Non League Matters - The Continuation of Tonys english Football Site 



  Main Index MAIN
INDEX
Search Posts SEARCH
POSTS
Who's Online WHO'S
ONLINE
Log in LOG
IN

THIS FORUM IS NOW READ ONLY - PLEASE HEAD OVER TO THE NEW FORUM HERE (CLICK LINK) TO REGISTER A NEW ACCOUNT - THANKS

Home: Non League Football Information: History:
Re-formed clubs

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All


rainjar
First Team Star

Mar 16, 2011, 9:22 AM

Posts: 1558
Location:
Team(s):

Post #1 of 39 (12914 views)
Shortcut
Re-formed clubs Can't Post or Reply Privately

In over three years of posting on this message board, it's been very apparent how much disagreement there is on the treatment of re-formed clubs.

I understand a re-formed club to be a new legal entity formed when an existing club is wound up / liquidated (thus ceasing to exist as a legal entity) with the same support-base.

As previously noted, Section 5.3 of the NLS Regulations provides "If a club (whether a Members’ Club or a Company) is liquidated and then wishes to reform, unless otherwise determined by the LC, it will be allowed to make an application only to join a league/division a minimum of two Steps below the league/division in which it was a member when liquidated."

I believe I am right to say:


Quote
The premise of section 5.3 is that the club is "liquidated", ie, wound up, and then reformed.

It would be rare (if at all) for the previous owners to be reforming the club, having been in charge when it was wound up in the first place.

It would ordinarily be new owners or supporters who reform a club.


Also:


Quote
Whether a new club is a reformed club or not appears to turn on the intention - "then wishes to reform" (in section 5.3). ....

Of course, as the old club no longer exists, the intention would appear to be that of those forming the new club.


Apart from the intention of those forming the new club, I suppose there would ordinarily be other connecting factors between the old club (that no longer exists as a legal entity) and the new club (formed as a new legal entity to take its place) but on the face of it, section 5.3 doesn't appear to require any other connecting factor.

In applying section 5.3, the FA Appeal Board has said that in deciding the level (whether 2 steps down or more), section 1(a) should be taken into consideration, that is, "provide clubs with a level of competitive football appropriate to their playing ability, stadium/ground facilities and economic means".

Strong views arise from the following considerations:
  • The liquidation of the old club usually arises out of insolvency. There is thus a sense that the old club must have over-spent, and were thus playing at a higher level than they ought fairly to have achieved. The old club therefore cheated, and the new club should not be allowed to rely on the level achieved by the old club as the starting point for determining its level (notwithstanding that section 5.3 provides that it should be a minimum of 2 steps lower).
  • The insolvency of the old club would usually mean the club's creditors only receive a small part of what is owed to them, if at all.
(The same considerations apply to a club entering administration, and later coming out of administration having paid its creditors only a small part of what is owed to them. However, while the club continues as the same legal entity, the consequences to the club in terms of point deductions or demotion are dealt with under other rules, and different from section 5.3, )

Perhaps even more controversial is the re-formed club claiming the history of the old club as its own. Many re-formed clubs do, although some don't. On my website, I treat a new club as the continuation of an older club that no longer exists if it meets at least 2 of the following 3 criteria:
  • An intention to reform a club that played in a particular geographical area.
  • The same fan base.
  • The new club wouldn't have been formed but for the demise of the old club.
I don't wish to rehash all the arguments put forward elsewhere on this message board on whether, or the extent to which, re-formed clubs should be allowed to benefit from the level the old club last played at.

I'm more interested in identifying clubs that have been re-formed in the strict sense, ie, a new legal entity formed when the old legal entity ceased to exist, since the start of competitive football as we know it today (ie, 1872).

It would be useful to view the re-forming of clubs, and the level at which the re-formed club plays, in a more historical context.

Sometimes, it's not altogether clear from the records whether the club was re-formed at all. It was not uncommon for clubs to be re-formed in the same name as the old club, which is not allowed at present. I suppose it makes it harder to identify a club re-formed in the 19th or 20th century as a re-formed club. It will probably be necessary to review historical documents relating to the club to be able to do so.



Football Insights


(This post was edited by rainjar on Mar 16, 2011, 2:12 PM)


rainjar
First Team Star

Mar 16, 2011, 9:28 AM

Posts: 1558
Location:
Team(s):

Post #2 of 39 (12913 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rainjar] Re-formed clubs [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Two re-formed or possibly re-formed clubs identified earlier:

Looking at the Southern League table of 1899-1900 in another context led me to read the history of Chatham Town, which included the following passage:


Quote
Chatham were forced to resign from the Southern League during the 1900/01 season, owing to financial difficulties, but they soon rebuilt the club - playing as Chatham Amateurs for a brief spell in 1901 ....




