Happy Birthday 2 Three

[tee rex]

A few days early, but anyway ... the third tier of the Football League is nearly 100 years old. An anniversary to be celebrated by not having any fixtures, it seems.

It was a division based on the Southern League, the north had to wait their turn, we'll hear from them in a year's time. Was it some kind of Revenge of the South? "You started a league without us, we'll have a third division without you, so there"? Consequently Crystal Palace got to be champions of Div 3, but never Div 3 (S).

Anyway, I wasn't aware of this before now, but the fixture list was remarkable. For example, here's Exeter City:

https://www.11v11.com/teams/exeter-c...s/season/1921/

Did they get a discount for sharing train compartments or something? I'd love to know the story behind that, it was like this for a few seasons.

[My Name Is Ian]

It's worth remembering that in 1888 the Football League was far from guaranteed to be the only game in town, league-wise. The Football Combination had been set up but had a ridiculous structure which doomed it to fail, while the Football Alliance was merged in as Division Two in 1890.

The Southern League was set up to mirror the Football League in the south. Only Arsenal had been let in by 1894, and I suspect it was commonly thought that they'd remain separate. I don't think it was so much a 'revenge' thing as being slightly behind the curve, while travel costs were also a consideration, even though there were plenty of trains. Dozens of FA Cup matches were scrapped in the first few years because teams couldn't afford the train fare.

The Southern League did occasionally take northern clubs. Bradford PA played a year there, and so did Stoke after they resigned, changed their minds and weren't allowed back. It was certainly still considered a rival to the Football League in the early 1900s.

I'm looking at a book about the history of re-election right now, and between 1900 and 1915 the only teams from south of the Midlands to apply to join the Football League were Chelsea and Clapton Orient in 1905, Fulham in 1907, Spurs in 1908 and Cardiff in 1912.

[My Name Is Ian]

When I was researching this for a history of football podcast I was doing last year, one thing that really stuck out was how quickly West Yorkshire clubs were voted in after they were formed. Huddersfield, Leeds City and both Bradford clubs were all elected within a year or two of forming, and the way it was all set up looks quite a bit like franchising (Bradford City definitely were, but that's a whole other nest of vipers - the Bradford FC, Bradford City, Bradford Northern & Bradford (Park Avenue) story is endlessly fascinating to me and is in the top three things I'd like to write a book about.) I strongly suspect the Football League was spooked by the success of rugby league as a working class version of rugby and wanted football clubs in there ASAP.

[My Name Is Ian]

(The Football League also had a one club per city rule in its formative years which may have impacted upon their decision-making too, though I don't remember when that ended.)

[Greenlander]

In terms of playing strength were the North and South divisions fairly evenly matched or was one considered tougher than the other? I'm guessing lower league Midland clubs like Walsall were often shunted between the two to keep the numbers even and found one more to their liking.

[Me Old Flower]

When I was researching this for a history of football podcast I was doing last year, one thing that really stuck out was how quickly West Yorkshire clubs were voted in after they were formed. Huddersfield, Leeds City and both Bradford clubs were all elected within a year or two of forming, and the way it was all set up looks quite a bit like franchising (Bradford City definitely were, but that's a whole best of vipers - the Bradford FC, Bradford City, Bradford Northern & Bradford (Park Avenue) story is endlessly fascinating to me and is in the top three things I'd like to write a book about.) I strongly suspect the Football League was spooked by the success of rugby league as a working class version of rugby and wanted football clubs in there ASAP.

That's very much true, Ian. The Football League really wanted to push through teams in places like Castleford too.

It you cast an eye over the sports pages of local newspapers from that period (The Huddersfield Chronicle, for example), you'll quickly see that Football (which always meant Rugby, rather than association) and cricket were really the only games in town at that point. The bigger teams (Huddersfield, Halifax, Wakefield, etc) would attract substantial crowds, and suburban teams could occasionally draw 1000+.

Football: The Rugby Union Game by Frank Marshall (1892) is really worth a read for the status of pre-split rugby, as is anything by contemporary writer and academic Tony Collins.

[Satchmo Distel]

Was football seen as less masculine in some rugby league towns?

[Me Old Flower]

I couldn't say, Satch.

The main reason why Rugby gripped West Yorkshire was due to the formation of the now defunct Leeds FC by ex-Rugby School pupils. This aroused a great deal of interest in the region, and very soon most of the towns had their own teams. Had Leeds favoured association rules*, then I'm sure soccer would have prevailed.

