Jump to content

Jags v Queen of the South


exiledjag
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

I reckon the postponements are going to have a big say on our chances of promotion/playoffs

And with Queen's having scheduled midweek fixtures and  a backlog, we could be looking at five games a week on a pitch already in poor condition! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gutted game is off. However if the weather is the same as it is now come 3 o'clock, the game would have been a lottery. No doubt these postponements will have a major impact on where we finish. On the bright side we will be fresh for the ICT game! Nb I still don't understand why we couldn't have put a temporary cover on the pitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless my memory is playing tricks on me I am fairly sure that in the mid 90's we had a pitch cover, this would have been around last time the pitch was even close to the state it is in currently.  It seems to me we could be doing with one right now !

Does anyone else remember this or am I talking  crap ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked this question before because I genuinely don’t know the answer.  How much effect does the fact we are groundsharing have on drainage/waterlogging? There are a lot of comments understandably referencing our sharing arrangement. I understand that groundsharing makes the pitch barer and more bobbly, but I’m not sure how it makes it more likely to waterlog.  Any ideas?

Edited by Duke Gekantawa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Camallain said:

Unless my memory is playing tricks on me I am fairly sure that in the mid 90's we had a pitch cover, this would have been around last time the pitch was even close to the state it is in currently.  It seems to me we could be doing with one right now !

Does anyone else remember this or am I talking  crap ?

I think there were pitch covers at one point as we have been in this situation before even before we shared a pitch.

I can remember a game against Dundee Utd being postponed about 6 times around about 93/94. Every midweek there would be a sudden downpour just before the game that was enough to put it off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Camallain said:

Unless my memory is playing tricks on me I am fairly sure that in the mid 90's we had a pitch cover, this would have been around last time the pitch was even close to the state it is in currently.  It seems to me we could be doing with one right now !

Does anyone else remember this or am I talking  crap ?

Didn't the installation of undersoil heating  (supposedly!) remove the need for covers? Think the covers were to protact against frost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Duke Gekantawa said:

I asked this question before because I genuinely don’t know the answer.  How much does the fact we are groundsharing have on drainage/waterlogging? There are a lot of comments understandably referencing our sharing arrangement. I understand that groundsharing makes the pitch barer and more bobbly, but I’m not sure how it makes it more likely to waterlog.  Any ideas?

Thinking the same. I doubt anyone knows for certain on here unless they're drainage experts, and even at that they'd probably require knowledge of the individual circumstances. 

Not a popular opinion, and one I'd have reservations about myself, but the groundsharing could be a blessing in disguise. Assuming the actual state of the pitch surface has had nothing to do with the cancellations (ie waterlogged regardless) then the additional income from rental to QP may be crucial. We already started the season £350K down in grant money in competition with most of the other league clubs. Each rearranged home fixture moved Saturday to Tuesday will result in a considerable drop in gate money and hospitality revenue plus likely higher outlay on lighting etc. Perhaps without the incremental income from QP we couldn't afford the quality or quantity in terms of our playing staff?

Of course if groundsharing is contributing to the postponements then we have to offset these Saturday to midweek drops in income against the rental. That would make the groundsharing agreement much less lucrative.

Just putting across another view of things. One I'm far from certain about so don't shoot me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t believe the park has been fully relayed in 2 seasons, add to that the hoardings coming off the main stand and a general rundown feel about the ground, I’m wondering what the end game is here. 
If general and preventive  maintenance is put off too long it becomes a false economy as the then needed work cost is way higher than the continuous preventative and general upkeep would be, and starts to become more an option of starting afresh elsewhere.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought we had (expensive) work done to rectify the drainage issue a couple of years ago?

I cant believe the state of the pitch though, you couldnt even call it patchy, theres almost no grass left. It looks as though we have been playing football with bulldozers. It should be able to withstand a game of football a week. God only knows what it will be like with three a week when we are playing catch up. Something seriously wrong here, i mean,  there are council pitches in better condtion after pub teams playing at least once a week

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Duke Gekantawa said:

I asked this question before because I genuinely don’t know the answer.  How much effect does the fact we are groundsharing have on drainage/waterlogging? There are a lot of comments understandably referencing our sharing arrangement. I understand that groundsharing makes the pitch barer and more bobbly, but I’m not sure how it makes it more likely to waterlog.  Any ideas?

This is a very reasonable point to raise.

There have been problems with the pitch for decades - I remember Gordon Strachan nominating Firhill as his least favourite away ground as a player because the surface was so poor.  I'm sure work was carried out to improve the drainage in Jim Oliver's time and significant sums were spent on the pitch when we were last in the top League..it hasn't been a long term fix.

This has been a mild winter - I would have thought frost would be more likely to cause damage to the pitch. I don't think it has been a particularly wet winter either but games are being postponed as the pitch is waterlogged rather than because it is rutted as a result of the number of games played on it. In past seasons, the pitch was often bare, bumpy and uneven later in the season when it had dried out.