Football Insights


(This post was edited by rainjar on Mar 16, 2011, 2:04 PM)


Mister TwoU
First Team Star


Mar 16, 2011, 7:39 PM

Posts: 2498
Location: Back in hilly Malvern.
Team(s): Malvern Town FC

Post #3 of 39 (12858 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rainjar] Re-formed clubs [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

The history of Stoke FC a founder member of the FL in 1888 is quiet murky in this sence to I beleive.



Professional cretin.


cope1
Man City Transfer Target!

Mar 16, 2011, 9:43 PM

Posts: 7287
Location:
Team(s):

Post #4 of 39 (12839 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mister TwoU] Re-formed clubs [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Go on, tell us...


Andrelux
First Team Regular

Mar 17, 2011, 5:11 PM

Posts: 1213
Location: Luxembourg
Team(s): Brentford (for my sins - obviously done something really bad in a past life

Post #5 of 39 (12779 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rainjar] Re-formed clubs [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

This is one hell of a can of worms you have opened!!!

Just to take one example, Staines Town, my hometown club, claim to have been formed in 1892. But the ancestry is dodgy to say the least: the main Staines club was Staines Lagonda before the war, who folded in 1935. There was a Staines Vale team during the Second World War, but the current club has only had a continuous existence for the past 60 years. There was pretty much a 15 year gap between the pre-war Staines team folding and the current incarnation. Yet, the foundation date of 1892 remains on their site and in all their literature.

This is an example of a tendency to conflate the history of football in a town with the history of a club. For me, a 15 year gap seems to clearly indicate that these two clubs are different entities (I would imagine that most of the people involved were different). Quite a few clubs tend to push the boundaries of their formation dates, in an attempt to claim more ancestry than might perhaps be the case.

Then you've got the case, as happened to Wolves in the 80s and with so many others, where a new limited company was formed. From the point of view of company law, these are two different entities, but the playing staff, the ground, the club's position in the league, and probably some of the directors were unchanged. Personally, I am perfectly happy to consider both legal incarnations as being one and the same club.

Between the two extremes, there are grey areas aplenty.

Nowadays (and without passing any judgement on the rights or wrongs in the matter), there is a possible way of identifying the new from the merely changed: irrespective of any changes in status, a team (name changed or not, different legal entity or not) which competes in a succeeding season's FA Competition, is for me (and I believe, also for the FA) the same club.

But in the past - well all sorts of difficulties emerge. And that is before you even begin to consider the possibility of when a merger is a merger or just an absorbtion, and if a new club ensues or not, and if not, of which of the two it is a continuation....

And remember, if you want to be revisionist, then there are entrenched views to contend with - how long, for example, did it take Wisden to recognise that Jack Hobbs had scored 199 and not 197 first-class centuries?

I'm sure no-one is going to persuade Staines Town, for example, that the club is half the age that they claim for it, nor that their centenary celebrations 20-odd years ago were pointless... of course, for clubs that don't exist any more, there's no one to speak out for them... history may or may not be written by the winners, but it is certainly jealously guarded by the survivors.


(This post was edited by Andrelux on Mar 17, 2011, 5:12 PM)


rainjar
First Team Star

Mar 19, 2011, 5:47 AM

Posts: 1558
Location:
Team(s):

Post #6 of 39 (12680 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andrelux] Re-formed clubs [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Thanks for enlightening example of Staines Town.


In Reply To
....

This is an example of a tendency to conflate the history of football in a town with the history of a club. For me, a 15 year gap seems to clearly indicate that these two clubs are different entities (I would imagine that most of the people involved were different). Quite a few clubs tend to push the boundaries of their formation dates, in an attempt to claim more ancestry than might perhaps be the case.

Then you've got the case, as happened to Wolves in the 80s and with so many others, where a new limited company was formed. From the point of view of company law, these are two different entities, but the playing staff, the ground, the club's position in the league, and probably some of the directors were unchanged. Personally, I am perfectly happy to consider both legal incarnations as being one and the same club.

....


I think situations equivalent to the Wolves example have occurred far more often than most of us can remember. I guess I'm trying to collate as many examples as possible, so that there is a longer term view of such occurrences, without the unnecessary heat of an immediate reaction to a current event.


In Reply To
....

Between the two extremes, there are grey areas aplenty.

Nowadays (and without passing any judgement on the rights or wrongs in the matter), there is a possible way of identifying the new from the merely changed: irrespective of any changes in status, a team (name changed or not, different legal entity or not) which competes in a succeeding season's FA Competition, is for me (and I believe, also for the FA) the same club.

....


I would be reluctant to use entry into FA competitions as the criteria is it turns on the rule at the time. As the rules can change, there is no guarantee of uniform analysis from a historical perspective.


In Reply To
....

But in the past - well all sorts of difficulties emerge. And that is before you even begin to consider the possibility of when a merger is a merger or just an absorbtion, and if a new club ensues or not, and if not, of which of the two it is a continuation....

....


Strictly speaking, a legal entity is treated in the same way as a person, so in the same way a person's history ceases when he dies, a legal entity's history ends when it ceases to exist.

However, it is the insolvency of a club gives rise to the issues described in the first post. As far as insolvency is concerned, a club that enters and comes out of a CVA remains the same legal entity, while a club that is liquidated and re-formed gives rise to a new legal entity.

As you rightly point out, and as I have previously highlighted, a new legal entity may be formed for a variety of other reasons. These include:
  • Club mergers, as you describe above.
  • Changing economic or organizational requirements, including changing a club's status from unincorporated to incorporated, or a (solvent) re-structuring in the event of change of legal ownership.
I think we are agreed that the creation of a new legal entity cannot be determinative of when the history of a club begins.

I tend to take a broader sociological approach, so I look at other factors, in particular, the views of the community from which the fan base is derived.



Football Insights


(This post was edited by rainjar on Mar 19, 2011, 5:50 AM)


hayesdj1881
Junior Team Regular

Mar 19, 2011, 9:25 AM

Posts: 32
Location:
Team(s):

Post #7 of 39 (12663 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rainjar] Re-formed clubs [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Southport note their foundation year as 1881 but this is probably 5 years out also.
The original Southport Football Club was founded in 1881 born out of a failed rugby club. A number of other Southport clubs sprung up around that time but Southport Football Club were recognised as the leading club in the town and were recognised as one of the "senior" Lancashire sides at the time (as can be evidenced by their placing within the Lancashire Senior (rather than junior) cup). However they hit financial trouble and folded in the summer of 1886.

Playing in local charity cup competitions against other Southport sides, amongst their opponents during those 4-5 years had been a side called Southport Wanderers. When Southport Football Club went under at least six former Southport players and many of their supporters transferred their affiliations to Southport Wanderers.
In September 1886 to mark their status in the town they changed their name to Southport Football Club.
However evidence suggests that the Lancashire FA did not recognise the two as the same entity and refused the new club permission to enter the Lancashire Senior Cup. The club joined the Liverpool FA and picked up the Liverpool junior cup against Earlestown at Everton's Anfield Road ground a year later.
When in 1888 they decided to form a "professional" club, Southport Central Football Club was formed and the Lancashire FA allowed them to enter the Lancashire Junior cup.


Mister TwoU
First Team Star


Mar 19, 2011, 12:36 PM

Posts: 2498
Location: Back in hilly Malvern.
Team(s): Malvern Town FC

Post #8 of 39 (12637 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hayesdj1881] Re-formed clubs [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

"The original Southport Football Club was founded in 1881 born out of a failed rugby club."

Whitch statement may be true of Southport FC, but I wanted too point out that back in the 19th cenury there was not very much differents between rugby and soccer with very many varient rules inbetween conserning the carrying and the hacking rules in particulier.
It was fairly common for teams to altarnate whitch style of foot-ball they played from one season too another. It was only later on that they tended to spesialize into one or other of the later 'established rules' codes.




Professional cretin.


horwichlad
Junior Team Sub


Mar 19, 2011, 1:11 PM

Posts: 20
Location:
Team(s):

Post #9 of 39 (12629 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rainjar] Re-formed clubs [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

With regards to reformed clubs, this is something I feel VERY strongly about. If we take the cases of my hometown club Horwich RMI and compare them to Wimbledon:
Wimbledon to me as a club died when their owners ripped them from their community and transplanted them to Milton Keynes...I dont think many would dispute that. To me AFC Wimbledon are therefore the TRUE successors of the original club Wimbledon FC, and not MK Dons, regardless of the legalities. How entitled a ''Phoenix Club'' is to claim it's predecessor's heritage and successes should all depend on 1 thing, and that is the fans! Are the fans the same as the previous club, and do they WANT this new club to be a continuation...if they do, then to me, it is...if however it is just some guy who is looking to make a few quid from the demise of the old club, they had nothing to do with the old club, and so the new club can not claim anything to do with the old club...unless, imo, the fans are onside. Hence why MK Dons are considered the illegitimate sons of the old Wimbledon (bad phrase, they are NOTHING to do with the old WFC), whilst AFCW, although new, are the true heirs of Plough Lane and the Crazy Gang.

