|
Post by medestan on Jan 30, 2014 21:06:25 GMT
Seems such a shame millwall didnt have a vote yesterday, there fans seem to perfer a plastic pitch with the amount of plastic bottles they throw on it every week , mind you if they did have a 3G pitch would they chuck grass seeds on it , it would make it safer for oppostion players
|
|
|
Post by mackster on Jan 30, 2014 21:10:16 GMT
Heard Oliver on Talksport today, he came across very well, presented all the positives for 3G, highlighted where it was being used, saying only in England has there been any resistance to it. He was conciliatory towards the Conference, saying we now had a dialogue and could come to a "compromise". Not sure what that means, but it seems like jaw, jaw and not war, war at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by farawaystone on Jan 30, 2014 21:27:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nws on Jan 30, 2014 22:42:59 GMT
You still worry when you see some of the misconceptions. Best part of £1M-£2m. If we spent £2m on the pitch we only spent £500k on the stadium!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2014 22:45:38 GMT
If we spent £2m on the pitch we only spent £500k on the stadium! Looking at the Notcutt end u can see why people think that.
|
|
danny
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by danny on Jan 31, 2014 8:48:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steveh21 on Jan 31, 2014 8:58:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by moley on Jan 31, 2014 12:44:25 GMT
You still worry when you see some of the misconceptions. Best part of £1M-£2m. If we spent £2m on the pitch we only spent £500k on the stadium! I read it as half a million
|
|
|
Post by tim on Jan 31, 2014 12:54:40 GMT
me too
|
|
|
Post by toonarmy on Jan 31, 2014 14:39:52 GMT
What a great piece, well written and to the point
|
|
|
Post by grindstone on Jan 31, 2014 15:25:46 GMT
You still worry when you see some of the misconceptions. Best part of £1M-£2m. If we spent £2m on the pitch we only spent £500k on the stadium! I read it as half a million Correct. He was picking up on the figure of £382K for Sutton Coldfield two posts earlier.
|
|
|
Post by Tony G on Jan 31, 2014 19:32:36 GMT
To me it looks like the Conference Chairman have sent out an important message to their own members survival.
What has been seriously missed is that "it was a business case" tabled by two Conference Teams Sutton and Dorchester. This was to improve their long term survival and viability, and possibly other teams, and has been denied by their own. Anyone who has been to Suttons ground knows that it is a ploughed field at the best of times. Their chairman has openly said that it costs his club money to put all his teams out to other grounds/facilities. I can't comment on Dorchesters.
We know the voting was 24 National Conference and then 8 from the South and North. The proposal achieved 11 votes which is really important. Based on this lop sided voting approach it means that between a minimum of 11 and a maximum of 47 of the 68 teams actually voted in favour of their proposal. I wonder if we will ever find out the real number? We know that Dover where going to vote against so it lies somewhere between 11 to 47.
There is only one reason why a vote could be NO. It is that whilst some clubs could afford it others couldn't which obviously gives an advantage to those that could (non level playing field - excuse my poor pun). But this is the least reason anyone has mentioned. It's always muddied (oops another pun) with other crappy reasons, excuses and mostly ignorance.
So are these Chairman saying to at least 11 member clubs that we care not for your long term survival and viability.
|
|
|
Post by Tstone on Jan 31, 2014 19:38:13 GMT
Just thinking - if more clubs from lower divisions invested in 3G, they will have to think of an alternative to "grass roots" football!
|
|
pete
Full Member
Posts: 160
|
Post by pete on Feb 1, 2014 0:04:23 GMT
There is only one reason why a vote could be NO. It is that whilst some clubs could afford it others couldn't which obviously gives an advantage to those that could (non level playing field - excuse my poor pun). But this is the least reason anyone has mentioned. It's always muddied (oops another pun) with other crappy reasons, excuses and mostly ignorance. Don't really get that argument & it seems to be one used by fans of a few other clubs. If you take it to its logical conclusion, wealthier teams can afford better players, so that shouldn't be allowed either & presumably every team should have the same amount of cash to spend at the start of the season regardless of their actual spending capacity?
|
|
|
Post by ontheup on Feb 1, 2014 0:14:38 GMT
There is only one reason why a vote could be NO. It is that whilst some clubs could afford it others couldn't which obviously gives an advantage to those that could (non level playing field - excuse my poor pun). But this is the least reason anyone has mentioned. It's always muddied (oops another pun) with other crappy reasons, excuses and mostly ignorance. Don't really get that argument & it seems to be one used by fans of a few other clubs. If you take it to its logical conclusion, wealthier teams can afford better players, so that shouldn't be allowed either & presumably every team should have the same amount of cash to spend at the start of the season regardless of their actual spending capacity? The funding issue argument seems to be an odd one, but one that's certainly got going! Amazed at this attitude of "how can they expect clubs to pay for it?"....."clubs will go bust in try to install one" Yep, because clubs never over spend on anything do they? Never agree to pay players wages they can't afford? Wages they have little hope of recouping......the funding issue has no relation to the question asked, and the fact so many clubs are using it as an argument is a sign of fear of the competition. Offer them a 3G pitch for free they'd all take it.......blowing a hole in the "football should be played on grass" and "causes injuries" arguments..........they mostly agree 3G is good and the way forward.
|
|