Socio-economic size relative to football league status

[zwartekat]

I am fairly baffled as to what point you're trying to make here. I picked a Div 1 table at random (1962) and 20 of the 22 clubs would have been based in one of these conurbations so what has changed? Hasn't it always been like this?

 

[TheBalkan]

...
The original post was about the size of English conurbations and how more on more how that reflects the football teams in the top 25 places.

Are you denying the validity of that original point.

It's always been this way though. Big cities and rich, for the time, industrial and port cities dominated football since the beginning. London messing about in the Southern League instead of the Football League for so long is probably why its teams won so rarely until recently. It gave the northern conurbations a huge head start.

There were probably fewer than 10 league champions south of Birmingham not called Arsenal until the PL started. And Arsenal literally moved to a more populous part of London then bought, rather than played, their way into the top division to do it.

 

[EverBlue86]

I always hate the one club city fans come out with the "We are a big club ya seen our fanbase???"

Yeah because you're the only club in the area you f***ing spanner!

The above mainly referencing my experience of Newcastle & Leeds fans.

Sunderland fans I still love.

 

[CEF]

Partially agree, but it does not include Sunderland in the Newcastle urban area.

It would be true to acknowledge Newcastle support is comes from a much wider distribution than the narrow city limits.

To use the population of the urban area is therefore more accurate as it would include Gateshead all of Tyneside.

At that point you would say that there is people on Tyneside supporting Sunderland. Of course, especially in Jarrow and South Shields.

But then again the 800,000 urban area does not include all those communities in Northumberland reaching out to Hexham, Morpeth all the way up to Berwick.

In the end 50,000 gates are not so remarkable given the wide population it draws from.

Perhaps 25,000 at Burnley is more remarkable given it is in the Greater Manchester area.

The Mags must have one of the lowest attendences based on potenial numbers. Especially when you bear in mind it's not just Tyneside that the can draw support from but also Northumberland, all the way up to Scotland, half of Durham all the way to Yorkshire, and then all the way west into Cumbria.

 

[Deleted member 42657]

It's always been this way though. Big cities and rich, for the time, industrial and port cities dominated football since the beginning. London messing about in the Southern League instead of the Football League for so long is probably why its teams won so rarely until recently. It gave the northern conurbations a huge head start.

There were probably fewer than 10 league champions south of Birmingham not called Arsenal until the PL started. And Arsenal literally moved to a more populous part of London then bought, rather than played, their way into the top division to do it.

Yes, I guess the next natural conclusion (and it has happened for 29 years) will suck up more finance and relative success.

The performance of Brighton, Portsmouth, Southampton and Bournemouth over the last 15 years is unprecedented and is a real shift in the tectonic plates.

The key question in relation to that is why has that’s happened?

The Mags must have one of the lowest attendences based on potenial numbers. Especially when you bear in mind it's not just Tyneside that the can draw support from but also Northumberland, all the way up to Scotland, half of Durham all the way to Yorkshire, and then all the way west into Cumbria.

That is a conclusion I had made in reference to the population data.

In fairness, there is probably over 20,000 supporters who boycott the club due to Mike Ashley. They get 50,000 despite the ownership.

In part they do pick up “day support“ from tourists and students who are not necessarily supporters in the traditional sense of being born and bred on the club.

 

[ftm1971]

Nottingham is one of the poorest cities in the uk. It’s an absolute shit hole.

Go down a couple of times a year to see a mate, got good and bad areas like anywhere else, the city centre is class, plenty good pubs, restaurants and shops, and a good tram system.Looks like a proper city, unlike, I'm sad to say, our own.Thank christ we have the seafront.

 

[CEF]

Yes, I guess the next natural conclusion (and it has happened for 29 years) will suck up more finance and relative success.

The performance of Brighton, Portsmouth, Southampton and Bournemouth over the last 15 years is unprecedented and is a real shift in the tectonic plates.

The key question in relation to that is why has that’s happened?

That is a conclusion I had made in reference to the population data.

In fairness, there is probably over 20,000 supporters who boycott the club due to Mike Ashley. They get 50,000 despite the ownership.

In part they do pick up “day support“ from tourists and students who are not necessarily supporters in the traditional sense of being born and bred on the club.

Averaging 46,000 this season, potentially the largest proportion of empty seats in the Premier League?

 

[pillars of hercules]

This thread is a prime example of someone stating a fact, then having people disagree because they haven't got a clue what they're talking about.

There is a difference between city, conurbation and metropolitan area

 

[Geronimo]

It must be a slightly odd definition. Having visited Liverpool, one of the major cities in the UK, and Southampton which appears to me essentially a large town, it’s using a different definition to most lists of cities I’ve seen.

It also falls down showing Southampton, Nottingham, Leicester and Brum.

These are not affluent places on the whole.

 

[Deleted member 42657]

Averaging 46,000 this season, potentially the largest proportion of empty seats in the Premier League?

OK. OK. The original post was not about Newcastle.

It somehow got to that because of a compulsive obsession people on here seem to have about them.

The original post listed 12 conurbations by population and invited discussion about how this mirrors which football teams seem to be rising to the top.

My argument was this was broadly true.

It might suggest Newcastle under-performs but I was deliberate to avoid this being about them.

This straw poll has revealed more RTG posters want to discuss Newcastle and it’s football team than they would admit to themselves.

Why is that?

This thread is a prime example of someone stating a fact, then having people disagree because they haven't got a clue what they're talking about.

There is a difference between city, conurbation and metropolitan area

Thanks for the support. I pointed out the differences between city and conurbation at the start.

My observation, at this stage, is that some people see the word Newcastle and go into some blind hate infused rant.

Averaging 46,000 this season, potentially the largest proportion of empty seats in the Premier League?

Those of us in glass houses, however.

I am fairly baffled as to what point you're trying to make here. I picked a Div 1 table at random (1962) and 20 of the 22 clubs would have been based in one of these conurbations so what has changed? Hasn't it always been like this?

Can you please reveal that table? I have reservations about the validity of your statement.

This was the time of the abolition of the maximum wage. I would expect some small Industrial towns in Lancashire, at the very least, to be more prominent in the list.

 

[TheBalkan]

Yes, I guess the next natural conclusion (and it has happened for 29 years) will suck up more finance and relative success.

The performance of Brighton, Portsmouth, Southampton and Bournemouth over the last 15 years is unprecedented and is a real shift in the tectonic plates.

The key question in relation to that is why has that’s happened?

Brighton = Tony Bloom, Portsmouth = Spending themselves/Milan Mandaric to the wall, Bournemouth = the Russian guy who happens to live in Sandbanks. See also John Madejski, Flavio Briatoire, Mohamed Al-Fayed/Shahid Khan.
Southampton is a big (and growing), rich enough place that it should be fairly good (yet also nearly spent itself to the wall). Brighton too.

What you could say is very rich folk are more likely to buy southern clubs because they're more likely to live near to and thus have an affinity for them. Then they're easier to run because it's easier to attract high calibre local sponsors like AMEX UK than your traditional post-industrial football town.

 

[Deleted member 42657]

Brighton = Tony Bloom, Portsmouth = Spending themselves/Milan Mandaric to the wall, Bournemouth = the Russian guy who happens to live in Sandbanks. See also John Madejski, Flavio Briatoire, Mohamed Al-Fayed/Shahid Khan.
Southampton is a big (and growing), rich enough place that it should be fairly good (yet also nearly spent itself to the wall). Brighton too.

What you could say is very rich folk are more likely to buy southern clubs because they're more likely to live near to and thus have an affinity for them. Then they're easier to run because it's easier to attract high calibre local sponsors like AMEX UK than your traditional post-industrial football town.

Yes, I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head with your conclusions.

 

[safccfas]

See post #15, I pre-emoted your response but entirely disagree. Urban area is much more representative.

Massive generalisation, like all cities there is a mix of household income ranges and some very affluent areas.

It’s been voted poorest city in UK 5 times out of the last 7 years.

Go down a couple of times a year to see a mate, got good and bad areas like anywhere else, the city centre is class, plenty good pubs, restaurants and shops, and a good tram system.Looks like a proper city, unlike, I'm sad to say, our own.Thank christ we have the seafront.

It has yes but it’s bad areas are really bad and I mean really bad. The amount of beggars for a smallish City is ridiculous and there is a huge drug problem in the city centre. The tram system is an absolute must as the road infrastructure is horrendous. Agree about our city centre as well however I don’t really think of sunderland as anything other than a big town.

 

[Urban Silverback]

Bookmarked this thread for later when I can't get to sleep. Cheeerrrzzzzzzzzz.

 

[shadowplay]

It also falls down showing Southampton, Nottingham, Leicester and Brum.

These are not affluent places on the whole.

Birmingham is the third richest city conurbation in the country. Nottingham and the other two aren't so far behind. Wealth disparity is the natural outcome of big city conurbations.

Football clubs have always been successful in areas where there's a high density of working class population coupled with enough local capital to be able to sustain them. That was the case in the 1890s as much as it is now.

 

[zwartekat]

Can you please reveal that table? I have reservations about the validity of your statement.

This was the time of the abolition of the maximum wage. I would expect some small Industrial towns in Lancashire, at the very least, to be more prominent in the list.

Yeah, sure.

1962–63 Football League - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Burnley, Blackburn and Bolton are there but I thought from what was said earlier in the thread that they were part of the Manchester conurbation? Apologies if I've misread.

 

[Deleted member 42657]

Bookmarked this thread for later when I can't get to sleep. Cheeerrrzzzzzzzzz.

There writes a narcissist, obsession with self.

Most observers uninterested by a post would move on and ignore it.

Silverback feels the “need” to tell us all.

A symptom of Generation Y a millennial who defines himself by how many likes he achieves on social media.

 

[Urban Silverback]

There writes a narcissist, obsession with self.

Most observers uninterested by a post would move on and ignore it.

Silverback feels the “need” to tell us all.

A symptom of Generation Y a millennial who defines himself by how many likes he achieves on social media.

I detest social media and I'm far from Generation Y. Crack on though.

 

[Deleted member 42657]

Yeah, sure.

1962–63 Football League - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Burnley, Blackburn and Bolton are there but I thought from what was said earlier in the thread that they were part of the Manchester conurbation? Apologies if I've misread.

Yeh, the Manchester Conurbation thing got a bit misinterpreted and it’s no surprise to see those Lancastrian industrial towns being more prominent.

As you suggest it is broadly similar but I think the gap widened. There was clearly occasions when Ipswich, Luton and Norwich competed 30-40 years ago without big spending.

 

[Far Tibetan Mountain]

NewcastleGateshead

Buzzin'