Anyone else notice pre match on Saturday about half a dozen chaps on the pitch standing in a loose huddle, holding their garden forks presumably and seeming to just be passing the time of day between themselves ?. I don’t have much of a real clue as to why they go on the pitch but naively I’ve always thought it was to wander around the pitch looking for patches to stick their forks into the ground, not to stand there and have a chat.
They are talking to the grass, encouraging it to press further up the pitch.
Can anyone tell me why despite all the heavy rainfall we’ve had they still insist on watering the pitch ? It makes no sense to me. Maybe some of our pitch experts can enlighten me ?
Can anyone tell me why despite all the heavy rainfall we’ve had they still insist on watering the pitch ? It makes no sense to me. Maybe some of our pitch experts can enlighten me ?
The only thing that I could think of is that if the weather is cold then it stops the pitch getting hard although I’m sure as the temperature drops then it would harden up again but I sure can’t think of any other reason ! It also could be why it looks so bad because of over watering.
Anyone else notice pre match on Saturday about half a dozen chaps on the pitch standing in a loose huddle, holding their garden forks presumably and seeming to just be passing the time of day between themselves ?. I don’t have much of a real clue as to why they go on the pitch but naively I’ve always thought it was to wander around the pitch looking for patches to stick their forks into the ground, not to stand there and have a chat.
They are talking to the grass, encouraging it to press further up the pitch.
Can anyone tell me why despite all the heavy rainfall we’ve had they still insist on watering the pitch ? It makes no sense to me. Maybe some of our pitch experts can enlighten me ?
It assists knee slides, an important part of the modern game.
If what I heard on Saturday is true............... the pitch is heavily rolled now to stop it cutting up too much where the grass is thin/non-existent and certain things were done to save money (against sensible advice) when contract was placed and pitch was re-laid in the summer...... not too much can be done properly until weather improves and footie stops in the summer.
Can anyone tell me why despite all the heavy rainfall we’ve had they still insist on watering the pitch ? It makes no sense to me. Maybe some of our pitch experts can enlighten me ?
It assists knee slides, an important part of the modern game.
Good case study for comparing the integrity of the club’s current communications with the past, in my view. This is an obvious problem which they are saying nothing about. Why not? Nobody is taken in by the silence, although perhaps they don’t want bring it to the attention of the substantive investors?
Still not clear how much the owners spent versus the grant versus the ‘normal’ pitch costs is it?
The fact we are silent on it does suggest the issue is not with the ‘suppliers’. Otherwise wouldn’t we be more public in voicing our concerns?
Just catching up on this thread, so this may have been commented on already. If the club is in dispute with the contractors then that's a good reason not to be more public in voicing our concerns.
Can anyone tell me why despite all the heavy rainfall we’ve had they still insist on watering the pitch ? It makes no sense to me. Maybe some of our pitch experts can enlighten me ?
It assists knee slides, an important part of the modern game.
didn't help Campbell much!
Probably more to do with his technique and execution than the pitch. Did all the hard work, got into a decent position, fluffed it!
Can anyone tell me why despite all the heavy rainfall we’ve had they still insist on watering the pitch ? It makes no sense to me. Maybe some of our pitch experts can enlighten me ?
It assists knee slides, an important part of the modern game.
Good case study for comparing the integrity of the club’s current communications with the past, in my view. This is an obvious problem which they are saying nothing about. Why not? Nobody is taken in by the silence, although perhaps they don’t want bring it to the attention of the substantive investors?
Still not clear how much the owners spent versus the grant versus the ‘normal’ pitch costs is it?
The fact we are silent on it does suggest the issue is not with the ‘suppliers’. Otherwise wouldn’t we be more public in voicing our concerns?
Just catching up on this thread, so this may have been commented on already. If the club is in dispute with the contractors then that's a good reason not to be more public in voicing our concerns.
Maybe but a simple we are ‘liaising with ‘ would suffice. But that’s not really been proactively provided.
If you say nothing then it’s not surprising others fill in the blanks.
If what I heard on Saturday is true............... the pitch is heavily rolled now to stop it cutting up too much where the grass is thin/non-existent and certain things were done to save money (against sensible advice) when contract was placed and pitch was re-laid in the summer...... not too much can be done properly until weather improves and footie stops in the summer.
Can you elaborate ? What wasn’t done to save what sort of sums?
My cynicism remains how much cash we really stumped up versus any other year.
