You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Clubs merging
- Thread starter Cityfan
- Start date
Interesting topic for discussion, but credibility starts to wane when suggesting mergers of Liverpool/Everton, Villa/Brum, Arsenal/Spurs. And Inverness Caledonian Thistle is hardly an example of a successful merger.
What would these suggested mergers achieve? A bigger fanbase for the merged club, but not higher attendances unless they can double the capacity of the ground. More shirt sales. Hardly going to catapult the club to the next level.
Stronger squad? Not really. Liverpool can go and get Baines or whoever at the next window anyway. The surplus players would join another team.
Who would make up the numbers? Another weak promoted team, with some of the aforementioned surplus players. So what would be the end result? A different team name, the loss of two teams with 100 years tradition to be replaced by one team with no history or tradition. The loss of charged-up local derbies. But essentially, a promoted team at every level, and nothing better than a good transfer window for the merged club.
The alternative? Let one fold and their fans get to choose an alternative team to support. The original club will eventually re-emerge in the lower divisions and find their level again. (Slightly different but compare Wimbledon FC.)
What would these suggested mergers achieve? A bigger fanbase for the merged club, but not higher attendances unless they can double the capacity of the ground. More shirt sales. Hardly going to catapult the club to the next level.
Stronger squad? Not really. Liverpool can go and get Baines or whoever at the next window anyway. The surplus players would join another team.
Who would make up the numbers? Another weak promoted team, with some of the aforementioned surplus players. So what would be the end result? A different team name, the loss of two teams with 100 years tradition to be replaced by one team with no history or tradition. The loss of charged-up local derbies. But essentially, a promoted team at every level, and nothing better than a good transfer window for the merged club.
The alternative? Let one fold and their fans get to choose an alternative team to support. The original club will eventually re-emerge in the lower divisions and find their level again. (Slightly different but compare Wimbledon FC.)
The most recent occasion on which there was discussion of a merger of two large clubs in England was Sheffield around ten years ago. The major shareholder of Sheffield United (one Mike MacDonald, who almost bought City from Swales instead of Franny Lee) suggested that Sheffield wasn't able to support two major clubs and that, if it were a one club city, that single club would have the potential to be one of the biggest in England.
I remember him discussing it on BBC's The Money Programme. He recognised that the new club would have to have a new ground and a new kit so that it was genuinely a new club, not alienating fans of one of the teams by effectively making them feel as though they've been taken over by the other.
In theory, when you look at the two Sheffields, United and Wednesday, now both struggling in the third tier but with a current combined average gate of more than 35,000, it's tempting to be seduced by the power that would be enjoyed by a merged club drawing on that support. The problem is that the fans of the two club have loyalty to their own club, not to the new club.
Say United and Wednesday merged and Sheffield City FC, playing in all white with red and blue trim, took the field for their opening at a rebuilt 60K Don Valley stadium, the capacity reflecting the ambitions for the team's pulling power if it became successful. I don't reckon you'd get near the current 35,000 while they worked their way up the pyramid.
Does anyone reckon they'd even attract 50% of the current gates of either club? And if that's right, then no one is going to invest the money it would take to make the merger happen. It's really a non-starter.
I remember him discussing it on BBC's The Money Programme. He recognised that the new club would have to have a new ground and a new kit so that it was genuinely a new club, not alienating fans of one of the teams by effectively making them feel as though they've been taken over by the other.
In theory, when you look at the two Sheffields, United and Wednesday, now both struggling in the third tier but with a current combined average gate of more than 35,000, it's tempting to be seduced by the power that would be enjoyed by a merged club drawing on that support. The problem is that the fans of the two club have loyalty to their own club, not to the new club.
Say United and Wednesday merged and Sheffield City FC, playing in all white with red and blue trim, took the field for their opening at a rebuilt 60K Don Valley stadium, the capacity reflecting the ambitions for the team's pulling power if it became successful. I don't reckon you'd get near the current 35,000 while they worked their way up the pyramid.
Does anyone reckon they'd even attract 50% of the current gates of either club? And if that's right, then no one is going to invest the money it would take to make the merger happen. It's really a non-starter.
Mad Eyed Screamer
Moderator
subterranean_homesick_blue said:The most recent occasion on which there was discussion of a merger of two large clubs in England was Sheffield around ten years ago. The major shareholder of Sheffield United (one Mike MacDonald, who almost bought City from Swales instead of Franny Lee) suggested that Sheffield wasn't able to support two major clubs and that, if it were a one club city, that single club would have the potential to be one of the biggest in England.
I remember him discussing it on BBC's The Money Programme. He recognised that the new club would have to have a new ground and a new kit so that it was genuinely a new club, not alienating fans of one of the teams by effectively making them feel as though they've been taken over by the other.
In theory, when you look at the two Sheffields, United and Wednesday, now both struggling in the third tier but with a current combined average gate of more than 35,000, it's tempting to be seduced by the power that would be enjoyed by a merged club drawing on that support. The problem is that the fans of the two club have loyalty to their own club, not to the new club.