*Of course the distinction between Rugby and Association was fairly fuzzy at this time. It wasn't uncommon for West Yorkshire rugby clubs to face association teams like (Sheffield) Wednesday under modified rules.

[My Name Is Ian]

That's very much true, Ian. The Football League really wanted to push through teams in places like Castleford too.

It you cast an eye over the sports pages of local newspapers from that period (The Huddersfield Chronicle, for example), you'll quickly see that Football (which always meant Rugby, rather than association) and cricket were really the only games in town at that point. The bigger teams (Huddersfield, Halifax, Wakefield, etc) would attract substantial crowds, and suburban teams could occasionally draw 1000+.

Football: The Rugby Union Game by Frank Marshall (1892) is really worth a read for the status of pre-split rugby, as is anything by contemporary writer and academic Tony Collins.

That's really interesting, thanks. The early years of rugby league are really, really well documented, much more so than the early years of football.

Jesus it's complicated, though. I did a thing about "THE GREAT BETRAYAL" (amazing name, big part of the reason why I bothered in the first place) once and ended up like the dude out The Da Vinci Code, trying to pull apart who was who.

[Sporting]

I'm looking at a book about the history of re-election right now,

This led me to the following wiki article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-ele...otball_League)

This bit is interesting:

The Fourth Division was established in 1958 out of the bottom clubs of the two groups of the Third Division. The bottom four of the Fourth Division had to face re-election on an annual basis.^[5]

"In this era, 32 clubs had to face the re-election process in 28 seasons. Of those, five failed to gain re-election: Gateshead (1960), Bradford Park Avenue (1970), Barrow (1972), Workington (1977) and Southport (1978). Elected in their stead were Peterborough United, Cambridge United, Hereford United, Wimbledon and Wigan Athletic.Geographically, all newly elected clubs were located further south than the club they replaced, a shift away from the more remote parts of northern England to the south."

Were there any political machinations going on by that period to favour southern over northern clubs? And was the voting secret and do we know if favours were paid and repaid along geographical lines or whatever other considerations?

[Sits]

I couldn't say, Satch.

The main reason why Rugby gripped West Yorkshire was due to the formation of the now defunct Leeds FC by ex-Rugby School pupils. This aroused a great deal of interest in the region, and very soon most of the towns had their own teams. Had Leeds favoured association rules*, then I'm sure soccer would have prevailed.

*Of course the distinction between Rugby and Association was fairly fuzzy at this time. It wasn't uncommon for West Yorkshire rugby clubs to face association teams like (Sheffield) Wednesday under modified rules.

My immediate response reading that was to wonder how there could be fuzzy rules and modified rules somewhere between the codes. But of course then rugby was quite different wasn’t it? No points for a try, it just let you try to score a goal? Something like that IIRC.

[Capybara]

In terms of playing strength were the North and South divisions fairly evenly matched or was one considered tougher than the other? I'm guessing lower league Midland clubs like Walsall were often shunted between the two to keep the numbers even and found one more to their liking.

I remember, some years ago, there being an article about this in WSC. As My Name Is Ian says, the creation of 3(S) was effectively a transfer of the whole of the strong Southern League into the Football League and had a lot of long-established and well-supported clubs. The creation of 3(N) brought together clubs from various leagues who were not so - the major northern clubs were already in the Football League. Many of these clubs struggled for years, decades indeed. If you look at the first season of 3(N) only one club (Grimsby Town, who had transferred from the previous season's 3(S)) subsequently obtained First Division status while only three have not either folded or spent some time subsequently in non-league. On the other hand, in 3(S) only six clubs have spent time out of the League or folded, while 14 have spent time in the First Division (or Premier League).

edit: Following on from Sporting's point, in the first season of the Fourth Division only two of the previous season's 3(N) finished in the top half, and only two of the previous season's 3(S) finished in the bottom half.

[Me Old Flower]

My immediate response reading that was to wonder how there could be fuzzy rules and modified rules somewhere between the codes. But of course then rugby was quite different wasn’t it? No points for a try, it just let you try to score a goal? Something like that IIRC.

Yes, that's right. Dribbling was also considered an important skill in RL up until the 1920s.