Now who has a history of trying to save money to impress the powers that be and was given various projects while on "Gardening leave" I'll be interested to see if Bath RFC get a new pitch in the summer #Burgerboy
Can anyone tell me why despite all the heavy rainfall we’ve had they still insist on watering the pitch ? It makes no sense to me. Maybe some of our pitch experts can enlighten me ?
It assists knee slides, an important part of the modern game.
didn't help Campbell much!
Probably more to do with his technique and execution than the pitch. Did all the hard work, got into a decent position, fluffed it!
We need to sign another veteran player like Hylton, but this time someone who can help our youngsters with their goal celebrations.
Good case study for comparing the integrity of the club’s current communications with the past, in my view. This is an obvious problem which they are saying nothing about. Why not? Nobody is taken in by the silence, although perhaps they don’t want bring it to the attention of the substantive investors?
Still not clear how much the owners spent versus the grant versus the ‘normal’ pitch costs is it?
The fact we are silent on it does suggest the issue is not with the ‘suppliers’. Otherwise wouldn’t we be more public in voicing our concerns?
Just catching up on this thread, so this may have been commented on already. If the club is in dispute with the contractors then that's a good reason not to be more public in voicing our concerns.
Maybe but a simple we are ‘liaising with ‘ would suffice. But that’s not really been proactively provided.
If you say nothing then it’s not surprising others fill in the blanks.
Good case study for comparing the integrity of the club’s current communications with the past, in my view. This is an obvious problem which they are saying nothing about. Why not? Nobody is taken in by the silence, although perhaps they don’t want bring it to the attention of the substantive investors?
Still not clear how much the owners spent versus the grant versus the ‘normal’ pitch costs is it?
The fact we are silent on it does suggest the issue is not with the ‘suppliers’. Otherwise wouldn’t we be more public in voicing our concerns?
Just catching up on this thread, so this may have been commented on already. If the club is in dispute with the contractors then that's a good reason not to be more public in voicing our concerns.
Maybe but a simple we are ‘liaising with ‘ would suffice. But that’s not really been proactively provided.
If you say nothing then it’s not surprising others fill in the blanks.
The club hasn't really done proactive comms since about 2012. It's ingrained in the culture at this point. The practice is say as little as possible about anything except stuff that has no potential to be contentious.
Good case study for comparing the integrity of the club’s current communications with the past, in my view. This is an obvious problem which they are saying nothing about. Why not? Nobody is taken in by the silence, although perhaps they don’t want bring it to the attention of the substantive investors?
Still not clear how much the owners spent versus the grant versus the ‘normal’ pitch costs is it?
The fact we are silent on it does suggest the issue is not with the ‘suppliers’. Otherwise wouldn’t we be more public in voicing our concerns?
Just catching up on this thread, so this may have been commented on already. If the club is in dispute with the contractors then that's a good reason not to be more public in voicing our concerns.
Maybe but a simple we are ‘liaising with ‘ would suffice. But that’s not really been proactively provided.
If you say nothing then it’s not surprising others fill in the blanks.
The club hasn't really done proactive comms since about 2012. It's ingrained in the culture at this point. The practice is say as little as possible about anything except stuff that has no potential to be contentious.
"least said, soonest mended" is a cliché for a reason
Good case study for comparing the integrity of the club’s current communications with the past, in my view. This is an obvious problem which they are saying nothing about. Why not? Nobody is taken in by the silence, although perhaps they don’t want bring it to the attention of the substantive investors?
Still not clear how much the owners spent versus the grant versus the ‘normal’ pitch costs is it?
The fact we are silent on it does suggest the issue is not with the ‘suppliers’. Otherwise wouldn’t we be more public in voicing our concerns?
Just catching up on this thread, so this may have been commented on already. If the club is in dispute with the contractors then that's a good reason not to be more public in voicing our concerns.
Maybe but a simple we are ‘liaising with ‘ would suffice. But that’s not really been proactively provided.
If you say nothing then it’s not surprising others fill in the blanks.
The club hasn't really done proactive comms since about 2012. It's ingrained in the culture at this point. The practice is say as little as possible about anything except stuff that has no potential to be contentious.
"least said, soonest mended" is a cliché for a reason
“Communicate, communicate, communicate” is a much more effective (and profitable) business philosophy…
Comments
The Mount Pleasant boys brought their own grass
Just catching up on this thread, so this may have been commented on already. If the club is in dispute with the contractors then that's a good reason not to be more public in voicing our concerns.
My cynicism remains how much cash we really stumped up versus any other year.
I'll be interested to see if Bath RFC get a new pitch in the summer
#Burgerboy