Stones to continue 3G campaign after Conference vote

gspitch

Maidstone United will continue their campaign for artificial pitches after clubs in the Football Conference voted against permitting them in the competition.

Representatives from the 68 clubs met for an extraordinary general meeting in Telford today and the vote went against the state-of-the-art surfaces. It comes 24 hours after club co-owner Oliver Ash and first team manager Jay Saunders met with the Football Conference Board of Directors to make the case for 3G.

Oliver Ash said: “Our discussion with the Conference Board was open and constructive. Despite today’s vote we will continue a dialogue with the league and press for the acceptance of these surfaces which I am confident will come sooner rather than later. We know there are many clubs in the Conference who favour allowing 3G.

“However, we had modest expectations about the vote because it gave 24 Premier clubs one vote each, while North and South got just eight between them. Additionally, the compelling facts and figures on 3G were not disclosed to the clubs by the Conference Board prior to the vote.

“It’s business as usual for our club. We will continue to campaign for 3G to be allowed higher up the pyramid, while the first team will push for promotion from the Ryman Premier Division. If we were in a promotion position come the end of the season we are very confident we would be allowed to go up on 3G.”

3G4US, the group of football clubs who are supportive of synthetic pitches, are hosting a workshop on 3G Football Turf for football club directors and managers at Step 4 (Calor, Evo-Stik and Ryman) clubs and above. The event takes place at the Gallagher Stadium on Wednesday 26 February. To register, visit www.3g4us.org.

9 Comments

  1. Barry martin says:

    Jealousy all the way . Small clubs with grass pitches cannot let there pitches be used during the week especially in the current climate of rain! Rain! And more rain . Qpr had one years ago . Get with the times football league . Narrow minded

    Reply
  2. Robert Amey says:

    Wish the doubting thomas’s would actually come see for themselves rather than rely on predjudiced views misinformation and hearsay.

    Reply
  3. John Weeks says:

    On sat 4th Jan all our scheduled league matches were cancelled due to waterlogged pitches. I went to watch Netherton Vs Crowland on the 3G facility in Peterborough.
    My interest was to see how the ball and players reacted to the heavy and incessant rain and the answer was game on, no problem, perhaps the ball picked up a little pace on the wet pitch but the players coped easily with it.
    My vested interest is as Chairman of The United Counties League and this club has applied for promotion to join step 6 and look set to hopefully join us next season. This is providing their facilities are passed by the FA and are elected at our AGM.
    This must be the way forward financially with dwindling spectators.

    Reply
  4. Paul Haynes says:

    So what was the vote?!

    Reply
  5. Alan says:

    Why can women’s senior level matches be played on 3G but not conference, what’s the difference, sex and plastic discrimination

    Reply
  6. Robert Amey says:

    The most galling thing to me is that most of the premier league pitches are half plastic anyway and no one cares less yet a fifa approved quality (plays just like a top grass pitch) surface doesnt get to even get due consideration or even an open factual debate before being dismissed out of hand!

    Reply
  7. Barry waite says:

    I guess the Dartford vote went against us

    Reply
  8. TONY BAILEY says:

    I live in York and send many of the supporters best wishes as you say it will come for many reasons, low maintenance , continuity of surface , and less interruption through the season. Teams in Scotland play on artificial surfaces
    I follow your progress continued success and I hope you get promotion.

    Reply
  9. Steve H says:

    So as Paul asked above, what was the vote, numerically? The fact that it’s not been mentioned leads me to assume that it was overwhelmingly negative.
    Why, when talking about a vote, wouldn’t you give the result? Is not mentioning it part of some PR-management policy, aka spin? Please don’t start going down that road.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Powered by WordPress