The Conference and Scouseport

[noughtyforties]

So it seems we're going to be a team light again next season thanks to Rushden being kicked out of the Conference and Southport taking their place.

And who should be a big hitter on the Conference management committee?

Why its only Southport's Chairman.......

So fair play and impartiality rules supreme......

Why are these league committees filled with people who have vested interests in participating clubs? Surely there should be a degree of impartiality and transparency?

Or is it just non league is full of little tinpot dictators full of their own self importance?

[noughtyforties]

and while I'm on one, who had the brilliant idea of sticking Bishop's Stortford in the BS North for next season.

Workington and Blyth away in midweek then!

No wonder clubs are going to the wall, if its not idiots like Swann paying stupid wages for journeymen its league administrators making hole in the head decisions like than.....we'll be one of their local derbies!!

[lonegunman]

Well said Andy, totally agree with all you have written. Does it look like they will survive at all or does it look like that's it for them? If it's the latter, that's such a shame, fantastic ground will end up going to waste.

check the grassy knoll and the chips and curry  :bunny

[O CHO MEALLT]

Rumour has it that Bishops Stortford may resign from the Conference rather than being placed North.If that happens it seems we might get Chelmsford City instead.

[LPRA]

Typical conference F.A.R.C.E

[porl99]

So the teams for next year (as it stands) are:
Altrincham
Blyth Spartans
Bishops Stortford
Boston United
Colwyn Bay
Corby Town
Droylsden
Eastwood Town
FC Halifax Town
Gainsborough Trinity
Gloucester City
Guiseley
Harrogate Town
Hinckley United
Histon
Hyde
Nuneaton Town
Solihull Moors
Stalybridge Celtic
Vauxhall Motors
Worcester City
Workington

You've got to feel sorry for Bishop Stortford players/supporters/management.  It's just north of the M25!  According to their website they have appealed the decision with the FA. 

Sooner there are three feeder leagues into the Conference, i.e. a northern, southern and midlands league, the better in my opinion.

[green hats mate]

For a change the Conference did get it right.      They have averted another farce similar to the Chester demise .   

[Pilgrim86]

Rushden are in similar financial turmoil, just like we were when we got relegated out of the Football League. It's not exactly a surprise decision.

Who else would you put in the BSN? Truro?!

[O CHO MEALLT]

I think the decision regarding R&D is the right one.However,i don't see why another club(Southport)should benefit from their demise,nor do i see why others(Bishops Stortford or Chelmsford)should suffer because of it.Why can't the Conference Premier play one club short as we did in BSN last season and leave the rest as it was.

[Bob Lee]

I think the decision regarding R&D is the right one.However,i don't see why another club(Southport)should benefit from their demise,nor do i see why others(Bishops Stortford or Chelmsford)should suffer because of it.Why can't the Conference Premier play one club short as we did in BSN last season and leave the rest as it was.

Or Promote one of the losing playoff finalists.

[leicester pilgrim]

It's a shame for Rushden, but they're not the first club to break the rules and suffer heavy-handed consequences. I can't help but think that there is a better solution to all of this:-

(i) Southport to replace Rushden in the Conference National.

(ii) Bishop's Stortford to remain in Conference South.

(iii) Stafford Rangers to be reprieved relegation and take Southport's place in Conference North.

Southport and Stafford would then have been treated consistently, and Bishop's Stortford wouldn't be facing some ridiculous away trips.

[Pilgrim86]

You're ignoring that Thurrock had a better record than Stafford, hence why they are being reprieved. Had it been at team in BSN thrown out, then Stafford would have been reprieved.

[woad_pilgrim]

You've got to feel sorry for Bishop Stortford players/supporters/management.  It's just north of the M25!  According to their website they have appealed the decision with the FA. 

Sooner there are three feeder leagues into the Conference, i.e. a northern, southern and midlands league, the better in my opinion.

Get them 3 feeder leagues in place and then through a lack of midlands/north based clubs the northern and midland division drifts South, eventually there is a serious overlap between the Southern and Midland Leagues, so the large conurbation in the South (London) ends up with a league of its own. Ta da NPL, SPL and IL feeding into the conference as it was pre conf north/south days, and that didn't work.

For me if these clubs are serious about promotion to a national league it shouldn't matter how far they have to travel. The conference have got it right this time don't see what else they could have done. P86 is correct, Stafford shouldn't have got a reprieve when Thurrock have a better PPG record just because it's convenient for other clubs to travel less.

[The Big M]

Yes but we aint paying the bills at Stortford are we couldnt the noth league just play a team light would it make that much difference

[leicester pilgrim]

You're ignoring that Thurrock had a better record than Stafford, hence why they are being reprieved. Had it been at team in BSN thrown out, then Stafford would have been reprieved.

I was aware of the reasoning behind it, and I suppose the Conference had to do what it had to do. But part of me wants to play devil's advocate here. Let's look at the statistics...

Thurrock      Played 42, Points 37
Stafford Rangers   Played 40, Points 32

(i) The two sides didn't play an even number of games. Technically Stafford still have two games in hand of Thurrock. These games are hypothetical, but let's consider that Stafford win them both. Which team then has the best record?

(ii) The two games in hand were against Ilkeston, who were unable to fulfill their fixtures. If Ilkeston had continued and perhaps fielded a youth team every week (much as Durham did in the Unibond League), then perhaps Stafford would have had six additional points.

(iii) Thurrock and Stafford didn't face each other competitively during the season. Nor did they face the same core group of opponents. In the absence of head-to-head competition between the two divisions, it is unsafe to assume that they are of equal strength. Is points-per-game therefore a fair yardstick? You might as well toss a coin.

Neither Thurrock nor Stafford could have any complaints about being relegated with the records that they had. So given the geographies involved and allowing common sense to prevail, a reprieve for Stafford would have maintained the geographical balance of the leagues and avoided the ridiculous level of travelling now imposed on Bishop's Stortford - who through no fault of their own are the victims in all of this.