Now they've wheeled out the Groundsman

[Samdy Gray]

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/sport/sportlatest/display.var.1443144.0.swindon_town_rovers_wont_be_a_pain_in_the_grass.php

"Let's make Peacock look stupid by getting the groundsman to say the pitch can handle 50 games in one season"

:nuts:

[Give us an S]

We used to have one of the best playing surfaces in the country. Last season though it wasnt the best. Having Rovers play on it too will only make it worse.

[Simon Pieman]

I think it's fair enough if it's true.

I think people will be more inclined to 'side' with Peacock anyway

[TalkTalk]

I think it's fair enough if it's true.

I think people will be more inclined to 'side' with Peacock anyway

No, it isn't true.

That is board directed horse shit.

I had many conversations with Marcus last season when putting the flags out.

He was fed up with the reserves playing on the pitch as well as training sessions and he regularly pointed out the damage it was doing ahead of match days.

The club only spent a fraction of the playing surface budget last season as well.

The Adver piece is not Marcus's fault, he's just doing what he is told.

[Simon Pieman]

So did Sports Turf make him do it then?

edit:

I also see he notes that more money will need to be spent on it for it to work. Oh and last season is last season.

I'm not being naive, I have no doubt they've wheeled out the groundsman as propaganda, but what has been said isn't entirely unreasonable.

[Batch]

Starting to look a bit ominous to me. Statement saying they will consult fans/residents, Starnes saying the club will be holding a meeting in the next couple of weeks for fans/residents, groundsman saying the pitch will take it, Rovers delaying naming the location.....

[RobertT]

The pitch is a red herring anyway, it's not like we will suddenly become a fantastic passing team next season just because the pitch is nice.  We know what to expect, get it forward quickly use the men out wide to whip in crosses with midfield workhorses to break up play.

I like the pitch argument though because it's one that is very hard to hide the answer to as the season goes on.  It's either shit or it's not.  From a personal point of view it's been shit for 2 seasons at least (being the two I've managed to step foot on it) way to soft under foot, was like standing on a sponge at times.

[glos_robin]

Ever since the play-off season the pitch has been woeful and for the last 2 seasons quite frankly it hasn't been fit for league football. The grass hasn't bedded in properly and comes off far to easily leaving large bare areas down the centre of the pitch.
Without spending large amounts of money I don't see how the problem can suddenly be remedied and the Rovers groundshare will just make the problem worst.

Hopefully this interview was just the adver asking the groundsman a few questions IF the groundshare did happen although I would never rule anything out.
With the amount of local opposition from Councillors, local residents, supporters and even players growing this groundshare is possibly the lowest this board has ever sank. It became clear 2 or 3 weeks ago how anti-groundshare the whole of Swindon was and it should have been ruled out back then.
If they do groundshare with Rovers then I just presume they don't see any future for the club at the CG site as it'd take ages to get locals back on side.

[ronnie21]

If the pitch is ok to handle Rovers games here, why the heck did they tell us that the reserves would play at Supermarine last season "to save the pitch".

[Summerof69]

Pesonally, when I saw that in the Adver today, I thought it was a desperate measure from a desperate board.

I thought the article by the columnist in yesterday's Adver (by the letters page) summed it up nicely when he said (about the groundshare):

'But there's no need for it, surely, because everyone's already made it quite plain that they're opposed to this whole shebang.

So just nail it to the door - say 'we're on to make £xxx,xxx from this and we want them to come here' rather than hiding behind talk of in-depth meetings and consultation.'

[RobertT]

Exactly, they'd probably get half as much opposition from fans if they originally said "Rovers want to groundshare and it seems the deal, after all costs, will net us £200k".

They were always going to get the local residents though.  I'd imagine having a ground with 46 min games and local rivals occupying it might just knock a few quid of your house value (especially an area where people already get very aggitated about parking permits).

[Razzledazzle]

The board allowing the groundshare despite the majority being against it will hopefully put the final nail in the boards coffin, i hope they suffer the consequences for allowing this to happen.

[Summerof69]

Be we all know that they won't tell us how much they're likely to make, as they like to keep all income 'hidden' from you and I, as proved by the fact that they've never told us how much anyone has been sold for over the last few years.

[herthab]

The feeling on the Rovers forum is that they're gonna postpone any groundshare until the season after next.

This will, apparently, enable Baths ground to be brought up to league spec.

Team Baths agreement with Bath also ends at the end of this season.

[sonic youth]

that would be the sensible answer for everyone hertha...so it probably won't be the case.

what the fuck has it got to do with cassidy anyway? he's not even employed by the club.