Congratulations Barrow and Harrogate...

rudebwoyben

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Messages
3,883
Likes
1,180
Location
London N7
Supports
Barnet
#62
because we didn't finish bottom of the league and Hereford didn't even win the Southern league so shouldn't have been in a vote.
Yeah, Hereford didn’t win the league but it was Champions Cambridge Utd who were elected in Barrow’s place!
 

rudebwoyben

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Messages
3,883
Likes
1,180
Location
London N7
Supports
Barnet
#65
erm i'm a Barrow fan and can tell you 100% it was Hereford that replaced Barrow in 1972. Cambridge United replaced the defunct Bradford Park Avenue in 1970
Apologie, you’re right - being cooped up inside is shrivelling my intellect. We beat Hereford in the Southern League Cup final just before they got elected too!
 

Railway Blue

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,357
Likes
329
Location
Newton
Supports
Chester FC
#67
erm i'm a Barrow fan and can tell you 100% it was Hereford that replaced Barrow in 1972. Cambridge United replaced the defunct Bradford Park Avenue in 1970
Without checking I would say that you were correct. I sincerely hope that you get the nod this season.
 

B2TF

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,776
Likes
755
Location
The Moral High Ground
Supports
THE MIGHTY SHAYMEN
#68
because we didn't finish bottom of the league and Hereford didn't even win the Southern league so shouldn't have been in a vote.
Wrong. Re-elections were about presenting a business case for membership of the Football League. That is the criteria applications were evaluated on. The top leagues outside the FL came to an agreement about which of their clubs had the best chance of beating the 4 League outfits up for re-election. Supporter base, catchment area and financial sustainability all went into the equation, and a non league club in an area already saturated with Football League sides would be viewed by those clubs as a threat to their own survival. Under this system, the clubs in the League had already proved their sustainability by the indisputable fact of their continuing existence. The non league community no doubt had their own views on who should and who shouldn't be in the FL, but it simply wasn't any of their business - the Football League was a members club with rules made by and for the member clubs. The League was OWNED by the clubs in it and they had every right to make any rules they saw fit. Hartlepool, for example had the worst record of all up the point the system was abandoned, but their brother clubs recognised that they did what ever they had to do, to stay in business, so well done little Hartlepool.
:bdick:
 

Vanni

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,052
Likes
2,931
Location
.
Supports
Cambridge United
#69
^Spot on. That was the way the FL clubs went about the whole re-election business. Whether it was a fair system or not is not for me to say.

Re. Chipmunx's post - Cambridge did indeed replace Bradford PA in 1970, and BPA had been struggling for a few years before they were booted out of the FL. If I'm not mistaken they went out of business in 1974, and they did take their time to start a new club, in 1988 or 89 I think.

Hereford didn't win the league in 1972 but they did impress everybody with their win over Newcastle in the FA Cup ,and apparently that game was the main reason the club was voted in at the expense of Barrow.
 

Optipez

Active Member
Messages
669
Likes
138
Location
Nottingham, Nottinghamshire
Supports
Notts County
#71
Re-election was a crooked process, glad it's gone. Sport should be about competition not a cartel.
I don't like it in cricket either where minor counties are doomed to stay just that no matter how uncompetitive some of the teams at the bottom of Div 2 are.
 

B2TF

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,776
Likes
755
Location
The Moral High Ground
Supports
THE MIGHTY SHAYMEN
#72
Re-election was a crooked process, glad it's gone. Sport should be about competition not a cartel.
I don't like it in cricket either where minor counties are doomed to stay just that no matter how uncompetitive some of the teams at the bottom of Div 2 are.
What was crooked about it?
 

Railway Blue

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,357
Likes
329
Location
Newton
Supports
Chester FC
#73
Re-election was a crooked process, glad it's gone. Sport should be about competition not a cartel.
I don't like it in cricket either where minor counties are doomed to stay just that no matter how uncompetitive some of the teams at the bottom of Div 2 are.
Agree with your assertion and Durham proved that when they eventually got in. They've more Championships than teams like Somerset, Gloucestershire and a few others . Not sure where it all went wrong though? Why were they relegated, heavily fined and deducted points?
 