Now, compare this to my hometown of Horwich...Horwich Railway Mechanics Institute Football Club, a proud and ancient club, with a long history, and an even longer name...they moved to Leigh in 1995 under very dodgey circumstances, they then changed their name, kit, colours and badge to ''reflect their new surroundings'' and the rest as they say is history. Not many fans followed them from Horwich, the difference is, no phoenix club was formed in Horwich. HOWEVER, some bloke, i forget his name, did form a ''new'' Horwich RMI, playing in Eccles for a decade or more until recently, when they returned to Horwich. This bloke in 1996 had no connection to the previous RMI, indeed he only started a club as his old one in Rivington failed, and with the assistance of the old Horwich RMI Social Club/British Rail Staff Association (BRSA) club formed a ''new team'' to continue the heritage of the old club...a nice idea, and I am glad that the name lives on, both with the original works cricket team that lives on, and the football club, who ply their trade in the Lancashire Amateur League.

HOWEVER, this new club have nothing to do with the old club, the fans didnt reform a club (which is a shame) after the old one demised, and just because it is called Horwich RMI, doesnt make it HORWICH RMI. They even play in the red and white stripes of Leigh RMI, not the old blue and white stripes of the old Horwich RMI...although they now play in Horwich, and from next season, I believe will be plying their trade in blue and white, not red and white, this club has NOTHING to do with the old club. I am glad the name lives on, and good luck to them, but I wish they wouldnt claim they are a replacement or a continuation of the old club, they are no more Horwich RMI than Leigh RMI/Genesis (Exodus is more apt) are! Arguably less so.


rainjar
First Team Star

Mar 19, 2011, 2:06 PM

Posts: 1558
Location:
Team(s):

Post #10 of 39 (12618 views)
Shortcut
Re: [horwichlad] Re-formed clubs [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

My sympathies lie with AFC Wimbledon in the MK Dons / AFC Wimbledon affair, so I understand where you're coming from.

It is indeed unfortunate that a replacement club was not formed in Horwich immediately after the old club moved to Leigh. However, is 16 years too long an interval? I wouldn't be surprised if there have been longer intervals, which have been obscured by history.

In my view, if the fan base adopt a new club as a continuation of the old club, then it is a continuation of the old club, albeit with an interruption. After all, even monarchies have interregnums. Smile



Football Insights


(This post was edited by rainjar on Mar 19, 2011, 3:09 PM)


rainjar
First Team Star

Mar 19, 2011, 2:37 PM

Posts: 1558
Location:
Team(s):

Post #11 of 39 (12614 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rainjar] Re-formed clubs [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

The Wikipedia article on Wigan Borough includes the following passage:


Quote
In 1931, the effects of the Great Depression proved too much and, unable to pay the players' wages any longer, Wigan Borough went out of business. The following year, Wigan's Mayor chaired a public meeting at Queens Hall which resulted in the founding of Wigan Athletic. ....

Was the public meeting called specifically to address the formation of a football club to replace Wigan Borough?

If so, Wigan Athletic is arguably a "re-formed" club, even if it does not see itself that way.



Football Insights


(This post was edited by rainjar on Mar 19, 2011, 2:53 PM)


PaulC
Man City Transfer Target!


Mar 19, 2011, 8:08 PM

Posts: 11894
Location: Ayrshire, Midlothian
Team(s): AFC Darwen, Troon, Ayr Utd, Burnley

Post #12 of 39 (12587 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rainjar] Re-formed clubs [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

And then of course there's Middlesbrough which went into liqidation in 1986.


cope1
Man City Transfer Target!

Mar 20, 2011, 11:30 AM

Posts: 7287
Location:
Team(s):

Post #13 of 39 (12539 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rainjar] Re-formed clubs [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
The Wikipedia article on Wigan Borough includes the following passage:


Quote
In 1931, the effects of the Great Depression proved too much and, unable to pay the players' wages any longer, Wigan Borough went out of business. The following year, Wigan's Mayor chaired a public meeting at Queens Hall which resulted in the founding of Wigan Athletic. ....

