The astroturf is always greener on the other side

Following last months takeover at Maidstone United, plans for the club’s long awaited return to the county town have gathered speed, with the new £1m stadium at James Whatman Way earmarked to open in time for Christmas 2011. New owners Oliver Ash and Terry Casey are adamant that any return to Maidstone is dependent on a new state of the art 3G artificial pitch being installed at the new ground. Ash claims that such a surface is the only way that the new stadium could fulfil its role as a facility for all of the club’s teams as it could be used seven days a week, something that would not be possible on a traditional pitch. The 3G artificial pitches proposed by Maidstone United, and those used by a number of clubs across Europe, are vastly different to the ‘plastic’ pitches used by QPR and Luton Town in the 1980s that were so maligned, but scepticism of synthetic turf remains widespread within football. Clubs and supporters have long rejected the idea that football could be played on anything but natural grass, but has the technology advanced enough for critics to reassess their view and recognise the benefits of artificial pitches?

In 1981, Queens Park Rangers believed that they were changing football for the better when they installed an artificial pitch at Loftus Road and three other clubs, Oldham Athletic, Preston North End and Luton Town followed their lead. The pitches however, were hated by opposition players and managers who believed that they were unsafe and gave the home team an unfair advantage as they were used to the oddities of the surface. Jim Smith, the QPR manager between 1985 and 1988, acknowledged as much when he recalled his memories of the pitch, "It was a false game, I knew exactly when we were going to score. It was like robots playing. You got carpet burns and very bad backs if you played on them long enough. The likes of ourselves who played on it regularly had a big advantage”. The pitches were banned in 1988 and the hostilities towards them have been sustained since then.

The advantages that those ‘pioneering’ clubs saw in artificial pitches are still recognised today and FIFA has been active in researching and testing the new generation of synthetic surfaces. In 2001, they launched a licensing programme for artificial pitches and in 2004 they ruled that any FIFA approved pitch could be used for competition. This programme, entitled the FIFA Quality Concept, tests pitches for durability, joint strength, climatic resistance, player-to-surface interaction and ball-to-surface interaction. Tests are also carried out to see if the pitch causes any irritations to the players, such as the carpet burns that affected those who played on the pitches in the 1980s. Pitches that pass these tests are awarded a one or two star recommendation; the first is mainly for community and municipal pitches while the second is awarded to pitches that are suitable for professional football.

The benefits of these pitches are clear; lower maintenance costs, a longer lifespan and an increased resistance to adverse weather conditions. This may appeal to chairmen, but fans, players and managers remain hostile, believing that despite the improvements, teams that play on artificial pitches still hold a crucial advantage. The first competitive international on artificial turf in Europe was the Euro 2008 qualifier between Russia and England and the Luzhniki stadium. The pitch was manufactured by Fieldturf, a company whose surfaces David Beckham criticised after playing on one when he joined Los Angeles Galaxy. Before the game, many were alarmed at the possibility of England not playing on grass, believing it definitely gave the home team an advantage. It was also suggested that the watering of the pitch increased the England players’ unfamiliarity with the pitch and contributed to the 2-1 defeat.

As in Russia, the Swiss winter can be cold and the weather damaging to pitches and as such, some Swiss Super League Clubs have installed artificial surfaces in order to reap the benefits that their advocates stress.  Young Boys Bern and Neuchatel Xamax are two of the Super League clubs who have done this when they reconstructed their grounds. YB’s pitch at the Stade de Suisse (sadly no longer the Wankdorf) came under particular scrutiny after their Champions League qualifier with Tottenham earlier this season. Manager Harry Redknapp had just watched his team come back from 3-0 down to salvage a respectable 3-2 first leg defeat and declared "I played on Astroturf myself and hated every minute of it. We don't have it in England anymore and I don't think it should be used in a competition like this”. UEFA rejected these claims, arguing that a thorough pitch inspection had taken place and that UEFA regulations permitted the use of FIFA 2 star rated artificial pitches at all levels of European competition except for the Champions League final. Supporters are also against artificial pitches as demonstrated when FC Luzern, another Swiss Super League side, announced that they were going to install an artificial pitch at their brand new swissporarena. Fans were outraged, believing that grass was to be the new victim of modern football, following in the steps of standing areas although, fortunately for the fans of FCL, the decision was reversed a few months later.

Football is notoriously resistant to change and in the current era of corporate boxes, all-seater stadia and high ticket prices perhaps many fans believe that artificial pitches are one step too far. At the highest level, grass should always remain the first option as clubs have the resources to relay the pitch and have other facilities that the community could use. However, at lower league and non league level this is not always the case and therefore artificial pitches are an attractive option. In the winter of 2009, Maidstone United did not have a home game in six weeks, something that caused extreme financial pressure on the club and could be prevented again if the plans for the 3G pitch go ahead. The community aspect of the stadium has been integral to the plans for the new ground and if it is necessary to have an artificial surface, then I’m sure that the fans would rather have it than not return in Maidstone. The jury is still out on artificial pitches, but research should be received with an open mind rather than a Luddite refusal to hear any argument in their favour. Grass will always be the ideal situation but not even that guarantees a perfect surface as the problems with Wembley have proved.

Bringing The Stones Back Home

(PIC: Maidstone United)

On the 11^th October, Oliver Ash and lifelong fan Terry Casey finally completed their takeover of Maidstone United following a protracted saga that has mirrored the team’s 22 year absence from the county town. After a tough year financially for the club, the takeover should provide the boost that the Stones need for their league campaign and the impetus for a return to Maidstone.

