Your thought processes really are cracked, aren't they?

Who was it you were saying on another thread two hours ago was the "Greatest shit ever to pull on a Liverpool shirt"?

George Street-Bridge wrote:Your thought processes really are cracked, aren't they?

Who was it you were saying on another thread two hours ago was the "Greatest shit ever to pull on a Liverpool shirt"?

I can only apologise. I didn't know you had once played for Liverpool.

Back on topic, potty mouth. The AGM report says "Clubs who ground share with another sport must have a hybrid or similar pitch installed. For existing ground shares, this requirement will come into effect from 1 July 2019."

It's a good job we have wound up ahead of the game here. I wonder if knowing this was coming sooner or later explains why we have contributed towards the new pitch. Conversely, if it hadn't been installed we might be looking at having to fund the whole project.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

George Street-Bridge wrote:Back on topic, potty mouth. The AGM report says "Clubs who ground share with another sport must have a hybrid or similar pitch installed. For existing ground shares, this requirement will come into effect from 1 July 2019."

It's a good job we have wound up ahead of the game here. I wonder if knowing this was coming sooner or later explains why we have contributed towards the new pitch. Conversely, if it hadn't been installed we might be looking at having to fund the whole project.

Again George you're absolutely right. What you say may be the case. By the same token it might not be. Now to expand the point. My view is that if the supporters/owners of Newport County knew for a fact that County were responsible for paying half of the pitch improvement costs because of an EFL edict, then they/we would be far more likely to stump up for this than would be the case if they/we thought that the WRU were screwing us.

It is a matter on which I would genuinely be interested on your viewpoint and if you disagree why you disagree. Your views on canines, me and faeces are I must confess not of any great interest or concern.

This move appears to be pre_emptive. There maybe something in the wind that they want to stop. Perhaps concerning a National League club or maybe a new stadium proposal (Brentford Community Stadium?).

My guess is it's much more subtle than that. It didn't become an edict until four days ago and then as the outcome of an AGM at which all clubs would have had a say. Presumably it had been in the offing for some time and wasn't sprung on the meeting. Our directors mix with other directors 40-odd times a year and they would always know which way the wind is blowing.

This is piling supposition upon supposition, but what if the WRU said last summer "OK, the pitch needs sorting out. We'll put in a hybrid if you make a contribution."

If we knew which way the wind was blowing, it would have been a very smart move by the board to future-proof our status like that - but it doesn't fit with the narrative here which is often to believe the worst.

Were we definitely in for half the bill? And over what schedule?

G Guest wrote:This move appears to be pre_emptive. There maybe something in the wind that they want to stop. Perhaps concerning a National League club or maybe a new stadium proposal (Brentford Community Stadium?).

Good call. I've see both London Irish and London RL mentioned as possible sharers.

G Guest wrote:This move appears to be pre_emptive. There maybe something in the wind that they want to stop. Perhaps concerning s National League club or maybe a new stadium proposal (Brentford Community Stadium?).

Your guess is as good as mine and indeed may be better.

My view is simply that the concern raised in the original post is a legitimate one. I think that our club should check. It may be of course that they already have done so. I would hope they have.

They wouldn't need to check. They were part of the decision-making process.

George Street-Bridge wrote:They wouldn't need to check. They were part of the decision-making process.

So what harm could possibly be done if one of the directors, we know they read this board, were to lay the original posters concern to rest? This is the thing you see George, someone asks a pertinent question. We can all have an opinion as to what the answer is, but an opinion can be wrong. For what is is worth I think you are probably right. However where I am not sure I make it clear I'm not sure.If your reaction to someone saying that they think your opinion is correct but pointing out that it is an opinion not a fact is to call that person a 'dog sniffing turds in the park' fair enough. But I'd be wary of being sanctimonious.

My point is it's not really a pertinent question, unless you think the EFL's press office would perpetrate such a colossal howler.

The club in the real world has far better things to do than respond every time someone on a message board gets the wrong end of the stick.

George Street-Bridge wrote:My point is it's not really a pertinent question, unless you think the EFL's press office would perpetrate such a colossal howler.

The club in the real world has far better things to do than respond every time someone on a message board gets the wrong end of the stick.

Well again let's examine your analysis.

If Tottenham were to be relegated before the White Hart Lane's refurbishment were complete presumably the EFL would reject Spurs on the basis of Wembley being used for more than one sport. If Huddersfield or Wigan or Reading or Swansea were to put on a boxing show one June evening would they be expelled from the EFL?

Do I think that the EFL press office is capable of such a mistake? Yes and in truth your use of the word 'colossal' is a bit of an exaggeration don't you think? As for directors having better things to do. Really 30 seconds to allay the concern of a supporter. You think that's too much bother?

Well, yes. If I said colossal I think it would be colossal.

And the word "ordinarily" qualifies the thing about more than one sport anyway.

As the original poster my concern was that if the rule was to protect the playing surface (which the rule on hybrid pitches I assume is targeted at) then we are fine. If the rule is targeted at access to the stadium for replays, re-arranged games etc then potentially they could look to tighten the rules further in future if there is fixture congestion where other sports influence availability of the stadium.

I'm sure the club have all this in hand and it's part of the long term stadium planning considerations. Just thought it was an interesting move on the part of the EFL.