“While liquidation would ordinarily mean entry to the lowest step in the pyramid, there is an outside chance with Bury’s circumstances - and this would be featured in any application we would make - being returned to an appropriate level within the National League system.”
So that would be the lowest step in the pyramid then?
I thought the pyramid had 12 or more levels?
AFC Wimbledon we’re allowed to start from level 9.
I assume the reference to “National” indicates the divisions just below the League?
Bottom division of the North West Counties league is where they’d start - any higher would involve creating an extra space by denying someone promotion or relegating an extra team. Not a chance of that happening.
Chester, Hereford and Darlington were all placed in leagues that were at the time step 9 upon reformation, although the reformed Chester were then placed at step 8 upon appeal, which was the Northern Premier League North at the time, all three clubs now play in the National League North having won numerous promotions, and in Chester’s case suffered one relegation. So there is absolutely no reason why Bury should be placed any higher than step 9, but they will be because of all the gnashing and wailing politicians, plus there is a shortage of northern clubs in the National League with the likes of Hereford, Gloucester. Leamington, and Kiddy all playing in the North division. Those three clubs I mentioned like all the other phoenix clubs have had to work their way up the pyramid to wherever they are now, so it would be very unfair for Bury to be placed at or higher the level of any of them.
Geordie is absolutely right about what has happened in the past when clubs went into liquidation, with them starting again in step 9. However I think that this policy is too severe a punishment for the fans of those clubs, and that it was wrong for the people of Chester, Hereford and Darlington for their clubs to be dealt with so harshly.
I would say that allowing a team that has gone bust to start in a league that is two levels below where it was would be a reasonable punishment.
I know that some will say that this would be unfair to clubs that had a far more difficult path back to the league, but I do not think that this is a strong argument. When they abolished the death penalty it could have been argued that this was unfair to all the murders who had been hanged in the years before, and that it would be wrong to treat current criminals more leniently than those who had gone before. That would not have convinced many people and I do not think that the plight of clubs who had been over-punished in the past is at all relevant to deciding what is the correct punishment now.
Its not a case of punishment though. These are new clubs that have been formed because the old ones went out of business. They may carry similar names, play in the same colours, be supported by the same fans, and in some cases play at the same grounds, but they are NOT the same clubs because if they were they would have to shoulder the burden of the financial obligations of the original club that they replaced. If you are looking at examples of clubs that have continued as the original entity and suffered punishment for financial irregularities then the likes of Swindon, Boston United, and most recently Gateshead would be examples, and none of them got a punishment that was more severe than being relegated a division or two as you suggest.
When a club goes into administration it does not have to shoulder the burden of the financial obligations it has incurred. The penalty for this is a deduction of 12 points.
Your point about whether it is still the same club after a re-start raises the interesting philosophical point known as the Ship of Theseus. If a ship has been completely re-built so that none of the original structure remains, is it really the same ship sailed by Theseus? If a club has the same ground, supporters, colours, history, and traditions as before is it really a different club?
In my opinion it is (the same, sorry if I didn’t make that clear), but unfortunately in reality it isn’t, a liquidated business that has ceased trading is exactly that. In order for footballing activities to be resumed within its community a new company has to be formed, and that is distinct from what in my opinion is the dodgy practice of administration. However, most football clubs that suffer liquidation will have already gone through administration and all the mess that goes with it. The fact that some new clubs play at the old clubs ground is really irrelevant other than being a nice thing for the supporters if it can be contrived, but in some cases but not others. You won’t find a Darlington fan that wants to return to the Arena anytime soon even though it still exists and is in use, likewise Rotherham United moved out of Millmoor and took two points deductions for seperate spells in administration (but remained the same club under different ownership). Millmoor still exists and is in use but would anyone at RUFC want to give up the New York Stadium to return?? Unfortunately our views as fans are often in conflict with the reality that football clubs are either privately owned Ltd companies or PLC’s, but as such the realities of “existence” are governed by that status.
I disagree with your argument that the essence of a football club is determined in the boardroom and the law courts. You are saying that after a particular legal change it becomes an entirely new club, but if there is legal continuity then it remains the same club.
