Redevelopment

Thanks cbtroman, that does put it in perspective for me.

A lot of my attitudes to Bath City are coloured by the fact that I started supporting the club around 2001 when we were rubbish, so league football has always seemed like an unattainable dream.

That said, if the redevelopment led to a ground that clearly would not allow us to play in League Two, e.g. insufficient capacity or inappropriate facilities, I would find that odd (although for the reasons stated above I'd exclude 3G from that as I don't think it will be an issue long-term - and you can always rip it up and re-lay grass).

And I could not agree more about the importance of communication, your point is well taken!

While I'd be suspicious of a "we aim to reach League 2 by X date" strategy, it would be great to hear the club give a clear picture of our financial circumstances and outline the step-by-step process/milestones that we'll need to get to League Two (e.g. X amount more revenues, become financially sustainable at our current level -> X amount more revenues, transition to full-time squad, promotion to Conf Prem -> X amount more revenues, build squad to League 2 calibre -> League 2).

Clearly laying out the milestones we need to reach and then transparently reporting against the progress made could be a good way of galvanising supporters to pitch in more, either directly through fundraising for the playing budget or indirectly through helping out with the commercial/1000BC working groups to build revenues.

Anyway I'm going off topic and have probably commented on this thread enough - thanks again for your reply!

I'll be providing a brief summary of supporters' feedback on the announcement to the board at their upcoming meeting. There are a lot of valid comments in this thread which I'll use, along with what I've heard in face to face chats, but if anyone has anything to add, please PM me by tomorrow evening (Tuesday)
Thanks

I understand (some) of the economic arguments but to me laying down plastic at Twerton would effectively be a resignation from real football.  The best thing for me about Bath City is that the whole experience is real and representative of everything football should be. The minute our first team home matches are on an artificial pitch the experience ceases to authentic and we lose one of our great selling points. (And yes I have seen matches and played on '3G' pitches. It is different to grass).

It is something not even the corporations in the top flight have stooped to (admittedly because they could afford to lay down a grass pitch every week if need be) so how can we persuade people that Bath City and non-league is the heart and soul of football with a fake pitch? The climatic changes of the seasons and subtleties of grass pitches will be gone. It will be sterile and personally not something I'd be willing to pay to watch week in week out.

Not to mention the facts; that some players can't play on them because they cause more injuries, you cant slide tackle without getting burns, the Dutch are ripping them up due to health problems being linked to toxins given off by the rubber crumbs (F.A ignoring this surprise surprise) and clubs here are finding they need to fork out on repairs/ relaying more often than they budgeted for..

If it's absolutely crucial to the club's existence that we have plastic then good luck I hope it will be a good community facility for kickabouts but it will not be football to me and I sincerely hope there is another way.

Without meaning to ignore Tim's points above, of which many are valid, I'd be interested to see what it's like playing on the surface in blustery conditions. Simple things like does the ball even stay still when positioning it for free-kicks/corners?

We'll have a few view try-outs on it soon anyway with November matches at Keynsham and Eastbourne.

There will be research into the long-term effects on players' health and safety before any consideration about 3G as well as, obviously, into the long-, mid- and short-term financial benefits or other wise. There will also be consultation before any decision on 3G pitches and there is the opportunity to raise a motion at the next AGM obliging the club to hold a vote on whether to have a 3G pitch or not.

That is the wonderful of democracy in a community club. No-one can force a decision on the supporters because the supporters are the major shareholder.

i'm all for democracy but events world wide in recent times suggests you dont get the right answer...I'd like to have some expert views to help / make the decison rather than leave it to the uniformed like myself and others.

That's exactly what I am talking about. There will be research into the benefits or otherwise of 3G financially, logistically and, of course, football-wise, most importantly. Then everyone can make informed decisions.

Marc Monitor wrote:That's exactly what I am talking about. There will be research into the benefits or otherwise of 3G financially, logistically and, of course, football-wise, most importantly. Then everyone can make informed decisions.

Agreed. Despite my somewhat fatalistic sounding conclusion some of us are looking into evidence to form a case against and to ensure a motion is accepted at the AGM so that the playing surface debate is kept separate from the overall re-development.

Timbo_b-o-a wrote:

Marc Monitor wrote:That's exactly what I am talking about. There will be research into the benefits or otherwise of 3G financially, logistically and, of course, football-wise, most importantly. Then everyone can make informed decisions.

Agreed. Despite my somewhat fatalistic sounding conclusion some of us are looking into evidence to form a case against and to ensure a motion is accepted at the AGM so that the playing surface debate is kept separate from the overall re-development.

