This is the second post from guest blogger Bradley Stonecypher

I have read quite about about the debate of turf versus grass. There are some purists out there that are disappointed about the decision of turf for PGE Park. After watching Arsenal playing at Leyton Orient a couple of weeks ago, then watching the RSL vs. Columbus match the other night, I must say I am leaning more towards turf than grass. I think I would rather see a game on turf than on dust and dirt. I know Oregon is famous for its grass...ok, get your mind out of the gutter...I mean green grass. But I also know that the maintenance cost of grass is rather expensive, and that expense would come out of my pocket with increased prices at the gate and probably at the concession stand as well. I am blessed to be able to afford my seats, but I also understand that the Timbers want to make this affordable for folks and I think turf allows a little bit more affordability.

Watching Arsenal destroy Leyton Orient at Emirates Stadium today, I wondered about what the cost of maintaining that pitch is. I am sure it is in the millions a year. That pitch is immaculate. I would rather have that money to spend on players.

When you look at PGE Park, it gets very limited sunshine, not to mention I think there would be serious drainage issues as well. It makes business sense to be with turf. I would like to get your opinion on the matter, pro or con, but let's keep it civil. If you are for one or the other, please tell us why.