By that logic you would have to support the franchise keeping its place in the league, its trophies and its history when it moved from Plough Lane to Milton Keynes.
I would argue that although as a matter of law Wimbledon FC remained exactly the same club when it changed its name and its location, in all important factors it did not. Similarly I would say that a club that goes bust but maintains continuity with its fans when it re-starts remains essentially the same club.
Unfortunately though when it comes to reality, all football league clubs and most non-league clubs are ltd companies or PLC’s, believe me I wish they wern’t, but that’s the world we live in and the football authorities have deemed that when those companies are liquidated and new ones are formed they are treated as such, and not a continuation. So basically I agree entirely with the essence of what you’re saying, but disagree with the practicalities that it would be fair to place Bury phoenix on a par or higher up than the existing phoenix clubs that are continuing to follow the previous and ongiong protocols. It most certainly could be argued that Bury’s status in the hierachy of football when they were booted out of the league was gained unfairly by spending money they obtained by putting their own existance in jeopardy, again idiots in the board room with no accountability to the community and seemingly little or no scrutiny from the football authorities, but again that’s what you get when football clubs are owned by one or a few private individuals. If you look at what happened when Bolton were “forced” to live within their means for a few months prior to their takeover you quickly come to understand that playing the youth team (which is all Bury could really afford last season) gets you relegated by Christmas - that’s what should have happened to Bury last season, and if they played the youth team in the National League they’d be relegated again, and probably again until they reached a level where the wages they could actually afford matched the level of football where their players could compete. So in essence you end up “down there” one way or another with the model of being a shockingly run Ltd company.
Take a look at the National League North, Southport are rubbing shoulders with Darlington and Hereford just as they were in the football league in the 1970s. Southport ended up where they are because they were a shockingly supported football league club (crowds under 1000 the year they were voted out in 1978), and are bobbing along, while the phoenix clubs are also at the same level. To me that’s about right.
Just listening to Radio 5 Live - “how to run a football club” debate with Mark Chapman hosting and Mark Palios (Tranmere owner) and Alan Hardy (former Notts County owners) and others - well worth a listen. I am sure it will be available on catch up (BBC Sounds / iPlayer?)
Just caught a couple of minutes of it . It was stated that the average wage for a player in the Championship is 16 k a week for those clubs to break even the players need to be on 5k a week!
I work in Hereford and they have had a great time working there way up from the basement of football, rather than face a season after season of struggling to stay in division 4. I would suggest they have a fan base similar to ourselves with season ticket holders of 1500
How many season tickets have we actually sold this season… Does anyone know?
The Non-League Pyramid has 7 levels, ranging from the National Division of the National League (Step 1) down to the level of the Midland Football League Division One (their 2nd division) or the soon-to-be-ended Premier Division of the West Midlands (Regional) League (Step 7). As a guide, Rushall Olympic are at Step 3, Walsall Wood at Step 5 and Darlaston Town at Step 7.
About 2400 I think.
Bolton 5 points docked if the same happens again. Some people will say they have got away with it. Some will have sympathy and say the 2 games were called off for good reason and why punish these staff that have come into the Club after all the going-ons. I know the moans will grow if Bolton end up staying up. There is every chance of that happening.
Makes me proud of how our Club is tbh.
Shouldnt be allowed too happen in this day and age of Football!
Sad times for both and hope the best for bolton
I think there has to be a consistency through all levels of football and ide definitely be in the camp that says Bolton have got away with one here.
In junior football, if one team fails to show up, the other team is awarded a three nil win. This effectively denies the absent team the opportunity to garner points when they have a team they may feel is strong enough to field and does their goal difference by six.
In this instance, provided Bolton complete the rest of their fixtures they could get four or six points from these games which feels unfair and possibly a dangerous precedent.
Is that a wind up !
Hope the best for Bolton !, they have cheated for years even the ■■■■ poor EFL have basically said it’s no where near a strong enough punishment , there is no way they should have any chance of still being in league one come the end of the season .