The state of the pitch has already had an adverse effect on the quality of play and although our home results have been good, having to play a lot of games on a deteriorating surface will not help our title/play-off challenge. The home game against Raith should also have been postponed - it was quite ridiculous that it was played when the paying spectators could not actually see what was happening...though it was good to just about see the last minute winner.

This should be a priority issue for the Board for the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With Queens Park due to move to their new stadium for the start of next season the issue of ground sharing should not be a factor next season, there might be a couple of one off games or international teams training prior to a Scotland game but those should not really be too much of a problem.

The decision the club needs to make though is what to do in the long term - maintain a grass surface to be used once every 2 weeks by the first team and that is it or an artificial surface that can be used more frequently either by various Thistle teams (reducing rental costs) or others to generate income.

However, as soon as the term "artificial surface" is mentioned you will have people saying no season ticket for them so therefore that reduces an income stream. So not an easy decision but one that will need to be made and one that will mean some people will not be happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Winter of '63 said:

This is a very reasonable point to raise.

There have been problems with the pitch for decades - I remember Gordon Strachan nominating Firhill as his least favourite away ground as a player because the surface was so poor.  I'm sure work was carried out to improve the drainage in Jim Oliver's time and significant sums were spent on the pitch when we were last in the top League..it hasn't been a long term fix.

This has been a mild winter - I would have thought frost would be more likely to cause damage to the pitch. I don't think it has been a particularly wet winter either but games are being postponed as the pitch is waterlogged rather than because it is rutted as a result of the number of games played on it. In past seasons, the pitch was often bare, bumpy and uneven later in the season when it had dried out.

The state of the pitch has already had an adverse effect on the quality of play and although our home results have been good, having to play a lot of games on a deteriorating surface will not help our title/play-off challenge. The home game against Raith should also have been postponed - it was quite ridiculous that it was played when the paying spectators could not actually see what was happening...though it was good to just about see the last minute winner.

This should be a priority issue for the Board for the future.

Due to lack of investment and overplaying of pitch surface algae etc tends to build up and gets compacted leading to poor drainage .The subsurface of soil(sand and fibres two inches down ) is good but water has a problem getting there due to afore mentioned rubbishy surface even with machine stud holes punched in it .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had a look on Wikipedia and it now seems that hybrid surfaces are the norm with an array of rugby and football clubs.  This system is well out of our reach as its used by the big boys of football and rugby and no doubt is expensive along with the professional maintenance required. I'm afraid we will just have to wait for the spring when B/Q get there first batch of turf through the door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Fawlty Towers said:

With Queens Park due to move to their new stadium for the start of next season the issue of ground sharing should not be a factor next season, there might be a couple of one off games or international teams training prior to a Scotland game but those should not really be too much of a problem.

The decision the club needs to make though is what to do in the long term - maintain a grass surface to be used once every 2 weeks by the first team and that is it or an artificial surface that can be used more frequently either by various Thistle teams (reducing rental costs) or others to generate income.

However, as soon as the term "artificial surface" is mentioned you will have people saying no season ticket for them so therefore that reduces an income stream. So not an easy decision but one that will need to be made and one that will mean some people will not be happy.

You're right FT, it would be no season ticket for me.

I can barely take football seriously on an artificial pitch. Maybe we could get a wee roof as well and it would be like futsal.

We've had a very nice surface in the past and need to get back to that.

An artificial pitch equals artificial football.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, P-R said:

I think there were pitch covers at one point as we have been in this situation before even before we shared a pitch.

I can remember a game against Dundee Utd being postponed about 6 times around about 93/94. Every midweek there would be a sudden downpour just before the game that was enough to put it off.

Something else I recall from back then was that Brown McMaster discovered a manhole cover somewhere at the city end which on investigation turned out to be completely silted up. Once cleared thousands of gallons of water drained away from the pitch which made a dramatic difference.

 

Maybe somebody should go find that manhole and take a swatch :D

Edited by Camallain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CotterJag said:

You're right FT, it would be no season ticket for me.

I can barely take football seriously on an artificial pitch. Maybe we could get a wee roof as well and it would be like futsal.

We've had a very nice surface in the past and need to get back to that.

An artificial pitch equals artificial football.

That would be your right.

So this means then you only want us to play on a grass surface. I would then assume you want it to be a decent surface so that means playing the minimum number of games possible on it or spending more on its upkeep. Financially it is perfectly possible to survive with a grass pitch that does not generate any income as we have done in the past. However it does mean that we need to find income from other sources and inflation is going up, energy costs will increase and NI contributions will increase as well. These all impact directly on the club and will impact on the supporters as well. We also have to be constantly looking over our shoulder now in case other variants of Covid appear and restrictions possibly return.

As I have said it is not an easy decision and some will be unhappy but those making the decisions have to consider the bigger picture.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...