I was just wondering................?

[moley]

In the midst of all the BS from the knob who wrte the letter to the NLP, Jim (I objected to playing on a mudheap at Bourne Park)Parmenter, the idiot who runs Chelmsford and various highly amusing wind up merchants on here, has anybody actually heard a coherent, logical well thought argument against 3G?

It just seems the naysayers only arguments are so full of holes there is a man in Switzerland trying to turn them into cheese as we speak

FOOTBALL HAS ALWAYS BEEN PLAYED ON GRASS So what do you do when something different comes along which improves things for those 99% who can't afford the best drainage heating cover and loads of groundstaff
/ People walked or rode horses for thousands of years but we still managed to invent cars and trains

IT CAUSES INJURIES AND LONG TERM DAMAGE obody has put up any decent statistics to prove or disprove this. I would wonder though, if long term injury were a problem why so many top (i.e. Premier League) clubs train on them regularly??

THEY MAKE THE GAME STERILE I've spent a season and a half watching football which has variously been physical, attritional, skilful, exciting, dull, exhilarating, and any other adjective you care to use, full length videos of the Billericay and Hampton & Richmond games this season will blow that argument right out of the water

IT WILL SEE THE END OF THE SLIDING TACKLE Anyone who makes this argument just makes themselves look ridiculous, I'm sure Mr Gooch (if he gets time) could put together a montage of bonecrunching tackles, slides and tumbles to prove this

[moley]

THE FOOTBALL LEAGUE DOESN'T ALLOW IT SO NEITHER SHOULD THE CONFERENCE That league should take a real big look at itself, when it was formed (something we know more than a little about) it was the pinnacle of semi-pro football. Now the top division consists of 10 or so pro clubs who stand a chance of promotion and the rest just playing at the best level they can. If the league is to be run for the benefit of those few then so be it, but what about the majority of clubs who want to remain semi-pro and to whom Football league rules are irrelevant?

[nws]

A coherent argument against, Moley, is that 3g could result in increased ticket prices on trains and buses etc all over the country. Think about it you numbskull! If matches are played without there being last minute postponements then there will be less wasted journeys. Without that public transport revenue stream then it will result in a higher ticket price being required to meet per capita cost + profit margin. The worst case scenario could see reduction in public transport because there is not the required critical mass of passenger journeys to meet fixed costs or, worse still a total collapse of public transport.

There may also be financial problems within the sporting section of accounting firms that deal with clubs' administrations. This will arise when games actually take place and the club's meet their costs (which have been reduced) and make some money (particualrly if that pitch results in other revenue streams).

The person who is responsible for making dates for rearranged fixtures will be out of a job. Happy with the creation of unemployment are you, you selfish little....

Water companies profits may be hit as there is less needed to water pitches and companies will find it harder to cover fixed costs. That will result in higher bills for everyone else. Happy with higher water bills for all are you?

Finally there will be a collapse of the beer/public house/kebab/chips industry in this country because the reduced level of disappointed Trolley/Tim/Ant - like fans who have ventured out to watch a game, only to be disappointed by a posponement and turn to other forms of entertainment. Happy with that loss are you?

Clearly you are utterly clueless as to the disbenefits of 3g. It is a disaster waiting to happen for the country as a whole. It would lead to the collapse of some of our finest social institutions, unemployment and higher bills. Think before posting such nonsense!

[ontheup]

Wow, what a day!

And actually a very very positive day given the publicity Maidstone United have received today.

Given the title of this thread I have searched in vain for a valid, a truly valid argument against 3G and I have come to the conclusion that actually most clubs are fearful of the competition. Some of the classic arguments are as follows:

No to 3G as the ball doesn't run smoothly
No to 3G as grass makes the ball more unpredictable and improves players skills as they have to learn to adjust
No to 3G as how would clubs afford it.
No to 3G as Maidstone knew the rules and they shouldn't change the rules for one club - happy for 3G pitches to be used in the Conf next season though
No to 3G as it gives the home team advantage and because grass is made up using natural substance they are all equal
No to 3G as no sliding tackles
No to 3G but we're worried about our pitch for the big game on Saturday
No to 3G, Conf shouldn't change the rules but should extend the season to allow for postponements....hence change the rules.
No to 3G as the Prem wouldn't agree to it.
No to 3G as we have the best climate for grass pitches.
No to 3G as players are technically better on grass.
No to 3G as there is enough chemicals and technology for clubs to have proper grass pitches, we have a problem with our pitch.

By far the best discussion I have read tonight is Dartford captain Elliot Bradbrook, who starts with "Just on this whole 3G debate.....what even is the debate?"

He has a slight backlash from a Darts fan "if 3G was to be allowed should be from a set season so any teams wishing to could change not just because 1 team may go up"

EB: " I agree but it seems non sensical to stop any club from going up because of what the pitch is made of, who cares??"
Darts fan " think owners of clubs that did not have time and money to change before pitches were allowed would care teams told no before"
EB: "I know but precedents have to be set. We at DFC are lucky to have both. I'm sure Leatherhead would like the option right now"

EB; " As a player who wouldn't rather play against Maidstone United on 3G in front of 2000+ than on grass somewhere in front of 100?"

[russc]

Good on Elliot for engaging in the debate. Always a favourite player when he played for us and another one who I would have loved to see in a Stones shirt at the Gallagher (maybe it's not too late).

The Dartford fan has come closest to finding some sort of argument against an immediate rule change. Although I don't think it carries much weight, the argument that other teams should be given a year or two to assess pitch changes is less ridiculous than most of the other objections.

[Sennockian69]

NWS "There may also be financial problems within the sporting section of accounting firms that deal with clubs' administrations. This will arise when games actually take place and the club's meet their costs (which have been reduced) and make some money (particualrly if that pitch results in other revenue streams)". Yes these turn around specialists will be deprived of an income and these clubs should be not be prevented from trying admistration. I wonder how many boards of these conference clubs have these type of people within their setup?