Was the public meeting called specifically to address the formation of a football club to replace Wigan Borough?

If so, Wigan Athletic is arguably a "re-formed" club, even if it does not see itself that way.


I think they are only 're-formed' in the way that Accrington Stanley or Bradford Park Avenue are, and Wigan Athletic, having used a new name, were not laying claim to the tradition of Wigan Borough. I think you might add one more critiera to your list which is that the club chooses to uphold the tradition of the previous club. I do think intent has something to do with it.


Richard Rundle
Man City Transfer Target!

Mar 20, 2011, 11:40 AM

Posts: 8469
Location:
Team(s):

Post #14 of 39 (12537 views)
Shortcut
Re: [cope1] Re-formed clubs [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Wigan Athletic are definitely not a reformed club. They do not associate themselves in any way with Wigan Borough (at least they used to, I haven't had reason to revisit this in over 10 years)

--
Richard


Mister TwoU
First Team Star


Mar 20, 2011, 12:26 PM

Posts: 2498
Location: Back in hilly Malvern.
Team(s): Malvern Town FC

Post #15 of 39 (12525 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Richard Rundle] Re-formed clubs [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Im fairly sure the Wigan situation mirrored the Leeds City/United one (without the illegal player payment thing) a decade or so before.



Professional cretin.


Andrelux
First Team Regular

Mar 21, 2011, 11:59 AM

Posts: 1213
Location: Luxembourg
Team(s): Brentford (for my sins - obviously done something really bad in a past life

Post #16 of 39 (12427 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rainjar] Re-formed clubs [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

See what I mean about a can of worms Wink?

The case of AFC Wimbledon is a good example. MK Dons retained Wimbledon's league status, and most of the playing squad. AFC Wimbledon were a new start-up. However, if you consider the fans' views, then AFC Wimbledon uphold the heritage of the original club - despite playing on a new ground, with new players, new staff, etc, etc... whereas MK Dons don't.

From my personal perspective, I think AFC Wimbledon and Wimbledon are two different clubs, in spite of the continuity in support of a large section of the original club's fanbase. Others will disagree and even the club's own website seems unsure: the history page talks about events since 2002, the honours board includes Wimbledon honours dating back to the 19th century. (For the avoidance of doubt, I also look upon MK Dons as a new club).

My point is not to argue the case one way or another, just to say that you'll find people coming down on both sides of the coin on the Wimbledon/AFC Wimbledon issue; and that both sides of the argument have their merits. Other examples are legion - the case of Horwich RMI has been brought up, and there are countless others.

If there's some debate on this particular point, which is relatively fresh in our minds, then what hope is there for events which happened long before any of us were born, and long before the internet or this forum existed to inform the debate?

For example, Woolwich Arsenal's move from South-East to North London almost a hundred years ago. They upped sticks and left their traditional area in search of pastures new, but kept their place in the league and merely changed names. Echos of Wimbledon moving to Milton Keynes. On the one hand, we wouldn't think of questioning whether they became a new club as the result, but the general consensus is that MK Dons are new. Yet, we have no real knowledge of how many of the Woolwich fans followed them and travelled across town, how many just switched to watching other local sides, and how soon the new fanbase became mainly from North London. There certainly wasn't an AFC Woolwich.

As I said, a can of worms... of all shades of grey.


Fun, though...


(This post was edited by Andrelux on Mar 21, 2011, 12:15 PM)


Andrelux
First Team Regular

Mar 21, 2011, 12:37 PM

Posts: 1213
Location: Luxembourg
Team(s): Brentford (for my sins - obviously done something really bad in a past life

Post #17 of 39 (12420 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andrelux] Re-formed clubs [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Regarding the Wimbledon/AFC Wimbledon issue, I've just had a brief internet trawl concerning dates.

I'd forgotten that AFC Wimbledon were formed before Wimbledon changed their name to MK Dons, and that both the original Wimbledon club (albeit deserted by most of its supporters), and AFC Wimbledon were in existence at the same time.

Having thought of the parallel with Woolwich Arsenal, I'm going to throw a cat amongst the pigeons:

Logically, if Woolwich Arsenal and Arsenal are the same club, then Wimbledon and MK Dons are too. The opposite is also true: if MK Dons and Wimbledon are different clubs, then so too are the Arsenals. Or so it would seem...

