31 Jan 2014, 7:07 pm
#270
(31 Jan 2014, 5:28 pm)andreos1 I was reading this on the BBC website this morning and my thoughts went back to a discussion we had on here.
Financially, it makes every sense installing a synthetic pitch for these sorts of clubs.
Durham (and now possibly Consett) make a lot of money hiring out their facilities to clubs and youth leagues, without any of the worry about the grass being churned up or water logged pitches.
The decision will cost Maidstone, just as it did Durham and as you saw at the Histon game, at that point, the only way for them - was up.
A vote like this cost Durham dearly. Hopefully it wont cause a mess down in Maidstone.
The only down point for Maidstone they put an artificial pitch down knowing the Conference Rules, but you are right it will prevent waterlogging and postponements, the year it snowed for months(2010/11 I think), Durham were shit on big time, which saw them lose there sponsors and there first team went, with College Lads coming in at an average age of about 18/19...
I do and dont have sympathy with Maidstone, when they got promoted there ground was not up standard I think, so they shared with Dartford(I think) and they would not play a match in Maidstone for another 25 years after going bust in '92, I respect there resurgance, starting in Kent County League I think, probably equates to the Kent version of the Wearside League
On the flip side, I am unsympathetic on the fact they will have known the ruling about the pitch, Durham is the perfect example...
Hopefully one day common sense will prevail and they will amend the rules, it is not like the artificial pitches in the 80's which contributed to some nasty injuries and carpet burns from sliding tackles
