Exile 1976 wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Alan G Bryant wrote:If I recall correctly it was in good condition for a season when we had the initial new pitch from Phil Day sports. It was the shoddy maintenance by Rodney Parade that caused the drainage problem, although .

Utter nonsense.

Not too sure it is nonsense Brendan. Wasn't it in the official report that the Rodney Parade staff had messed the drainage up through their poor maintenance?

The report we weren't allowed to see. And if you recall Dave Boddy's polythene fiasco. However neither were the cause. After Dave and Teflon's mate were employed they only did half the pitch in any event.

The main cause of the problem was a long standing drainage problem. The WRU fixed it. Frankly the Dragons couldn't afford to.

A few facts in the interest of informing the debate -

The report was issued publicly - English Football League Condition Assessment Report – Rodney Parade Stadium Prepared by: Paul Woodham Date: 12th December 2016

The deterioration in the drainage since the previous report was reported as follows:

During the end of season renovation (May 2016) the turf was taken off the surface and the upper profile cultivated and redistributed to improve surface levels, most notably raising the height of the pitch in the south west sector.
The movement of the soils has disturbed the sand cap layer above the underlying drainage systems. The sand cap has also become contaminated with soils through the process and wear and tear. Organic matter is forming and connection to drainage has been compromised.
In areas where the pitch height has been raised, the gravel slit drains have being buried and lost connection to the surface. Underlying drainage appears to be largely intact and active.
Sward cover has significantly worn as a result of the intensive fixture schedule and there is little strength in the profile to prevent slippage. A recent application of sand dressing gave the appearance of a bare surface in areas of high wear.
The net result is that the surface is vulnerable to holding moisture and ponding up during periods of rainfall. There is a real risk of further games being called off or abandoned if a fixture coincides with a period of wet conditions.

Essentially, the report outlines work carried out on the recommendation of the same consultants after they were engaged by RP towards the end of 2013-14.
- The pitch held up well in 2014-15.
- The consultants weren't engaged beyond the end of that season.
- Works carried out in summer 2016 which included raising part of the pitch undid the benefits of the summer 2014 drainage improvements.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Alan G Bryant wrote:If I recall correctly it was in good condition for a season when we had the initial new pitch from Phil Day sports. It was the shoddy maintenance by Rodney Parade that caused the drainage problem, although .

Utter nonsense.

Totally agree with you Stan!

The staff work really hard on the pitch, in no way could shoddy maintenance be an excuse.

Willthiswork wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Alan G Bryant wrote:If I recall correctly it was in good condition for a season when we had the initial new pitch from Phil Day sports. It was the shoddy maintenance by Rodney Parade that caused the drainage problem, although .

Utter nonsense.

Totally agree with you Stan!

The staff work really hard on the pitch, in no way could shoddy maintenance be an excuse.

You need to read the report extract that Amberexile posted Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:12 pm before excluding shoddy maintenance.

whoareya wrote:

Willthiswork wrote:

Alan G Bryant wrote:If I recall correctly it was in good condition for a season when we had the initial new pitch from Phil Day sports. It was the shoddy maintenance by Rodney Parade that caused the drainage problem, although .

Totally agree with you Stan!

The staff work really hard on the pitch, in no way could shoddy maintenance be an excuse.

You need to read the report extract that Amberexile posted Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:12 pm before excluding shoddy maintenance.

There may have been shoddy maintenance going back years. Whether or not it was the sole cause of the problems I don't know. I do know Phil Day failed to fix the problem. Which is the point Bryant got wrong.

Whether a pitch has been fixed or not is a "how long is a piece of string" question, but the expert report does say "The performance monitoring visits [during 2014-15] noted reasonable performance given the pressure of hosting football and two rugby teams on a soil based pitch in an area of South Wales prone to high rainfall."

