Socio-economic size relative to football league status

  • Thread starter Deleted member 42657
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fetch Fletch said:
it’s how I interpreted the thread title and even said it was an interesting discussion.No need to get aggressive just because someone offered a different opinion on your thread.
Click to expand...

I think its a really good point regarding players, socioeconomics applies to players too, at the end of the day London lower league clubs have a bigger pool of players to choose from locally, but also have more competition for fans, and more competition to keep their good players. IMHO Brentford are a Championship club because they are London based, they pick up all the u23s that get rejected from Chelsea academy, Fulham academy, Arsenal academy etc etc.

If the North East was the same as London socioeconomically, you'd be in a place where Newcastle were pushing Champions League every season, Sunderland were going for the Everton cup, Boro was a top half Premier League team every season and Hartlepool, Grimsby and Gateshead were pushing Championship.
 
Last edited:


SpiritofBurnden said:
Burnley is not in Greater Manchester.

They're averaging around 20,500 this season, not 25,000.
Click to expand...
OK, again I have to request you re-read the comment you highlighted. It says in the Greater Manchester area, a synonym for near by, in the vicinity, close to etc.

I do not say in Greater Manchester.

My point is Burnley is close enough to the Manchester Death Stars to have supporters drawn in by their gravitational fields.
 
SpiritofBurnden said:
It's not in the 'Greater Manchester area' either.

It's 40 miles away from Manchester.
Click to expand...
Ladies and Gentleman I rest my case.
Manchester United fans travel far greater distances and plenty of them from Burnley I assure you
Ericsgate said:
Ladies and Gentleman I rest my case.
Manchester United fans travel far greater distances and plenty of them from Burnley I assure you
Click to expand...


Manchester, Greater Manchester, North West England, England, United Kingdom Manchester, Greater Manchester, North West England, England, United Kingdom Latitude: 53.480713 53° 28' 50.567'' NLongitude: -2.234376 -2° 14' 3.754'' ELocal time: 20:16 (01.12.2019) : (Europe/London)
Distance: 21.17 mi (34.06 km)
The shortest distance (air line) between Manchester and Burnley is 21.17 mi (34.06 km).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ericsgate said:
Ladies and Gentleman I rest my case.
Manchester United fans travel far greater distances and plenty of them from Burnley I assure you
Click to expand...

What case?

I'm not sure that you even know the geography of the area.

The biggest club nearest the two Manchester clubs is Bolton which is only around 15 miles away.

Oldham, Macclesfield, Stockport, Wigan, Rochdale and Salford City are far more likely to be affected by the two Manchester clubs than Burnley, as were Bury.
 
SpiritofBurnden said:
What case?

I'm not sure that you even know the geography of the area.

The biggest club nearest the two Manchester clubs is Bolton which is only around 15 miles away.

Oldham, Macclesfield, Stockport, Wigan, Rochdale and Salford City are far more likely to be affected by the two Manchester clubs than Burnley, as were Bury.
Click to expand...
OK, it’s getting so far away from original discussion item.
To paraphrase Brian Clough we can argue our points all day, before deciding I was right.
 
Ericsgate said:
OK, it’s getting so far away from original discussion item.
To paraphrase Brian Clough we can argue our points all day, before deciding I was right.
Click to expand...

You're not right though.

You're even measuring distances in a straight line.

When did you last travel to another town or city in a straight line?
 
SpiritofBurnden said:
You're not right though.

You're even measuring distances in a straight line.

When did you last travel to another town or city in a straight line?
Click to expand...
Dear me.
Ericsgate said:
Dear me.
Click to expand...
Yes of course I am measuring distances in a straight line. Is that the best you can come back with after I revealed the inaccuracy in your number.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
marathon9 said:
I think this is flawed... I would check those calculations again..
Click to expand...
I wouldn't bother. It's bollocks and half wrang anyway. :lol:
The comparitive wage bill by club almost always corresponds with the league table. This is now slightly skewed by distance from London as these days most of these modern fancy Dan, foreign, namby pamby, brilliant footballers don't want to live anywhere else. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Ericsgate said:
Yes of course I am measuring distances in a straight line. Is that the best you can come back with after I revealed the inaccuracy in your number.
Click to expand...

You seem to be under the impression that you can travel from Burnley to Manchester in a straight line.

Not to mention that you've moved it to a completely different area than the one it's actually in.

I'm not sure you're in a position to comment on accuracy.
 
Last edited:
safccfas said:
Nottingham is one of the poorest cities in the uk. It’s an absolute shit hole.
Click to expand...
The actual centre is fine, nice restaurants and buzzing atmosphere. Step outside the centre though and it's mostly a horror show. I was in Bulwell yesterday, walking around couldn't tell the difference between the homed and the homeless, what a hole!!!
 
Ericsgate said:
The below list is the top 12 urban conurbations in England.

If you look at the Premier League table and the top 6 of the Championship they are pretty much all there. Obviously, bigger cities are represented more than once.



I do not think this is any coincidence. In an unregulated capitalist model this is how the money flows.

Relative success of football teams now mirror the socio-economic strength of the urban area they reside in.

This was the inevitable conclusion to the Sky greed fest that started in 1993.
Major Urban Areas
NameAdm.Population
Estimate (E)
2018-06-30
1LondonENG10,620,723
2ManchesterENG2,681,285
3BirminghamENG2,570,990
4LeedsENG1,856,709
5SouthamptonENG900,000
6LiverpoolENG898,070
7NewcastleENG800,665
8NottinghamENG773,371
9SheffieldENG719,273
10BristolENG668,393
11LeicesterENG543,588
12Brighton and HoveENG500,663
Click to expand...



acurate in places - but you did a poll for everybody in the north east and asked the who they support, about 60% around 900k would be NUFC. We can probably draw upon 400k. Which is why our support is better. City centre quality does make a difference as well. Kids growing up in Durham, Northumberland want to go out in Newcastle so why select SAFC to support if you have no connection to town. SAFC.
 
This primarily suffers from lazy simplified labelling, which partly seems to attempt to fit the data to the argument (Portsmouth has a bigger population than Southampton but it fits the argument to call the whole area "Southampton" for example). Setting these flaws aside - the biggest takeaway to me, though hardly news, is the massive underachievement of Birmingham, as a city, metropolitan area or 'urban area'. It has had 1 or 0 PL team's in most of this century - unless we are including Wolverhampton in which case by the "Southampton" area logic we should currently label Birmingham as part of "Wolverhampton"!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top