Having mentioned Sheffield Wednesday earlier, I've realised that I can't pass up a mention of Sheffield rules (with their goals and 'rouges'), and the influence on the development of Aussie Rules Football.

Another point that I think needs to be made is that pre-1900 Rugby was (to a modern viewer's eyes) a dreadful forward-driven affair. Rugby League's development was less to do with creating a distinction between their code and RU, and more to do with improving the sport as a spectacle in the face of the more aesthetically pleasing association code.

Hope I'm not derailing the thread too much here.

[Sporting]

Hope I'm not derailing the thread too much here.

Not at all. I'm loving this thread and I suspect others are too.

[My Name Is Ian]

Were there any political machinations going on by that period to favour southern over northern clubs? And was the voting secret and do we know if favours were paid and repaid along geographical or whatever other considerations?

It is commonly assented nowadays that geographical remoteness was, whether conciously or not, a factor in deciding whether teams would be re-elected into the Football League. In 1960, Gateshead were voted out despite having only finished third from bottom in the table and having not needed re-electing since 1937. New Brighton, Barrow, Workington & Southport were all relatively geographically isolated. And, of course, it all depended on the calibre of non-league teams applying to enter, as well.

I've heard it said that the reason Hartlepool avoided getting voted out when they finished in the bottom four so often was "the quality of their gin & tonics", and I don't even really know whether it was meant as a joke, innuendo that money was being passed under tables, or whether it's to be taken literally. None would be a surprise, and it may be a little from all three.

The problem with the bags of loot theory is that the clubs who got voted in broadly deserved their places. Cambridge United (who replaced Bradford) had had money put into them during the 1960s, Hereford (who replaced Barrow) had that cup run, Wimbledon and Wigan (Workington and Southport, respectively) have both subsequently proved they were worth their places. Had there been money under passing under tables, you'd expect there to be one or two teams who didn't deserve a place getting voted in, and that doesn't really seem to have been the case. Chelmsford City, for example, applied almost every single year and spent tonnes on their campaigns, making flyer, posters and God knows what else.

But they never even got close. I can't see them ever having picked up more than the 8 votes they got in 1974.

I wish I could put all these votes up, there are some very interesting applications. For example, Goole Town applied in 1975 and picked up 2 votes, whilst Bradford PA applied in 1971, the year after they were voted out for being in a complete meltdown, and only got 1 vote. And sometimes, things might have turned out very different. In 1978, Wigan Athletic and Southport tied on 26 votes each and went to a second vote, with Bath City on 23 votes. So had Bath flipped a couple more clubs to vote for them, they'd have got in and Wigan Athletic may have had to wait until automatic promotion and relegation was introduced before getting a chance.

[My Name Is Ian]

I remember, some years ago, there being an article about this in WSC. As My Name Is Ian says, the creation of 3(S) was effectively a transfer of the whole of the strong Southern League into the Football League and had a lot of long-established and well-supported clubs. The creation of 3(N) brought together clubs from various leagues who were not so - the major northern clubs were already in the Football League. Many of these clubs struggled for years, decades indeed. If you look at the first season of 3(N) only one club (Grimsby Town, who had transferred from the previous season's 3(S)) subsequently obtained First Division status while only three have not either folded or spent some time subsequently in non-league. On the other hand, in 3(S) only six clubs have spent time out of the League or folded, while 14 have spent time in the First Division (or Premier League).

Yes, it's worth remembering that non-league football in the north was much more piecemeal until the formation of the Northern Premier League in 1968. There was the Northern League for amateurs, but otherwise you were looking at the Midland League and various county leagues, prior to then.

[tee rex]

This has the re-election votes for each season (we had a thread on this some years ago, but I can't find it):

http://www.nonleaguematters.co.uk/fo...ostatt_id=3506

Some intriguing decisions, like Exeter surviving ahead of the distant outpost of Ipswich (1937).

[tee rex]

Not some years ago, sorry - but covid has changed time ...

https://www.onetouchfootball.com/for...ootball-league

[Nefertiti2]

This led me to the following wiki article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-ele...otball_League)

This bit is interesting:

The Fourth Division was established in 1958 out of the bottom clubs of the two groups of the Third Division. The bottom four of the Fourth Division had to face re-election on an annual basis.^[5]

"In this era, 32 clubs had to face the re-election process in 28 seasons. Of those, five failed to gain re-election: Gateshead (1960), Bradford Park Avenue (1970), Barrow (1972), Workington (1977) and Southport (1978). Elected in their stead were Peterborough United, Cambridge United, Hereford United, Wimbledon and Wigan Athletic.Geographically, all newly elected clubs were located further south than the club they replaced, a shift away from the more remote parts of northern England to the south."

