Dumbarton 1872?

Scottish Football Answers to Questions
Post Reply
StAndrewsHMFC
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:26 pm
Contact:

Dumbarton 1872?

Post by StAndrewsHMFC » Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:53 pm

Something thats bothered me for a while is what a team can get away with doing and still be considered the same team. There's 3 examples I'm thinking of-

Dumbarton-IIRC, they merged with Dumbarton Athletic in the late 1880's but carried on as if they were just Dumbarton, then they dissolved in 1901 and were refounded in 1905.

Hibs-IIRC they change from Hibernians to Leith Hibernians then disappear in 1891 then reappear as Hibernian in 1893.

Kings Park-If the two examples are correct and are viewed as the same club, surely Kings Park are Stirling Albion?

So what in particular makes the clubs when they are reformed/merged a direct continuation or not?

Scottish
Site Admin
Posts: 7665
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:51 pm
Contact:

Post by Scottish » Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:04 pm

There are no hard and fast rules. Kilmarnock were formed in 1869 according to all the record books and the club itself even though it's clear they were playing at least the year before that and celebrated their 50th anniversary in October 1918 (even though they published a club history dated 1869-1919).

Yet the earliest minutes available are from October 25th 1872 at which a resolution was passed "to form a football club."

To muddy the waters further four of the committee elected in 1872 are also listed as committee members on 1869 membership cards.

The next committee meeting agreed to play under RUGBY rules.

When Killie reached the 1898 Scottish Cup Final there wa a lot of press comment referring to 1872 as the foundation date.

1898 provides yet another example. In December of that year Dundee - generally accepted as founded 1893 - were in a similar state to Gretna now - bottom of the table and unable to guarantee meeting the fixture list. The 'old' Dundee went into liquidation, a new committee was formed, largely the same players retained, the same ground used and the 'new' club took over the 'old' one's fixtures.

Yet in both these instances it's generally accepted that 1869 and 1893 respectively are the foundation years for clubs which have continued to this day.

More recent examples in England are Wolves (1982) & Middlesbrough (1986) where the old club was liquidated and a new one established using the same ground, players and fixtures. No one would seriously suggest these clubs histories only stretch back to the 1980s.


In the case of Kings Park/Stirling Albion there was a deliberate attempt to create new club, thus getting rid of the debts of the old one at a stroke. The placing of Stirling Albion in the C Division after the war is an indication that the SFL regarded them as a new club. Kings Park were one of only three clubs (St Bernard's & Stenhousemuir being the others) to spend every inter-war season in the Second Division.

Similar but different to the Wolves/Boro examples are Airdrie United. Similar in that the old club folded and the new one had much the same players, used the same ground and were watched by the same fans. Different in that there was a name change and the club lost its league place.

Because Airdrie United obtained entry into the SFL by taking over Clydebank the SFL maintains the polite fiction that Clydebank and Airdrie United are one and the same club.

I think either you accept what the clubs themselves say or form your own opinion. There's really no authoritative guidance as such. My view can be downloaded here

BMCCOLL
Posts: 1066
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:48 pm
Contact:

Post by BMCCOLL » Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:54 am

To maintain continuity, my lists show all incarnations as separate clubs, unless otherwise informed.

Scottish
Site Admin
Posts: 7665
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:51 pm
Contact:

Post by Scottish » Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:01 pm

Kilmarnock Rugby Club are holding a 140th anniversary bash on May 9th this year even though KFC & KRFC clearly share the same origins.

the hibLOG
Posts: 1163
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 8:41 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Contact:

Post by the hibLOG » Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:41 am

In Hibs' case the 'Leith Hibernians' were a new club formed after the original Hibernian folded in a short-lived attempt to continue the former club's role. The Hibernian of 1893 was technically a new club, but played on the same ground in the same green jerseys with the same name, and with some of the same people involved behind the scenes, so I think it's fair to regard them as essentially a resurrection of the original club. In fact, when re-leasing Easter Road to the new club, the landlord had to be reassured - quite falsely - that there was no connection with 'that bunch of wild Irishmen that used to play here a few years ago'!

There is no significance to be attached to the singular/plural forms of the name as both were used somewhat randomly throughout Hibs history until at least the 1950s.
Fraser

StAndrewsHMFC
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by StAndrewsHMFC » Thu Apr 10, 2008 5:27 pm

the hibLOG wrote:In Hibs' case the 'Leith Hibernians' were a new club formed after the original Hibernian folded in a short-lived attempt to continue the former club's role. The Hibernian of 1893 was technically a new club, but played on the same ground in the same green jerseys with the same name, and with some of the same people involved behind the scenes, so I think it's fair to regard them as essentially a resurrection of the original club. In fact, when re-leasing Easter Road to the new club, the landlord had to be reassured - quite falsely - that there was no connection with 'that bunch of wild Irishmen that used to play here a few years ago'!
I had a quick flick through Making of Hibernian, and I think I'd class it as a seperate team due to the fact it was setup so differently, ie before they were part of St. Patricks CYMS and on refounding they were a stand alone football team (correct me if I've got any of this wrong-it was a very quick flick!). Did they not also lose the practising Cathlics only rule?

As for Dumbarton, the merger with Athletic appears to have been more of a acquisition by Dumbarton, so I can see were they come from on that, I struggle with the 4 year break, indeed in sons of the rock they quote a newspaper article of the time which states Dumbarton 1905 are not a continuation of Dumbarton dissolved in 1901!

the hibLOG
Posts: 1163
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 8:41 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Contact:

Post by the hibLOG » Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:45 pm

StAndrewsHMFC wrote:I had a quick flick through Making of Hibernian, and I think I'd class it as a seperate team due to the fact it was setup so differently, ie before they were part of St. Patricks CYMS and on refounding they were a stand alone football team (correct me if I've got any of this wrong-it was a very quick flick!). Did they not also lose the practising Cathlics only rule?
No, you're absolutely right in all of that. As I said, technically - ie in an administrative sense - they were a new club, but the new club made clear their debt of origin to the first Hibs while doing away with the sectarian constitution which had caused so much resentment against them from the football establishment.

As far as modern Hibs fans are concerned the club we support today was founded in 1875, even though strictly speaking it wasn't, but I don't think anything anyone says will ever change any Hibee's opinion on that.
Fraser

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests