NCCU and the MCF

[David Sedgwick]

by David Sedgwick » Wed Nov 02, 2022 10:38 am

I had been told that the Lancashire boycott was likely.

Rubbish

The information which I received may have been incorrect, but I repeat that that is what I was told.

I am not lying.

[Roger de Coverly]

Noted that this post has been going since 2010, which is amazing. Is it time to archive now the question is resolved?

The dispute itself started around 1975, possibly earlier in private. I get the idea that some Lancashire officials have not entirely given it up. They did after all vote against the acceptance of Greater Manchester into the NCCU.

[Stephen Westmoreland]

They are in now.

[Chris Goodall]

Is it time to archive now the question is resolved?

It was always resolved; it is now resolved differently.

[Stephen Westmoreland]

Is it time to archive now the question is resolved?

It was always resolved; it is now resolved differently.

Excellent. Let's play some chess then (like I am about to at Halifax).

[MartinCarpenter]

A lot of these sorts of competitions have stuck with historic counties.

Very much the case for the SCCU (Middlesex was not replaced by Greater London), WECU (No Avon county), MCCU (no Greater Birmingham). That's despite the presence of long established leagues in those areas. In the NCCU on the other hand, Durham and Yorkshire were sliced to create Cleveland, and Lancashire itself was sliced to create Merseyside.

So opposition to the creation of Greater Manchester by slicing Lancashire and Cheshire seemed illogical and thus rather more due to personal animosity.

On the other hand, there was never any talk of slicing Northumberland and Durham to create Tyne & Wear, and when Humberside tried to secede from Yorkshire and Lincolnshire (in the late 80s IIRC), Yorkshire was furious and insisted on the right of veto. When David Sedgwick talked about a veto clause having gotten itself into the NCCU constitution, I assumed that it dated from the Humberside dispute.

Matt M is right - there is no rhyme or reason. Manchester were successful in creating "facts on the ground" that outweighed theoretical quibbles. (Applying simultaneously to the MCCU and NCCU was a clever move.)

Well that wouldn't have been a case of slicing out Tyne&Wear so much as replacing Northumberland and Durham with them I presume not terribly important in that anyone in Sunderland/Gateshead who wants to play for Northumberland can manage to register for a qualifying club.

Humberside I didn't know about but can believe - they're a long way from anywhere else in Yorkshire, and they'd had been able to field a really solid team in the 80's with Hull so strong. In retrospect it was definitely best to stop it as they really wouldn't have the player base to field county teams these days.

As we've seen with Cleveland of course. I'm not sure why Merseyside have fielded so few teams recently. Plenty of people and the league looks fairly strong.

[Chris Goodall]

On the other hand, there was never any talk of slicing Northumberland and Durham to create Tyne & Wear, and when Humberside tried to secede from Yorkshire and Lincolnshire (in the late 80s IIRC), Yorkshire was furious and insisted on the right of veto. When David Sedgwick talked about a veto clause having gotten itself into the NCCU constitution, I assumed that it dated from the Humberside dispute.

Humberside I didn't know about but can believe - they're a long way from anywhere else in Yorkshire, and they'd had been able to field a really solid team in the 80's with Hull so strong. In retrospect it was definitely best to stop it as they really wouldn't have the player base to field county teams these days.

I can dig the relevant pages out of the minutes if people are curious. The whole affair seems to have been memory-holed. Perhaps it set the wrong precedent for the case of Manchester.

[Reg Clucas]

Noted that this post has been going since 2010, which is amazing. Is it time to archive now the question is resolved?

No, there's lots of mileage left in it yet! Only last night I found myself giving a potted history to some of our club members who were totally unaware of the dispute. (I referred them to this thread ).

[Kevin Thurlow]

"No, there's lots of mileage left in it yet! Only last night I found myself giving a potted history to some of our club members who were totally unaware of the dispute. (I referred them to this thread )."

Absolutely - people still discuss Fischer's complaints about Russians allegedly cheating in 1962...

[Stephen Westmoreland]

Go nuts then guys. Please ensure I am NOT back at the NCCU voting and speaking on this again!

[Mick Norris]

(Speaking of Bury and common sense, you'd think it would be a no-brainer for Bury FC Supporters Society, who have the stadium and the name, to merge with Bury AFC, who have the team and most of the fans. I understand some resistance has developed on both sides Maybe they need Tim Wall to go and sort them out.)

Bury AFC was 94% in favour, so I think it is wrong to say there was resistance on both sides; the other side were 63% in favour, but that's short of the 2/3rds majority needed

2nd time sorted

A vote to merge Bury FC and Bury AFC has passed, paving the way for football to return to Gigg Lane.

Members of both clubs failed to reach a two-thirds majority in the first merger vote in October.

This time 90.1% of the Bury FC Supporters' Society and 97% of Bury AFC members voted to form one club to play at Gigg Lane from next season.