Paddy produced excellent pitches in the past so we know he isn't to blame.
Wouldn't that imply he was more likely to be blamed not less?
To use a random real world analogy, if someone's wife started 'working late' when they had always previously come home at the same time, would they be more or less likely to be having an affair than someone's whose wife had always worked volatile hours?
If everything else had remained equal then yes but they haven't have they?
To counter your analogy, if the wife's company had just been taken over or there had been numerous redundancies and cut backs, that would make the chances of an affair less likely than a wife where no other factors had changed and had just started working late.
True but what if every one of her company's competitors had also cut back yet their workers weren't working different hours (ie. why is our pitch materially worse than teams in League 1 or 2 [or below] with what must be similar or lower budgets for their pitch?).
Anyhow until the club release some information to explain the state of the pitch, we are all in the dark. However my point all along (beginning with the ridiculous Doncaster situation) is that I find it curious that even daring to suggest that the groundstaff have done a less than 100% perfect job is seen as totally anathema, when there at least some prima facie evidence to support that view.
Paddy produced excellent pitches in the past so we know he isn't to blame.
Wouldn't that imply he was more likely to be blamed not less?
To use a random real world analogy, if someone's wife started 'working late' when they had always previously come home at the same time, would they be more or less likely to be having an affair than someone's whose wife had always worked volatile hours?
If everything else had remained equal then yes but they haven't have they?
To counter your analogy, if the wife's company had just been taken over or there had been numerous redundancies and cut backs, that would make the chances of an affair less likely than a wife where no other factors had changed and had just started working late.
True but what if every one of her company's competitors had also cut back yet their workers weren't working different hours (ie. why is our pitch materially worse than teams in League 1 or 2 [or below] with what must be similar or lower budgets for their pitch?).
Anyhow until the club release some information to explain the state of the pitch, we are all in the dark. However my point all along (beginning with the ridiculous Doncaster situation) is that I find it curious that even daring to suggest that the groundstaff have done a less than 100% perfect job is seen as totally anathema, when there at least some prima facie evidence to support that view.
I don't think it's just Paddy being a much loved former player, it's that many of us know what an utterly conscientious and knowledgeable bloke he is and how much he and the people around him hate the current problems with the pitch. Then factor in the lack of experience/accountability at the top of the club and it doesn't take much working out, even if you don't have any further insight to the situation, which I'd suggest some do.
If we had a chief executive, writing regularly in the programme, it's inconceivable they wouldn't have taken ownership of the issue, explained it to supporters and discussed it at board level. Even if there is a chronic unwillingness / inability to spend additional money, there are always choices. For example, is the pitch not a higher priority than one or more of the raft of £30k posts advertised recently? But there is still no sign that anyone has taken ownership of the problem and is willing to say publicly what the problem is and how they are dealing with it. I suggest that's because they are covering their arse. If that's the case I suppose people will go on blaming Paddy, which in my view is bloody unfair.
Paddy produced excellent pitches in the past so we know he isn't to blame.
Wouldn't that imply he was more likely to be blamed not less?
To use a random real world analogy, if someone's wife started 'working late' when they had always previously come home at the same time, would they be more or less likely to be having an affair than someone's whose wife had always worked volatile hours?
If everything else had remained equal then yes but they haven't have they?
To counter your analogy, if the wife's company had just been taken over or there had been numerous redundancies and cut backs, that would make the chances of an affair less likely than a wife where no other factors had changed and had just started working late.
True but what if every one of her company's competitors had also cut back yet their workers weren't working different hours (ie. why is our pitch materially worse than teams in League 1 or 2 [or below] with what must be similar or lower budgets for their pitch?).
Anyhow until the club release some information to explain the state of the pitch, we are all in the dark. However my point all along (beginning with the ridiculous Doncaster situation) is that I find it curious that even daring to suggest that the groundstaff have done a less than 100% perfect job is seen as totally anathema, when there at least some prima facie evidence to support that view.
I don't think it's just Paddy being a much loved former player, it's that many of us know what an utterly conscientious and knowledgeable bloke he is and how much he and the people around him hate the current problems with the pitch. Then factor in the lack of experience/accountability at the top of the club and it doesn't take much working out, even if you don't have any further insight to the situation, which I'd suggest some do.
If we had a chief executive, writing regularly in the programme, it's inconceivable they wouldn't have taken ownership of the issue, explained it to supporters and discussed it at board level. Even if there is a chronic unwillingness / inability to spend additional money, there are always choices. For example, is the pitch not a higher priority than one or more of the raft of £30k posts advertised recently? But there is still no sign that anyone has taken ownership of the problem and is willing to say publicly what the problem is and how they are dealing with it. I suggest that's because they are covering their arse. If that's the case I suppose people will go on blaming Paddy, which in my view is bloody unfair.
