3G Pitch discussions

The turf used by Oldham, Luton, QPR et al bears no real resemblance to a modern system. It was shite.

You've only got to walk on the modern stuff to realise that the systems used now are as close to grass as QPR's was to concrete. However, there must be different quality levels even in the modern turf and it's underlay. I imagine, having been on Excelsior's pitch and training pitches that TNS probably don't have anything too great.

There's a reason or two why the average Dutch footballer is a lot more comfortable with the ball at his feet than the average Brit.

CF48 MARTYR wrote:As a board member I am open minded over the 3g issue, however I see it as my duty whilst elected to ensure any idea that is feasible, accessible and will benefit the community and football club long term and help protect and preserve senior football in the Borough are investigated and realized, and if a 3gs pitch isn't going to be this idea then we move on to the next project.

You cant hide from the fact a 3gs surface will benefit the wider community, or you cant hide from the fact the additional revenue the pitch could (however much or less it may be) would benefit the club, also you cant hide from the fact a new type facility would help to boost and secure employment at the club,..

A few points here. The point about jobs etc is an important one, but in general do clubs with 3g employ more people than those without, even when considering similar level clubs? Do 3g clubs forced through ground grading to remain step three or below due to grading issues employ more people than clubs in step 2?

First regarding the benefits of the 3g. I am skeptical to be honest and think that the costs would outweigh any benefits. But I don't think this is to say anyone is opposed to the "project" as a whole. Merely one aspect of it. It maybe worthwhile for the club to examine viable alternative plans and maybe take time out to correspond with other clubs who have gone down similar route. I say this because a number of clubs have gone down the 3g route and their experiences would be useful also clubs have gone down the community club route but not have engaged with the 3g experience. In short the debate should not be one polarised into those in favour on one side and rejectionists on the other but the common ground taken as a starting point towards moving forward in a spirit of consensus.

I suspect that an astroturf salesman has little to add to the debate as he or she will be primarily interested in presenting their futuristic sporting surface product in the most favourable light such as making claims such as those of potential revenue of 150k per annum (which incidentally may be possible if the case study were an inner city sporting facility with lack of nearby competing alternatives for example). Primarily evidence should instead be sought from like minded clubs. Supporters direct clubs, community clubs and those who have installed 3g. Durham for example:

http://footyramblings.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/3g-or-not-3g-the-story-of-durham-city-afc/

Since anyhow none of this is going to come about this year, given that a season is about to start, then within a year we may see the FA relaxing rules regarding 3g at conference level. It also gives time to further consider the options.

By way of balance I understand the desire for the idea of a community club and wider use of the facilities. Just wonder if there are other ways to achieve this than closing the door on progression.

There is incidentally a similar debate on the Redditch forum here:

http://redditchunited.forumotion.com/t1073-are-3g-pitches-really-that-popular

and here:

http://redditchunited.forumotion.com/t938-3g-pitches

I did notice that after the final game of last season, the pitch was in a fairly poor condition.It didn't look too bad from the grandstand but standing on the ground, I could see the situation.
I don't know enough about 3G pitches to make any comment myself and I don't know what footballers think!

Tim Drummond wrote:I don't know enough about 3G pitches to make any comment myself and I don't know what footballers think!

Yes, it would be useful to perhaps have some information on the views of the playing staff available at the forthcoming meeting. A lot of the doubts people have expressed on here relate to its suitability for playing football on - the opinions of the players could maybe go a long way to either strengthening or removing those doubts!

Mountain Ash wrote:
First regarding the benefits of the 3g. I am skeptical to be honest and think that the costs would outweigh any benefits.

I don't know any details of it, but a feasibility study on the whole project was stated as having been done, so I'm assuming the relationship of benefits to costs would have been gone into in that.

Merthyr Imp wrote:

Tim Drummond wrote:I don't know enough about 3G pitches to make any comment myself and I don't know what footballers think!