Ash had been on the club’s board since February 2008 when his company Richmond Developments, a French-based real estate company, secured 25% of the club. Lashings, who run an all-star cricket team and a restaurant in Maidstone, were also in the running, but Ash and Casey were seen as the ideal candidates for the takeover, especially with Ash’s background in construction. The deal sees an end to the tenure of Paul Bowden-Powell, who has worked tirelessly to ensure the survival of the reformed football club since its inception and the long-term ambition of bringing football back to Maidstone.

Maidstone United have not played in their hometown since 1988 when they sold their London Road ground and have played in Dartford, Sittingbourne and most recently Ashford. The current incarnation of the club was born in 1992 following the bankruptcy of Maidstone United’s previous iteration. After a steady rise through the non-league pyramid, The Stones were finally promoted to the Ryman Premier Division on 2007 and have remained there since. Recently however, the club’s fortunes have been on the wane. Financial problems were exacerbated by last year’s cold weather which resulted in just one home game played in six weeks meaning the players were not paid. The arrival of Ash and Casey should bring the club onto a more sound financial footing, but the question remains; when will the Stones come home?

Paul Bowden-Powell made it his mission to return football to Maidstone and in 2004 and a plan to open a new ground at James Whatman Way was unanimously approved by councillors. The initial plan was to open the stadium in 2006, but a series of setbacks has ensured that the ground has not progressed significantly beyond the planning process. In March 2006, the land needed to build the stadium was secured on a 99 year lease from the Ministry of Defence with a view to opening in time for the 2007/2008 season. The plans included a main stand with two covered terraces, a club house and parking. The club had leased the land with a ten year loan from the Borough Council but financial problems remained. Despite Ash’s investment in 2008, the club had applied for a £1.2m grant from the Football Association and the Football Foundation, but this was rejected. Bowden-Powell earmarked 2010 as the new date for a return to Maidstone, despite the latest setback. While Bowden-Powell acknowledged the role that the Borough Council played in the advances made, he lamented the lack of support for sport in the area. This does hold some truth, especially when Maidstone has not hosted league football for twenty years and county cricket for four years.

Ash’s takeover should speed up the return to Maidstone and he is formalising a new business plan to present to investors. The new stadium is necessary for the club to avoid the fate that the original team suffered as a new ground would increase revenue and would reignite support in the team. Glenn Aitken, a former Stones player who was working with the Lashings bid to take over the club, believed that the level of support for Maidstone was the same as that of AFC Wimbledon, but it was more passive because the team did not play in the town.

While the first home game at James Whatman Way may not happen in the near future, the takeover is a step in the right direction for The Stones to finally end their exile.

For more information, go to: http://www.bringthestoneshome.co.uk/

New Stadia: A Tale Of Two Very Ordinary Towns.

At the weekend, the injury hit Maidstone United lost 2-1 at "home" to AFC Wimbledon in the Ryman Premier Division. The inverted commas surrounding the word home are necessary punctiation. This is because although this was a home fixture for The Stones, it was played in Sittingbourne. Maidstone United, have been without a home in the county town of Kent since the original club sold their ground in 1987 to MFI. The club assumed that they would have council support to build their new ground and purchased land on which the proposed groun was to be built, however the planning permission never materialised and the club went bankrupt in 1992.

The club reformed at the bottom of the football pyramid in time for the 1993/94 season and since then have managed to haul themselves to the Ryman Premier Division, one division below the Blue Square South. However their home games have not been in Maidstone since the new club was created. There have been plans, and there has been a long, drawn out process to bring the Stones back home, yet progress has been lacking.

Planning permission for the ground was first given in 2004, and ground has been broken at the site at James Whatman Way, but funds have been the main issue, with £1.5m being the reported total cost of building the new stadium. The latest news is that investors have been in talks with Maidstone's chairman, who would be willing to invest in the club, but have the council done everything they can to bring the Stones back home?

Surely, the council could be assisting the club in their efforts. The match against AFC Wimbledon was a record attendance for Maidstone since the club reformed, although this could be partly to do with the attractive nature of the fixture. Maidstone however, have been consistently well supported throughout their tenure in the lower leagues and the demand for sport in the town is certainly there, as the Maidstone cricket festival showed, when it was still a regular fixture and the 2007 Tour de France was well attended. The money involved is a lot, but the town lacks a major sports team. The Stones need the money to ensure the long-term survival of the club and it looks as though the funds for the ground will come from private pockets.

The new proposed Eisstadion

This is contrast to another example. Zug, Switzerland is the home of EV Zug, an ice hockey side. It is a much larger club but the town of Zug is smaller than Maidstone. While The Stones' greatest moment came when they got to the Division Four Play-offs in 1989, EV Zug won their only league title in 1998. EVZ average about 4,000 - 5,000 fans every match and play in the Eishalle Herti. The Herti isn't exactly the most glamourous of sports arenas to say the least, but the plans are there to build a new stadium which can't fail to be an improvement on the current one. Zug, is one of the most wealthy towns in the world, with it's tax regulations appealing to rich companies and individuals, so funds are not the issue. While Maidstone have had to compete with the Maidstone borough council, Kent County Council and various environmental groups, Zug have had a relatively smooth passage for their new ground, even though Swiss regulations cause building projects to drag on for a bit. Of course Zug do have the advantage of having an existing stadium in the town they represent.



While the stadium at James Whatman way was pencilled in for completion at the beginning of the 2006/07 season, this has obviously not happened. Zug's stadium may take a while, but at least they will probably get it.