Chelsea 'beach' angers Charlton

Charlton Athletic have taken the unprecedented step of demanding that their Premiership game against Chelsea last Saturday is re-played because of the state of the Stamford Bridge pitch.

They say that the game did not take place "on a grass surface" because the pitch had been so heavily sanded and part of it removed. This meant, Charlton contend, that Chelsea were in breach of Premier League rules – Rule 17, Section I to be precise which states: "No league match shall take place on an artificial surface."

The visitors lost the game 4-1 amid protests from supporters and players over the surface, which was ripped up after the game and has since been relayed at a cost of £100,000. Even Chelsea coach Claudio Ranieri complained it was a "beach".

Charlton protested earlier this week but it is understood that they have decided to formally ask for a re-match "on grass" after a Chelsea official told them that the game was played on the base on which the new pitch was to be laid. The remnants of the old turf had already been removed.

The Charlton chief executive, Peter Varney, said: "Following discussions with our manager and players, and based on evidence before us and information provided by Chelsea officials, we have reached the conclusion that in the interests of the integrity of the Premier League and sportsmanship, we must lodge a formal complaint to the Premier League regarding Saturday's match. In the light of the evidence available, we are requesting that the match be replayed on a grass surface."

Charlton say they have gathered photographic evidence that the pitch had already been removed. They say that it is obvious from video tapes of the game that the Chelsea players had a clear advantage both in the footwear they had on and in the fact that they had trained on the surface for the previous two days.

"We were not offered an opportunity for our players to train on the artificial surface to judge the effect of the bounce of the ball – which in our opinion video evidence will show was different to a normal grass surface – and to make decisions on the appropriate footwear to be worn. The boots worn by some of our players were not appropriate for the surface," Varney said.

"The league will doubtless wish to study the videos of both the Chelsea versus Middlesbrough match on 4 January and our match on Saturday."

In matches before then the Chelsea pitch had resembled a mud bath.

Charlton have also received protests from fans, angry at having felt "cheated" out of a contest. The complaint does, however, contrast sharply with the post-match comments made by the Charlton manager, Alan Curbishley, who said on Saturday: "It looked like an artificial surface but there's no way that it has cost us the match.

"All the talk was about the pitch and perhaps some of my players were still thinking about it in the first 10 minutes. Chelsea have been playing on it but I can't blame that for us getting beaten. Our defending let us down."

The feeling at Charlton, now, is that they were "good sports at the time" but on reflection feel an injustice has taken place.

The referee, Mike Dean, is believed to have made detailed reference about the state of the pitch in his match report. However, he did pass it as playable after an inspection saying it was a "flat surface", although Charlton say they did contest his view. "At no time before the fixture were we informed by Chelsea that we would be playing on an artificial sand surface and not grass," Varney said.

"On arriving at Stamford Bridge we were advised by Chelsea that the game was in doubt and the pitch was being inspected by Mike Dean. Our manager, Alan Curbishley, immediately raised the matter with the referee and was advised the pitch met the League criteria of 'being flat', and on this basis the match would go ahead."

The strength of Charlton's case will rest simply on whether or not the Stamford Bridge surface is deemed to have been "artificial". It may be too hard to prove, even though turf and soil was removed.

Chelsea said in a statement that they were aware of the complaint and would co-operate "fully". The Premier League said last night that it had launched its investigation into the complaint which was "unprecedented". "It will have to come down to what is defined as an artificial surface," a spokesman said. "The next step is for us to receive counter evidence from Chelsea."

The investigation may take some time, he said.