Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Author: cska
Date: 22-05-2006, 11:38

On other threads it was raised the question what happens if a team splits or two teams merge, and how is history claimed by the inheriting teams. Now, we are facing the same question, but with nations.
My question is not about Montenegro (Crna Gora - or literally Black Mountain). It will resemble the situation when USSR and Yugoslavia disintegrated.
My question is: How the situation of splitting clubs or clubs taking someone else's license solved in your country ? If you have a team in your top league, then obviously if it splits both new teams cannot take 2 spots in top league. What happens to them? How it is decided? And how it is decided when a team buys the license of another team and takes its name and tries to claim its history? Is it allowed that, for example, Bolton Wanderers buy the license and change their name to Manchester City? In Bulgaria, some years ago Levski Kiustendil bought the license of Lokomotiv Plovdiv (playing in Group B - the second ranked league, but they got promotion). Then Levski Kiustendil disappeared as a name and its players moved to Loko Plovdiv. It started playing in the top league and the name Levski Kiustendil disappeared, just as disappeared the former club Loko Plovdiv and its players. However, although Levski Kiustendil have nothing in common with the previous history of Loko Plovdiv, they claimed it now. It's the same as with Beroe, a team that once was a champion and even beat Bayern Munich in ECC. They relegated to non-profesional divisions. After that a team named Olympic Teteven moved to their stadium and was renamed to Beroe, claiming its history.
So, who can claim the history (and coefficients) if a country or a team split (or if merged, which history can the new entity claim) ?

Author: badgerboy
Date: 22-05-2006, 14:19

"If you have a team in your top league, then obviously if it splits both new teams cannot take 2 spots in top league. What happens to them?"

I can't think of any instance of this happening anywhere - at least not since the early days of football. I think a new club anywhere is a new club - the old club stays at the level it is at and any new club starts at the bottom tier and works their way up.

"And how it is decided when a team buys the license of another team and takes its name and tries to claim its history?"

More difficult and being dealt with - to some extent - on another thread. This doesn't (or hasn't) really happened in England (the example you give with Bolton and Man City just wouldn't happen - whether it would be legally possible or not) - but is obviously a lot more common in some other countries - particularly in Central and Eastern Europe. Kronsky and others have explained the situation with Amica Wronki and Lech Poznan elsewhere. I guess in that case the new club will continue the history of the old Lech Poznan (though it'll happily accept Amica's coefficient :wink

and Amica will go down in history as a short-lived club (at least at the top level - I think they will continue lower down).

I think pretty much every case has to be looked at individually and the "legal" position may differ from that of the fans. Back to England again. Wimbledon moved to Milton Keynes and eventually became Milton Keynes Dons. The same club simply moved cities and continued their place in the league - no splits or mergers, just a geographical move. I think in legal terms this is the same club. But a new club - AFC Wimbledon was formed by the fans of the old club - playing at the bottom of the non-league pyramid and it's fans are essentially the same as those of the old Wimbledon so, although it's legally a brand new club I'm sure they'd want to claim the historical achievements of the old club too...

Author: drewvkamp
Date: 22-05-2006, 16:17

The relocating and purchasing happens all the time in Mexican football. The top 10 teams are owned by ultra-rich corporations and conglomerates. Typically, if one of these is somehow relegated (which happens rarely due to the ridiculous rules concerning relegation), the relegated team will buy the promoted team that replaced it. The promoted team takes the name, colors, and in some cases, players of the relegated side, making it look as though no relegation occurred.

What will happen in all likelihood is that Mexican football will resemble American sports: each team will own a series of minor-league feeders who can develop their younger players and personnel. Of course, there is no relegation from American leagues. It sounds as though some Eastern European countries are going the same way.

NB: Mexican relegation depends on an arcane formula. Each spring, one team is relegated fro mthe 18-team league, based on a ratio of Pts won/matches played over a three-year period. Of course, a newly-promoted side doesn't have many matches played, so they are the ones typically relegated. A draw is much less beneficial for them than it might be for an established side. Much like Mexican politics, the rules are set up to benefit those already in power.