Stan A. Einstein wrote:

xisle wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote: The problem is /was the drains. The problem has existed since our playing at RP. It may have been exacerbated by the groundsmen trying to fix it. The problem was not fixed by Phil Day.

as has been said elsewhere, phil day produced a pitch which drained so well that we had a whole season without a single game being postponed or abandoned after their work was finished
the problem with the drains was that water was not draining causing games to be postponed and abandoned
which part of the problem with the drains did they not fix?

According to Phil Day, the north half of the pitch.

utter nonsense
they did the north end of the pitch in the summer before we had a whole season without a single game being postponed or abandoned
so after phil day finished their work including the drainage on the north half of the pitch and we had a full season without a single game being postponed or abandoned which part of the problem with the drains did they not fix?

xisle wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote: According to Phil Day, the north half of the pitch.

utter nonsense
they did the north end of the pitch in the summer before we had a whole season without a single game being postponed or abandoned
so after phil day finished their work including the drainage on the north half of the pitch and we had a full season without a single game being postponed or abandoned which part of the problem with the drains did they not fix?

Look at the Rodney Parade pitch at the end of last season. Look at the Rodney Parade pitch at the end of the three seasons previous to that.

Clearly all of it.

You can't properly "fix" half a pitch, it's like being slightly pregnant. Which isn't the same thing as starting a job and finding you need two summers to finish it.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

xisle wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote: According to Phil Day, the north half of the pitch.

utter nonsense
they did the north end of the pitch in the summer before we had a whole season without a single game being postponed or abandoned
so after phil day finished their work including the drainage on the north half of the pitch and we had a full season without a single game being postponed or abandoned which part of the problem with the drains did they not fix?

Look at the Rodney Parade pitch at the end of last season. Look at the Rodney Parade pitch at the end of the three seasons previous to that.

Clearly all of it.

okay lets do that
in the summer of 2014 phil day finished their work on the pitch and the drainage problems were fixed
at the end of the season after phil day completed their work the pitch was draining fine because the problem with the drains had been fixed - not a single game postponed or abandoned all season with the efl contractor reporting positively on the situation. put simply phil day had fixed the drainage problems and all was fine
at the end of the season after that the pitch was not draining well because the work done on the pitch in the summer of 2015 reintroduced some of the problems that were fixed by phil day
at the end of the season after that the pitch drainage was even worse again because more of the good work done by phil day fixing the drainage problem were reversed
At the end of last season the pitch was draining as well as it was when phil day finished their work because the work done by the WRU reconnected the surface with the drainage taking the situation back how it was when phil day had done their work reversing the mistakes made after phil day had fixed the drainage problems

to paraphrase the efl reports phil day fixed the drainage problem only for that to be screwed up by subsequent work on the pitch
or to put it another way pretty much exactly what alan g bryant said earlier

Haven't we done all this before?

It's good now - let's not moan!

If the report is correct why were the ground staff putting sand on the pitch?

Was it

a) The pitch was still flooding, or

b) they were deliberately trying to sabotage the pitch?


I have to say b) sounds a little far fetched?

Willthiswork wrote:Haven't we done all this before?

It's good now - let's not moan!

It is important.

None of the board of directors now in situ are responsible. However Bryant's original post and the support given to it by both xisle and GSB attempt to rewrite history. If the mistakes of the past are not learned from, invariably they are repeated.

the ground staff were putting large amounts of sand on the pitch in the winters of 2015/16 and 2016/17 but not during the winter of 2014/15
phil day finished their work fixing the drainage problems in the summer of 2014
you go figure as my american friends would say

xisle wrote:the ground staff were putting large amounts of sand on the pitch in the winters of 2015/16 and 2016/17 but not during the winter of 2014/15
phil day finished their work fixing the drainage problems in the summer of 2014
you go figure as my american friends would say

Why were the ground staff putting large amounts of sand on if the drains were fixed?

Go figure.

Edit.

If I put a new roof on a house but don't put damp course in I will have botched the job. The fact that it will take a couple of years for the roof to leak is neither here nor there.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Willthiswork wrote:Haven't we done all this before?

It's good now - let's not moan!

It is important.

None of the board of directors now in situ are responsible. However Bryant's original post and the support given to it by both xisle and GSB attempt to rewrite history. If the mistakes of the past are not learned from, invariably they are repeated.

Rewrite history? Huh?

George Street-Bridge wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Willthiswork wrote:Haven't we done all this before?

It's good now - let's not moan!

It is important.

None of the board of directors now in situ are responsible. However Bryant's original post and the support given to it by both xisle and GSB attempt to rewrite history. If the mistakes of the past are not learned from, invariably they are repeated.

Rewrite history? Huh?

I think so, yes.

Think about it. The lesson from the Phil Day debacle was put jobs out to open tender. Not give it to a mate of the CEO who only got the job because he was a mate of the director of football.

If you don't learn that lesson you end up not advertising the very important job of commercial manager but giving it to someone who knows someone. And we all know how that ended.

No blame on the woman herself but I doubt she rang up the club and offered her services on spec'.

Still it's your money.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

xisle wrote:the ground staff were putting large amounts of sand on the pitch in the winters of 2015/16 and 2016/17 but not during the winter of 2014/15
phil day finished their work fixing the drainage problems in the summer of 2014
you go figure as my american friends would say

Why were the ground staff putting large amounts of sand on if the drains were fixed?

Go figure.

because as the efl report says the work done in the summers of 2015 and 2016 wrecked the work done by phil day.
go read the report instead of throwing around unfounded accusations

Stan A. Einstein wrote:Think about it. The lesson from the Phil Day debacle was put jobs out to open tender. Not give it to a mate of the CEO who only got the job because he was a mate of the director of football.

If you don't learn that lesson you end up not advertising the very important job of commercial manager but giving it to someone who knows someone. And we all know how that ended.

No blame on the woman herself but I doubt she rang up the club and offered her services on spec'.

Still it's your money.

You've got that wrong Brendan. The job was advertised mate, my nephew, who i honestly believe would have done a great job, was interviewed but i believe they went with the cheap option. That was a big mistake.

Exile 1976 wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:Think about it. The lesson from the Phil Day debacle was put jobs out to open tender. Not give it to a mate of the CEO who only got the job because he was a mate of the director of football.

If you don't learn that lesson you end up not advertising the very important job of commercial manager but giving it to someone who knows someone. And we all know how that ended.

No blame on the woman herself but I doubt she rang up the club and offered her services on spec'.

Still it's your money.

You've got that wrong Brendan. The job was advertised mate, my nephew, who i honestly believe would have done a great job, was interviewed but i believe they went with the cheap option. That was a big mistake.

If the job was advertised, and of course I accept completely that it was, then clearly on that I am wrong.

I suspect you are right about going for the cheap option. The point about learning from mistakes remains.

Edit.

You see being wrong does not damage credibility. Trying to make out you're right when it is demonstrated you are wrong does.