New Pitch ?

[Jacko51]

I though the problem was because the groundsman had left?

[valefan16]

5 minutes ago, Jacko51 said:

I though the problem was because the groundsman had left?

It seemed to stem from the Sheffield Wednesday game, the pitch was fine until we turned up to watch it on that day and it was a mess.

Didn't they try to do something with sand and cutting into it or am I dreaming that? 

[Valiant62]

15 minutes ago, Fosse69 said:

Money is not the only factor. How many weeks does it take to replace a clay pitch with a sand based pitch, drains, irrigation, storage tanks. How many seasons to settle in? Lead time for contractors? Alternative ground if unforseens happen?

Newcastle Town might be available, half time cycling competitions. You heard it here first.

[werstayinup]

Going back to the Rudgie days,we played on far worse pitches at times imo and during that time i witnessed some of the best football vale have ever played........ todays players(all teams) are a spoilt breed tbf.

What i am saying is our pitch has been in a far worse state than it is now and we have played some fantastic stuff on it

[geoff1]

On 26/01/2023 at 09:41, Walka003 said:

IF this is true, I think it's extremely positive. Shanahans keep control and guide the club, back up by a good friend who's a multi multi millionaire and can help pay for things they want to do but can't afford. He's also reasonably young at 49 and has experience of running a club, albeit in non league with Kidsgrove.

His companies, Atlanta investment holdings 1 and 2 have investments of £372m and £142m respectively including 100% ownership of Swinton Insurance, amongst others.
 

thatll do for me pal!😊

[geoff1]

1 hour ago, Valiant62 said:

Newcastle Town might be available, half time cycling competitions. You heard it here first.

and we could let newcastle come and play a friendly pre season!!!!!!!!!!!😁

[werstayinup]

On 26/01/2023 at 12:45, Walka003 said:

On 26/01/2023 at 12:42, Boslem said:

Reading between the lines, it sounds like Donaldson has already put a decent chunk into Vale through sponsorship. Surely if he were to because a 49% shareholder, he would want to swell his asset and invest more? 

According to a sentinel interview he did in 2020, he's got a net worth of more than a billion quid. We'd certainly never have to worry about being cash strapped if he's willing to throw money at us.

Not sure its that simple but if it was the way forward i would not understand if Carol turned it down,that would be Brattesque

As for Donaldson,it isn't just him its the contacts he would bring and also as i have said before he is very very good friends with RW so that would open another door for him to get more involved,just think of the wealthy contacts the pair of them know... oh well i will wake up soon and snap out of it as we all know things never go smooth for us and the club

[werstayinup]

On 26/01/2023 at 16:54, dishydave said:

It isn't true I'm just pointing out it wouldn't be beneficial to him or the club why shell out millions on something you don't own and have all the hassle when you can just keep pumping probably 100k+ a year ( what to him must be pennies ) into it via sponsorship. Don't get me wrong it would be great if it happens but I just can't see it myself.

It could include an option to eventually take over the club i guess by buying more shares to become majority shareholder when Carol has had enough or wants to step back but still be involved

[pete vale]

4 hours ago, Jacko51 said:

I though the problem was because the groundsman had left?

The pitch has not improved since Steve Speed left that is for sure.

[Guitar Ray]

4 hours ago, werstayinup said:

Going back to the Rudgie days,we played on far worse pitches at times imo and during that time i witnessed some of the best football vale have ever played........ todays players(all teams) are a spoilt breed tbf.

What i am saying is our pitch has been in a far worse state than it is now and we have played some fantastic stuff on it

Every time this point is made it seems to be ignored, all we hear is silence.  Anyone out there? 

[Trumpingtonvale]

9 minutes ago, Bycarsbill said:

Another manager understandably having a dig (pun very much intended) at our awful pitch.  Not surprising that he "wouldn't want to play on that pitch week after week."  Unfortunately, we have to!

The club really needs to come to terms with this problem and find a solution before next season starts.

Copied this post from the Barnsley match thread.

Ordinarily we’d be really happy if our opponents found it really difficult to play on our pitch, it’s just a pity we find it difficult too and often more difficult than the away team.  Thus the dilemma regards where we should spend our money

- do we spend money, put aside for pitch improvements, to recruit players that can play on the pitch we have now, taking full advantage of its ‘qualities’ to give us a sufficient competitive advantage in every home game over teams who might be technically better than us on a better surface?

Or

-spend money to improve the pitch and then spend what little is left on players that can play on it better than our opponents can?

Perhaps there’s a third choice in this ‘dilemma’ 🥴.  Take a leaf from the American football playbook regards their use of special teams (offence defence kicking etc) and build a squad that has a ‘special’ home team and a special ‘away’ team within it, along with one or two players that are good enough to play on any surface (obviously 11+ players capable of this is the preferred option over anything else). People might say that you can’t change your team that much week to week but is it that different from the ‘each match is a ‘project’ approach DC takes at the moment?

 

 

 

[Santa]

[Bycarsbill]

37 minutes ago, Trumpingtonvale said:

Copied this post from the Barnsley match thread.

Ordinarily we’d be really happy if our opponents found it really difficult to play on our pitch, it’s just a pity we find it difficult too and often more difficult than the away team.  Thus the dilemma regards where we should spend our money

- do we spend money, put aside for pitch improvements, to recruit players that can play on the pitch we have now, taking full advantage of its ‘qualities’ to give us a sufficient competitive advantage in every home game over teams who might be technically better than us on a better surface?

Or

-spend money to improve the pitch and then spend what little is left on players that can play on it better than our opponents can?

Perhaps there’s a third choice in this ‘dilemma’ 🥴.  Take a leaf from the American football playbook regards their use of special teams (offence defence kicking etc) and build a squad that has a ‘special’ home team and a special ‘away’ team within it, along with one or two players that are good enough to play on any surface (obviously 11+ players capable of this is the preferred option over anything else). People might say that you can’t change your team that much week to week but is it that different from the ‘each match is a ‘project’ approach DC takes at the moment?

 

 

 

Interesting. Particularly choice 3, I agree what would be the difference?

I wouldn't mind if it did indeed bring visiting sides down to a level that might benefit us.  Unfortunately, given the recent spate of home defeats, it appears to be helping visiting teams more than us!

[Rory]

52 minutes ago, Santa said:

Horton. What a guy.

[Birches Head Fred]

Did anyone watch England's ladies last night at MK Don's, their pitch was awful.
Surely Warren can back me up on this?