Newport County share with the Dragons RUFC and the pitch looked pretty good when they played Man Yoo in the FA Cup a week or two ago.
I walked alongside the pitch at Ewood Park today, as I do most weekday lunchtimes and it looked as if it hadn’t been played on Saturday afternoon (I know a lot of the locals would argue it wasn’t played on then). I live about 15 minutes from the ground and we’ll have been here 8 years in a couple of months. During the time we’ve been here it has always rained a lot more than I can ever remember it raining in East Yorkshire or North Lincolnshire in the nearly 50 years that I lived in those areas. I can’t say who’s had the most rain in the last few months but I’d be very surprised if the KCOM has seen more than Ewood. Again, I don’t know how the two grounds compare in terms of natural sunlight but they do also have the large mobile heat lamps. The one noticeable difference between the two grounds is that Ewood is very old school and is open at all four corners, so I wonder if the enclosed nature of the KCOM could be a factor? They also scrape the top surface off and reseed at the end of each season. Does anyone know if our pitch has any areas that are stitched with artificial grass?
I’ve just done a quick search online and SIS claim to do the stitching of artificial fibres into our pitch but it doesn’t say how much of it has been done.
I can't recall the percentage of artificial fibre, but I do remember being surprised reading that it was so high. Possibly that's the problem, not enough actual grass! And those lamps aren't going to grow the artificial fibre!
So, according to this piece by Baz, the development of the land around the MKM can't actually happen anyway. If that's the case: a) why do the club continue to pursue this development? b) why don't the Council just come out and bluntly state this as FACT to the public? (that they are powerless etc) so that everyone is clear on the reality / on how things are? Odd? Extract: ..... But the reality of the piece is quite straightforward, certainly from this particular vantage point. Hull Fair has for so long been a political hot potato that no administration wants to deal with it. The council (whoever happens to be in power at any given point) is beholden to the Showman's Guild. They - the Showman's Guild - have a covenant on the land which protects them and the Fair, and quite understandably, they have no intention of moving (if you were them, you wouldn't want to move from that site either). The council might dance around, offer meetings and play a tune in public, but the reality is they're powerless. They do not have the means to move the Fair to another location, and they do not have any money to be able to help Hull City build a venue that would regenerate a piece of wasteland and help the community thrive, so we've reached a deadlock. Again. https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/spo...ws/hull-city-mkm-stadium-frustrations-9078493
Yeah struck me as odd that all of a sudden Baz has come out and said "Oh by the way it's not up to the Council and nothing can be done". Really strange situation all round. Just move on and develop land somewhere else. Surely cheaper and easier.
I’m glad Cooper has written this because in the live event he went in very two-footed on the Council, which I know is extremely fashionable in the city but on this matter is also extremely unfair. I’m with those that say the Walton Street idea is a bad one, an implausible one, and an easily improved one. I don’t think it’s as easy as pointing at a random field near the A63 and saying “build it there” because there will be restrictions on those sites too (planning allocations, land owners unwilling to sell, prone to flooding, etc), but a conversation with ERYC would be a much more positive move than laying the boot in on HCC. Unless you didn’t really want to build a new training ground but wanted to make some noise to make it look like you did…
He also went in even more two footed on their latest podcast to the point even Burnsy had to pull him back.
Well if we're quibbling over ~2m to repair the pitch and complaining about that reducing our playing budget, I'm reasonably surprised they have the 20-25m lying around in wait for the training ground so you could well be right.
It’s a project you want to have on the shelf and ready to go when you get to the Premier League. I get why they are talking about it.
I'd suggested the other day it's the sort of thing to prioritise with PL money, but as others quite rightly said, it's something we should be addressing regardless of PL riches. If the owners were putting pressure on the Council 12 months ago just on the hypothetical PL money we may one day have then that's rather poor form.
Nah I’m not having that. You can’t wait until the cash is in the bank before starting thinking about a three year project.
So instead we expect the Council to commit to a project that could feasibly never get off the ground? I think the messaging from Tan seemed to suggest the intention was that if the Council made it happen they'd get it under way with or without PL football. I'm not buying that the project is contingent on the PL.
But then why don't the Council come out and state that they are powerless (in terms of the development happening around the ground / Walton St)? Instead we had a councillor saying let's get round the table ..... again. It doesn't seem to make much sense.
No-one is quibbling over the cost of repairing the pitch, Kesler was simply answering a question about the state of it and how it will be tackled. He also said Hull Fc will not be asked to contribute towards it, which I think is odd seeing as they share it with us. This issue had raised its head once again because the consultant the club hired to look into the feasibility and funding contract has come to an end and I'm assuming he has not made a lot of progress. He's not the first to hit this brick wall, as mentioned several times, Adam Pearson came up against exactly the same problems. At the moment the current training ground is adequate, I would even say 'homely' and helpfull in building up this team spirit LR speaks so much about. It isn't perfect and it doesnt add a lot of value to the club. The real concerns seems to be having the Academy based at Bishop Burton which the club do not owe so therefore rent and I don't suppose for one moment that it is cheap. All this talk of wanting to develop Walton Street is premature and in my opinion will never ever happen. Perhaps if the club do reach the Premier League under the present ownership we may see some investment into a new training facility and maybe an application to increase the capacity of the stadium by another couple of thousand, we may also see them wanting to cash in and sell the lot whilst the premium is high. However, if/when as a Premier League club the cost of a new training facility, quoted above in Sydney Tigers post of '£20-25m' is the average price of one player, and therefore not out of reach and it is then, if at all, we will see a new training facility for Hull City. Until then I think the focus should be on getting promoted first.
Quibbling in the sense that the comment was made that it will come out of the football budget, indicating that funds are tight and we don't just have the 2m sitting there to be used. If we don't have the 2m sitting there to be used we surely don't have the funding to start work on the redevelopment of Walton St. Agree that the talk is premature though, and not sure why it was made public by Tan last year at all.
The last Labour leader, Steve Brady quoted on the front page of the HDM, that any sale or change of use of Walton Street would have to go to a public referendum, so either he wasnt aware of this covenant the Showmans Guild are supposed to have, or there isnt one in existance. There is a charter allowing the city to hold a Fair, as there is/was to hold a market, but nothing to say in HAS to be on Walton Street because when it was granted the fair was held all over the place.
