London Clubs & Wembley

[Leicesterpool]

I was looking back at the southern league premier back in the 1970's and as you know back then, teams at to have elections inorder to get promoted to the football league. Number of times Nuneaton Boro finished near the top and of course applied for election and for some strange reason boro wouldn't get many votes, then one year in 1977 Wimbledon finished top of the southern league and they went up for election and got promoted. The one thing that bugs me is that, football league back then had no end of London clubs and they decided to add another, yet when a northern or midland club go up for election they got no points. It just shows how London clubs are looked after even today.

I'm thinking of when West Ham broke the rules and played Carlos Tevez when they shouldn't when they should have been docked points but instead got away with a fine.

I can remember boro committing the same offence and got docked six points.

Brian Clough was right in what he said about London clubs.

Also another thing when Wembley was build in 2007 it had to be in London, and then they made the rules that all in the England games must be played at Wembley, why? countries like Germany & Spain don't play at one stadium. They tour the country playing at different grounds.

Why can't England play some games around the country like they use to, just use Wembley for the big games.

[Dan]

Can actually see where you're coming from, cannot help but think the London clubs often seem to be quite favoured, check QPR a couple of years back, they got away with murder.

[Leicesterpool]

Notice always some footballers always found it difficult playing up north, but never playing down south. Some players don't even leave London like Bobby Zamora the only club outside London he's played for Brighton, ugly Redknapp aswell did manage portsmouth but sulked about the driving there.

[Mike the Metal Ed]

Also another thing when Wembley was build in 2007 it had to be in London, and then they made the rules that all in the England games must be played at Wembley, why? countries like Germany & Spain don't play at one stadium. They tour the country playing at different grounds.

Why can't England play some games around the country like they use to, just use Wembley for the big games.

Because England always played at Wembley before it was knocked down, and the new one cost so much. London does seem to get preferential treatment in a lot of ways though, I do agree, but then again I do love the place.

[Alexikokopops]

Sucks to be you lot. More stuff in London I say. MORE!

Having a single stadium for national use gives a lot more of a flexible and controllable income to the national FA, hence why we have a national stadium. The fact that they managed to balls up the building so much is another story for a different day.

Boro were docked 6 points for a different offence to West Ham. NEXT.

Also, your point about some players/managers not being able to do it outside London is a bit stupid because there will be players/managers who can't do it outside the North/Midlands.

Also, you neglect to mention that, from 1970 to 1977 (when Wimbledon were elected), Wimbledon were up for election 5 times, compared to 4 times for Numeaton Borough. And that the year Wimbledon got elected was after Workington had been the pits for three seasons in a row. When Nuneaton were up for election there wasn't a consistently balls team, except Crewe in 1974 but Nuneaton were beaten by clubs like Kettering, Wigan and Yeovil. The only teams that were demoted from the league in that period were BPA (after being the pits for three seasons in a row) and Barrow, presumable backside no clubs could be arsed with travelling around the Furness peninsula

http://www.nonleaguematters.co.uk/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=3506;

Finally, the "they" you refer to when talking about election to the Football League is the clubs of the Football League, which includes a lot of Northern and Midlands clubs. Maybe they all just realised that Nuneaton is a shit hole and at least in Wimbledon you could watch the tennis or go to the dogs.

Overall, F-. Must try harder.

[Leicesterpool]

Sucks to be you lot. More stuff in London I say. MORE!

Having a single stadium for national use gives a lot more of a flexible and controllable income to the national FA, hence why we have a national stadium. The fact that they managed to balls up the building so much is another story for a different day.

Boro were docked 6 points for a different offence to West Ham. NEXT.

Also, your point about some players/managers not being able to do it outside London is a bit stupid because there will be players/managers who can't do it outside the North/Midlands.

Also, you neglect to mention that, from 1970 to 1977 (when Wimbledon were elected), Wimbledon were up for election 5 times, compared to 4 times for Numeaton Borough. And that the year Wimbledon got elected was after Workington had been the pits for three seasons in a row. When Nuneaton were up for election there wasn't a consistently balls team, except Crewe in 1974 but Nuneaton were beaten by clubs like Kettering, Wigan and Yeovil. The only teams that were demoted from the league in that period were BPA (after being the pits for three seasons in a row) and Barrow, presumable backside no clubs could be arsed with travelling around the Furness peninsula

http://www.nonleague...ostatt_id=3506;

Finally, the "they" you refer to when talking about election to the Football League is the clubs of the Football League, which includes a lot of Northern and Midlands clubs. Maybe they all just realised that Nuneaton is a shit hole and at least in Wimbledon you could watch the tennis or go to the dogs.

Overall, F-. Must try harder.

More in London, it's like saying England doesn't exist north of watford. Also what your saying is you've got travel all the way to the capital to watch your national team play. It just isn't fair, besides there's no atmosphere at Wembley. Don't you miss the chance to watch England on your doorstep. When once the walkers hosted a game once.

Also imagine how sad it would be if the football league was just full of London clubs.

[Guest Bilo]

You have a point with the national stadium debate, there are plenty of other nations who do just fine without one.

Other than that, it just seems a bit whiny. London will get more than most with just under 15% of the nation's population living there, fact of life.

[AyewJoking]

I quite liked the journey from Leicester to Wembley. Made the whole day more memorable/exciting. Propa day owt.

[Bert]

London is over-rated, over-priced and 90% of it is a complete toss pit. The remaining 10% is nice but even more of a rip-off.

[Alexikokopops]

More in London, it's like saying England doesn't exist north of watford. Also what your saying is you've got travel all the way to the capital to watch your national team play. It just isn't fair, besides there's no atmosphere at Wembley. Don't you miss the chance to watch England on your doorstep. When once the walkers hosted a game once.

Also imagine how sad it would be if the football league was just full of London clubs.

That first sentence (in my original post) wasn't serious. Although you're right, I do miss having the national team play on my doorstep. As a result from now on let's have all the England games at the Emirates stadium. Problem solved. NEXT.

[Mack]

You are comparing London to Nuneaton when that's just not possible.

Wimbledon on it's own will be bigger than Nuneaton is.

[Leicesterpool]

You are comparing London to Nuneaton when that's just not possible.

Wimbledon on it's own will be bigger than Nuneaton is.

In them days boro used to get better gates than Wimbledon.

[Leicesterpool]

Remember this game!

what a cracking atmosphere and it's wasn't played at wembley.