Conference says no to 3G

[Miss.A.F.C.Hornchurch]

http://nonleague.pitchero.com/news/conference-votes-against-3g-pitches-28589/

 

 

[aka PeteBeatz]

That's a blow to Maidstone then.

[cup of tea]

Feel a bit sorry for Maidstone as they had the foresight to go with a 3G pitch.

 

How does that affect their season? Will they be allowed in the playoffs or denied the title if they come top or will they have to roll their pitch up if they get promoted?

 

I suppose that you could argue that 3G pitches only benefits the richer non-league clubs but the benefits are there for all to see recently

[andydick]

I have the opposite view.  I don't have any sympathy for Maidstone simply because they knew at the time they laid the 3G that they would not be allowed to progress to the Conference yet they still went ahead.  I do admire their courage though .. it was a brave decision and perhaps they were subsequently hoping the Conference would re-consider.

 

IMO the Conference shouldn't be voting on this anyway.  They're always going to say "No" whilst 3G isn't allowed in the League system (PL to L2) for fear of jeopardising the League/Conference promotion/relegation system we have now.

 

It's an FA decision pure and simple.  If they give clubs at all levels the option of installing 3G it then becomes a club decision though I suspect clubs will probably need to self fund it more as I doubt grants (or the amount of the grant) would stay the same if everyone looked to go 3G.

[Hornchurch "O"]

I agree with Andydick.

As an Old Man, I'm less keen to go Football in all weathers these days.

Pile up of fixtures, different types of pitches adds to all the excitment of Football.

If everyone played on 3G i think it would get boring.

[Lee Farmie]

I agree with Andydick.

As an Old Man, I'm less keen to go Football in all weathers these days.

Pile up of fixtures, different types of pitches adds to all the excitment of Football.

If everyone played on 3G i think it would get boring.

 

But you're not agreeing with him. He said the FA should decide and by implication that 3G should be allowed for all.  Andydick just said he wasn't sympathetic to Maidstone Utd because they knew what the rules were in advance of laying the pitch.

 

The fact that anyone would object to 3G pitches BECAUSE it means that matches won't get postponed seem perverse to me, but it's the second time this week I've seen someone express this view. It seems that traditionalists are struggling to come with new reasons for objecting to what is the potential saviour of non league football and well worth evangelising over.

[paokman]

I think they should play on the red dust which we did as kids, bunch of wimps these days.

[cup of tea]

I think that something needs to be done as non-league football, especially at the level we play at is in trouble.

Maidstone must have felt confident in getting the decision to go their way, otherwise it was foolish to go down that route.

 

Obviously, they got it wrong.

 

If the FA want non-league to survive, they need to step in and start investing. Don't see that happening though.

If they spend money on 3G pitches for as many clubs that would benefit and they can afford then that will give a level playing field for the bigger and smaller clubs (sure there's a pun there somewhere!)

[Eastside Urchin]

Lee,are you a Maidstone Supporter??

The reason I ask is probably obvious,pretty much every Maidstone fan would agree that 3G pitches should be allowed and of course there are benefits there for the clubs that choose to have them but it's a massive call,we had artificial pitches in the 80's and yes,the 3G ones are different and better, much better but the last experiment was a disaster.

I actually sit in the middle on this,I can see the pros and cons of both sides but the one thing which slightly puts me in the camp of "no" is the fact that for 40 odd matches we play on grass of something that usually is related to grass!!,while once a season we play on what is a synthetic surface ,whereas Maidstone play and train on it all the time.there must be an advantage in that,which leads me to believe it is slightly unfair.

 

I am all for 3G or 4G pitches in the future and maybe Maidstone standing up and taking the plunge will in future be the benchmark but for me ,until either all teams have them or accessibility to them, or they are proven to be like for like with a standard grass pitch then I will lean towards the No Vote,and having spoken to quite a few players from various clubs,it does seem that the players notice a difference and have to adjust their play slightly.

 

The only thing I am against though is that I don't believe the clubs if the Conference should vote,I believe it's down to the FA to determine when it is right,not clubs who feel they stand to lose out

[paokman]

A level playing field Simon.

Ho ho

[Hornchurch "O"]

It will allow Maidstone to consolidate.

Not sure when issue will be voted on again.

Then Maidstone have a decision to make.

[Lee Farmie]

Lee,are you a Maidstone Supporter??

The reason I ask is probably obvious,pretty much every Maidstone fan would agree that 3G pitches should be allowed and of course there are benefits there for the clubs that choose to have them but it's a massive call,we had artificial pitches in the 80's and yes,the 3G ones are different and better, much better but the last experiment was a disaster.

I actually sit in the middle on this,I can see the pros and cons of both sides but the one thing which slightly puts me in the camp of "no" is the fact that for 40 odd matches we play on grass of something that usually is related to grass!!,while once a season we play on what is a synthetic surface ,whereas Maidstone play and train on it all the time.there must be an advantage in that,which leads me to believe it is slightly unfair.

 

I am all for 3G or 4G pitches in the future and maybe Maidstone standing up and taking the plunge will in future be the benchmark but for me ,until either all teams have them or accessibility to them, or they are proven to be like for like with a standard grass pitch then I will lean towards the No Vote,and having spoken to quite a few players from various clubs,it does seem that the players notice a difference and have to adjust their play slightly.

 

The only thing I am against though is that I don't believe the clubs if the Conference should vote,I believe it's down to the FA to determine when it is right,not clubs who feel they stand to lose out

 

I am not a Maidstone Utd supporter. I am a Whyteleafe supporter. Subject to a planning decision expected today, we should have a 3G pitch installed this summer. We already have a 3G training pitch (too small to play matches on) but our players are very happy with it and are excited at the prospect of playing on a full size pitch.

 

It's would ridiculous to say there is no difference playing a 3G pitch than an ordinary grass pitch and yes players have to adjust their playing style accordingly. But I think the same would be said of players playing on an outstandingly good grass pitch or and atrocious bobblefest (as ours becomes in the summer).

 

Most clubs if they works hard enough can get funding for 3G and even if they can't, the returns on rental should be good enough to get a return on your money in the short term. More people would invest in non league football if they can see a return on their money and I think clubs that can get with reap good benefits if managed properly.

 

I also think the argument over an unfair advantage on the pitch is overstated. Maidstone have drawn half their league matches this season and have won more games away than at home. I know anyone can play with stats but at the end of the day I can see 3G being the difference between some clubs going bust or flourishing.

[Hornchurch "O"]

Perhaps Man United should get one.