Good stuff. Is the Society Committee close to setting a date for the IGM? It's supposed to take place in November or December. Also there should be a quarterly Q&A coming up, could be a good opportunity to air concerns and clarify the key questions around 3G.

http://www.bathcitysociety.org/uploads/4/4/2/1/44212161/so_democracy_and_accountability.pdf

Timbo_b-o-a wrote:Agreed. Despite my somewhat fatalistic sounding conclusion some of us are looking into evidence to form a case against and to ensure a motion is accepted at the AGM so that the playing surface debate is kept separate from the overall re-development.

Are you also looking into the possible toxic effects of grass fertiliser blowing across the terraces?

BenE wrote:

Timbo_b-o-a wrote:Agreed. Despite my somewhat fatalistic sounding conclusion some of us are looking into evidence to form a case against and to ensure a motion is accepted at the AGM so that the playing surface debate is kept separate from the overall re-development.

Are you also looking into the possible toxic effects of grass fertiliser blowing across the terraces?

I have been reading with interest the debate about 3G, not just on this forum, but elsewhere on the web and printed press.

One of the reasons why I love going to Twerton Park is because of stadium itself, and how close it is to being one of the most traditional grounds in the country. The thought of plastic pitch is one I am struggling to find attractive. As soon as one or two things are modernised, I fear the ground would start to look soulless and unattractive.

Realistically, the economical argument is the only reason I can see why people are in favour of it at Bath City, so I would prefer it if our club waited several years to see the financial impact of laying and relaying the surface has had on other clubs. 3G is a fairly recent thing and I don't think there has been enough evidence yet to prove it financial benefits.

City have spent quite a lot of meney on the pitch and we have an excellent groundsman so it would be a wrench to go to 3G but as you say it is only about the money. I do not know whether any other club has dug up a really good pitch like we have to put down plastic.
I have to say though that it used to make me laugh when teams like liverpool used to grizzle about the pitch having been turned over by oldham and QPR. They trained extensively on plastic during the week but it was the pitch that had beaten them. Couldn't have been because they'd played sh1t.

OliverH wrote:

Timbo_b-o-a wrote:

Marc Monitor wrote:That's exactly what I am talking about. There will be research into the benefits or otherwise of 3G financially, logistically and, of course, football-wise, most importantly. Then everyone can make informed decisions.

Agreed. Despite my somewhat fatalistic sounding conclusion some of us are looking into evidence to form a case against and to ensure a motion is accepted at the AGM so that the playing surface debate is kept separate from the overall re-development.

Good stuff. Is the Society Committee close to setting a date for the IGM? It's supposed to take place in November or December. Also there should be a quarterly Q&A coming up, could be a good opportunity to air concerns and clarify the key questions around 3G.

http://www.bathcitysociety.org/uploads/4/4/2/1/44212161/so_democracy_and_accountability.pdf

I will bring it up at the next Society Committee meeting.

Timbo_b-o-a wrote:

Marc Monitor wrote:That's exactly what I am talking about. There will be research into the benefits or otherwise of 3G financially, logistically and, of course, football-wise, most importantly. Then everyone can make informed decisions.

Agreed. Despite my somewhat fatalistic sounding conclusion some of us are looking into evidence to form a case against and to ensure a motion is accepted at the AGM so that the playing surface debate is kept separate from the overall re-development.

I don't think you need to form the case against in order to ensure the motion is accepted. Everyone for, against and as yet undecided will want to vote on this, I would have thought, so making the case for a vote should be easy. It's fairly obviously an issue that is producing a lot of interest and debate so a vote on it should be straightforward enough.

Of course, if anyone put forward a case for or against, it can be put to the various working groups associated with the 3G pitch so do carry on.

Will be interesting to see how the plans develop - I suppose it is normal for there to be so many parties involved in a project of this sort.

I may well have missed this somewhere along the line, but will the club still own the ground when the re-development is completed?

And the 'News' is?

LB wrote:
I may well have missed this somewhere along the line, but will the club still own the ground when the re-development is completed?

Yes

Maurice Ashman wrote:And the 'News' is?

It was in Marc's post, but you might have missed the hyperlink: https://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/news/bath-news/architects-appointed-major-twerton-park-1272219

LB wrote:Will be interesting to see how the plans develop - I suppose it is normal for there to be so many parties involved in a project of this sort.

Yes although I thought Buro Happold could do M&E and Transport as well as structures, so I presume each aspect was tendered as a separate entity.
In reality though you do not get any more joined up service going for a one stop solution than different practices. But there will be exactly the same number of people sat around the table at meetings.

Buro Happold are doing White Hart Lane.

Marc Monitor wrote:Buro Happold are doing White Hart Lane.

Ooh, does that mean we can play at Wembley whilst TP is being done?

Although Spurs might still be there then if WHL isn't finished.

Thanks

Marc Monitor wrote:Buro Happold are doing White Hart Lane.

Hopefully we won't end up with costs doubling as White Hart Lane, allegedly, has suffered. £400m up to £800m, ouch. Obviously not all construction related, but that's a lot of extra money to find. Good job Carillion weren't the main contractors!!