Not sure. I only know about it as I've seen it mentioned a few times on documentaries about Dennis Law that I've seen over the years.
It just seems a shame when absolutely nothing is safe from the generic 'prima donnas' rant. As if the next time someone stubs their toe on the coffee table it'll be because Wayne Rooney earns £11m a year or that Steven Gerrard went over too easily in the box once.
That was a rare event, how often did matches used to get postponed because the pitch was too hard or too wet? Footballers keep telling us they deserve their high wages as they're in the entertainment business so let them justify it by taking a few risks as they get more than enough danger money rather than prancing about in gloves and snouds.
That was a rare event, how often did matches used to get postponed because the pitch was too hard or too wet? Footballers keep telling us they deserve their high wages as they're in the entertainment business so let them justify it by taking a few risks as they get more than enough danger money rather than prancing about in gloves and snouds.
You know it's not the players that make decisions to call games off don't you??
That was a rare event, how often did matches used to get postponed because the pitch was too hard or too wet? Footballers keep telling us they deserve their high wages as they're in the entertainment business so let them justify it by taking a few risks as they get more than enough danger money rather than prancing about in gloves and snouds.
If I just want entertainment I'll go to the circus thanks.
The Ipswich vs Leicester match was quite entertaining in its way, but it wasn't a surface that a Championship footballl match should have been getting played on.
I certainly have no wish to view top matches played on surfaces like that or worse.
By the way, isn't that Tevez a waste of space in his gloves and snood, time he put in some effort ?! Nasri's been hiding away too :rolleyes:. Can never understand supposed serious pundits and others going on about such things. If the player is more comfortable like that, fair enough. I think some players maybe don't wear gloves just to seem manly and because of such comments, and maybe some might feel better with a pair of gloves on and also do better.
It's arguably a bit silly not to wear gloves in some of these temperatures. I often see cross country runnbers ( i.e. moving all the time ) wearing gloves in winter. But if some have greater cold thresholds, fair enough.
That was a rare event, how often did matches used to get postponed because the pitch was too hard or too wet? Footballers keep telling us they deserve their high wages as they're in the entertainment business so let them justify it by taking a few risks as they get more than enough danger money rather than prancing about in gloves and snouds.
You haven't a clue what you are talking about. When was the last time a player did a pitch inspection.
You haven't a clue what you are talking about. When was the last time a player did a pitch inspection.
I'm afraid you are just being daft now.
Really??? you don't say, there was me thinking that players did the pitch inspections and fans inspected the streets to see if they were safe to walk to matches on:eek:
The players don't inspect pitches and call off matches but the matches are called off to protect them these days when it used to be a case of matches went ahead regardless and players took the risk - the same way games are now also called off if its deemed to slippery for fans to walk to games rather than leave it up to people whether they wanted to risk it themselves or not - its becoming a game for softies and weaklings imo.
Really??? you don't say, there was me thinking that players did the pitch inspections and fans inspected the streets to see if they were safe to walk to matches on:eek:
The players don't inspect pitches and call off matches but the matches are called off to protect them these days when it used to be a case of matches went ahead regardless and players took the risk - the same way games are now also called off if its deemed to slippery for fans to walk to games rather than leave it up to people whether they wanted to risk it themselves or not - its becoming a game for softies and weaklings imo.
When was this mythical time when games went ahead regardless and players took risk?
Looking for a specific match, date, time, year etc, please?
Really??? you don't say, there was me thinking that players did the pitch inspections and fans inspected the streets to see if they were safe to walk to matches on:eek:
The players don't inspect pitches and call off matches but the matches are called off to protect them these days when it used to be a case of matches went ahead regardless and players took the risk - the same way games are now also called off if its deemed to slippery for fans to walk to games rather than leave it up to people whether they wanted to risk it themselves or not - its becoming a game for softies and weaklings imo.
You said they need to justify their wages by taking a few risks then you admit it's not them that decides whether to play or not. What do you suggest they do, go for a kick about in the empty stadium? Like I say, you really dont know what you are talking about.
