I am fed up of all this **** talked about its the rugby that is causing the KC pitch to be ****e. There are playing fields all over the country that have Football, Rugby and every other grass sport played on them, in many cases on a weekend as soon as one match finished another one begins and they are no where near as bad as the KC. It is either poor groundkeeping or the surface is not fit for purpose and should be replaced with one that is. IMO it is the later
I think the modern synthetic pitches are a lot better than they used to be and are used throughout Europe. There would also probably be an annual saving on ground keeping costs. See article http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/nov/18/artificial-pitches-football-league
What makes you think that if it weren't for FC we wouldn't have the KC? FC had signed up for over a year. Hinchcliffe and Buchanan wouldn't sign up, obviously not wanting to expose the true state of affairs at City but because city wouldn't sign up the project was stalled. As soon as Adam Pearson bought City it went ahead. It is more a case of not having the KC if it weren't for City. and, don't forget, our small-minded rugby fans had a campaign for a 15,000 stadium with standing areas (on the basis that FC would find that big enough and City would never get more than that) with the ability to change ends and a stand in a multi-million pound de velopment being called the threepenny Stand. It should be fairly obvious which team is more important for the KC, one playing 23 home games with average attendances of about 20,000 and one playing 13 home games with averages of about 12,000. Having said that, I don't think the rugby is the reason for the poor state of the pitch.
They still contest scrums at union. It is league which has taken out all the difficult bit like contested scrums and mauls. Which is better, union or league is all down to opinion but the average gate for The Guinness Premiership is higher than Superleague, the best supported rugby club in this country is Leicester Tigers and league can only dream of getting the attendances for internationals that any of the British countries or Ireland get.
Obviously consultation with the FA and Premiership would influence any decision to go synthetic, but I think they would be open-minded and sympathetic considering that it has been a success in Europe.
I think it's only a matter of time before the Premier League rule gets changed, the new synthetic pitches are likely to be widely adopted in the future.
I think this will bring about more injuries with the pitches being considerably firmer than traditional grass
I don't know, but I did read somewhere that the new stuff doesn't burn the skin any more than grass and I would have thought that would be their only real concern
From Wikipedia "American football In 1969, Franklin Field, the gridiron stadium of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, switched from grass to artificial turf. Also home of the Philadelphia Eagles, it was the first National Football League stadium to use artificial turf. In 2006, Gillette Stadium, the football stadium of the New England Patriots and the New England Revolution, switched from grass to FieldTurf due to the conflict of poor weather and hosting many sporting and musical events at the stadium. It is one of 13 National Football League stadiums that have turf instead of grass fields; the Patriots, Giants and Jets (who share a stadium) and Bengals actually switched from AstroTurf to natural grass before reverting to a next-generation artificial surface." Can't see why RLFC should have any complaints.
At the moment Widnes are the only team to play on an artificial pitch http://www.widnesvikings.co.uk/page.php?id=1922 Seems to have divided opinion at the moment
From what i've gathered, there have been no major problems with the I-Pitch so far, a few opposition players did complain about cuts and scratches but this was attributed to the fact that the pitch was frozen.
But in fairness, FC never wanted it, never needed it, still don't want it, don't fill it and basically there is no need for the groundshare. I'm happy to accept that it isn't just the fault of the rugby but two teams playing on it can't help, and the pitch doesn't affect them it just ****s our game up.
Let's face it fellas, Barmby is to blame for the state of the pitch...yes, had we stuck 3 past Dirty Leeds and the gay boys then No one would be moaning about the pitch! So Nicky sort that fcuking pitch out mate!
