@peterparrotface said:
Are Wasps coming back then? Pitch is like a carpet at AP
I was thinking about all those grounds we have visited in recent seasons which have been more like paddy fields than carpets. But would our pitch be like a carpet if we had a more typical winter than the last one and were forced by the sale of the training ground to use it several times a week?
Moreover, 4G, which I gather is virtually indistinguishable from our present carpet, could be used by other clubs/organisations and potentially bring in welcome additional funds.
I really cannot understand the obsession with grass. 20 years or so ago I thoroughly enjoyed watching the Wanderers beat some big London clubs to win a tournament at Wembley Arena on a surface that was nothing like grass!
Back to the topic of the original post... as pointed out by the Gasman on the old GR, the area of the proposed Green Belt review does not include the training ground. Whilst I think there is every reason to question the motives of the TG purchasers in general, it seems posters were too quick to jump to conclusions in this instance.
@micra wrote:
I was thinking about all those grounds we have visited in recent seasons which have been more like paddy fields than carpets. But would our pitch be like a carpet if we had a more typical winter than the last one and were forced by the sale of the training ground to use it several times a week?
Moreover, 4G, which I gather is virtually indistinguishable from our present carpet, could be used by other clubs/organisations and potentially bring in welcome additional funds.
I really cannot understand the obsession with grass. 20 years or so ago I thoroughly enjoyed watching the Wanderers beat some big London clubs to win a tournament at Wembley Arena on a surface that was nothing like grass!
I'm not sure where your enthusiasm for artificial surfaces comes from, though the points in favour of them that you mention don't really stack up.
If the training ground was sold off, I can't see a situation other than the club hiring a pitch elsewhere to train, anything but train on the Adams Park pitch all week.
Artificial surfaces have their uses, mainly for training and developing close ball control, and also for forms of the game where the ball is mainly played on the ground. 5 and 6-a-side aren't diminished anywhere near as much as 11-a-side for being played on 3G. I play 6-a-side semi-regularly on 3G and it's far better than the horrendous 'Copacabana' sand-based astroturf I had to endure at uni, and better than playing on a ploughed up quagmire, as a traditional kickabout every Christmas with old school mates down at Desborough rec. invariably becomes.
Unfortunately where artificial surfaces are let down is the bounce on the surfaces. 11-a-side football needs a surface where the bounce is predictable and not excessive, and unfortunately this has not been the case with artificial surfaces thus far.
There are other aspects such as player safety, suitability for use by players with certain injuries, and the exacerbation of injuries caused by impacting on a more solid surface than a grass pitch.
I can't comment about 4G as I've only played on 3G and watched games played on 3G. There may be a marked improvement, though at this stage it can't be assumed that it will be a suitable alternative to grass pitches. A key indicator is whether the PFA approve the use of 4G in professional football, which there is little appetite for at present for 3G. As for it being indistinguishable, have you played on a 4G pitch or watched a professional 11-a-side game on one? I haven't and will reserve judgement until I have.
Bad grass pitches should be a motivation to improve grass pitches rather than throw the baby out with the bath water. Parts of the world where maintaining a suitable grass surface is not possible can be forgiven for looking to artificial pitches (Iceland being one nation to have benefited from more of them being made available), though countries that can maintain a good standard of pitch should look to keep doing so until there is a better alternative.
@CarrotPeeler wrote:
Back to the topic of the original post... as pointed out by the Gasman on the old GR, the area of the proposed Green Belt review does not include the training ground. Whilst I think there is every reason to question the motives of the TG purchasers in general, it seems posters were too quick to jump to conclusions in this instance.
The two topics are inextricably linked. What conjecture there has been has been on the basis of number of red flags being raised about aspects of the deal that saw FALL sell the training ground for WWFC to then lease back from TGF. I think it would be negligent of supporters to ignore the warning signs and not explore further to make sure that nothing is going on that is against the best interests of WWFC. Unfortunately a lot of these attempts have been batted off as attempts to score points over Ivor Beeks when there is genuine concern that there is the potential for WWFC to have had its interests compromised.