I think the problem with modern day footballers is that they don't care. They don't try as hard. I think it's the fact that they're overpaid. Look at David Beckham for one. Can't stand the sight of him. He's in all the magazines I buy and his name is splashed all over that perfume I wear. It's over exposure.
It's probably all that diving they do. Can't be diving on ice, the poor babies might chip a nail. I remember, quite vividly, back in the 70's they used to deliberately ice over Stamford Bridge in the winter. You'd fall over, break a tooth, fracture you're skull and still get up and get on the end of a corner with your head. And the balls were heavier back then too.
The ice made a nice change from the usual tarmac they played in. If you got through a game without breaking something you were considered something of a little nancy boy. These days they rush them to hospital at smallest chance of concussion. I remember when you had to be clinically dead, burried and/or cremated before they even examined you for concussion.
St John's Ambulance on hand now. Back in the day it was just Terry and his mate Keith with a **** and a bottle of water. Never used to have stretchers back then. If you were seriously injured on the field you were just left to die and the Co-Op took care of the body at a convenient interval. Such as when the referee stopped the game so the skinheads could have a ruck with the Teddy boys in the centre circle.
It should be a new rule - undersoil heating needed.
Having to reschedule games is a pain in the arse so you should be forced to give the best possible chance of your games going ahead - and without undersoil heating you don't do that.
It should be a new rule - undersoil heating needed.
.
and what do you propose if a promoted club dose not have undersoil heating ? ban them from the premier league ? -
The better soloution would be to say that any club without undersoil heating winning promotrion must have it installed within 2 seasons or face a fine.
It should be a new rule - undersoil heating needed.
Having to reschedule games is a pain in the arse so you should be forced to give the best possible chance of your games going ahead - and without undersoil heating you don't do that.
Would it make a massive difference ? There are plenty of teams had to pp matches that have already got undersoil heating.
and what do you propose if a promoted club dose not have undersoil heating ? ban them from the premier league ? -
If the rule is there and a promoted club dont have it, and for whatever reason say they cant get it in the close season, then yes, you stop them getting promoted and keep one of the relegated teams in the league.
Both Forest and Wednesday have had to pp games too despite having undersoil heating which kind of pi**es on the o.p.'s fire.
Only if the reason for postponing was because they pitch was frozen, despite having undersoil heating. If they were called off for the amoint of snow or how the local area was or something else like that then not so much.
Both Forest and Wednesday have had to pp games too despite having undersoil heating which kind of pi**es on the o.p.'s fire.
Well, no it doesn't really. It's quite simple and I don't understand why so many people don't understand it. The fact that Forest and Wednesday have undersoil heating but had games called off is irrelevant.
What posters are saying, or at least the more sensible ones are saying is that if a Club have undersoil heating there is a greater prospect of the game being played. Of course it doesn't guarantee it because there are other factors to be considered.
Blackpool can't be punished because there is no rule. Effectively, they are likely to be punished anyway when fixtures pile up and the players start to struggle with having a large number of games within a short period
Both Forest and Wednesday have had to pp games too despite having undersoil heating which kind of pi**es on the o.p.'s fire.
Not really, it just shows you don't understand the point or haven't read the thread properly.
Those games, including Middlesbrough's game were called off despite the pitch being totally playable. They were called off because of the surrounding conditions, another sore point when it comes to postponing things
Whereas Blackpool's ground and the area was fine, it was solely the pitch
Not really, it just shows you don't understand the point or haven't read the thread properly.
Those games, including Middlesbrough's game were called off despite the pitch being totally playable. They were called off because of the surrounding conditions, another sore point when it comes to postponing things
Whereas Blackpool's ground and the area was fine, it was solely the pitch
I understand the point completely, but what you are picking on is only one factor, you say that the Boro game had a playable surface for example but I believe that boro DON'T have undersoil heating, so simply picking out one aspect for punishment is silly, this is the worst winter since the 1800's apparently meaning this weather is not to be expected every year, so the simple answer for everybody is "deal with it".... Does it really matter that much ?