And there was me saying I wouldn't enter in to a debate...


rainjar
First Team Star

Mar 21, 2011, 3:17 PM

Posts: 1558
Location:
Team(s):

Post #18 of 39 (12391 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mister TwoU] Re-formed clubs [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
Im fairly sure the Wigan situation mirrored the Leeds City/United one (without the illegal player payment thing) a decade or so before.


A passage from an article on a Leeds United website on the financial irregularities that led to the demise of Leeds City concludes with the following passage:


Quote
However, just as the history of Leeds City came to an abrupt and infamous conclusion, things took a new twist. Moves were under way to create Leeds United, a new club which would (eventually) rise triumphantly from the ashes of this whole sorry affair.


The choice of a new name by Wigan Athletic and Leeds United may well reflect a desire of those forming the new clubs to dissociate themselves from the failure or infamy of the old clubs.

However, in each case, there is a causal connection between the demise of the old club and the formation of a new club. Also, in each case, the fan base would have been largely the same (as reflected in both clubs using the same stadium as the old clubs).

In any event, just because the new club chooses (subjectively) to dissociate itself from the old club, doesn't mean we can't consider objective criteria as well.

Nowadays, with section 5.3, a new club formed after the demise of an old club is more likely to claim (subjectively) to be a reformed club, with the advantageous prospect of starting just two levels down, rather than at the bottom of the pyramid, notwithstanding any embarassment associated with the old club.

A historical overview may well be better served by a sociological perspective, without relying on rules that may change from time to time.



Football Insights


(This post was edited by rainjar on Mar 21, 2011, 3:26 PM)


rainjar
First Team Star

Mar 21, 2011, 3:20 PM

Posts: 1558
Location:
Team(s):

Post #19 of 39 (12389 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andrelux] Re-formed clubs [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
....

For example, Woolwich Arsenal's move from South-East to North London almost a hundred years ago. They upped sticks and left their traditional area in search of pastures new, but kept their place in the league and merely changed names. Echos of Wimbledon moving to Milton Keynes. On the one hand, we wouldn't think of questioning whether they became a new club as the result, but the general consensus is that MK Dons are new. Yet, we have no real knowledge of how many of the Woolwich fans followed them and travelled across town, how many just switched to watching other local sides, and how soon the new fanbase became mainly from North London. There certainly wasn't an AFC Woolwich.

As I said, a can of worms... of all shades of grey.


Fun, though...


Moving within the same town/city is certainly greyer than moving to another town/city altogether.



Football Insights


Andrelux
First Team Regular

Mar 21, 2011, 7:16 PM

Posts: 1213
Location: Luxembourg
Team(s): Brentford (for my sins - obviously done something really bad in a past life

Post #20 of 39 (12361 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rainjar] Re-formed clubs [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

You're obviously not from the smoke.

South East London to North London.... whole different world. Might as well move from one planet to another. Trust me on this.


rainjar
First Team Star

Mar 21, 2011, 9:07 PM

Posts: 1558
Location:
Team(s):

Post #21 of 39 (12340 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andrelux] Re-formed clubs [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
....

South East London to North London.... whole different world. Might as well move from one planet to another. Trust me on this.


I'm not disagreeing with you. Probably more so in 1910 than today. The only point I was making was that there are different shades of grey.


In Reply To
You're obviously not from the smoke.

....


I can only claim to have lived in London for 5 years, but no, I don't claim to have any great understanding of London.

Wikipedia on Arsenal's history over the relevant period:

.... Arsenal were never able to challenge for the League title, only twice finishing above tenth place in the First Division between 1904 and 1913.


Quote
The chief cause of this decline was the club's ongoing financial problems; despite the boom in football during the early 20th century, the club's geographic isolation, in the relatively underpopulated area of Plumstead (then on the outskirts of urban London), meant attendances and thus income were low. To stay afloat, Woolwich Arsenal were forced to sell their star players ..., and slowly started to slip down the table, which compounded their financial situation as crowds fell. By the end of the decade the average attendance at Manor Ground was 11,000, a little over half of what it was in 1904. The club were close to bankruptcy, and in 1910 went into voluntary liquidation before being bought out by a consortium of businessmen; the largest shareholder amongst the new owners was property magnate Sir Henry Norris, who was also chairman of Fulham.