No-one is questioning his character or knowledge, but I've just been asking an obvious question ie. is the pitch genuinely in the best condition it could be even given any negative contributing factors, both internal (eg. the budget) and external (eg. the weather, drains, topography, fixture list etc.)?
If the answer is 'yes' then there is no further argument. However I don't think it's unreasonable to at least ask the question given how awful the pitch is, and let others like you with more knowledge provide some answers (in the absence of course of the club providing any!).
Paddy produced excellent pitches in the past so we know he isn't to blame.
Wouldn't that imply he was more likely to be blamed not less?
To use a random real world analogy, if someone's wife started 'working late' when they had always previously come home at the same time, would they be more or less likely to be having an affair than someone's whose wife had always worked volatile hours?
If everything else had remained equal then yes but they haven't have they?
To counter your analogy, if the wife's company had just been taken over or there had been numerous redundancies and cut backs, that would make the chances of an affair less likely than a wife where no other factors had changed and had just started working late.
True but what if every one of her company's competitors had also cut back yet their workers weren't working different hours (ie. why is our pitch materially worse than teams in League 1 or 2 [or below] with what must be similar or lower budgets for their pitch?).
Anyhow until the club release some information to explain the state of the pitch, we are all in the dark. However my point all along (beginning with the ridiculous Doncaster situation) is that I find it curious that even daring to suggest that the groundstaff have done a less than 100% perfect job is seen as totally anathema, when there at least some prima facie evidence to support that view.
I don't think it's just Paddy being a much loved former player, it's that many of us know what an utterly conscientious and knowledgeable bloke he is and how much he and the people around him hate the current problems with the pitch. Then factor in the lack of experience/accountability at the top of the club and it doesn't take much working out, even if you don't have any further insight to the situation, which I'd suggest some do.
If we had a chief executive, writing regularly in the programme, it's inconceivable they wouldn't have taken ownership of the issue, explained it to supporters and discussed it at board level. Even if there is a chronic unwillingness / inability to spend additional money, there are always choices. For example, is the pitch not a higher priority than one or more of the raft of £30k posts advertised recently? But there is still no sign that anyone has taken ownership of the problem and is willing to say publicly what the problem is and how they are dealing with it. I suggest that's because they are covering their arse. If that's the case I suppose people will go on blaming Paddy, which in my view is bloody unfair.
It seems fairly obvious to me that "the board" decided early this season that further investment in the club was not an option. It seems it was a matter of simply keeping the balls in the air (literally on our pitch) until such times as the club was sold.
The Chief exec is clearly a "puppet" & I don't think he really wants to be there now anyway.
Hopefully the sale completes this week & things will get better, but until it does I don't see any further money being spent on the pitch unless we are given an ultimatum by the league.
Paddy produced excellent pitches in the past so we know he isn't to blame.
Wouldn't that imply he was more likely to be blamed not less?
To use a random real world analogy, if someone's wife started 'working late' when they had always previously come home at the same time, would they be more or less likely to be having an affair than someone's whose wife had always worked volatile hours?
If everything else had remained equal then yes but they haven't have they?
To counter your analogy, if the wife's company had just been taken over or there had been numerous redundancies and cut backs, that would make the chances of an affair less likely than a wife where no other factors had changed and had just started working late.
True but what if every one of her company's competitors had also cut back yet their workers weren't working different hours (ie. why is our pitch materially worse than teams in League 1 or 2 [or below] with what must be similar or lower budgets for their pitch?).
Anyhow until the club release some information to explain the state of the pitch, we are all in the dark. However my point all along (beginning with the ridiculous Doncaster situation) is that I find it curious that even daring to suggest that the groundstaff have done a less than 100% perfect job is seen as totally anathema, when there at least some prima facie evidence to support that view.
I don't think it's just Paddy being a much loved former player, it's that many of us know what an utterly conscientious and knowledgeable bloke he is and how much he and the people around him hate the current problems with the pitch. Then factor in the lack of experience/accountability at the top of the club and it doesn't take much working out, even if you don't have any further insight to the situation, which I'd suggest some do.
If we had a chief executive, writing regularly in the programme, it's inconceivable they wouldn't have taken ownership of the issue, explained it to supporters and discussed it at board level. Even if there is a chronic unwillingness / inability to spend additional money, there are always choices. For example, is the pitch not a higher priority than one or more of the raft of £30k posts advertised recently? But there is still no sign that anyone has taken ownership of the problem and is willing to say publicly what the problem is and how they are dealing with it. I suggest that's because they are covering their arse. If that's the case I suppose people will go on blaming Paddy, which in my view is bloody unfair.
Well said Airman, all this board has done when things go wrong is to refuse to answer any legitimate questions put to them. I really feel for Paddy and his staff, it's a disgraceful and embarrassing state of affairs.