This thread annoys me, apart from the fact that Blackpool haven't broken any rules, to have fans moaning over them having to call off 3 games at home in a row is poor.
Let's turn the clock back to the late 80's and early 90's just before the advent of the "Premier League". Manchester United were one of the so called "big 6" of the time, but didn't have undersoil heating and we expected at least one or two games a season to be postponed if the weather got cold enough. Our neighbours in Manchester had undersoil heating, and yet United was as now seen to be a "rich" club able to break transfer records etc. Yet no one moaned about United having the biggest and best stadium, the most expensive players and yet no USH. Even when they decided to install a system they chose to put in a electric system which was quite different to the traditional systems in place around the country. What did it do? It failed in the first season and ruined the pitch, and United had to replace it with something more traditional.
Fast forward a few years, and whilst United had won the premier league a few times, no one complained that the standard of pitch at Old Trafford was poor, it's taken them years to get a decent surface, which can be used for other things as well as football. Yet, no one suggested that due to the poor quality pitch that was being patched up and replaced 2 or 3 times a season, that United should be punished. This may not seem to be the same arguement, but we are talking about pitches that should be fit and fair to play on for every team and shouldn't favour one team.
As for Blackpool, this is a team that at the start of last season were the favourites to go down to League One, not one expected to end up wiht promotion. This time last year they were on the edges of the play-off's but weren't being talked about in terms of lasting the course. The fact that they ened up winning the play-off's and subsequently having to build a new stand within 3 or 4 months as opposed to say 6 to 12 months, as well as rebuilding a team on a budget, meant that some things had to be sacrafised I'm sure. Any talk of punishment for Blackpool for these games being postponed is stupid, Frozen pitches and surrounding area's are not something anyone can plan for in say June or July. How far ahead does the Met Office give weather forecasts for? Maybe we should blame them for not informing the clubs well in advance of impending cold weather, and giving them time to do something.
This thread annoys me, apart from the fact that Blackpool haven't broken any rules, to have fans moaning over them having to call off 3 games at home in a row is poor.
Let's turn the clock back to the late 80's and early 90's just before the advent of the "Premier League". Manchester United were one of the so called "big 6" of the time, but didn't have undersoil heating and we expected at least one or two games a season to be postponed if the weather got cold enough. Our neighbours in Manchester had undersoil heating, and yet United was as now seen to be a "rich" club able to break transfer records etc. Yet no one moaned about United having the biggest and best stadium, the most expensive players and yet no USH. Even when they decided to install a system they chose to put in a electric system which was quite different to the traditional systems in place around the country. What did it do? It failed in the first season and ruined the pitch, and United had to replace it with something more traditional.
Fast forward a few years, and whilst United had won the premier league a few times, no one complained that the standard of pitch at Old Trafford was poor, it's taken them years to get a decent surface, which can be used for other things as well as football. Yet, no one suggested that due to the poor quality pitch that was being patched up and replaced 2 or 3 times a season, that United should be punished. This may not seem to be the same arguement, but we are talking about pitches that should be fit and fair to play on for every team and shouldn't favour one team.
As for Blackpool, this is a team that at the start of last season were the favourites to go down to League One, not one expected to end up wiht promotion. This time last year they were on the edges of the play-off's but weren't being talked about in terms of lasting the course. The fact that they ened up winning the play-off's and subsequently having to build a new stand within 3 or 4 months as opposed to say 6 to 12 months, as well as rebuilding a team on a budget, meant that some things had to be sacrafised I'm sure. Any talk of punishment for Blackpool for these games being postponed is stupid, Frozen pitches and surrounding area's are not something anyone can plan for in say June or July. How far ahead does the Met Office give weather forecasts for? Maybe we should blame them for not informing the clubs well in advance of impending cold weather, and giving them time to do something.
I'm sorry but your point is complete hogwash I'm afraid.
Firstly, can we please stop thinking that everything can be excused by pointing at what used to happen many years ago? What relevance does this have? Are we government ministers in respect that we defend poor decisions by mentioning how much poorer things were under the last administration?
