Shrimpsvoices

Brilliant article Roger, and some great photos. Thanks.

Great read.

Thanks for the kind words. I've tried repeatedly to get a link to this article on Barrow's Facebook page. All you get is a `will get back to you' message - but they don't. Any ideas anyone?

Interesting read. Never knew that a team not finishing bottom could get voted out.

Barrow and Workington and to some extent Southport were all voted out purely on Geography. It bloody stunk. Southport had been promoted from Div 4 only three seasons before they were voted out. Div 4 had a few southern teams and getting to Torquay was ok for them but trekking up north was deemed expensive, hence all three voted out. The method we have now is far far superior and it always tickles me that the first to take advantage were Scarborough, which is a bugger to get to even for us!!

thedoc wrote:Thanks for the kind words. I've tried repeatedly to get a link to this article on Barrow's Facebook page. All you get is a `will get back to you' message - but they don't. Any ideas anyone?

Which facebook page are you trying?

Freez wrote:Barrow and Workington and to some extent Southport were all voted out purely on Geography. It bloody stunk.

Even more of a stink about it when you consider that Barrow weren't even in the bottom two places. Stockport & Crewe (with good rail network, purely a coincidence) finished below Barrow yet remained in the League.

Freez wrote:Barrow and Workington and to some extent Southport were all voted out purely on Geography. It bloody stunk. Southport had been promoted from Div 4 only three seasons before they were voted out. Div 4 had a few southern teams and getting to Torquay was ok for them but trekking up north was deemed expensive, hence all three voted out. The method we have now is far far superior and it always tickles me that the first to take advantage were Scarborough, which is a bugger to get to even for us!!

Although it seems unfair on Barrow , Workington and Southport , were there any occasions when any of them finished in the bottom 2 but were then reprieved by the voting system ?

Surprised Southport were voted out on geographical reasons. They are part of Merseyside so surely the big 2 and Tranmere would have voted for them.

Gone_Shrimping wrote:Although it seems unfair on Barrow , Workington and Southport , were there any occasions when any of them finished in the bottom 2 but were then reprieved by the voting system ?

I don't think Barrow ever finished I the bottom two. Don't know about the others.

Morecambe applied to join the Football League on a few occasions and were rejected.

Keith wrote:

Gone_Shrimping wrote:Although it seems unfair on Barrow , Workington and Southport , were there any occasions when any of them finished in the bottom 2 but were then reprieved by the voting system ?

I don't think Barrow ever finished I the bottom two. Don't know about the others.

Morecambe applied to join the Football League on a few occasions and were rejected.

Just checked on Barrows' league history.

Div 4 Finished 23rd in 1958/1959
Div 4 Finished 24th in 1964/1965
Div 4 Finished 24th in 1970/1971

So with the present 2 down that's 3 occasions when they would have been relegated.

In 1971/1972 Hereford had a great cup run when they beat Newcastle and also played West Ham so someone was always going to be voted out to make way for them and Barrow may feel hard done by when they finished 22nd that season.

Keith wrote:

Gone_Shrimping wrote:Although it seems unfair on Barrow , Workington and Southport , were there any occasions when any of them finished in the bottom 2 but were then reprieved by the voting system ?

I don't think Barrow ever finished I the bottom two. Don't know about the others.

Morecambe applied to join the Football League on a few occasions and were rejected.

Morecambe applied for election to the football league 10 times between 1958 and 1970 - generating 9 votes in total, and never more than 2 in a single application. Back then I believe there were 94 league sides (the league shrunk to 92 teams in the 90's when Aldershot and Maidstone were both liquidated in 92). A stunning 0.957% of all votes cast.

The new system is much fairer.

Finally, last Sunday, I got a message from what turns out to be Barrow’s Media director which read:

Hi Roger,
Apologies for the late reply. We aren't able to share this on our platforms, however I wish you luck in finding a BAFC correspondent.
Best Regards,
Ryan

I don’t personally care for Weasel words such as `we aren’t able to’ when the truth is `we won’t’ so I asked `Ryan’ to justify this and here is what he wrote back:

Hi Roger,
Thanks for your reply.
I have read through the article more than once and we don't believe it is in the club or town's best interests to share the article to our followers.
Our community team are working hard on many social projects to benefit the town, and we do not think it would be fair on them or on our supporters to share an article which states:
"In Barrow, all the problems which have always accompanied poverty: poor health; poorer life-style choices; poor nutrition; addiction; crime – you name it – have always been prevalent."
"On places like the sprawling Ormsgill Estate, not far from the football ground, this poverty of reality and opportunity is clear to see."
"But anti-social behaviour is a particular problem in Barrow."
"Barrow-in-Furness has the highest rate for violence against the person offences in 2018-19 of all the districts (41.8 per 1,000 population); this is 1.5 times higher than the rate for England and Wales"
"Barrow is thus no stranger to tragedy and challenging social problems."
"In Furness General – Barrow’s own controversy-wracked NHS hospital"
There can be no doubt that you then go on to portray the town in a more positive light, for which we are grateful.
However, as I mentioned, given the hard work that our club is doing to encourage positivity in the town, we feel that sharing your article would be counter-productive to that work.
Despite this, we thank you for the coverage of the club, as all coverage is appreciated. If you would like to discuss this further, please don't hesitate to email me.
Best Regards,
Ryan

I took Ryan up on his very kind offer, suggesting that if anything I had claimed was factually inaccurate or if what I had written was a Hatchet Job on the town and the club, he might have a point. I also reminded him that putting a link to any article does not imply endorsement of it and that Barrow fans were surely free to make their own minds up. I also suggested that to pretend that Barrow had no social or other problems was akin to propaganda worthy of North Korea and his decision to effectively ban my article is actual censorship in action. This is his reply:

"Hi Roger,

Thanks for taking the time to email me about this.

This certainly isn't a case of propaganda and censorship or anything of that nature."

Obviously not...

Damned statistics! Truth hurts eh?