Yes, it would be useful to perhaps have some information on the views of the playing staff available at the forthcoming meeting. A lot of the doubts people have expressed on here relate to its suitability for playing football on - the opinions of the players could maybe go a long way to either strengthening or removing those doubts!

From what I have been reading across the net regarding the experiences of various clubs the pitches themselves, certainly at the upper end of the market, are excellent and terms of injuries and so on compare favourably with traditional grass pitches. Though beyond this reading my experience of modern 3g is nil. Internationally, it seems, they are finding favour. They probably would be an excellent addition to the club if funded by grants and so on if only they would be recognised by the FA throughout the leagues.

Because as it seems to me we have, here proposed, a whole raft of exciting developments that would enhance the club in so many ways. For this all we have to do is trade any prospect of progress within the pyramid. Indeed these are the costs and benefits I was getting at.

So where do I fall on balance on these questions?

Well it is a tough call. I am just hoping that the FA pulls a rabbit out of the hat and decides to extend 3g to the conference to be honest. Indeed I have tried to mention this in near enough every post I have made on this, it's my hopeful side Indeed, in a perfect scenario, pitch aside, the developments of the facilities place the club on the cusp of higher grading. I am sure that rule change will come one day. In the mean time maybe we will one season find the Martyrs in what would have been a play-off place for the conference, who knows.

I think if supporters want to have their say, they should become members of Merthyr Town Football Club (there is no Trust per se anymore. You now join the CLUB) and then they can vote on this important issue.


Are members then governed by supporters direct rules ?

no where in my post did i state this was a done thing,and this a free post forum where a healthy debate is ongoing not a vote just people,s opinions.

rustic wrote:no where in my post did i state this was a done thing,and this a free post forum where a healthy debate is ongoing not a vote just people,s opinions.

I can't remember who it was up-thread who questioned whether or not it was all a done deal but I was under the impression it was in reference to the tone of the opening post which I suppose does give the impression that the meeting is to convey why it is so important to have astroturf rather than being a meeting that will have people who will be giving presentations regarding both the pros and cons. So I assumed this was there the 'done deal' reference pointed.

Quite right, Mountain Ash - I was troubled that the opening post gave the unfortunate impression of a decision already reached behind closed doors and now needing to be sold to the rest of us. I'm quite willing to be assured that was not the intention and that no such decision has been reached.

I'm happy to listen to the arguments as to why a 3G pitch will be beneficial to the club, but my concern is for the type of football that would be played on it if it is significantly different from the real thing. I go to PP and watch football at this level because I simply don't like the kind of boring possession football played at a higher level, such as at the European Championships this summer, with precision passes that are reminiscent of watching a pinball machine. Whilst a 3G pitch isn't going to bring that about at PP, it may nevertheless change the nature of the game in a detrimental way.

hirwaunman wrote:
I'm happy to listen to the arguments as to why a 3G pitch will be beneficial to the club, but my concern is for the type of football that would be played on it if it is significantly different from the real thing. I go to PP and watch football at this level because I simply don't like the kind of boring possession football played at a higher level, such as at the European Championships this summer, with precision passes that are reminiscent of watching a pinball machine. Whilst a 3G pitch isn't going to bring that about at PP, it may nevertheless change the nature of the game in a detrimental way.

Well here is some recent 3g action involving Maidstone, the club who are, I believe, behind the campaign to have 3g accepted beyond Step 3.



What does seem a little odd at first is the little clouds of dust being thrown into the air on tackles and so on which is probably the sand and rubber pellet mix.

Having watched the few minutes in that clip I can't really say that it seemed any different to a normal pitch. I think the only way I could judge is to see a game in person.

With regard to boring possession football, there's nothing to say that's what HAS to be played on an artificial pitch. If the ball spends a lot of time in the air it's not going to be affected by the playing surface!

I think the Martyrs do play a passing game anyway. Over the last two seasons I'd have said it was responsible for a large part of our success - the majority of the Western League teams couldn't cope with it at times.