You'd expect an issue like the state of the pitch to be the subject of a detailed explanation by the club as it is such an obvious problem for a second season.
Has this happened? I haven't seen it, but I don't read everything the club puts out so I'm prepared to be corrected.
Paddy hasn't suddenly become an incompetent groundsman; the weather isn't consistently worse in SE7 than at every other ground in the country. Clearly there may be particular issues with the topography, but these are not new.
This problem Is something so serious that in any normal football club it would be the subject of boardroom intervention, so I'd ask again - who at the most senior level is going to take responsibility for sorting it out, in the short term and at the end of the season?
It's such a fundamental matter that at any other club the local press would be asking the questions. It directly affects the entertainment value on offer to supporters, the tactics and team selection, and our chances of staying up.
If there isn't an answer and the club continues to remain silent then you can see why we are where we are with it and have to assume they don't want to explain because they have something to hide.
I strongly agree, and don't think these points should be underestimated. It's an insult to the paying customers to have the quality of football compromised by a lack of responsible maintenance of the pitch. Our players clearly detest it, evinced by their comments at a recent supporters' group meeting.
We play better in an up-tempo passing game; hoofball doesn't work for us. Our midfield isn't physically strong enough to battle and win on a quagmire. Vital points lost in the mud may prove crucial at the end of the season.
We will lose out against teams like Sheffield Wednesday and gain against teams like Brighton - but that isn't really the issue. It is a bit of an embaressment and the paying customer has a right to expect a pitch condusive to good football. There are good points that the pitch has not been this bad in previous seasons when not much investment would have been made in the pitch.
I think by deduction it can only be one or both of two things causing the problem. a) structural damage to the drainage system b) playing games this season and last in monsoons which must have done imeasurable damage to the top surface. You would have thought that a) has to figure in there somewhere as drainage at the Valley has not been too bad historically.
Don't buy any advance tickets for Oxford if you can't make the re-arranged game is my advice.
Too late Henners any guess on when a rearranged game might take place? Could always give up home advantage and have a nice away trip to Oxfordshire :-)
I agree that there are probably numerous reasons for the pitch being in a mess.
But surely one of the biggest factors is the weather coupled with when we have played our home games? The Doncaster and Leeds games would've taken their toll, but if our last two games had been away following all the rain and stormy weather, with a home game tomorrow, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, just yet.
And as I type it's absolutely chucking it down again in south london. The ground is already saturated everywhere as it is.
I remeber Hull at home last season and couldn't recall a game played through quite so itense rain - then this season we had Doncaster and Leeds. Three games in 2 seasons that probably beat anything we have had rain wise for a decade - With a bit of luck with teh fixtures we could have dodged these games but they have hit us! Not saying there aren't problems with the picth too - the weather clearly hit other teams who's pitches clearly have coped better. Maybe these games are best being called off in the interests of the longer term.
Paddy produced excellent pitches in the past so we know he isn't to blame.
Wouldn't that imply he was more likely to be blamed not less?
To use a random real world analogy, if someone's wife started 'working late' when they had always previously come home at the same time, would they be more or less likely to be having an affair than someone's whose wife had always worked volatile hours?
If everything else had remained equal then yes but they haven't have they?
To counter your analogy, if the wife's company had just been taken over or there had been numerous redundancies and cut backs, that would make the chances of an affair less likely than a wife where no other factors had changed and had just started working late.
True but what if every one of her company's competitors had also cut back yet their workers weren't working different hours (ie. why is our pitch materially worse than teams in League 1 or 2 [or below] with what must be similar or lower budgets for their pitch?).
Anyhow until the club release some information to explain the state of the pitch, we are all in the dark. However my point all along (beginning with the ridiculous Doncaster situation) is that I find it curious that even daring to suggest that the groundstaff have done a less than 100% perfect job is seen as totally anathema, when there at least some prima facie evidence to support that view.
I don't think it's just Paddy being a much loved former player, it's that many of us know what an utterly conscientious and knowledgeable bloke he is and how much he and the people around him hate the current problems with the pitch. Then factor in the lack of experience/accountability at the top of the club and it doesn't take much working out, even if you don't have any further insight to the situation, which I'd suggest some do.
If we had a chief executive, writing regularly in the programme, it's inconceivable they wouldn't have taken ownership of the issue, explained it to supporters and discussed it at board level. Even if there is a chronic unwillingness / inability to spend additional money, there are always choices. For example, is the pitch not a higher priority than one or more of the raft of £30k posts advertised recently? But there is still no sign that anyone has taken ownership of the problem and is willing to say publicly what the problem is and how they are dealing with it. I suggest that's because they are covering their arse. If that's the case I suppose people will go on blaming Paddy, which in my view is bloody unfair.
