and the financial rewards of 3G are significant. It's possible that they may come down in price if adopted more widely
|
|
|
3G
Jan 13, 2014 22:51:30 GMT
via mobile
Post by islandstone on Jan 13, 2014 22:51:30 GMT
I think that article is fair enough, he's questioning the financial viability of 3G, rather than questioning the validity of its use. Finding 400,000+ for a pitch is going to be a stretch for many clubs even if they are convinced of the returns. That doesn't represent an argument against allowing them, nor do I think that argument was being made in the article. I think the Brentwood manager was being a little pessimistic in assuming £1,000 a week would be hard to earn. OK, Maidstone United may benefit from low competition and an affluent catchment area, but it exceeds that figure by more than four times in pitch fees alone. Add to that the financial advantages of keeping Saturday games on, and a reduction in outgoings to hire other facilities and the financial rewards of 3G are significant. It's possible that they may come down in price if adopted more widely Agreed, if every tom dick and harry gets one there will be massive competition for price winning. Of course, tom or Dick would have to buy one before harry would be able to afford the cost of 3g as the ball starts rolling then either Dick or tom would feel pissed off for buying an expensive 3g. Harry missing out in revenue cos had to wait til 3g became cheaper. What tom Dick and harry need is more people to purchase at the same time. But then tom Dick nd probably harry are waiting to see what happens to us before coughing up the dosh.
|
|
|
3G
Jan 13, 2014 22:56:00 GMT
via mobile
Post by ontheup on Jan 13, 2014 22:56:00 GMT
Personally I think the title of the article is misleading because he is only really commenting on financial viability and the cost of installing the pitch.
He isn't really commenting on whether football should be played on it or not.
The truth is most chairman wouldn't take the risk in installing it because ultimately every club is reliant on people through the turnstyles.
For us, it coincided with our return home to a ground which is as close to the town centre as you can get. Us as fans have embraced the return and the club has been thrust into the spotlight.
The real question is, if Sittingbourne had gone down the 3G road and spent 400k on the pitch, would it have really worked. Would you be able to attract people to an out of town industrial estate? Would it have increased the people coming to games? I don't think so.
But the key thing, that I don't feel is spoken about enough is that Oliver and Co are merely asking for clubs to have the option of using it in the Conference ie letting the clubs decide what could work for them in a time when so many clubs are looking at ways of generating revenue.
|
|
|
3G
Jan 14, 2014 0:41:20 GMT
Post by Sennockian69 on Jan 14, 2014 0:41:20 GMT
Sittingbourne erred in locating their respective grounds so far from the town centre.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
3G
Jan 14, 2014 4:57:23 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2014 4:57:23 GMT
Sittingbourne erred in selling their town centre ground and spunking the money on a bunch of old ex pros, but that is another whole can of worms.
|
|
|
3G
Jan 14, 2014 9:05:58 GMT
Post by tim on Jan 14, 2014 9:05:58 GMT
I'm not sure that the being close to town or the extra support is relevant in this debate. The revenue for the 'pay back' on the pitch is coming from the 7 days a week income. If you were to hire a 5 aside pitch at a sports centre, the chances are that it would be out of town somewhere, and therefore have to drive, so should Billericay or any other club wish to go down the 3g route, the question would be, what other facilities are available nearby? The demand for a good quality 5 aside facility seems to be growing if our success is anything to go by, so cant see it being much different in Billericay, Sittingbourne or any other town in the country! However, I can fully see the initial outlay would cause a problem to many clubs. As Dave says the replacement would be much lower, and as the Limestone and Sand used in the base is already many million years old, the chances are it'll last a few more years!
|
|
|
3G
Jan 14, 2014 11:30:23 GMT
via mobile
Post by allingtonstone on Jan 14, 2014 11:30:23 GMT
My concern is the Conferance people themselves. as they might not allow our lovely flat , smooth playing wembley class pitch to go up, but somehow that horrible bumpy cabbage patch that we played on saturday is apparantly fine in the Conferances eyes. Beggars belief really dosnt it?? In Oliver we Trust
|
|
|
3G
Jan 14, 2014 11:44:52 GMT
Post by ontheup on Jan 14, 2014 11:44:52 GMT
The main argument will always be that it gives us an advantage, but how often do we read about how our opposition put in their best away performance of the season etc etc?
Other teams/players love playing on it
Surely teams who play on non perfect pitches have an advantage because they know the slope of the pitch and where the ball tends to hold up and where it skids on?
|
|