Sestonpoolie

Active Member
Messages
674
Likes
113
Location
Hartlepool
Supports
Hartlepool
#74
Agree with your assertion and Durham proved that when they eventually got in. They've more Championships than teams like Somerset, Gloucestershire and a few others . Not sure where it all went wrong though? Why were they relegated, heavily fined and deducted points?
Because the were £2 million in debt.
The ECB gave them nearly £4 million to keep them going,but relegation,losing their test status & salary cap were imposed as a punishment.
 

AdamStag

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,000
Likes
974
Supports
Mansfield Town
#76
Agree with your assertion and Durham proved that when they eventually got in. They've more Championships than teams like Somerset, Gloucestershire and a few others . Not sure where it all went wrong though? Why were they relegated, heavily fined and deducted points?
It’s usually your Derbyshire or Leicestershire that are terrible too. It’s like how east Stirling always used to finish bottom of the Scottish 4th division - bring in promotion and relegation and it improves the structure.

Not sure how they’d do it but there should be a winner between the west and East conference who plays the bottom side of the county championship div 2
 

AdamStag

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,000
Likes
974
Supports
Mansfield Town
#77
Because the were £2 million in debt.
The ECB gave them nearly £4 million to keep them going,but relegation,losing their test status & salary cap were imposed as a punishment.
In fairness apart from an Australia game normally got the shit countries like Bangladesh West Indies and Sri Lanka who didn’t fare very well in the tropical April weather just by the North Sea.
 

chipmunx

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,846
Likes
448
Location
United Kingdom
Supports
Barrow AFC
#80
Are you just being obtuse? How was Barrow not finishing bottom but being booted out fair?
it's crooked because rather than being based on competitive merit, chairman at other clubs just decided Barrow was out on a limb so it would be expedient to just get rid.
the fact that Workington were next to go in 1975 (i think it was then) backs up that argument...
 

Railway Blue

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,357
Likes
329
Location
Newton
Supports
Chester FC
#81
Are you just being obtuse? How was Barrow not finishing bottom but being booted out fair?
it's crooked because rather than being based on competitive merit, chairman at other clubs just decided Barrow was out on a limb so it would be expedient to just get rid.
In those days it made no difference whether you finished bottom or 4th from bottom. Bottom 4 all became equal in the battle for reelection.
 

B2TF

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,776
Likes
755
Location
The Moral High Ground
Supports
THE MIGHTY SHAYMEN
#82
Are you just being obtuse? How was Barrow not finishing bottom but being booted out fair?
it's crooked because rather than being based on competitive merit, chairman at other clubs just decided Barrow was out on a limb so it would be expedient to just get rid.
I do think it's possible to answer a simple question without being abusive, but since you started it you thick twat, there you go! Happy now?

Since it was entirely consistent with the Leagues's own internal rules, by which more clubs decided that Cambridge presented a better business case for membership than Barrow's, it looks like a decision the member clubs were perfectly entitled to make. So much for "crooked". I'd like to say I'm sorry to trump your emotion with reason, but I only deal in facts.
:bdick:
 
Last edited:

Vanni

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,052
Likes
2,931
Location
.
Supports
Cambridge United
#83
arggh....:ffs:

We took Bradford Park Avenue's place not Barrow's.
 

AdamStag

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,000
Likes
974
Supports
Mansfield Town
#84
The team that finished bottom basically had a system where the chairman of the respective club went round to the houses/ground of the respective league ground of other chairman with a nice bottle of whisky to shore up the vote was well known, Rochdale were infamous for it.

I seriously think anyone actually seriously thinks re-election is better than the current and fair promotion system is retarded.
 

