Current Page: 2 of 2
Re: The 3G pitch debate
Posted by: hong kong rover (IP Logged)
Date: 28 December, 2017 07:52

Quote:
Matt34
It would be easy to spare any L2 teams that would drop down, as a result of any club(s) with a 3G surface getting promoted the drop, then the club(s) with a 3G surface would stay put and the NLN and NLS teams going up would not be affected and could still stay up.
This would negate any reason to deny those teams a rightful promotion from the two feeder leagues.

+1 this would be the fair and sensible way to deal with the situation, if it were to arise.. being threatened with relegation is too harsh.

Re: The 3G pitch debate
Posted by: hong kong rover (IP Logged)
Date: 28 December, 2017 08:24

Mind you, if FGR were to finish 92nd in the footy league and were allowed to keep their league status then I would have to re-think things.. lol. Only joking.

Re: The 3G pitch debate
Posted by: terribletid (IP Logged)
Date: 28 December, 2017 13:18

Quote:
hong kong rover
Quote:
Matt34
It would be easy to spare any L2 teams that would drop down, as a result of any club(s) with a 3G surface getting promoted the drop, then the club(s) with a 3G surface would stay put and the NLN and NLS teams going up would not be affected and could still stay up.
This would negate any reason to deny those teams a rightful promotion from the two feeder leagues.

+1 this would be the fair and sensible way to deal with the situation, if it were to arise.. being threatened with relegation is too harsh.

But say Tranmere finish 2nd behind Sutton, just for the sake of the argument. Would we all really agree in such a situation that Tranmere shouldn't go up automatically (and that fewer teams should be promoted into League 2) just because Sutton participated while knowing that they couldn't actually be promoted with a fake pitch? It's already hard enough to get into the Football League...

I think the current rules are perfectly reasonable. The clubs know what the rules are, so shouldn't be moaning. This came up last year, before Bromley installed their pitch for example.

The main question is whether the EFL rules should change to permit plastic pitches. I'm all in favour of cost reductions but I'm not 100% convinced yet. Having watched games in Sutton, Maidstone and Bromley, the pitch certainly does play differently and could constitute an unfair advantage for the home side? Witness Sutton's cup run last year. They're also regularly terrible games - probably due as much to the clubs in question although partly also the opposition trying to get to grips with the pitch I suspect.

Re: The 3G pitch debate
Posted by: dicko111 (IP Logged)
Date: 28 December, 2017 13:45

OK we have won on two of the 3G pitches so far this season (so not really a disadvantage to us )but can a team get promoted because they have deserved it through playing good football or because they have an advantage of playing half the season on a 3G pitch .I would say that they need to remove the 3G pitch and replace for what ever cost but comes out of there promotion monies to L2

Re: The 3G pitch debate
Posted by: Matt34 (IP Logged)
Date: 28 December, 2017 22:44

Quote:
terribletid
But say Tranmere finish 2nd behind Sutton, just for the sake of the argument. Would we all really agree in such a situation that Tranmere shouldn't go up automatically (and that fewer teams should be promoted into League 2) just because Sutton participated while knowing that they couldn't actually be promoted with a fake pitch?

In that case Tranmere would get promoted and one L2 team would go down. Sutton would be allowed into the playoffs but not allowed promotion if they won the final. If Two clubs with a 3G pitch got into the top two neither would go up, both 1st would be replaced by 3rd, 2nd ends up in the playoffs and is denied promotion if they win the final, but then the clubs with 3G pitches would be able to play in the playoffs to be able to get monies together from the playoffs to help them finance the pitch alterations, needed to get promotion.

It's the rules as it stands; a bit like buying a £2 lottery ticket then expecting the petrol station or supermarket or whoever, to give you £16,000,000 from that branch, when it says that any amount over X must be claimed off the promoters.



Then I ate his Liver.......... with some baked beans and a can of coke.

Re: The 3G pitch debate
Posted by: Cybertron (IP Logged)
Date: 28 December, 2017 23:42

Quote:
Matt34
Quote:
terribletid
But say Tranmere finish 2nd behind Sutton, just for the sake of the argument. Would we all really agree in such a situation that Tranmere shouldn't go up automatically (and that fewer teams should be promoted into League 2) just because Sutton participated while knowing that they couldn't actually be promoted with a fake pitch?

