RESTRUCTURING...   “The Football Association last week confirmed that the planned expansion of Step 4 of the National League System to incorporate an additional division of the Northern Premier League will proceed in time for the 2007/2008 season. The revised structure will see the Northern Premier League operating with two first divisions each comprising, initially of 18 clubs. The additional division will require a further 12 clubs to move up from current Step 5 leagues, with the North West Counties, Northern Counties East and Midland Football Alliance each providing a minimum of three clubs. The Northern League will also provide two clubs with both Durham City and Newcastle Blue Star FC’s both committed to moving up the National League structure. Although the Northern Premier League had been pressing for two divisions of 20 clubs they are happy to accept the 18 club decision as a means of putting the new structure in place.”   Well thanks for the consultation…not!  For those of you that don’t quite understand the politics behind the third phase of restructuring, please don’t feel any embarrassment, because I’m not quite sure I understand it myself, even though I’ve tried my damnedest to find out.   What isn’t totally clear yet is whether or not the two divisions will be made up of a North/South or East/West divide, although it’s believed the powers that be will opt for the North/South divisions, meaning the likes of Alsager, Belper Town, Brigg Town, Cammell Laird, Colwyn Bay, Gresley Rovers, Kidsgrove Athletic, Shepshed Dynamo’s, Stocksbridge Steels, Warrington Town and Woodley Sports will vanish from our division to the geographically nominated Southern Unibond First Division.   From our perspective the East/West split would’ve been the best option for us from a financial point of view, as there would’ve been less travelling involved, but it doesn’t appear to be touted as an option any longer.  I can’t say that worries me entirely at the moment, because I’m more concerned about the format the league will follow given that with two divisions of 18, we are looking at playing just 34 games next season as opposed to the 46 we will have played come this seasons end.   One scenario is that the league will be split into 2 groups of 9 after 34 games per Scottish Premier lines with each club playing an additional 8 fixtures, 4 home, 4 away, bringing it up to the traditional 42.   From a financial point of view I think it has more minuses than pluses, because if you have absolutely no chance of making the play-offs … (assuming you still stand a chance within this system) who is going to support you?  Okay the same can be said about the tail end of any season for a club that has had a poor season, but if you are unfortunate enough to be stuck at the wrong end of the table with a group of teams geographically miles and miles away from you, then there is the added burden of excessive travelling costs for what amounts to a nothing season.   Without a decision on the final format, for all we know we could end up playing for the sake of it, and if they stick to a straight 34 games in a season it would be a financial disaster because we would still have to pay wages for 40 weeks, assuming the season would run its normal course.   Forgive me for being a purist, but the way I view the overhaul is that...once again the clubs that have earned their promotions on merit, are now technically suffering another demotion because 36 teams will be fighting for promotion compared to 24 as it stands now.  And before someone pulls me on this…I’m not referring to us because we came up as part of the restructuring, but the likes of Buxton & Cammell Laird would have a good argument if they fail to get promoted.   The worst thing of all is that there has been little consultation between the clubs and the league other than a pathetic three option questionnaire asking:   1.                  Would we like a league consisting of 2 x 18 teams? 2.                  Would we like a league consisting of 2 x 18 teams, splitting 2 groups of 9 after 34 games with each club playing an additional 8 fixtures, 4 home, 4 away? (With a format to be decided) 3.                  Or would we prefer to keep the status quo?   It goes without saying but the club went with option three after a bit of confusion, and were told that our choice would have little if no effect on the final outcome.  Indeed as it turned out it had absolutely no effect at all, and one can only wonder why the question was mooted about at all.  In fact I will go further and say that the club representatives on the Unibond Committee haven’t spoken to the clubs directly.  Whether or not the Unibond could’ve influenced the FA remains to be seen, but regardless of the fact, there is little if any standard communication between club and league, and surely that can’t be right?   Once again the decision makers have crafted the scenario’s to meet their own ends…typical! TUESDAY 3rd APRIL 2007.   Skelmersdale Advertiser.   With an enforced stay in hospital, and with plenty of time to read the papers, the creative writing juices were certainly bubbling.  I was indeed going to give comment about the latest trials and tribulations of Steve McClaren and the England International team, but then something more serious cropped up.   First of all came the back page comments from Geoff Howard regarding the Formby Vs FC United event which was held at the Ashley Travel Stadium. “Frisking of supporters, obscene chanting, and a strong police presence backed by a security company, the unacceptable face of Non-League football came to Skelmersdale’s Ashley Travel Stadium,” was his opening point, which didn’t really do justice to the overall occasion at all.   