Were there any political machinations going on by that period to favour southern over northern clubs? And was the voting secret and do we know if favours were paid and repaid along geographical lines or whatever other considerations?

Oxford United joined the Football League in 1962 replacing Acccrington Stanley.

[Sits]

Yes, that's right. Dribbling was also considered an important skill in RL up until the 1920s.

Having mentioned Sheffield Wednesday earlier, I've realised that I can't pass up a mention of Sheffield rules (with their goals and 'rouges'), and the influence on the development of Aussie Rules Football.

Another point that I think needs to be made is that pre-1900 Rugby was (to a modern viewer's eyes) a dreadful forward-driven affair. Rugby League's development was less to do with creating a distinction between their code and RU, and more to do with improving the sport as a spectacle in the face of the more aesthetically pleasing association code.

Hope I'm not derailing the thread too much here.

Thanks MOF. And Derailments R OTF.

[Capybara]

It is commonly assented nowadays that geographical remoteness was, whether conciously or not, a factor in deciding whether teams would be re-elected into the Football League. In 1960, Gateshead were voted out despite having only finished third from bottom in the table and having not needed re-electing since 1937. New Brighton, Barrow, Workington & Southport were all relatively geographically isolated. And, of course, it all depended on the calibre of non-league teams applying to enter, as well.

I've heard it said that the reason Hartlepool avoided getting voted out when they finished in the bottom four so often was "the quality of their gin & tonics", and I don't even really know whether it was meant as a joke, innuendo that money was being passed under tables, or whether it's to be taken literally. None would be a surprise, and it may be a little from all three.

The problem with the bags of loot theory is that the clubs who got voted in broadly deserved their places. Cambridge United (who replaced Bradford) had had money put into them during the 1960s, Hereford (who replaced Barrow) had that cup run, Wimbledon and Wigan (Workington and Southport, respectively) have both subsequently proved they were worth their places. Had there been money under passing under tables, you'd expect there to be one or two teams who didn't deserve a place getting voted in, and that doesn't really seem to have been the case. Chelmsford City, for example, applied almost every single year and spent tonnes on their campaigns, making flyer, posters and God knows what else.

But they never even got close. I can't see them ever having picked up more than the 8 votes they got in 1974.

I wish I could put all these votes up, there are some very interesting applications. For example, Goole Town applied in 1975 and picked up 2 votes, whilst Bradford PA applied in 1971, the year after they were voted out for being in a complete meltdown, and only got 1 vote. And sometimes, things might have turned out very different. In 1978, Wigan Athletic and Southport tied on 26 votes each and went to a second vote, with Bath City on 23 votes. So had Bath flipped a couple more clubs to vote for them, they'd have got in and Wigan Athletic may have had to wait until automatic promotion and relegation was introduced before getting a chance.

Another problem with the remoteness theory is that the clubs doing the voting were, in the main, not going to be playing whichever teams were elected. Only the first and second division clubs - the full members - had a vote each, with the third and fourth division clubs having only four between them. I'd argue also that of those in the 'remote' list only Barrow and Workington were remote in terms of travel and, remember, Workington originally earned their place in the League at the expense of New Brighton while Southport is half an hour on the train from Wigan.

[My Name Is Ian]

Yeah, there's too many contradictions in it for me to take it incredibly seriously as a theory. I mean, if they were happy to kick Gateshead out for next to nothing, how come Hartlepool got away with it so many times?

I mean, Hartlepool is further south than Gateshead, but it's hardly the Home Counties.

[My Name Is Ian]

(I think a lot of it came down into what mood the people voting were in on the day of the League's AGM)

[Simon G]

Wasn't there a case of one team missing out on election/re-election because a team forgot to send a representative - or the representative turned up on the wrong day?

I'm sure I read or heard it on on your podcasts Ian?

[Southport Zeb]

That would be Altrincham in 1980, who missed out on election by one vote to Rochdale. Apparently Altrincham had been promised the votes of Grimsby and Luton, but neither managed to vote - the Grimsby representative was unable to vote because he was in the wrong part of the room and the Luton representative got mixed up about the time of the vote.