No-one is questioning his character or knowledge, but I've just been asking an obvious question ie. is the pitch genuinely in the best condition it could be even given any negative contributing factors, both internal (eg. the budget) and external (eg. the weather, drains, topography, fixture list etc.)?
If the answer is 'yes' then there is no further argument. However I don't think it's unreasonable to at least ask the question given how awful the pitch is, and let others like you with more knowledge provide some answers (in the absence of course of the club providing any!).
I think this is similar, but more straightforward, to the question about Chris Powell. Paddy probably doesn't get everything exactly right on every occasion. With hindsight, in this case probably relating to the weather, different choices might have available to him on particular occasions within the permitted budget. I don't know about that at all, but I can see it's possible. But I do know that with Paddy you have someone who is both very committed and very experienced, and who has been very successful over a long period of time. I think the room for doubting him and his colleagues is minimal and I'd guess that when it comes to his role as groundsman knowledge of the particular situation with the Valley pitch is at least as valuable as knowledge about managing pitches generally.
Personally, I find it bloody insulting to Paddy that anyone could question his groundsman skills.
He's as good as been given some grass seed & 6 pitch forks ffs.
No rain covers, not good quality frost covers, no inflatable and so on.
I could expect some adverse comment from a few boneheads, but I'm very surprised at some comments on here.
It's a real shame that Paddy will no doubt read or be told about said comments.
All I can say is Paddy has produced one of the best pitches in the country, consistently, in the past & to suggest any of the issues are down to him are foolish in the extreme.
Holding off buying cup tickets for Saturday as I'm off work this weekend but can't guarantee being off when the game is eventually played. Shame,I enjoy our 1 game in the FA Cup every year
Comments
Anyhow until the club release some information to explain the state of the pitch, we are all in the dark. However my point all along (beginning with the ridiculous Doncaster situation) is that I find it curious that even daring to suggest that the groundstaff have done a less than 100% perfect job is seen as totally anathema, when there at least some prima facie evidence to support that view.
If we had a chief executive, writing regularly in the programme, it's inconceivable they wouldn't have taken ownership of the issue, explained it to supporters and discussed it at board level. Even if there is a chronic unwillingness / inability to spend additional money, there are always choices. For example, is the pitch not a higher priority than one or more of the raft of £30k posts advertised recently? But there is still no sign that anyone has taken ownership of the problem and is willing to say publicly what the problem is and how they are dealing with it. I suggest that's because they are covering their arse. If that's the case I suppose people will go on blaming Paddy, which in my view is bloody unfair.
If the answer is 'yes' then there is no further argument. However I don't think it's unreasonable to at least ask the question given how awful the pitch is, and let others like you with more knowledge provide some answers (in the absence of course of the club providing any!).
The Chief exec is clearly a "puppet" & I don't think he really wants to be there now anyway.
Hopefully the sale completes this week & things will get better, but until it does I don't see any further money being spent on the pitch unless we are given an ultimatum by the league.
We play better in an up-tempo passing game; hoofball doesn't work for us. Our midfield isn't physically strong enough to battle and win on a quagmire. Vital points lost in the mud may prove crucial at the end of the season.
I think by deduction it can only be one or both of two things causing the problem. a) structural damage to the drainage system b) playing games this season and last in monsoons which must have done imeasurable damage to the top surface. You would have thought that a) has to figure in there somewhere as drainage at the Valley has not been too bad historically.
Don't buy any advance tickets for Oxford if you can't make the re-arranged game is my advice.
But surely one of the biggest factors is the weather coupled with when we have played our home games? The Doncaster and Leeds games would've taken their toll, but if our last two games had been away following all the rain and stormy weather, with a home game tomorrow, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, just yet.
And as I type it's absolutely chucking it down again in south london. The ground is already saturated everywhere as it is.
He's as good as been given some grass seed & 6 pitch forks ffs.
No rain covers, not good quality frost covers, no inflatable and so on.
I could expect some adverse comment from a few boneheads, but I'm very surprised at some comments on here.
It's a real shame that Paddy will no doubt read or be told about said comments.
All I can say is Paddy has produced one of the best pitches in the country, consistently, in the past & to suggest any of the issues are down to him are foolish in the extreme.
Rant over.
Happy New Year Paddy and all CAFC supporters.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25513083
"Work to improve drainage under the ground's pitch could not be finished before the start of the season and is due to be completed in May. "
I don't think people are saying we don't have drainage issues, just that it's not fair to blame PP for these problems.
I note that Welling survived a 10.15am pitch inspection and is still on at the moment.
If we were at home today there is no way the game would be played.
Even if the weather clears up there is no way Saturday is happening.
Pitch inspection at Hillsborough. I wonder what Stuart Gray will have to say about that? : - )