I wasn’t there because of my hospital visit, so people may think it very rich of me to pass comment at all, but then again I’ve been furnished with information from a good source, and the general consensus of opinion was that it was a job well done that passed without very much to write home about.   The strong presence of police and stewards was there for prevention rather than cure.  FC United don’t have an endemic problem, they have a huge following and that demands policing in a correct and proper manner, but reading Mr Howard’s article he would have you believing that a major catastrophe had been averted.   Mr Howard went on; “And not only because of the FC United fans.  Admittedly small pockets of Scousers, presumably from Skelmersdale New Town, tried to close ranks with visiting masses, quickly shepherded away by police.  To see kids as young as nine facing up to senior officers of the law and arguing the toss may have been a sign of society’s changing times rather than serious confrontation.”   I agree it’s not nice to see hard nosed children hoist a finger up in the face of the establishment, but why assume they were scousers?  Do you have a problem with scousers Mr Howard?  And why do you assume that they all hail from the New Town?  As far as I’m aware, the people you are referring to are third generation ‘scousers’ that were more than likely born in Billinge or Ormskirk Hospital.  And they could’ve come from any part of the town!   I spent countless hours organising this game and along with a team of very hard working committee members, we managed to fulfil our capacity obligations, but to go on and read a sensationalised story that was put together on assumptions rather than fact really hurt me.  The fact of the matter was the night passed without incident.   My point to you all is judge for yourself when the FC United bandwagon arrives back in town next season, because it’s more a case of ‘much ado about nothing.’   Forget the ‘simmering undercurrent’ because the same could be said about trotting down the high street, because in any walk of life anything could happen.  And in this day and age when people give out the wrong impression, invariably the wrong people attach themselves to the situation.  Scaremongering…the words ‘manure spreading’ comes to mind I have to say!   My annoyance doesn’t end there unfortunately, because in the same edition the Editor of the Skelmersdale Advertiser decided to don his anti Skem United hat for the second time in 12 months, when he criticised Tommy Lawson’s post match comments following the Osset game on Saturday 24th March 2007.   “While I can’t condone what Jeff did, I admire him in the sense that he felt it was an injustice, and he exerted his own retribution.  If the referee had done his job there would not have been an issue.” Tommy Lawson said following the dismissal of Jeff Underwood for headbutting his opponent following a dreadful tackle which will now see him sit out the rest of the season.   The Editor said it was the ‘most shameful episode of the day’ despite the fact that somewhat earlier David Brooks had his leg broken in two by a keeper that clearly played the man, and never received so much as a yellow card for such an atrocity.  And of course the foul play on Jeff Underwood that led to the attack.  Whilst it is perhaps easier to condemn Jeff for what he did, aren’t we letting the officials off the hook by doing so, because surely they are accountable when their standards slip.   It doesn’t really matter what your view is on Tommy’s comments, because given the fact that emotions were running high on the day and shortly afterwards when Tommy made his point, the Editor could’ve exercised a degree of caution and vented his spleen on the cowardly acts of a knifeman that slashed a ‘have-a-go hero’ as outlined on his front page, rather than pick on a man that had first witnessed one of his young players break a leg, and then to go on and witness the cowardly attack on Jeff Underwood which led to medial ligament damage to curtail Jeff’s season.   The Editor had a pop at us during the close season when we sacked then Manager Paul Gallagher. Given the fact that neither party entered into a media slanging match, he should’ve really let sleeping dogs lie.  The irony is that the Editor has never been to watch Skem in his life as far as I’m aware.  Not that it’s a pre-requisite for passing comment, but then again the Advertiser should decide whether or not it is a community newspaper, glorified ‘loot’ or a serious tabloid.   I’m not saying that the Editor isn’t entitled to his opinions, but like I said before,  perhaps he should’ve have shown a degree of sympathy following a day when emotions were running high.    As for Mr Howard…perhaps a more fitting back page story should’ve belonged to Burscough following their victory at North Ferriby which gives them a good chance of gaining promotion to the Conference North.  You won’t often catch me bestowing the virtues of our neighbours, but the fact is Liam Watson has done a fantastic job since taking over at Burscough, and surely that was the big football story of the week in the West Lancashire area?   As it happens I admire Tommy Lawson for the having the balls to say what hundreds of other managers up and down the country think, and whilst that might put me in a minority, I believe my view along with Tommy’s should serve as a point of caution to referees and officials up and down the country.  Apply the laws of the game within the parameters of your rulebook, or run the risk of allowing the game to descend to a point of violence.   Surely there’s a lesson for us all to learn out of this, but if we omit to mention the catalysts, we run the risk of being blind forever.  After all, human emotion manifest’s itself in many ways!