The novel "Making the Arsenal" by Tony Attwood, (published by First and Best, www.woolwicharsenal.co.uk) includes the argument that crowds at Woolwich Arsenal were down in 1910 because of the closure of the torpedo factory and its removal to the Clyde that year. It also suggests that after Norris failed to get an agreement to amalgamation with Fulham he instead sought to have Woolwich Arsenal play at Craven Cottage on alternative Saturdays. This plan was abandoned when he was forced to agree that Woolwich Arsenal would stay at the Manor Ground for at least two years from the summer of 1910.

Norris was acutely aware of the problems associated with Woolwich Arsenal's location, and was desperate to improve the club's income. First, Norris tried to merge Woolwich Arsenal with his other club, Fulham. When that was blocked by the Football League, Norris abandoned the merger and looked to move the club elsewhere, eventually picking a site in Highbury, north London. Despite objections both from Woolwich-based fans and residents of Highbury, Norris tenaciously saw the move through. He reportedly spent £125,000 (approximately £8.2m in 2005 prices) on building the new stadium, designed by Archibald Leitch, on a divinity college's playing fields. Woolwich Arsenal moved there in the 1913 close season, having finished bottom and relegated back to the Second Division in 1912–13. They replaced the "Woolwich" in their name with "The" in April 1914, finally becoming plain "Arsenal" in November 1919, although the press at the time continued to refer to them as "The Arsenal".


I suppose the fact that the fans who objected did not form a new club does distinguish it from Wimbledon / AFC Wimbledon.

More significantly, the club entered voluntary liquidation in 1910. --> Re-formed club?



Football Insights


Andrelux
First Team Regular

Mar 21, 2011, 9:44 PM

Posts: 1213
Location: Luxembourg
Team(s): Brentford (for my sins - obviously done something really bad in a past life

Post #22 of 39 (12336 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rainjar] Re-formed clubs [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
However, in each case, there is a causal connection between the demise of the old club and the formation of a new club. Also, in each case, the fan base would have been largely the same (as reflected in both clubs using the same stadium as the old clubs).


Incidentally, I would like to mention again the tendency to conflate the history of a town/city's clubs with that of an individual club. Personally I consider both Leeds City/Leeds United and Wigan Borough/Wigan Athletic to be separate. Obviously both supporters from Leeds and from Wigan would have tended to support the new local clubs. I'd give more credence (but only just) to Leeds, but only just about and that's only because I'm looking back at the situation with limited knowledge, 90 years back. Leeds City were actually banned and chucked out in October 1919 because of illegal payments during WW1. Apparently, it was OK to pay players in 1914-15, when the British Army was fighting at Mons, Ypres, and the Marne, but not during 1915 (Loos), 1916 (the Somme), 1917 (third Ypres), or 1918 (Amiens). Anyway, they got fingered, nothing to do with the supporters, and a new club, cleansed of the association with the scoundrels of Leeds City was formed.... ... despite this, and in the confident knowledge that no-one who was around at the time will gainsay me, I think Leeds United are a different club from Leeds City. Also Wigan Athletic/Wigan Borough (although no First World War dodginess involved there...).


Andrelux
First Team Regular

Mar 21, 2011, 10:07 PM

Posts: 1213
Location: Luxembourg
Team(s): Brentford (for my sins - obviously done something really bad in a past life

Post #23 of 39 (12327 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rainjar] Re-formed clubs [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

In Reply To
I suppose the fact that the fans who objected did not form a new club does distinguish it from Wimbledon / AFC Wimbledon.

More significantly, the club entered voluntary liquidation in 1910. --> Re-formed club?

See what I mean?

It would be a brave man who said that the orifice and Woolwich Arsenal are different clubs. It would be a brave man who claimed that MK Dons and old Wimbledon were one and the same. Yet the parallels are quite clear:

Did the club move to another area in order to garner a new fan base?

Woolwich Arsenal - yes
Wimbledon - yes

Did the move cause conflict?

Woolwich Arsenal - yes
Wimbledon - yes

Did the club carry on with the same name, even after they had moved?

Woolwich Arsenal - for the best part of a year, yes.
Wimbledon - for a couple of years, yes.

Did the club eventually change name, to reflect their new location?

Woolwich Arsenal - yes, dropped the Woolwich part
Wimbledon - yes, to MK Dons

Did the club retain their league status, despite the change in names?

Arsenal - yes
MK Dons - yes

Did the club maintain its existing support?

Woolwich Arsenal - according to the article you quote, probably not. Certainly a lot of objections.
Wimbledon - definitely not.

Does the new club have a new fan base?

Arsenal - well Gooners come from all parts of the world, but North London seems to be ground zero.
MK Dons - yes, have now developed their own, based firmly in and around MK.