Thanks for putting up that clip; what I would say is that it's like watching a game of football with some of the air let out of the ball, it seemed a bit dead when it bounced; all in all, it was very simular to the football played at TNS. There seemed to be more action going on at the burger bar than on the pitch, so maybe they have chosen the wrong game to show.

I think that I am of the same opinion as the majority of Merthyr supporters when I say that any decision should be put off until, or if ever, the Football Conference accepts 3G pitches. I believe the Town has the potential to support a Conference club, and that should be our goal; if not then we may as well have joined the Welsh league! Merthyr is a small Town, but there are a number of Conference clubs that are even smaller communities, and dont have the potential support of near by towns we have in Merthyr. Prior to the formation of the Football Conference, the Southern League Premier was one step away from the Football League, it is now a further two steps away, so it should be our goal to return to level 5 of the football pyramid, at present that would be impossible with a 3G playing surface!

I have read this post with interest especially the belief that we cannot play at a higher level with a 3G pitch. I have one question, where does it say that? I have read the ground grading requirements for Step 1 (The Footbal Conference Premier Division) and it says:

"The playing surface must be grass, unless otherwise authorised by the Competition‟s Board of Directors, and must be of the highest possible standard. It must be level and free from surface depressions and excessive undulations.

The maximum slope allowable shall not exceed an even gradient of vertical to horizontal 1: 41 in any direction. NB When a new pitch is being developed or significant improvements made to a pitch, the gradient of 1:41 would not be acceptable and the pitch must be constructed with reference to the FIFA Performance Quality Standard.

The playing surface must be maintained to the highest possible standards.

Where an artificial surface is installed, the FIFA Performance Test must be completed by no later than 28th February each year and the result and details submitted to the league by 31st March. Any remedial work must be carried out once the season ends and the pass Performance Test Certificate submitted to the League by 31 May."

I do not read that as saying artificial pitches are banned in the Conference, just they have to be approved.

Jamie Mack wrote:I have read this post with interest especially the belief that we cannot play at a higher level with a 3G pitch. I have one question, where does it say that? I have read the ground grading requirements for Step 1 (The Footbal Conference Premier Division) and it says:

"The playing surface must be grass, unless otherwise authorised by the Competition‟s Board of Directors, and must be of the highest possible standard. It must be level and free from surface depressions and excessive undulations.

The maximum slope allowable shall not exceed an even gradient of vertical to horizontal 1: 41 in any direction. NB When a new pitch is being developed or significant improvements made to a pitch, the gradient of 1:41 would not be acceptable and the pitch must be constructed with reference to the FIFA Performance Quality Standard.

The playing surface must be maintained to the highest possible standards.

Where an artificial surface is installed, the FIFA Performance Test must be completed by no later than 28th February each year and the result and details submitted to the league by 31st March. Any remedial work must be carried out once the season ends and the pass Performance Test Certificate submitted to the League by 31 May."

I do not read that as saying artificial pitches are banned in the Conference, just they have to be approved.

You are indeed correct Jamie in the sense that the wording does not refer to a ban per se, however without any approval then in practice from the point of view of the club the implications are pretty much, in practical terms, the same thing. I think if you feel there is any ambiguity, and the paragraphs you quote do on appearance leave some space to be interpreted in various ways, then surely the way forward is for the club to formally approach the FA for clarification or at least correspond with clubs who have gone down the 3g route to ascertain what it all means in practical terms.

"The playing surface must be grass, unless otherwise authorised by the Competition‟s Board of Directors, and must be of the highest possible standard."

It has to be remembered that at present Merthyr has not received authorisation to compete in the conference on a 3g pitch nor, so it seems, has any other club. While this is not a practical question at this point for Merthyr it has been in recent years for Durham. For example here:

http://www.durhamcityafc.com/news/details.php?news_id=6245

It has to be remembered that at present Merthyr has not received authorisation to compete in the conference on a 3g pitch nor, so it seems, has any other club. While this is not a practical question at this point for Merthyr it has been in recent years for Durham. For example here:

http://www.durhamcityafc.com/news/details.php?news_id=6245

On that web page linked to it does say that it was in August 2009 that Durham were advised they would not be allowed to compete in the Blue Square due to their artificial pitch. That was 3 years ago. Can anyone come up with any reference to say that ruling still applies?

It also mentions Durham will now be playing in the FA Cup on their pitch for the first time. I gather this coming season will be the first time that artificial pitches will be allowed in all the various cup competitions (except in the Proper Rounds of the FA Cup). So that's already a relaxation in what's permitted.

One of the points which I keep making (sorry!) is that we have to try and forecast what is likely to be permissible in, at the very least, two years time - maybe more - rather than how things stand at the moment. From what I can gather from information on the internet things are moving slowly towards artificial pitches being more acceptable - but of course nothing is certain.

Whatever happens, even if we shoot straight through the Southern League it's going to be 2 years before we could reach the Blue Square South - and would likely be 2 years before an artificial pitch could be installed (I'm guessing at that).

Realistically, it's unlikely we could be in the Blue Square South in 2 seasons. If we did, there'd be no doubt be costly ground improvements to be made.

Another point that I've made before on this thread is can the club sensibly and realistically finance a rise to the Blue Square South as things stand at the moment? As I understand it, the development plans recently outlined are what would be necessary to help the club progress up the leagues. The question is whether an artificial pitch is integral to these plans (I think I've said that before!).

Merthyr Imp wrote:

It has to be remembered that at present Merthyr has not received authorisation to compete in the conference on a 3g pitch nor, so it seems, has any other club. While this is not a practical question at this point for Merthyr it has been in recent years for Durham. For example here:

http://www.durhamcityafc.com/news/details.php?news_id=6245

On that web page linked to it does say that it was in August 2009 that Durham were advised they would not be allowed to compete in the Blue Square due to their artificial pitch. That was 3 years ago. Can anyone come up with any reference to say that ruling still applies?

Well no, I don't suppose if you looked you'd find one on those terms. Simply put it is because it is as Jamie puts it- 3g are not banned as such but have not been (yet) approved by the Conference. So what has to be found is not indications that the ruling still applies but indications that it has changed, this would be big news and would be out-there if such a ruling had been made.

No one is trying to be awkward or obtuse about this. The point I, and several others, have been trying to make is a simple one. That while no one is taking a conference play-off place for granted it would not be wise to deliberately move even further away from the current grading requirements than we already are. This is not about guessing the future or following a hunch. Commitments now to 3g, even if funded by grant, would be expensive to reverse. Extremely expensive. For me at least, this does not mean, eternal opposition. It means caution, and a wait and see approach where at the very least, if this project is supposed to take to 2015 then the alterations to the pitch are the final stage of the project and not the first as this will give time to assess club progress within the pyramid and also indications on which way the FA are moving. This sort of dovetails about your point regarding the point that a pitch could not be installed right now anyhow.

Some, I will admit, have stated clearly on here they do not like the technology at all but this is not my position. I have been searching across the net for several days looking for the indication that the FA have changed their position on 3g. I have not as yet found it. When/if they do I will report back here. Because move prematurely on this and there are all sorts of potential pitfalls, firstly it may be the case that the conference never warms to 3g (highly unlikely). There is a possibility that by the time the Conference has a change of heart that the technology we adopt is already considered obsolete and therefore not permissible. There are lots of possibilities but what would be better is not to second guess what ground grading requirements are in the future but work towards what they actually are. I will stick my neck out here and suggest that given that so few clubs have adopted 3g then artificial football pitches are unlikely to be mandatory in the immediate future where as there are certain rulings on the number of seats, turnstiles and officials' changing rooms and so on.

Now 3g may be a cool thing to have. I, for one, am not disputing that. I've looked into this since the issue has raised its head and spent time watching matchplay videos and looking for the rulings you mention (request?). In terms of the technology itself I am certainly a convert. I think the Maidstone pitch looks great to be honest. It is never going to be EXACTLY like grass simply because it is not grass but it seems to play really well. If the club decides that it is the collected and settled wish off the membership that the club will adopt the technology then that aspect I am fine with. Should the club in the mean time reach a play-off place in the Southern League premier and be not allowed to progress I will accept this as the price to pay for installation of the 3g technology and the presumed financial rewards this is supposed to bring to the club as have Maidstone who are still campaigning for the adoption of the technology and a few other clubs such as Durham City.

I am posting information as I find it here. Trust me on this, or, if others also post more up-to-date stuff it would be to the benefit of all. Indeed this is why I sought out videos that were not from a few years ago but from a few weeks ago. Ditto with news articles, other discussions and so on. It has been, during the course of this search, that I have warmed more to the technology itself as several days ago I was saying I had no opinion. The pitches are a little on the fast side but I don't think that may be such a bad thing and will possibly suit our passing style of play as it is at present. But I will remain of the position that it would be wise to urge caution until a point when the Conference comes out in an unambiguous fashion and states clearly that 3g is now permissible without having to try to read something into current rules that does not clearly spell this out or second guessing the future. If the membership does get to vote on this at some stage then as it stands I will vote in a way with all this in mind, with a view to at least taking a wait-and-see approach rather than a flat-out rejection unless evidence comes to light suggesting that accepting the proposal is, for the club, one of do-or-die.

On the whole we seem to have a similar take on this, maybe with a slight difference of emphasis, particularly on the second-guessing of grading rules and regulations for the future. But on the whole I would say we are pretty much on the same page.

ooh and to add yes we are going over a little ground here time and again, but I think discussion has been good, healthy and in the spirit of dialectics has progressed opinions on all sides.

So someone such as myself have become a little more keen on the technology itself whereas others who were already keen are more aware of current league thinking on the technology. I think we can sense the direction of travel by the leagues as the 3g pitches are allowed in the FA cup and so on but, as I read recently, evolution is not the same as progress and in nature as in technology history evolution is littered with dead ends, Betamax, C5s and Amstrad pcws for example. None were bad technology per-se though the C5 was not without some serious flaws, not least in terms of being visible in traffic. But I digress, the point is, both Betamax and PCW represented technological forward shifts, indeed Beta was superior to VHS. This digression merely to illustrate that, as with the aforementioned technologies, they were a victim of the adoption of different standards, in the course of Beta it was not the tape size of choosing by the adult entertainment industry that was the deciding factor and for the PCW it was the 3.25 inch disc. So even were the FA to move on this it does not mean that current 3g becomes the standard. Couldn't say, to be honest, though again not wise to second-guess, can't see why not but scrying is not one of my strong points and I would have bought a pcw if I had the money (!!) back in the day.

You see, not only has the conference to come out in an unambiguous fashion on this but when they eventually do so it is likely to be based on the standards of that time. Possibly several seasons from now. It could well be that the conference in a number of years say something that "a pitch must be grass or alternatively a suitable 4g technology".

Mountain Ash wrote:Simply put it is because it is as Jamie puts it- 3g are not banned as such but have not been (yet) approved by the Conference.

It could just be that they haven't been approved yet because no club has applied yet. We don't so far have any information on that. Judging by that Durham City website page they applied, or at least enquired in 2009 and were turned down, but we don't know whether any club has applied since.

That regulation quoted by Jamie seems to me to leave the door open for clubs to apply for approval for an artificial pitch provided it satisfies certain conditions. If the policy is not to give approval under any circumstances then why give the clubs the opportunity to apply and put them to the trouble and no doubt expense of doing so?

I have found the following website which includes the statement 'BlueSquare Conference teams promoted to the Football League are allowed to keep their synthetic surface.'

http://blc-sports.com/synthetic-turf-newsletter/newsletter-june2012.html

But I've not so far come across any confirmation of that elsewhere. As we know, there currently aren't any Blue Square clubs in any division with artificial pitches so it's academic anyway (if true). If it IS true then it implies that Blue Square teams COULD have artificial pitches - perhaps they're interpreting that same regulation as offering the possibility.

I know that's the website of an organisation involved in the supply of synthetic turf, but presumably they haven't included that statement as a bit of wishful thinking - there must be something behind it - but the question is where?

But as you (or someone) said, it would seem simple enough to sound out the Blue Square authorities as to what the position is without actually making a formal application. Maybe there'll be information on this at tne next meeting, or if not, the point could be made then.

Personally, from a footballing point of view I'm traditional enough to prefer to stick to grass, but I do have concerns as to how far the club can progress and develop without these plans which it appears an artificial pitch is a key part of.

Just to add, I don't think - as far as I can make out - it's a question of the FA allowing or not allowing artificial pitches in the Blue Square or Football League or whichever league - I think it's down to the the individual leagues themselves. The FA seem to have already moved their position recently, as mentioned before, in now allowing artificial pitches for the first time next season in all their cup competitions (except the Proper Rounds of the FA Cup).

Merthyr Imp wrote:

Mountain Ash wrote:Simply put it is because it is as Jamie puts it- 3g are not banned as such but have not been (yet) approved by the Conference.

It could just be that they haven't been approved yet because no club has applied yet. We don't so far have any information on that. Judging by that Durham City website page they applied, or at least enquired in 2009 and were turned down, but we don't know whether any club has applied since.

That regulation quoted by Jamie seems to me to leave the door open for clubs to apply for approval for an artificial pitch provided it satisfies certain conditions. If the policy is not to give approval under any circumstances then why give the clubs the opportunity to apply and put them to the trouble and no doubt expense of doing so?

I have found the following website which includes the statement 'BlueSquare Conference teams promoted to the Football League are allowed to keep their synthetic surface.'

http://blc-sports.com/synthetic-turf-newsletter/newsletter-june2012.html

But I've not so far come across any confirmation of that elsewhere. As we know, there currently aren't any Blue Square clubs in any division with artificial pitches so it's academic anyway (if true). If it IS true then it implies that Blue Square teams COULD have artificial pitches - perhaps they're interpreting that same regulation as offering the possibility.

I know that's the website of an organisation involved in the supply of synthetic turf, but presumably they haven't included that statement as a bit of wishful thinking - there must be something behind it - but the question is where?

But as you (or someone) said, it would seem simple enough to sound out the Blue Square authorities as to what the position is without actually making a formal application. Maybe there'll be information on this at tne next meeting, or if not, the point could be made then.

Personally, from a footballing point of view I'm traditional enough to prefer to stick to grass, but I do have concerns as to how far the club can progress and develop without these plans which it appears an artificial pitch is a key part of.

For reference here is the full, and unsourced, comment in full:

In recent days the Football League has decided not to allow synthetic turf to be installed in stadiums by their clubs. This follows an extensive review where opinion was received from all interested parties. The decision is not unexpected with the clubs in Division Two voting in favour, but those in Division One and the Championship hostile. But the real impact will be found further down the leagues.

Unless the FA allows clubs to play on synthetic turf in the FA Cup, lower teams in the BlueSquare Conference and feeder leagues will not benefit from improved surfaces, extra income from hiring out the pitch and greater control over junior and age group teams. A time limit should be given for acceptance, with rules put in place that:

Guarantee all clubs, including Premiership teams, must play on synthetic turf if drawn away in the FA Cup to a team with such a pitch.



BlueSquare Conference teams promoted to the Football League are allowed to keep their synthetic surface.



Teams subsequently promoted to Division One must return to natural turf or forfeit promotion, until such time as synthetic turf is accepted into that league.

A dedicated Executive is appointed to oversee the introduction of synthetic turf and its acceptance into the professional game.



With every other country in Europe and many around the world accepting synthetic turf why does England remain in the dark ages? Fear and a lack of knowledge are probably the answers, but it does little to help accepting a type of surface, which has assisted Spain, Holland, Germany and other countries develop more and better skilled players than most English clubs.



Time for the FA to get involved and at least open the door a little.

All I can think is since there are no Conference clubs currently with astroturf ,and few in the tier immediately below, the issue is not being forced. The result, if the above is to believed, is a complete dogs breakfast of a policy where Blue Square sides can "keep" their 3g pitch despite the fact that none have them to keep in the first place and it's unclear that they can actually have one in the first place to keep.

If there was a groundswell of clubs in step 3 and below that adopted 3g then that would probably force the issue. But there doesn't seem to be such a groundswell, I assume this is due to the Durham situation as, and this takes us all the way back to the start of this discussion, the availability of grants and the supposed revenues would surely make the adoption of 3g irresistible to step 3 clubs. Yet resist they do! Some clarity from the FA would no doubt lead to a considerably greater uptake of 3g, but it seems like catch-22 situation. Without the uptake the issue is not being forced and resolved yet without resolution there seems to be no uptake.

If nothing else, in adopting 3g, Merthyr can be a trailblazing and pioneering club in this respect. It will certainly give sense of unifying purpose as it clearly does with the Maidstone campaign.

Gonna scout about a bit to see if I can find some online sources for the statements that relate to the newsletter. Though most searches for info seems to come up with council sports centres. In England 3g seems to be largely used by council sports centres and schools at this point. Though they seem to be used in training facilities too.

The views expressed on this subject and the information provided are very welcome in advance of the meeting next week.

The decision on how to proceed on this issue will be made by the club’s owners (the members of the Society). Up to now the Board have taken the view that the installation of a 3g pitch would be advantageous, but at the public consultation meeting held on 19th July there were some reservations expressed and a straw poll suggested that membership of the Society should consider the issue – hence next week’s meeting.

In response to the comments made about the club’s community role, I have copied below the Society’s objectives, as laid out in our rules.

The Club’s objects are to benefit the community by;
• enhancing the social, cultural and economic value of the Club to its Communities and by acting as a responsible custodian of the club for future generations;
• upholding the mutual ownership of the Club operating democratically, fairly and transparently;
• ensuring the Club operates with financial responsibility enabling the Club to be run for the long term interest of the Community;
• providing sporting facilities and opportunities regardless of age, income, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexuality, religious or moral belief; and
• playing at the highest level possible, but always operating in a financially responsible and prudent manner.

On the question of the Football Conference rules, the appropriate rule from the Conference is as follows;

Competition matches shall NOT be played on any synthetic or artificial grass surfaces without the prior written approval of the Board. Clubs must register their pitch dimensions with the Competition prior to the start of each season. It will be misconduct on the part of a Club to alter its pitch dimensions during a season unless with prior written consent of the Board. The Board may at any time require a Club, at its own cost, to submit a report from a qualified independent source certifying the pitch dimensions. The Board may require a Club to take such steps as the Board shall specify if they are not satisfied that an adequate standard of pitch is being maintained, including but not limited to the Board commissioning an independent report on the state of the pitch. The cost of the independent report to be borne by the Club concerned.

This is going over the same ground, but I thought I'd try and sum up what seems to me to be the main points and concerns to be considered (not in any particular order):

1. The view of supporters about watching football played on an artificial pitch.

2. The views of the playing staff about playing on it.

3. Whether artificial pitches are currently allowed in Blue Square divisions, or whether they may be in the future. We know they're not currently allowed in the Proper Rounds of the FA Cup, but may that change in the future?

4. Would the non-inclusion of a 3G pitch detract too much from the recently announced development plans?

Just a further comment again from me about the first two of those points - if I knew the players were happy to play on an artificial pitch it would go a long way to remove any reservations I had about watching them on it.

To judge if the players will be happy is difficult.The present players may be but future players may not

scamp wrote:To judge if the players will be happy is difficult.The present players may be but future players may not

I was thinking that perhaps the views of the existing players and coaching staff might give some indication of what players in general think of artificial pitches.