Hem‎ > ‎

Mergers

A note on mergers and namechanges

I'd like to explain the guidelines I use concerning mergers and namechanges of teams. There are a couple of scenarios to consider here:
1. The straightforward merger between two teams resulting in a completely new one. One example is Rotherham United in England. That is a merger between Rotherham County and Rotherham Town. In this case the results of Rotherham United is not counted on any of the teams forming the merger, but on Rotherham United as they are a completely new team.
2. The straightforward merger scenario 2: The difference from nr. 1 is that here the new club after a while takes the name of one of the merging clubs. Here we have for example IFK Luleå/Luleå FF in Sweden. As long as they are called IFK Luleå/Luleå FF I count the results on them, but when they changed name to IFK Luleå I count the results on IFK Luleå instead. I follow this when there is a namechange of the merger to one of the old merging teams (as in the Luleå case) or if there is a regular split up (as in the case of Gefle/Brynäs).
3. A third form is the "swallow up". In this case an already existing team takes over another. Then there is no namechange. Here I obviously count the forthcoming results on the old team as the name have not changed and a merger as such cannot be said to have taken place. This has happen, for example, with Groclin Dyskobolia Grodzisk and Polonia Warszawa. There Groclin ceased to exist and Polonia continue with their original name.
4. The fourth team is a regular namechange without merger. This is very straightforward it might seem. But the difficulty can be to determine if there has been a namechange or a merger.
5. Yet another thing that can happen is that two teams merge and form another team and then later on (while the merged team is still in existence) one of the clubs making up the merger in the first place re-forms. Then the reformed team is separate from one of those making up the merger in my tables. In that scenario I use the terms "old" and "new" to distinguish the teams from one another, for example Qairat in Kazakhstan.
6. Another variant of nr.5 is the case when a team changes name and then later on another team takes the former name of the 1st mentioned club while the team is still in existence. In those cases I use the terms "old" and "new" to distinguish the teams from oneanother. One example of this is Kilikiya of Armenia. There you have two teams with that name in the table, one old and one new.
7. A seventh kind has emerged over the last couple of years in Sweden and Denmark. This is when several teams (usually three or more) combine their forces into a new team. The difference between this and a straightforward merger is that here the teams concerned in the merger usually continue on at a lower level and use the new team as a spearhead. Examples include the Swedish team Carlstad United BK and FC Vestsjaelland of Denmark.

Why do I explain these then? Well, apart from the obvious that the issues need explaining to understand the reading of the tables, it is to distinguish myself from the Swedish (and in part international) tradition. In the alltimetables done by the Football Statistics Federation in Sweden other principles apply. There if two teams merge they sometimes count the results of the new team on the merged team playing highest in the pyramid. This is completely wrong in my opinion. A merger is a new team and that's that. Why should an old team with a better record have the upper hand in such a case?, it's not fair. One can argue that in some cases the merging teams agree judicially that the merger should be counted as a sort of continuation on one of the merging teams. This line of thinking I am sure the Football Statistics Federation in Sweden stands for. But I don't think that's relevant actually, as I count a merger as a whole new entity no matter the judicial business involved. This is the fairest way in my opinion. Otherwise "bigger" teams are favoured as they usually have the ability to better make their voice heard if there is talk of merger with "smaller" clubs.
Comments