In that case Tranmere would get promoted and one L2 team would go down. Sutton would be allowed into the playoffs but not allowed promotion if they won the final. If Two clubs with a 3G pitch got into the top two neither would go up, both 1st would be replaced by 3rd, 2nd ends up in the playoffs and is denied promotion if they win the final, but then the clubs with 3G pitches would be able to play in the playoffs to be able to get monies together from the playoffs to help them finance the pitch alterations, needed to get promotion.

It's the rules as it stands; a bit like buying a £2 lottery ticket then expecting the petrol station or supermarket or whoever, to give you £16,000,000 from that branch, when it says that any amount over X must be claimed off the promoters.
I suspect that the League would take a vote and not promote Sutton, and only have one team promoted and one relegated, if the League 2 clubs get to vote on that, there is only one way it will end.

Re: The 3G pitch debate
Posted by: mini_andy (IP Logged)
Date: 29 December, 2017 07:19

Surely if a team got promoted, then the easiest option would be to ground share for a season? If they survive the first year in the football leagues, then it would suggest that they have a decent chance of staying there.

But if they spent all the money replacing the pitch, then they would be a bit annoyed if they came straight back down again!

Re: The 3G pitch debate
Posted by: BELMONT (IP Logged)
Date: 29 December, 2017 11:57

Quote:
mini_andy
Surely if a team got promoted, then the easiest option would be to ground share for a season? If they survive the first year in the football leagues, then it would suggest that they have a decent chance of staying there.
But if they spent all the money replacing the pitch, then they would be a bit annoyed if they came straight back down again!


Surely if you take part in any competition you know what the rules state therefore you have to abide by them. Not saying it's right but when in Rome do what the Romans do.

So if teams find themselves in a promotion spot they have to change to stay with in the rules, if a pitch has to come up it comes up so be it. If you don't like the heat stay out of the kitchen.

So until the rules are changed for all so be it, all of the other teams in our division have grass pitches with out the income of a plastic pitch and have to live with out that income.

Re: The 3G pitch debate
Posted by: roger mellie (IP Logged)
Date: 29 December, 2017 16:32

Only a matter of time before 3/4G is allowed in the EFL. But rules are rules. And instead of moaning about it, the three southern plastic teams should put their grounds in order. None are fit for purpose. As are their fanbases, perhaps with the exception of Maidstone.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2018 16:48 by roger mellie.

Re: The 3G pitch debate
Posted by: Matt34 (IP Logged)
Date: 29 December, 2017 21:31

Quote:
roger mellie
Only a matter of time before 3/4G is allowed in the NL.

Did you mean to put that 3G will be allowed in League 2, or that it won't be allowed in the NL, as your statement refers to something that already is allowed.



Then I ate his Liver.......... with some baked beans and a can of coke.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2018 19:52 by Matt34.

Re: The 3G pitch debate
Posted by: hong kong rover (IP Logged)
Date: 01 January, 2018 13:18

So yesterday was deadline day for Sutton, Maidstone n Bromley to outline their intentions about meeting the EFL criteria/requirements, should any of them get promoted. Ive just had a quick look on the Sutton Utd club website, coz out of those 3 they probably have the better chance of going up, and mentioned in an end of year/new years message on the site was this comment...

'The possibility of promotion will bring its own challenges for 2018, not least the issue of 3G pitches not currently being allowed in the Football League. But we will cross those bridges if and when we need to and, in the words of Mr Baldrick, we have a plan..'

wonder what their plan is??? Maybe some vehement and continuous campaigning with the EFL between now and the summer to get the EFL to change their stance on 3G pitches..? ground sharing...? Even with the huge target of becoming a member of the football league I very very much doubt any of those 3 clubs will revert back to grass.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2018 13:24 by hong kong rover.

Re: The 3G pitch debate
Posted by: TimmySoft (IP Logged)
Date: 01 January, 2018 14:09

Sutton would just ground share with AFC Wimbledon.

Re: The 3G pitch debate
Posted by: Matt34 (IP Logged)
Date: 01 January, 2018 19:52

Assuming AFC Wimbledon would allow it.



Then I ate his Liver.......... with some baked beans and a can of coke.

Current Page: 2 of 2
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net