Sestonpoolie

Active Member
Messages
674
Likes
113
Location
Hartlepool
Supports
Hartlepool
#85
In fairness apart from an Australia game normally got the shit countries like Bangladesh West Indies and Sri Lanka who didn’t fare very well in the tropical April weather just by the North Sea.
True.The southern counties also had harder wickets,which made for better getting conditions.
In the eighties,a small pit village called Blackhall,played in the North Yorkshire, South Durham league,had Richie Richardson,Clayton Lambert,Phil Symonds & a few other top class West Indians playing for them.
A bizarre level considering how good they were.
 

Sestonpoolie

Active Member
Messages
674
Likes
113
Location
Hartlepool
Supports
Hartlepool
#86
Pools obviously benefited from the old pals act when it came to re-election.
I remember when Maidstone when banging on the door to excepted into the league,calling Pools worse than shit,they should have our place because of all the money they had,where they were geographically in the country blah blah.
Anyway they got their wish & won promotion when re-election was scrapped.
Now my memory ain't what it was,but they lasted about 2 seasons,the crowds were shit,so the chairman spat his dummy out & pulled out.
They ended up losing the ground,playing in Dartford & disappearing without trace for a long time.
So all thier money etc didn't do them any good.
 

Vanni

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,052
Likes
2,931
Location
.
Supports
Cambridge United
#87
One thing the FL certainly did look at when considering applications for entry into the 92 was catchment area and/or whether the locals supported their hometown club. The author of one book I'd read suggested that the real reason clubs like Rochdale, Pools, Halifax and Crewe were never voted out was that the other club chairmen reckoned the aforementioned clubs had enough support as to warrant an FL team.

I think it's safe to say if this was still a thing, then the likes of Bwood and Harrogate wouldn't even get a single vote.
 

rudebwoyben

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Messages
3,883
Likes
1,180
Location
London N7
Supports
Barnet
#88
Pools obviously benefited from the old pals act when it came to re-election.
I remember when Maidstone when banging on the door to excepted into the league,calling Pools worse than shit,they should have our place because of all the money they had,where they were geographically in the country blah blah.
Anyway they got their wish & won promotion when re-election was scrapped.
Now my memory ain't what it was,but they lasted about 2 seasons,the crowds were shit,so the chairman spat his dummy out & pulled out.
They ended up losing the ground,playing in Dartford & disappearing without trace for a long time.
So all thier money etc didn't do them any good.
Jim Thompson sold their ground and moved them to Dartford the year before they got promoted to the Football League.
 

Sestonpoolie

Active Member
Messages
674
Likes
113
Location
Hartlepool
Supports
Hartlepool
#89
One thing the FL certainly did look at when considering applications for entry into the 92 was catchment area and/or whether the locals supported their hometown club. The author of one book I'd read suggested that the real reason clubs like Rochdale, Pools, Halifax and Crewe were never voted out was that the other club chairmen reckoned the aforementioned clubs had enough support as to warrant an FL team.

I think it's safe to say if this was still a thing, then the likes of Bwood and Harrogate wouldn't even get a single vote.
Borehamwood seem to be universally disliked in this league,but I thought it was a decent set up.
If they're get into the league,could they still take payment from Arsenal for the use if the ground,or is it against League rules?
I don't think there home attendances would improve much & it would look strange a league team with around 500-600 fans.
 

Monkey Tennis

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,593
Likes
1,175
Location
Barra
Supports
Bluebirds
#90
Borehamwood seem to be universally disliked in this league,but I thought it was a decent set up.
If they're get into the league,could they still take payment from Arsenal for the use if the ground,or is it against League rules?
I don't think there home attendances would improve much & it would look strange a league team with around 500-600 fans.
It could be something to do with their chairman being a woman-beating prick, who blames his own fans for the club's failures and uses it to promote his own political beliefs.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
14,969
Messages
927,811
Members
5,127
Latest member
TonyDart