Are they considered to be one and the same clubs?

Woolwich Arsenal/Arsenal - yes
Wimbledon/MK Dons - no.

Forgive me, but apart from the last question, the answers to all the others are the same for the Arsenal and for MK Dons.

Just being controversial, and all...

... and apart from anything else, there's the delicious thought that Woolwich Arsenal themselves may not be one club but two...one reformed in 1910.


rainjar
First Team Star

Mar 22, 2011, 10:21 AM

Posts: 1558
Location:
Team(s):

Post #24 of 39 (12270 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andrelux] Re-formed clubs [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

In Reply To
I suppose the fact that the fans who objected did not form a new club does distinguish it from Wimbledon / AFC Wimbledon.

....

See what I mean?

It would be a brave man who said that the orifice and Woolwich Arsenal are different clubs. It would be a brave man who claimed that MK Dons and old Wimbledon were one and the same. Yet the parallels are quite clear:

Did the club move to another area in order to garner a new fan base?

Woolwich Arsenal - yes
Wimbledon - yes

Did the move cause conflict?

Woolwich Arsenal - yes
Wimbledon - yes

Did the club carry on with the same name, even after they had moved?

Woolwich Arsenal - for the best part of a year, yes.
Wimbledon - for a couple of years, yes.

Did the club eventually change name, to reflect their new location?

Woolwich Arsenal - yes, dropped the Woolwich part
Wimbledon - yes, to MK Dons

Did the club retain their league status, despite the change in names?

Arsenal - yes
MK Dons - yes

Did the club maintain its existing support?

Woolwich Arsenal - according to the article you quote, probably not. Certainly a lot of objections.
Wimbledon - definitely not.

Does the new club have a new fan base?

Arsenal - well Gooners come from all parts of the world, but North London seems to be ground zero.
MK Dons - yes, have now developed their own, based firmly in and around MK.

Are they considered to be one and the same clubs?

Woolwich Arsenal/Arsenal - yes
Wimbledon/MK Dons - no.

Forgive me, but apart from the last question, the answers to all the others are the same for the Arsenal and for MK Dons.

Just being controversial, and all...

....


The essential difference is that in the case of Wimbledon, the fans who objected to the move established a replacement club.

Perhaps "replacement club" is a more value neutral term than "reformed club". Perhaps not.

It would appear that modern fans are more proactive than their historical counterparts, which can only be a good thing.

Or perhaps the objecting fans of Woolwich Arsenal did try to set up a replacement club, but were blocked by the powers that be (Sir Henry Norris clearly being a person of some influence). It was a different age.

As for Sir Henry Norris, the Wikipedia article goes on to state (the link I used above doesn't work, so I've tried again):


Quote
The club controversially rejoined the First Division in 1919, despite only finishing [fifth] in 1914–15, the last season of competitive football before the First World War had intervened .... The First Division was being expanded from 20 teams to 22, and the two new entrants were elected at an AGM of the Football League. One of the extra places was given to Chelsea, who had finished 19th in the First Division and thus had been already relegated. The other spot could have gone to 20th-placed Tottenham Hotspur (also relegated), or to Barnsley or Wolves, who had finished third and fourth in the Second Division respectively.

Instead, the League decided instead to promote sixth-placed Arsenal, for reasons of history over merit; Norris argued that Arsenal be promoted for their "long service to league football", having been the first League club from the South. The League board agreed; they voted eighteen votes to eight to promote Arsenal ahead of their local rivals Tottenham Hotspur, which has fuelled the long-standing enmity between the two clubs. It has been alleged that this was due to backroom deals or even outright bribery by Sir Henry Norris, colluding with his friend John McKenna, chairman of Liverpool and the Football League, who recommended Arsenal's promotion to the AGM.




Football Insights


rainjar
First Team Star

Mar 22, 2011, 9:34 PM

Posts: 1558
Location:
Team(s):

Post #25 of 39 (12232 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rainjar] Re-formed clubs [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

How many clubs have been re-formed as AFCs?

Would AFC Hornchurch be one of the earlier instances?

Not unsurprisingly, the club's website sets out their history as dating back to 1923. On the other hand, Wikipedia treats them as two separate clubs.

My first exposure to the depth of non-league football more than 10 years ago was a website run by a Hornchurch fan, which included several non-league tables. I can't remember his name now.



Football Insights

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 


free hit counters

Search for (options) HOSTED BY SUMMIT SOCCER v.1.2.3