Would you really want solar panels on the roof of the stand?

They're expensive and I doubt that sturdy, that getting hit by balls multiple times a season would do them much good

I think that the club & its agents should consider all the green options.
The panels would be installed on the far side of the roof from the pitch & therefore be less vulnerable.
I like the wind turbine idea as well but they are less efficient but cheaper.

PS Wind turbines on top of the floodlight stanchions would be a really cool but probably impractical idea.
& round the cricket pitch too when they install them there for day/night cricket.

I agree and you are correct about the orientation of the stand being good for solar/PV's as well rather than North Stand.

Leicester - IIRC the optimum angle, if fixed, is 30 deg, so they would be on frames facing away on the new higher cantilever roof... they will not get many balls up there!

I'm pretty sure that the pitch will at various points in those 30 years have been relaid during the summer, something that isn't feasible these days given the time it takes a new playing surface to properly bed in.

While having year-round use won't be helping to maintain the pitch to suggest it never needed any work doing to it before the 15-a-side game arrived might be a touch misleading.

Andy - I understand that it has never had a major surface relay since the u/s heating went in because it never needed one.

So now we know ... cheers Mr Dillo.

www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/l ... 6094863.jp Good article from the man in the know.

www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/l ... 6094863.jp Good article from the man in the know.

Thats an excellent article, not only does it put the "ground share" argument to bed it also highlights this fact ...

But the games called off at Arsenal and Liverpool had nothing to do with the state of their pitch but due to safety issues outside the ground.

You should read it very carefully. The headline claims Union not to blame. The article [isays[/i Booth doesn't blame the union side but the direct quotes from Booth that refer to the Union team are not quite so unequivocal

"They think it's all due to the rugby union, but it's not.

"It's a combination of the wettest November, followed by nine weeks of snow and frost – plus the effect of the machines we've had to drive on to the pitch to get these games on"

But, tellingly, he also says this..

"The issues are from the rugby union five metre line to the dead ball line"

Fingers crossed the Tykes go down this year.

How will that change anything? They'll still play on the pitch, unless they go out of business as a result

I suspect if they go down they might be playing elsewhere.

The article cites a report that stated that the turf was incapable of sustaining year round rugby. I'd say the report author(s) got that bit pretty much spot on.

My bet is that they'll end up at Bramhope.

What a bizarre comment to make

Indeed.

I hope the snow gets relagated....

I've re-quoted you leaving only the bit that is relevant.

"Fourteen years later, we've only had two games called off, so I don't think we've done bad." is how Mr Booth followed up his statement, and again, he is correct.

If someone played rugby on my back garden every week for fourteen years it would look much worse than the Headingley pitch does right now

If Booth is stating it isn't all down to the rugby union I wonder what percentage he puts down to them, 80%?

So the pitch is a mess, not because of Union, no, no, it's because it gets played on all year.

Remind me, what gets played on it in the non-growing season?

Mostly Union but not exclusively Union as there are/were League games played December, January, February onwards as well.

I still remember a Booth comment that he had to cut the grass twice in December before the Union side played the Harlequins. I wonder if he still thinks that was an altogether wise thing to do?

That's how I read it.