What kind of basis is this for a debate?
"You might say this is wrong but if I may refer you back to February of 1986, you'll note that the mighty Arsenal once had a game postponed due to a waterlogged pitch..."
What relevance does that have? I'll tell you - absolutely nothing.
Also this ridiculous notion that people try to turn this into a quasi-socialist 'class war' is beyond embarrassment for both themselves and the threat, to be honest. It has nothing to do with Manchester United or Chelsea in their 'ivory towers' or the 'ruling classes' or the 'little people', so lets just end this plastic Marxism bull*** here and now, shall we?
The money that Premier league clubs receive now, even the 'smaller' clubsm is a tremendous amount and certainly enough to install undersoil heating. The point isn't that Blackpool should be punished for not having as much cash as Chelsea but that they should be reprimanded for not being able to host a home fixture since the middle of November until early January. Even that time span is constantly under review and it's touch and go whether the pitch will be ready even in early January.
People suggesting that in order for the fixture program to go ahead that the games may be moved to a neutral venue, are putting forward a very good point. The main aim of people's contentions here is to get the fixtures on and played and carry on with the season. It'll benefit both Blackpool and the other Premier League clubs if all their home games were moved to a neutral venue, until such a time when their pitch unfreezes and they can once again host games.
Instead we're supposed to ignore the fixture congestion and do sod all about it as Manchester United had their pitch relaid many times in the 90s and Fulham also don't have undersoil heating. I really, really, don't get this bizarre vantage point where people approach a debate not with a view of solving an issue but to try and point to other completely irrelevant things that are vaguely associated that have happened at various times in the last 20 years.
I'm sorry but your point is complete hogwash I'm afraid.
Firstly, can we please stop thinking that everything can be excused by pointing at what used to happen many years ago? What relevance does this have? Are we government ministers in respect that we defend poor decisions by mentioning how much poorer things were under the last administration?
What kind of basis is this for a debate?
"You might say this is wrong but if I may refer you back to February of 1986, you'll note that the mighty Arsenal once had a game postponed due to a waterlogged pitch..."
What relevance does that have? I'll tell you - absolutely nothing.
Also this ridiculous notion that people try to turn this into a quasi-socialist 'class war' is beyond embarrassment for both themselves and the threat, to be honest. It has nothing to do with Manchester United or Chelsea in their 'ivory towers' or the 'ruling classes' or the 'little people', so lets just end this plastic Marxism bull*** here and now, shall we?
The money that Premier league clubs receive now, even the 'smaller' clubsm is a tremendous amount and certainly enough to install undersoil heating. The point isn't that Blackpool should be punished for not having as much cash as Chelsea but that they should be reprimanded for not being able to host a home fixture since the middle of November until early January. Even that time span is constantly under review and it's touch and go whether the pitch will be ready even in early January.
People suggesting that in order for the fixture program to go ahead that the games may be moved to a neutral venue, are putting forward a very good point. The main aim of people's contentions here is to get the fixtures on and played and carry on with the season. It'll benefit both Blackpool and the other Premier League clubs if all their home games were moved to a neutral venue, until such a time when their pitch unfreezes and they can once again host games.
Instead we're supposed to ignore the fixture congestion and do sod all about it as Manchester United had their pitch relaid many times in the 90s and Fulham also don't have undersoil heating. I really, really, don't get this bizarre vantage point where people approach a debate not with a view of solving an issue but to try and point to other completely irrelevant things that are vaguely associated that have happened at various times in the last 20 years.
Indeed, this is 2010 and not 1980 or even 1990, but we can compare times as clubs through out time have had to deal with the harsh realities of bad winters and frozen pitches. The only differences between now and 1980 for example is that now USH is the norm and not the exception.
So let's find a solution to this problem first of all, The Premier League and the Football League should fund the installation of USH in every league ground next summer. That way clubs coming into the league and Premier League can afford to build a team to stay in the League/Premier League. Out of television revenues and gate receipts the clubs can pay back the respective authorities what they owe back during the following season.
