Ipswich Town First has written an open letter to Town chief executive Derek Bowden regarding his support of Bolton Wanderers chairman Phil Gartside's proposal for the introduction of a two-division Premier League with no relegation and promotion to and from the lower leagues.

Mr Bowden

We at the Trust note with some alarm the comments attributed to you over the last couple of weeks concerning Bolton Wanderers chairman Phil Gartside's proposal to expand the Premier League to a 36-team, two-level league with no relegation to or promotion from the lower divisions.

Do we really want to go the American route of franchise football?

We believe this proposal has no support amongst the fan base. It is indicative of the arrogance of those in charge of certain clubs that they believe that because they are the current custodian of their club, they are entitled to change the game for financial gain (see also the proposals for ‘Game 39') and for the benefit of their own club, with no concern for the consequences of clubs excluded from the elite.

Certainly, Mr Gartside has only floated the idea now Bolton are struggling in the lower reaches of the top flight. He has certainly never proposed such an idea when Bolton were enjoying success in the top half of the table. We presume that he would have been dead set against the idea when he first became a director in the late 1980s, at a time when they were in what is now known as League One.

Bolton are one of four current Premier League clubs who have been in the fourth tier of English football in the last 25 years. Should the progression of Bolton, Fulham, Hull City and Wigan Athletic, and indeed the one that Ipswich Town made between 1938 and 1961, be blocked for other clubs? Why should clubs such as ours be deemed too important to have to suffer the same fate as Bradford City, Luton Town, Notts County and Oxford United?

To create a closed shop, would be a backwards step for English football. It is 21 years since the Football League replaced the re-election system with a promotion and relegation system to and from what is now the Blue Square Premier. If any criticism can be levelled at the Football League for their entry policy, it is that they relegate fewer teams than anywhere else in the football pyramid. Prior to that time, there was a complacency displayed by a number of teams who retained enough friends amongst other chairmen to retain their league status through re-election, rather than merit.

Since the Football League changed their entry process to that of a meritocracy, we have seen such teams such as Cheltenham Town and Wycombe Wanderers prosper in the League. Other clubs have experienced the hammer blow of relegation out of the League, as well as the joy of returning. Our opponents on Saturday, Doncaster Rovers, have not just shown continued improvement since they regained League status, they are now in their best League position in 50 years. They have also shown strong links to their community with the co-financing of the Keepmoat Stadium.

We do not believe that they should have a glass ceiling imposed above them to feed the greed of 36 clubs. We wonder how Marcus Evans and yourself would feel if our club were to finish too low in the table to enter the new elite league - or are there other criteria at work other than ability?

The specific comments attributed to yourself are also insulting to those of us who remember when the distribution of wealth was reduced from 92 professional clubs to 22 (and subsequently 20) Premier League clubs. The suggestion that this "would lead to more equal distribution of wealth” will certainly be no comfort to those 56 Football League clubs who will find themselves marginalised and impoverished even further.

Your suggestion that this will "remove the horrendous damage done to a club when it is relegated back to the Football League” has to be offset against the damage to the integrity of competition within our national game. Clubs are more than happy to receive the extra money that Premier League membership brings, but no club seems interested in addressing the imbalance until they are at risk of relegation from the League, and then the answer is not about levelling the field for everyone, but how to prolong their stay on the top table. As long as clubs think that, the imbalance will stay the same.

Wider debate on the distribution of the wealth in the game is needed, but the discussions have to respect the needs of a clubs at every level. Ideally this would see a return to the model of distributing television income as was seen prior to the forming of the Premier League. In that respect, the playing field would be a lot more level between all League clubs. We believe that this would fit in more with Culture Secretary Andy Burnham's recent comments about the state of finance and the game, and how "we need to ensure the flow of finance furthers football's interests as a sport”.

We also find the suggestion that this system would benefit the England national team to be a red herring and feel that the opposite would be more likely. It is always a suggestion that appears when a club official seeks to justify a suggestion that is made to benefit certain clubs and their shareholders financially, as opposed to a suggestion that is made with the good of the game at its heart.

With an extra 16 clubs receiving extra finance through this second division, they are just as likely as the existing and previous members of the Premier League to spend this extra wealth on foreign players, citing cheaper wages and transfer fees as the reason. In that respect, younger players are more likely to find themselves in the remains of what is the Football League, where the motivation to do well will be reduced as the lack of promotion to the next level will have been taken away from them.

If Mr Bowden is still so sure that this is an excellent idea, then maybe the club should seek the advice of Ian Stott. Mr Stott was one of the prime movers behind the Premier League, who hoped that his club would benefit from cutting adrift the other 70 professional clubs of the time. His club, Oldham Athletic, lasted just two years in the Premier League and have spent the subsequent 14 years looking on with envy from the Football League. Life became so harsh for his own club, that by 1999 he was publically calling for a merger with Rochdale and Bury in an attempt to reduce the losses the Latics were now making.

In fact, of the four clubs whose representatives on the Football League board enabled the initial breakaway to occur, only Aston Villa have continually remained in the top flight – our neighbours Norwich City and Leeds United were the other two, and have also found themselves on the receiving end of the chasm that they helped create.

With all of these reasons in mind, we at the Trust implore you to reconsider your support for such a scheme. We certainly hope that the suggestion of a closed shop never comes to fruition in English football, whether Ipswich Town are involved or not.

Yours faithfully

The Committee
Ipswich Town First

Photo: Action Images

Ipswich Town Polls