Feeder clubs.

[Prinny]

LJ mentioned having a feeder club system in England... 4:00 on.

I hate the idea, it'd leave me standing on the edge. It kills the dream of watching football. The belief that one day, the club you support will get to the top, to have its seven days in the sun. While it is of course, SL's club as he owns it, it still feels like mine and the community's still. I know that sometimes that feels like it's being erased and that we can't rewind. If we were owned by another club though, I wouldn't care anymore. B teams are a different matter. Us being a feeder club would feel like a love pollution. It's be much better IMO for clubs to tumble and fall than watch insomnia inducing games which don't matter.

But I have a couple of questions on the topic.

Should we buy the sad sags and use them as a reserve team? Are we the mystery investors? Which club would be our feeder club?

Are we actually already owned by Abramovich? YES!

For those supporters who faced the reality of City nearly being erased, if the only choice was to become Chelsea B in all but name, would you want that? I wouldn't but I'm too young to have had that nearly happen. Would being a feeder club make you feel like City didn't really exist anymore?

 

 

[DaveF]

Chelsea wouldn’t own us, we would just have an agreement where they send us their youngsters on loan and we work closely to develop them, not too dissimilar to us and Cheltenham, Torquay, Weston, Bath etc.

[CyderInACan]

3 minutes ago, Prinny said:

Should we buy the sad sags and use them as a reserve team? Are we the mystery investors? Which club would be our feeder club?

Well being a Feeder club and relocating to the Fruit Market in St Phillips would be quite apt. 

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

Don't worry feeder clubs won't happen. We are certainly not owned by Abramovich we don't change our manager every year. Perhaps Lansdown secretly owns Chelsea. They are closer to being a feeder club for us than we are to them. 

[Carey 6]

I don't like the idea of B teams or feeder clubs, but I actually thought something like that would've been a good option Bury.

one of Man City/Man United could've put together something to save them & then loaned them 4 players, till they could permanently move a few more to them in January. 

I think if it was the option of that, or their club dying, Bury fans would've taken it. 

Bury survive & one of the big clubs get to develop players in the mens game. 

 

 

[cidered abroad]

Any system of co-operation between clubs should he on an informal basis.

The independence of the lower placed club must be an important and integral part of their existence. Otherwise, if, for the purpose of discussion, a club like Walsall, had a fixed link with Villa, and suddenly did another Bournemouth and went speedily up to the Prem, then the honesty and integrity of BOTH CLUBS, could be seen as coercive and dishonest.

Best to keep the current informal links between clubs, dependent on both finding how they can help each other rather than the higher club, dictating to the junior partner.

[Lanterne Rouge]

1 hour ago, cidered abroad said:

Any system of co-operation between clubs should he on an informal basis.

The independence of the lower placed club must be an important and integral part of their existence. Otherwise, if, for the purpose of discussion, a club like Walsall, had a fixed link with Villa, and suddenly did another Bournemouth and went speedily up to the Prem, then the honesty and integrity of BOTH CLUBS, could be seen as coercive and dishonest.

Best to keep the current informal links between clubs, dependent on both finding how they can help each other rather than the higher club, dictating to the junior partner.

This. It`s about fostering relationships that are mutually beneficial rather like we seem to have with Chelsea.