I see the stories about the potential merger of United and Dundee again reared its head over the weekend, with Roger Mitchell, formerly chief of the SPL, stating that it was only pulled at the 11th hour in a twitter conversation in 1999 with all the paperwork pretty much completed.
Peter Marr, then chairman of Dundee and central figure in this situation, has said in the paper this morning that it's nonsense.
I'm afraid Peter is telling porkies to the Courier. And I know this for a fact, as he himself has admitted it to family members of mine. Although he's probably right to say it wasn't a merger - it was a takeover. United were on the verge of absorbing Dundee. The club were going to play at Tannadice, They were going to wear tangerine. That's not a merger.
I'm glad it never happened though. It would have been terrible for the city to lose a club and losing the rivalry would be a sad thing. It's something we all enjoy. I would never support a merger and, if it was a true merger and the clubs rebranded as Dundee City or whatever, I'd find it very difficult to go along and support them. They wouldn't be my club.
Merger
posted on 7/12/15
Mick,
Don't talk pash.
This isn't American sports with franchises and what not. Football in this country is more than just a game - a club is often at the heart of its community and is a focal point.
If the 'merger' had happened in 99 then I would wager at least 75% of Dees would be lost to the game and a good chunk of United supporters wouldn't have been happy either and might have disappeared. If a proper merger happened, I know I'd be lost to the game.
I have no great interest in where our club game stands in a global context. Domestic football is all I particularly care about.
posted on 7/12/15
what a load of pi$h
no fooking way should clubs be merged.
sensible pricing, regionalised leagues for teams in league 1/2 etc would be better
a 10 team topl league too, ditch this split pi$h aswell.
posted on 7/12/15
Dennis, completely agree with regionalised lower leagues.
Although I personally don't mind the split, but understand why people don't like it.
posted on 7/12/15
As has been said already ICT lost almost both clubs entire fan bases.. which is why the stadium is almost always empty or just full of kids who get cheap tickets.
Not to mention Carey pretty much swallowed Thistle, to the point where the only thing in the previous stadium that was painted in Thistle colours were the urinals
But Caley lost most of their fans too as they hated the idea just as bad.. most ended up supporting Clachan instead.
Also didn't help that when they built the new ground they made it a "family friendly" ground which meant no swearing or offensive songs between each sets of old fans etc which completely finished any atmosphere they once had.
posted on 7/12/15
merging clubs where ther is little desire or need for it I mental
if clubs have small fan base, so be it.
teams like Hearts, hibs, Aberdeen do have a good following but like any other team, they lose a chunk of the glory hunters when things are not going to well
in recent years all 3 of clubs I named have taken 30k plus to cup finals
if only we could find a way to ensure these fans keep coming back
posted on 7/12/15
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 40 minutes ago
Dennis, completely agree with regionalised lower leagues.
Although I personally don't mind the split, but understand why people don't like it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The spilt is the best thing to happen to our league in my lifetime.
It's the one thing we have got right.
posted on 7/12/15
I dont think both Dundee need to merge, but I really think with all the regeneration going on in Dundee, Both Clubs should be pursueing a new stadia to ground share! Preferably with a roof
posted on 7/12/15
"For the majority of the lower league teams, absolutely!"
I really hate this attitude. The lower league clubs have every much a right to exist as the bigger ones. They have as much history, their fans are just as passionate (arguable moreso) and their rivalries are just as fierce. Ask yourself - would you support a Glasgow City or Mersey United? If not, don't ask Montrose, Arbroath Forfar and Brechin fans to do the same.
The "42 clubs in Scotland" argument is nonsense also. That's simply league clubs, a distinction that doesn't mean much. There are now 114 teams in the Scottish football pyramid. Contrast that to Germany, where there are over 32,000 teams in their pyramid.
posted on 7/12/15
I know Hobo, I'm with you. As for the 'they bring 30k to cup finals' nonsense. You stick Celtic in the bottom 6 for 5 years and they'll be playing in front of 15k the same as hearts.
Even take a team like Falkirk or Dunfermline (anywhere with a decent population) and have them dominate for a 20-30 year period, battling for every trophy and winning every 2nd title and they'll easily be playing in front of 20k plus crowds.
Where I grew up in the 80's was very central, but in no major town/city. There was as many United, Hearts and Aberdeen fans as they're was Rangers and Celtic.
The biggest threat now to Scottish football is TV, all the kids now support English teams. And it'll only get worse.
posted on 7/12/15
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator