3G and the Conference

News that Sutton United of Skrill South are submitting a proposed rule change to the Conference to allow 3G pitches:

'3G - Has its Time Come?'

'The current spell of persistent rain has served as a reminder of how vulnerable non-League football in particular is to the weather. We don't have the resources of the professional clubs to safeguard pitches and ensure that games, as far as is practicable, go ahead. So this is a good time to confirm that Sutton United has submitted a proposed rule change to the Skrill Football Conference, which has been seconded, that would allow clubs in the competition to play games on approved 3G surfaces. Why have we done this? Well, the technical debate about 3G is surely over. World Cup qualifiers and Champions League games have all been played on 3G, various clubs below the Conference use the surface to generally positive reports and enjoy a variety of benefits that derive from having a pitch that can be used more than a grass surface ever could. This doesn't necessarily mean that Sutton United would want to install a 3G pitch, that's a discussion for another day, but we strongly believe that clubs at all levels of the domestic game should have the right to decide for themselves and we hope that the Member clubs will vote in favour of this proposal, continuing the Conference's long tradition of being a force for change.'

http://www.suttonunited.net/news.php#2377

And the FA has issued new guidance on 3G -

http://t.co/ljKlmmdAgk

Why now and is it a precursor to allowing 3G in higher leagues?

Old Sod wrote:
Why now and is it a precursor to allowing 3G in higher leagues?

Couldn't see a date of publication, but it could be last year, as they mention the Evostik League in the second paragraph of the introduction.

4mad.anubis wrote:

Old Sod wrote:
Why now and is it a precursor to allowing 3G in higher leagues?

Couldn't see a date of publication, but it could be last year, as they mention the Evostik League in the second paragraph of the introduction.

There is still currently an Evo-Stik League (the Northern Premier League):

http://www.evostikleague.co.uk/

Interesting to note the following in that FA document:-

'The FA is considering changing the standard code of rules so that leagues would not be allowed to refuse the use of 3G Football Turf pitches provided they meet the required performance standards. More information on this matter will be provided and clubs and leagues informed in due course.'

Interesting article on Twohundredpercent blogsite;

http://twohundredpercent.net/?p=25260

Harry Swift wrote:Interesting article on Twohundredpercent blogsite;

http://twohundredpercent.net/?p=25260

We keep reading things like the statement in that article: 'Football Association rules preclude the use of artificial pitches in competitions featuring Premier League, Football League or Conference clubs'.

But no-one seems able to point to a rule that actually says that. If it was as hard and fast a rule as that there'd be no point in, as the article goes on to state, Sutton United tabling a proposal for the relaxation of the rules by the Conference - because if FA rules really did preclude the use of artificial pitches there'd be nothing the Conference could do about it.

Or so it seems to me anyway.

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/456185/Artificial-roots-are-a-stone-certainty-for-British-football-future

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/sport/conference-vote-against-3g-pitches-11991/

http://www.maidstoneunited.co.uk/2014/01/stones-to-continue-3g-campaign/

Big blow that for Maidstone today with the clubs voting against allowing their pitch to be used in Conference South. They will keep on and I hope that clubs like Merthyr and all others who have them can maybe get together and unite as one on this issue. The decision is not surprising and the fight goes on.

therovingsheep wrote:Big blow that for Maidstone today with the clubs voting against allowing their pitch to be used in Conference South.

The voting was 21 to 11. All Premier clubs had one vote, plus each of the lower divisions had four votes between them.

http://theballisround.co.uk/2012/05/19/the-future-of-non-league-football-plastic-fantastic/

http://www.wsc.co.uk/wsc-daily/1172-january-2014/11172-conference-clubs-vote-against-use-of-artificial-pitches

The question is where does that leave us? If we do get promoted this season are we going to be able to sign top class players like Gavin Williams and Ceri Morgan if they know we can't get promoted any further. Are we even going to be able to keep our better players for this reason. Surely most of them have the amibition to go as far as they can and with this ruling it is going to stop that.

I really hope we don't see a mass exodus at the end of the season but it must be disheartening to the players to know they won't be able to go any further (at the moment anyway). That was my one major reservation about the 3g pitch.

The key phrase is 'at the moment anyway'. If we do go up at the end of this season are we really going to be prepared on and off the field for further promotion to the Skrill South in just one more year's time? It would be nice to think we would be - especially on the field - but I for one think it would take longer than that - and who knows what the rules will be then.

There are two things about the 3G pitch - one is that it enables the team to play good football (people were complaining that the old pitch a year ago was holding us back, and arguably was a factor against us winning promotion). The other is that it's an integral part of the club's community status which has enabled various other funding to be obtained. We wouldn't have got new floodlights without it for one thing. And without all this it's difficult to see how the club could have progressed to a stage where Skrill South was a possibility. (That was my main reason for being in favour of the 3G pitch).

It's sort of Catch-22. With the 3G pitch we can't (as things stand) reach the Skrill South - without it we wouldn't be in a position to reach it anyway.

There's two things that might shake the system up a bit over the next few years:-

a) The more teams that get 3G/4G pitches, the more clamour there is going to be allow them to be used (subject, I imagine to a whole load of testing and regulation) at a higher level.

b) Clubs with artificial pitches will, I imagine, start clogging up the top of the three feeder leagues into the conference so that no-one can get up.

Whilst b will make some of the sh1te teams in the Conference South happy for a bit, it won't when some of their members inevitably go bankrupt and can't be replaced. At the moment, there's only Maidstone to worry about. I say "only" Maidstone, but look at the money some of the clubs in the conference are losing out on by not having Maidstone promoted. Let's see:-
They have an average attendance of 1807.
They play in a league in which four clubs have an average attendance ten times smaller.
Their crowds are three times bigger than every other club in the league.
Their crowds are at least twice as big as every side in the Conference South.

A fair part of this is that their games are going to be on - and often the only game on - within a huge radius. I've already looked to see if they are at home tomorrow as Rye's pitch looks like a boating lake (but we are not allowed to call the game off until tomorrow). If Fleet Town had a 3G pitch, I could actually get to see Merthyr tomorrow, but the weather is rubbish this end of the country, and I imagine that will be called off. Every game was called off in our league in midweek.

timshorts wrote:
a) The more teams that get 3G/4G pitches, the more clamour there is going to be allow them to be used (subject, I imagine to a whole load of testing and regulation) at a higher level.

There's already FIFA standard testing - having to go through that was what delayed the bringing into use of our pitch! - so I don't think there could be much more regulation brought in.

It's worth keeping an eye on what happens with Falkirk and Hamilton Academical in Scotland who both have artificial pitches and are both challenging for promotion to the Scottish Premier League. Apparently it's similar to the Conference situation - they would have to apply for permission from the SPL Board.

As I said in some programme notes a while back, in Scotland exactly a third of all clubs outside the Premier League have artificial pitches.

http://www.isthmian.co.uk/chairman-backs-artificial-surfaces-17071/

timshorts wrote:
Whilst b will make some of the sh1te teams in the Conference South happy for a bit, it won't when some of their members inevitably go bankrupt and can't be replaced.  At the moment, there's only Maidstone to worry about.  I say "only" Maidstone, but look at the money some of the clubs in the conference are losing out on by not having Maidstone promoted.  Let's see:-
They have an average attendance of 1807.  
They play in a league in which four clubs have an average attendance ten times smaller.  
Their crowds are three times bigger than every other club in the league.  
Their crowds are at least twice as big as every side in the Conference South.

That's part of the problem; they don't want a bigger club in the same league as them and would vote to keep Maidstone out regardless of the issue.

Actual voting earlier this week at the Conference EGM on allowing 3G playing surfaces:

Conference National Clubs = 7 in favour 17 against
Conference South Clubs = 3 in favour 1 against
Conference North Clubs = 1 in favour 3 against

Both Sutton United (who proposed the motion) and Dorchester (who supported the motion) declined to speak on the proposal!

Quite surprised that there was almost 30% support from Conference National Clubs.

Debate about 3G on Non League programme earlier this morning.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03szmf0

From about 14:30 minutes into programme until 23 minutes.
No surprise expressed at the actual vote and generally in favour of proposal.

The front page lead story of The Non-League Paper is all about the 3G issue.
Of course, we have to bear in mind that the Merthyr stadium does not at present have a grading for The Skrill South although I am not sure of what requirements are needed. And Merthyr are two promotions away in any case. But it is an important factor in the long term.Obviously, there are many different views.
Quite possibly more clubs would desire a 3G pitch but if they cannot get the necessary funding, then they won't get one. Therefore, they may feel that they could be at a disadvantage.
Maidstone warn of a legal challenge over the issue unless The Conference reach a compromise. This story is going to run....

Tim Drummond wrote:Of course, we have to bear in mind that the Merthyr stadium does not at present have a grading for  The Skrill South

We have at least now got floodlights of the required standard.

Having visited Farnborough v Dorchester yesterday as our game in Fleet was postponed I don't see any reason why we wouldn't get a ground grading for the Conference South. The ground there was looking a bit worse for wear around the Main Stand for example. The pitch was shocking and it's amazing how used I am now of watching passing football on our 3g surface. Both goalmouths were full of sand. How young players are supposed to develop on those surfaces? Dorchester were much the better team but contrived to lose 3-2 somehow.

Interesting chat with a couple of Dorchester fans who confirmed their club's support for 3g pitches in the Conference EGM vote.

No-one seems to know what they have been doing at Farnborough, on or off the field, to be honest.