Worthing pitch

Pros and cons on 'non grass' pitches Rob.

Its certainly flat, and overcomes the need for continuous watering and seeding during the summer, somwething that may become more vital as the climate changes.
Ends the possibilities of postponements during bad weather, although snow still has to be brushed off!! 
Makes pitches available for renting out 24hrs, to other organisations, or clubs sharing, and raising valuable finance.

It is, however very expensive to lay in the first place, and still needs occasional maintenance, and replacement every  ten years or so.
The type of football played on it is very different to that played on grass, ( although we coped with it quite well on Saturday!!)
Bounce of the ball is different, and it skids across the surface rather than holding on grass. Different footwear is also needed. More trainers than boots!!
It takes a toll on players knee and ankle joints over time (ask Ricky) as the give is not as soft as on well kept grass.

I still believe that Clubs with the non grass surface have an advantage over Clubs without one, for 50% of the season, and that can't be a good thing for football in general.

Also, currently, the EFL do not allow synthetic pitches so there is a huge cost involved in ripping it out again and returning to grass for those fortunate to be in the promotion place, ala Sutton and Harrogate for example.

So the jury is out as far as I am concerned. Initial costs of laying plus hiring out costs less replacement and maintenance costs less removal if successful costs!

Depends on the individual Club's ambitions and finance as to whether it is viable or not!

The conundrum will only be sorted when the F.A/PL/EFL allow synthetic pitches for everyone, and the finances to support it, that they will become the norm and football will change once again for ever. 

My personal view? football belongs on grass. This is not the NFL in America.

No thanks!

Yes they made it work so that they got a promotion to EFL out of it, but then had to rip it up and re-lay gras to comply with entry!!

I wonder what the cost implications were on the whole exercise?, and would they do it again if they ever return to National League?

The former Sutton Manager, who's company laid the synthetic pitch, moved on to Havant who, surprise surprise, now have a synthetic pitch. Cynics could suggest an ulterior motive here somewhere, but I couldn't possibly comment.

We played there recently, narrowly losing late on, so maybe we learnt something from that to take to Worthing?

Whatever the debate will go on until the powers at be make a decision one way or the other, but don't hold your breath!!

Sutton were still quids-in after ripping-up the 3G and putting grass back - they were essentially paid handsomely by the EFL to do so as the last thing they want is a club questioning why and holding-out on defying their rule. The 3G served Sutton very well for as long as they needed it as a revenue stream - however once you have the 3G you still have to re-lay it on a fairly regular basis as it wears out through use, therefore there is a significant maintenance cost on the pitch after it is laid and the process is more than just a one-off cost meaning you need to be renting it out to accumulate the money you need to re-lay.

On that basis then would break even. But you are making the assumption that a club would not earn profit by renting out the pitch. The whole point is presumably that the revenue will exceed the maintenance costs.

I'd like to know Spencer's thoughts on the pitch,don't think he made comment on it in his post match interview.