The FA should then istall a rule that any football stadium being built for any club on the football pyramid has to have USH. That way even the proposed Ten Acre Lane Stadium of FC United will have to have USH.
As for suggesting that Blackpool have had any extra money to spend this summer is crazy. I can't believe that you are that stupid to think that they get any Premier League money before they've actually played? Blackpool's first and foremost aim this past summer was to construct a team good enough to stay in the league and then build a stand to make the stadium fit for Premier League rules. If as has been mentioned Fulham don't have USH, they they obviously have some way of making sure the pitch isn't frozen, or they use the excuse of the surrounding area a lot, other wise they'd have been punished by the league.
As for moving the games, Blackpool can come to Old Trafford if they want from Feb to March as United don't have a home game from Feb 19 till March 19th. That way we can make sure they are using a stadium with USH if we have a cold snap and no issue of fixture clashes.
The biggest problem though with the fixutre congestion is for the fans and more so the away club fans who have to travel midweek rather than over the weekend. Luckily for Blackpool, 2 of the 3 games lost has been against teams within an hours travel time from them. Whilst not convienient it would have been harder on the fans of say Arsenal to get up to Blackpool on a Tuesday in February or March. I know we'll hear managers moaning over too many games in a short period, but football today is a squad game and certainly both Liverpool and United should be able to field teams with up 8 or 9 changes in them to challenge Blackpool from the ones that played the previous weekend.
Comments
That was a rare event, how often did matches used to get postponed because the pitch was too hard or too wet? Footballers keep telling us they deserve their high wages as they're in the entertainment business so let them justify it by taking a few risks as they get more than enough danger money rather than prancing about in gloves and snouds.
You know it's not the players that make decisions to call games off don't you??
If I just want entertainment I'll go to the circus thanks.
The Ipswich vs Leicester match was quite entertaining in its way, but it wasn't a surface that a Championship footballl match should have been getting played on.
I certainly have no wish to view top matches played on surfaces like that or worse.
By the way, isn't that Tevez a waste of space in his gloves and snood, time he put in some effort ?! Nasri's been hiding away too :rolleyes:. Can never understand supposed serious pundits and others going on about such things. If the player is more comfortable like that, fair enough. I think some players maybe don't wear gloves just to seem manly and because of such comments, and maybe some might feel better with a pair of gloves on and also do better.
It's arguably a bit silly not to wear gloves in some of these temperatures. I often see cross country runnbers ( i.e. moving all the time ) wearing gloves in winter. But if some have greater cold thresholds, fair enough.
You haven't a clue what you are talking about. When was the last time a player did a pitch inspection.
I'm afraid you are just being daft now.
Really??? you don't say, there was me thinking that players did the pitch inspections and fans inspected the streets to see if they were safe to walk to matches on:eek:
The players don't inspect pitches and call off matches but the matches are called off to protect them these days when it used to be a case of matches went ahead regardless and players took the risk - the same way games are now also called off if its deemed to slippery for fans to walk to games rather than leave it up to people whether they wanted to risk it themselves or not - its becoming a game for softies and weaklings imo.
When was this mythical time when games went ahead regardless and players took risk?
Looking for a specific match, date, time, year etc, please?
Really running the gamut here.
You said they need to justify their wages by taking a few risks then you admit it's not them that decides whether to play or not. What do you suggest they do, go for a kick about in the empty stadium? Like I say, you really dont know what you are talking about.
It's probably all that diving they do. Can't be diving on ice, the poor babies might chip a nail. I remember, quite vividly, back in the 70's they used to deliberately ice over Stamford Bridge in the winter. You'd fall over, break a tooth, fracture you're skull and still get up and get on the end of a corner with your head. And the balls were heavier back then too.
The ice made a nice change from the usual tarmac they played in. If you got through a game without breaking something you were considered something of a little nancy boy. These days they rush them to hospital at smallest chance of concussion. I remember when you had to be clinically dead, burried and/or cremated before they even examined you for concussion.
