He said it on the latest 1904 podcast. "We will spend 1.5m on the pitch and another 700k on maintenance. This means we will have less money for the football budget". That's a direct quote. He's saying that spending money on the pitch means less available for the football team, which is not how FFP works.
Think he was referring to the allocated amount of money they have for players which they would have to reduce if they pay the amount for the pitch to be done, not meaning ffp at all.
Why would they have to reduce the money allocated to players? That would suggest we're already spending at our limit even if FFP didn't exist. For instance we turned down Callum Chambers because of FFP, in theory that money we could have spent on him (if not for FFP) can instead be used on the pitch at no detriment to the club's accounts from an FFP perspective. If what Tan is suggesting is that Acun has no spare money and therefore needs to take money out of the playing budget in order to fix the pitch then why does FFP even matter as a consideration? If he's spending at his limit then that seems a bigger factor in adjusting our spending than anything FFP could do to us. This is what I'm trying to get at. I think something's being lost in translation or Tan is slightly stretching the truth, which wouldn't surprise me. Just like his anecdote about Villa wanting to help us be competitive, there might be an element of truth in it but the way he presented it was pretty nonsensical.
Heat lamps work but it has been mentioned by a fair few people that the pitch struggles to get natural sunlight due to the alignment of the stadium. Not to mention they only have so many lamps which then need to rotated around the pitch. Nothing will replace the benefits that natural sunlight would bring. Plus you cant have heat lamps on when there's an event on the pitch so if the pitch isn't getting the sunlight then its just compounding the issue
Yep that was more or less word for word. He was asked how much the pitch would cost to replace and the answer was 1.5 million.
Like most who where there I was shocked to hear that cost. He even warned everyone that the pitch was in an awful state for the Milwall game.
Any accountability for the groundsmen. Perhaps it's an impossible job. Or maybe they should just do better.
I watch the guys on the pitch at HT doing the minor repairs with the forks. Well they just stand talking to each other half the time. It's all about attention to detail.if that's the attitude during the week then that's a problem. Just what I see on a Saturday on game day.
Whatever happened to the ground staff that Ehab sacked over the overtime mix up? And who is head groundsman these days?
Seems like they want another. Maybe I'm wrong? https://jobsinfootball.com/job/51827/senior-groundsperson/
I reckon the club was sold a dud with the pitch system. Many clubs will have pitches that aren't aligned for maximum sun blah blah blah. That's not the issue. The system isn't up to the job. Maybe they need to walk away from the 'world leading technology' and go back to basics. The state of the pitch could well end up costing us points.
One clue is pointing and laughing at people in the North stand or maybe they are experts too. I could be totally wrong they could be discussing the PH and EC (electro conductivity) of the soil potassium levels or micro nutrients etc. I'll leave it there.
im no expert on grass and soil and the like but whoever is meant to be, if there is meant to be is doing a **** job pay someone better to do it its embarrassing this pitch and it actually inhibits our side.
To be fair I think most of them are just unqualified lackeys who are given a free match ticket in return for putting divots back at half time. A lot of groundsmen will arrange these people themselves so the chances are they will be talking about and pointing out a decent pair of norks in the North Stand and not really doing what they are meant to be doing. Some clubs use the academy players to do it.