George Street-Bridge wrote:Whether a pitch has been fixed or not is a "how long is a piece of string" question, but the expert report does say "The performance monitoring visits [during 2014-15] noted reasonable performance given the pressure of hosting football and two rugby teams on a soil based pitch in an area of South Wales prone to high rainfall."

Which is true. However Rodney Parade hosted Newport RFC and Newport United back in the 1970's. Which in fairness would have been harder on the playing surface, two rugby teams using the pitch every Saturday and many midweek fixtures.

Back then grass technology was not a patch on today's. But the pitch stood up. I really don't get why it is beyond the understanding of some. Three teams is not ideal for wear and tear but the flooding was caused not by three teams, not by the river Usk, but by a problem with the drains.

I watched quite a few Newport RFC games in the 80's (free schools tickets) and the pitch was awful in winter. You could play rugby on it but there would have been many football games called off back then..

Yes, which the 2014 works remedied to the extent the pitch stood up reasonably, only for the next lot of works to create conditions which left water pooling and unable to reach the improved drains.

Chronologically, Dave Boddy was County's CE when the first set of works was carried out but had left months before the second set.

George Street-Bridge wrote:Yes, which the 2014 works remedied to the extent the pitch stood up reasonably, only for the next lot of works to create conditions which left water pooling and unable to reach the improved drains.

Chronologically, Dave Boddy was County's CE when the first set of works was carried out but had left months before the second set.

If you recall even Phil Day only claimed to have fixed half the pitch. Still never let the facts get in the way, eh?

Exile 1976 wrote:I watched quite a few Newport RFC games in the 80's (free schools tickets) and the pitch was awful in winter. You could play rugby on it but there would have been many football games called off back then..

It didn't flood. Wear and tear is different from flooding. Modern technology has greatly improved grass wear and tear. Remember the Baseball ground?

Now clearly if you don't play on a pitch it remains pristine, the more you play on it the more damage is done. My single point is Phil Day failed to remedy the problem. Further whatever you think of the WRU as landlords, they did!

It took them two Summers rather than the scheduled one but when Phil Day eventually finished their work on the pitch in the Summer of 2014, what followed was a full season without a single postponed home match.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Exile 1976 wrote:I watched quite a few Newport RFC games in the 80's (free schools tickets) and the pitch was awful in winter. You could play rugby on it but there would have been many football games called off back then..

It didn't flood. Wear and tear is different from flooding. Modern technology has greatly improved grass wear and tear. Remember the Baseball ground?

Now clearly if you don't play on a pitch it remains pristine, the more you play on it the more damage is done. My single point is Phil Day failed to remedy the problem. Further whatever you think of the WRU as landlords, they did!

I don't think anyone has doubted that the WRU have remedied the problem. However , the RP staff pre WRU takeover are at least partly responsible for the state of it with their poor maintenance & "ah just chuck 100 tonnes of sand on it" approach...

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Exile 1976 wrote:I watched quite a few Newport RFC games in the 80's (free schools tickets) and the pitch was awful in winter. You could play rugby on it but there would have been many football games called off back then..

It didn't flood. Wear and tear is different from flooding. Modern technology has greatly improved grass wear and tear. Remember the Baseball ground?

Now clearly if you don't play on a pitch it remains pristine, the more you play on it the more damage is done. My single point is Phil Day failed to remedy the problem. Further whatever you think of the WRU as landlords, they did!

Certainly the WRU have appeared to have remedied the pitch problems as far as is possible given the need for a 'grass' surface. Of course their preferred option was for a 4G artificial pitch. My understanding is however the county are expected.in installments, to contribute £250,000 towards the cost of the pitch.

In response to the poster who referred to the amount of rugby games played on it in the 70's, it wouldn't have been fit for soccer, given the unevenness and the very long length of grass compared to today's requirements. I can give testament to that having played a number of games on it for Newport rfc youth in that era. I also recall the groundsman, who's name escapes me, often saying that heavy rainfall coinciding with the rivers high tide would inevitably slow down the drainage.