I hope that any concerns and suspicions are unfounded as the next person, though the most frequent lesson from other clubs who have fallen victim to those who looked to from their misfortune is to be eternally vigilant and cast a critical eye on everything that comes from those who could potentially stand to profit.
Mr CarrotPeeler is correct in that there is nothing in the current Green Belt Development plans that include the Training Ground.
However, it would not be unreasonable to assume that once planning has been granted for the Booker/High Heavens area as per the local plan then planning would at a later stage be granted for the TG.
With regards to the " deal " offered to Supporters I think it unlikely that the land will ever be sold. Additionally, the Green Belt changes would make the buy back option unaffordable if ever we were in a position to repurchase.
@ReadingMarginalista - it's not exactly enthusiasm. It's a feeling that artificial pitches are inevitable in the not-to-distant future and that in financial terms they make sense. No reason whatsoever why such pitches could not be used for training and also hired out. Is there?
@micra Of course artificial pitches have a part to play in training, and particularly making sure that youngsters don't have to train on quagmires all the time, so they can develop their technical skills. The issue that the current standard of artificial pitches are not conducive to watching as good football remains (as well as player safety concerns), and is why many people need quite a bit of convincing before they will get behind suggestions that Adams Park should jettison its grass pitch.
As regards to the financial aspects, the manufacturers of these surfaces have been known to over exaggerate exactly how frequently these pitches can be used, as well as their lifespan. This will make it far harder for a professional club to justify the expense of installing it as well as players' preference to be playing on grass meaning that clubs with plastic pitches may have to spend more on wages to entice players to come to the club.
At least they wouldn't have to dig it up (as I believe has happened to our "carpet" this week). And, as I said, at least the initial cost would probably have to be funded (partly or wholly) with income generated in the higher echelons of the game. Just a thought.
Search me @aloysius! I saw a reference to it this morning on the fans' Facebook page which intrigued me (but not sufficiently to read the 56 comments that had already accrued!)
An early comment from Alan Cecil simply said that he preferred to leave such arrangements to the better judgement of Messrs Howard and Beeks.
I've not used the 'phone until about an hour ago so I'm totally unaware of what's occurring. Sorry.
Comments
Yeah, let's go back to muddy quagmires and hobnailed boots.
Are Wasps coming back then? Pitch is like a carpet at AP
Much faster download speeds.
I was thinking about all those grounds we have visited in recent seasons which have been more like paddy fields than carpets. But would our pitch be like a carpet if we had a more typical winter than the last one and were forced by the sale of the training ground to use it several times a week?
Moreover, 4G, which I gather is virtually indistinguishable from our present carpet, could be used by other clubs/organisations and potentially bring in welcome additional funds.
I really cannot understand the obsession with grass. 20 years or so ago I thoroughly enjoyed watching the Wanderers beat some big London clubs to win a tournament at Wembley Arena on a surface that was nothing like grass!
That's a bit like comparing an Ashes Test Match with a T20 game. The latter is a bit of a laugh, but hardly the real deal.
Personally I preferred the Wembley victories that were on the grass pitch.
I love all forms of both games - I'm probably too easily pleased!
Back to the topic of the original post... as pointed out by the Gasman on the old GR, the area of the proposed Green Belt review does not include the training ground. Whilst I think there is every reason to question the motives of the TG purchasers in general, it seems posters were too quick to jump to conclusions in this instance.
I'm not sure where your enthusiasm for artificial surfaces comes from, though the points in favour of them that you mention don't really stack up.
If the training ground was sold off, I can't see a situation other than the club hiring a pitch elsewhere to train, anything but train on the Adams Park pitch all week.
Artificial surfaces have their uses, mainly for training and developing close ball control, and also for forms of the game where the ball is mainly played on the ground. 5 and 6-a-side aren't diminished anywhere near as much as 11-a-side for being played on 3G. I play 6-a-side semi-regularly on 3G and it's far better than the horrendous 'Copacabana' sand-based astroturf I had to endure at uni, and better than playing on a ploughed up quagmire, as a traditional kickabout every Christmas with old school mates down at Desborough rec. invariably becomes.