St John's Ambulance on hand now. Back in the day it was just Terry and his mate Keith with a **** and a bottle of water. Never used to have stretchers back then. If you were seriously injured on the field you were just left to die and the Co-Op took care of the body at a convenient interval. Such as when the referee stopped the game so the skinheads could have a ruck with the Teddy boys in the centre circle.
Having to reschedule games is a pain in the arse so you should be forced to give the best possible chance of your games going ahead - and without undersoil heating you don't do that.
and what do you propose if a promoted club dose not have undersoil heating ? ban them from the premier league ? -
The better soloution would be to say that any club without undersoil heating winning promotrion must have it installed within 2 seasons or face a fine.
well apparently Everton who I believe do have undersoil heating had to postpone yesterday's game due to frozen pipes bursting.
If the rule is there and a promoted club dont have it, and for whatever reason say they cant get it in the close season, then yes, you stop them getting promoted and keep one of the relegated teams in the league.
Only if the reason for postponing was because they pitch was frozen, despite having undersoil heating. If they were called off for the amoint of snow or how the local area was or something else like that then not so much.
Well, no it doesn't really. It's quite simple and I don't understand why so many people don't understand it. The fact that Forest and Wednesday have undersoil heating but had games called off is irrelevant.
What posters are saying, or at least the more sensible ones are saying is that if a Club have undersoil heating there is a greater prospect of the game being played. Of course it doesn't guarantee it because there are other factors to be considered.
Blackpool can't be punished because there is no rule. Effectively, they are likely to be punished anyway when fixtures pile up and the players start to struggle with having a large number of games within a short period
Not really, it just shows you don't understand the point or haven't read the thread properly.
Those games, including Middlesbrough's game were called off despite the pitch being totally playable. They were called off because of the surrounding conditions, another sore point when it comes to postponing things
Whereas Blackpool's ground and the area was fine, it was solely the pitch
I understand the point completely, but what you are picking on is only one factor, you say that the Boro game had a playable surface for example but I believe that boro DON'T have undersoil heating, so simply picking out one aspect for punishment is silly, this is the worst winter since the 1800's apparently meaning this weather is not to be expected every year, so the simple answer for everybody is "deal with it".... Does it really matter that much ?
Let's turn the clock back to the late 80's and early 90's just before the advent of the "Premier League". Manchester United were one of the so called "big 6" of the time, but didn't have undersoil heating and we expected at least one or two games a season to be postponed if the weather got cold enough. Our neighbours in Manchester had undersoil heating, and yet United was as now seen to be a "rich" club able to break transfer records etc. Yet no one moaned about United having the biggest and best stadium, the most expensive players and yet no USH. Even when they decided to install a system they chose to put in a electric system which was quite different to the traditional systems in place around the country. What did it do? It failed in the first season and ruined the pitch, and United had to replace it with something more traditional.
Fast forward a few years, and whilst United had won the premier league a few times, no one complained that the standard of pitch at Old Trafford was poor, it's taken them years to get a decent surface, which can be used for other things as well as football. Yet, no one suggested that due to the poor quality pitch that was being patched up and replaced 2 or 3 times a season, that United should be punished. This may not seem to be the same arguement, but we are talking about pitches that should be fit and fair to play on for every team and shouldn't favour one team.
As for Blackpool, this is a team that at the start of last season were the favourites to go down to League One, not one expected to end up wiht promotion. This time last year they were on the edges of the play-off's but weren't being talked about in terms of lasting the course. The fact that they ened up winning the play-off's and subsequently having to build a new stand within 3 or 4 months as opposed to say 6 to 12 months, as well as rebuilding a team on a budget, meant that some things had to be sacrafised I'm sure. Any talk of punishment for Blackpool for these games being postponed is stupid, Frozen pitches and surrounding area's are not something anyone can plan for in say June or July. How far ahead does the Met Office give weather forecasts for? Maybe we should blame them for not informing the clubs well in advance of impending cold weather, and giving them time to do something.