Say United and Wednesday merged and Sheffield City FC, playing in all white with red and blue trim, took the field for their opening at a rebuilt 60K Don Valley stadium, the capacity reflecting the ambitions for the team's pulling power if it became successful. I don't reckon you'd get near the current 35,000 while they worked their way up the pyramid.
Does anyone reckon they'd even attract 50% of the current gates of either club? And if that's right, then no one is going to invest the money it would take to make the merger happen. It's really a non-starter.
I think what you would get is sets of both Sheffield clubs fans doing an ''FC United of Bury'' and starting their own clubs up and attracting more fans than a Sheffield City would do at the Don Valley or wherever.
Mad Eyed Screamer said:subterranean_homesick_blue said:The most recent occasion on which there was discussion of a merger of two large clubs in England was Sheffield around ten years ago. The major shareholder of Sheffield United (one Mike MacDonald, who almost bought City from Swales instead of Franny Lee) suggested that Sheffield wasn't able to support two major clubs and that, if it were a one club city, that single club would have the potential to be one of the biggest in England.
...
Does anyone reckon [a merged club would] even attract 50% of the current gates of either club? And if that's right, then no one is going to invest the money it would take to make the merger happen. It's really a non-starter.
I think what you would get is sets of both Sheffield clubs fans doing an ''FC United of Bury'' and starting their own clubs up and attracting more fans than a Sheffield City would do at the Don Valley or wherever.
I agree. Fans of both would definitely start up 'phoenix' clubs. I was thinking that you might see a merged club getting around 5K or 6K maximum. It would be a disaster, anyway, I'm pretty sure of that - hence why no one has done it.
Maintainin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 7,269
I'm a tad surprised pair of em (one's with least hatred) have'nt done much to boost the gates of oldest club in football down at the Coach n' Horses or BT Stadium wotever it's called these days, Sheffield FC.subterranean_homesick_blue said:Mad Eyed Screamer said:subterranean_homesick_blue said:The most recent occasion on which there was discussion of a merger of two large clubs in England was Sheffield around ten years ago. The major shareholder of Sheffield United (one Mike MacDonald, who almost bought City from Swales instead of Franny Lee) suggested that Sheffield wasn't able to support two major clubs and that, if it were a one club city, that single club would have the potential to be one of the biggest in England.
...
Does anyone reckon [a merged club would] even attract 50% of the current gates of either club? And if that's right, then no one is going to invest the money it would take to make the merger happen. It's really a non-starter.
I think what you would get is sets of both Sheffield clubs fans doing an ''FC United of Bury'' and starting their own clubs up and attracting more fans than a Sheffield City would do at the Don Valley or wherever.
I agree. Fans of both would definitely start up 'phoenix' clubs. I was thinking that you might see a merged club getting around 5K or 6K maximum. It would be a disaster, anyway, I'm pretty sure of that - hence why no one has done it.
Would luv the steel city clubs back in top flight.
Mad Eyed Screamer
Moderator
Maintainin said:I'm a tad surprised pair of em (one's with least hatred) have'nt done much to boost the gates of oldest club in football down at the Coach n' Horses or BT Stadium wotever it's called these days, Sheffield FC.subterranean_homesick_blue said:Mad Eyed Screamer said:I think what you would get is sets of both Sheffield clubs fans doing an ''FC United of Bury'' and starting their own clubs up and attracting more fans than a Sheffield City would do at the Don Valley or wherever.
I agree. Fans of both would definitely start up 'phoenix' clubs. I was thinking that you might see a merged club getting around 5K or 6K maximum. It would be a disaster, anyway, I'm pretty sure of that - hence why no one has done it.
Would luv the steel city clubs back in top flight.
and dont forget, Rotherham play at the Don Valley these days so there are 4 teams in Sheffield ;)
DontLookBackInAnger
Well-Known Member
Well I for one would stop going to football over supporting a merged City/rags and I'm sure thats how the majority of supporters up and down the country feel.
-- Mon Oct 03, 2011 3:06 pm --
-- Mon Oct 03, 2011 3:06 pm --
I'm not quite sure of the location but I know Sheffield FC don't actually play in there anymore at the Coach n' Horses(their ground is in derbyshire). So there are 3 clubs in Sheffleld and FC isn't any of them!Mad Eyed Screamer said:Maintainin said:I'm a tad surprised pair of em (one's with least hatred) have'nt done much to boost the gates of oldest club in football down at the Coach n' Horses or BT Stadium wotever it's called these days, Sheffield FC.subterranean_homesick_blue said:I agree. Fans of both would definitely start up 'phoenix' clubs. I was thinking that you might see a merged club getting around 5K or 6K maximum. It would be a disaster, anyway, I'm pretty sure of that - hence why no one has done it.
Would luv the steel city clubs back in top flight.
and dont forget, Rotherham play at the Don Valley these days so there are 4 teams in Sheffield ;)