Unfortunately where artificial surfaces are let down is the bounce on the surfaces. 11-a-side football needs a surface where the bounce is predictable and not excessive, and unfortunately this has not been the case with artificial surfaces thus far.
There are other aspects such as player safety, suitability for use by players with certain injuries, and the exacerbation of injuries caused by impacting on a more solid surface than a grass pitch.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3454767/Rangers-boss-Mark-Warburton-calls-ban-plastic-pitches-Martyn-Waghorn-suffers-injury-Scottish-Cup-tie.html
I can't comment about 4G as I've only played on 3G and watched games played on 3G. There may be a marked improvement, though at this stage it can't be assumed that it will be a suitable alternative to grass pitches. A key indicator is whether the PFA approve the use of 4G in professional football, which there is little appetite for at present for 3G. As for it being indistinguishable, have you played on a 4G pitch or watched a professional 11-a-side game on one? I haven't and will reserve judgement until I have.
Bad grass pitches should be a motivation to improve grass pitches rather than throw the baby out with the bath water. Parts of the world where maintaining a suitable grass surface is not possible can be forgiven for looking to artificial pitches (Iceland being one nation to have benefited from more of them being made available), though countries that can maintain a good standard of pitch should look to keep doing so until there is a better alternative.
The two topics are inextricably linked. What conjecture there has been has been on the basis of number of red flags being raised about aspects of the deal that saw FALL sell the training ground for WWFC to then lease back from TGF. I think it would be negligent of supporters to ignore the warning signs and not explore further to make sure that nothing is going on that is against the best interests of WWFC. Unfortunately a lot of these attempts have been batted off as attempts to score points over Ivor Beeks when there is genuine concern that there is the potential for WWFC to have had its interests compromised.
I hope that any concerns and suspicions are unfounded as the next person, though the most frequent lesson from other clubs who have fallen victim to those who looked to from their misfortune is to be eternally vigilant and cast a critical eye on everything that comes from those who could potentially stand to profit.
Mr CarrotPeeler is correct in that there is nothing in the current Green Belt Development plans that include the Training Ground.
However, it would not be unreasonable to assume that once planning has been granted for the Booker/High Heavens area as per the local plan then planning would at a later stage be granted for the TG.
With regards to the " deal " offered to Supporters I think it unlikely that the land will ever be sold. Additionally, the Green Belt changes would make the buy back option unaffordable if ever we were in a position to repurchase.
@ReadingMarginalista - it's not exactly enthusiasm. It's a feeling that artificial pitches are inevitable in the not-to-distant future and that in financial terms they make sense. No reason whatsoever why such pitches could not be used for training and also hired out. Is there?
@micra Of course artificial pitches have a part to play in training, and particularly making sure that youngsters don't have to train on quagmires all the time, so they can develop their technical skills. The issue that the current standard of artificial pitches are not conducive to watching as good football remains (as well as player safety concerns), and is why many people need quite a bit of convincing before they will get behind suggestions that Adams Park should jettison its grass pitch.
As regards to the financial aspects, the manufacturers of these surfaces have been known to over exaggerate exactly how frequently these pitches can be used, as well as their lifespan. This will make it far harder for a professional club to justify the expense of installing it as well as players' preference to be playing on grass meaning that clubs with plastic pitches may have to spend more on wages to entice players to come to the club.
At least they wouldn't have to dig it up (as I believe has happened to our "carpet" this week). And, as I said, at least the initial cost would probably have to be funded (partly or wholly) with income generated in the higher echelons of the game. Just a thought.
@micra why is our grass being dug up? It was only laid last summer! Was it done on the cheap?
Search me @aloysius! I saw a reference to it this morning on the fans' Facebook page which intrigued me (but not sufficiently to read the 56 comments that had already accrued!)
An early comment from Alan Cecil simply said that he preferred to leave such arrangements to the better judgement of Messrs Howard and Beeks.
I've not used the 'phone until about an hour ago so I'm totally unaware of what's occurring. Sorry.
Good for 5 aside football if we don't get enough player's signed up.
According to the clubs Twitter:
For those asking - the pitch needs work to remove the accumulation of debris/compacted soil which would deteriorate if left untouched.
Mainly chewing gum and saliva.