I'm sorry but your point is complete hogwash I'm afraid.
Firstly, can we please stop thinking that everything can be excused by pointing at what used to happen many years ago? What relevance does this have? Are we government ministers in respect that we defend poor decisions by mentioning how much poorer things were under the last administration?
What kind of basis is this for a debate?
"You might say this is wrong but if I may refer you back to February of 1986, you'll note that the mighty Arsenal once had a game postponed due to a waterlogged pitch..."
What relevance does that have? I'll tell you - absolutely nothing.
Also this ridiculous notion that people try to turn this into a quasi-socialist 'class war' is beyond embarrassment for both themselves and the threat, to be honest. It has nothing to do with Manchester United or Chelsea in their 'ivory towers' or the 'ruling classes' or the 'little people', so lets just end this plastic Marxism bull*** here and now, shall we?
The money that Premier league clubs receive now, even the 'smaller' clubsm is a tremendous amount and certainly enough to install undersoil heating. The point isn't that Blackpool should be punished for not having as much cash as Chelsea but that they should be reprimanded for not being able to host a home fixture since the middle of November until early January. Even that time span is constantly under review and it's touch and go whether the pitch will be ready even in early January.
People suggesting that in order for the fixture program to go ahead that the games may be moved to a neutral venue, are putting forward a very good point. The main aim of people's contentions here is to get the fixtures on and played and carry on with the season. It'll benefit both Blackpool and the other Premier League clubs if all their home games were moved to a neutral venue, until such a time when their pitch unfreezes and they can once again host games.
Instead we're supposed to ignore the fixture congestion and do sod all about it as Manchester United had their pitch relaid many times in the 90s and Fulham also don't have undersoil heating. I really, really, don't get this bizarre vantage point where people approach a debate not with a view of solving an issue but to try and point to other completely irrelevant things that are vaguely associated that have happened at various times in the last 20 years.
I find it hard to believe that any club would build a brand new stadium and be stupid enough not to put undersoil heating in .
Indeed, this is 2010 and not 1980 or even 1990, but we can compare times as clubs through out time have had to deal with the harsh realities of bad winters and frozen pitches. The only differences between now and 1980 for example is that now USH is the norm and not the exception.
So let's find a solution to this problem first of all, The Premier League and the Football League should fund the installation of USH in every league ground next summer. That way clubs coming into the league and Premier League can afford to build a team to stay in the League/Premier League. Out of television revenues and gate receipts the clubs can pay back the respective authorities what they owe back during the following season.
The FA should then istall a rule that any football stadium being built for any club on the football pyramid has to have USH. That way even the proposed Ten Acre Lane Stadium of FC United will have to have USH.
As for suggesting that Blackpool have had any extra money to spend this summer is crazy. I can't believe that you are that stupid to think that they get any Premier League money before they've actually played? Blackpool's first and foremost aim this past summer was to construct a team good enough to stay in the league and then build a stand to make the stadium fit for Premier League rules. If as has been mentioned Fulham don't have USH, they they obviously have some way of making sure the pitch isn't frozen, or they use the excuse of the surrounding area a lot, other wise they'd have been punished by the league.
As for moving the games, Blackpool can come to Old Trafford if they want from Feb to March as United don't have a home game from Feb 19 till March 19th. That way we can make sure they are using a stadium with USH if we have a cold snap and no issue of fixture clashes.
The biggest problem though with the fixutre congestion is for the fans and more so the away club fans who have to travel midweek rather than over the weekend. Luckily for Blackpool, 2 of the 3 games lost has been against teams within an hours travel time from them. Whilst not convienient it would have been harder on the fans of say Arsenal to get up to Blackpool on a Tuesday in February or March. I know we'll hear managers moaning over too many games in a short period, but football today is a squad game and certainly both Liverpool and United should be able to field teams with up 8 or 9 changes in them to challenge Blackpool from the ones that played the previous weekend.
Middlesbrough didn't install undersoil heating, they bought a 'revolutionary' bubble to cover the pitch
It lasted about a year before they installed undersoil heating