search the site
 daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Stadiums and Sport Arenas

Stadiums and Sport Arenas » Completed | Under Construction | Proposed | Demolished



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: -
- 0 0%
- 0 0%
Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old July 29th, 2012, 06:19 PM   #4781
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 10,906
Likes (Received): 4580

Quote:
Originally Posted by MS20 View Post
Man Utd has about 1.3 million people living within 10 miles of Old Trafford, which is gargantuan in comparison to most other clubs, and goes a long way in explaining why they can average 75,000. Spurs could have anywhere between 500k-1m within 15 miles, but London population stats aren't broken up so nicely like they are for the rest of the country. Anything over 500k in England gives you a good platform for being a top 10 club. London has over 7 million people, and while most of those people can't realistically attend Spurs matches, they can help Spurs when it comes to TV ratings.
Far more than that.

A 15 mile radius from White Hart Lane includes pretty much all of London north of the Thames and a significant portion of London south of the Thames (as far as Bromley, in fact), as well as the densely populated suburban sprawl in Hertfordshire and Essex.

I'd estimate the total population covered by that 15 mile radius to be in the region of 7-8 million.

P.S. London's population is now more than 8 million and the metro area population is almost 14 million.

Last edited by JimB; July 29th, 2012 at 06:32 PM.
JimB está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 30th, 2012, 02:02 AM   #4782
oxo
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 981
Likes (Received): 0

A great number of reasons can be given to account for Chelsea’s or Arsenal’s success that are unrelated to issues of location. But the plain fact is that among the 16 London clubs they are the only 2 clubs to be found on most maps of central London.

To dismiss this as being ‘’coincidental’’ strikes me as flippant in the extreme.

Arsenal is about a 4 mile road distance from London’s recognised centre-point Piccadilly Circus. Chelsea is about 3 and a half miles away from the centre-point.

This is followed by the ‘’Zone 2’’ clubs such as Fulham, QPR, Millwall and Spurs being between 5 – 6 miles away from the centre point. This proximity reflects their moderate success as clubs (a bit more than moderate in the case of Spurs lately and less so for Millwall who seem to be underachieving in relation to its zone status).

The ‘’Zone 3’’ clubs located over 6 miles away from the centre point include Charlton, Brentford and Dagenham & Redbridge. These are low profile clubs with Charlton slightly overachieving in relation to its zone status.

There is an obvious pattern here between the success of a club and its zone status which can not be denied or dismissed as coincidental. The pattern surely proves that location must have a key influence on the success of a club.
oxo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2012, 05:06 AM   #4783
MS20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,055
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
Far more than that.

A 15 mile radius from White Hart Lane includes pretty much all of London north of the Thames and a significant portion of London south of the Thames (as far as Bromley, in fact), as well as the densely populated suburban sprawl in Hertfordshire and Essex.

I'd estimate the total population covered by that 15 mile radius to be in the region of 7-8 million.

P.S. London's population is now more than 8 million and the metro area population is almost 14 million.
Yeah on reflection I was very conservative with the figure. Whatever the number is, its certainly above a million, which makes Spurs a prime candidate to contest for titles. All thats needed now is that revenue generating new stadium.
MS20 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2012, 12:55 PM   #4784
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 3,524
Likes (Received): 1424

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
One other thing, oxo - the notion that Arsenal is a centrally located club is simply wrong. Arsenal are based in Highbury / Holloway, north London. And it is an area that has only relatively recently been considered as anything other than deprived and staunchly working class.

Even now, much of the area is barely less of a shit hole than the area of Tottenham.
It isn't really anymore, my gf lives on a street off Holloway Road and can walk to HR tube station in about 30 mins, so under 40mins to the stadium. Most of that side is actually quite nice, her long street is full of 4/5 story town houses kept in good condition. The estates tend to be of the nicer kind. Around Finsbury park it's bit shitter though, but WHL and its surroundings is a lot more visibly crap imo.
kerouac1848 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2012, 01:13 PM   #4785
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 3,524
Likes (Received): 1424

Quote:
Originally Posted by oxo View Post
A great number of reasons can be given to account for Chelsea’s or Arsenal’s success that are unrelated to issues of location. But the plain fact is that among the 16 London clubs they are the only 2 clubs to be found on most maps of central London.

To dismiss this as being ‘’coincidental’’ strikes me as flippant in the extreme.

Arsenal is about a 4 mile road distance from London’s recognised centre-point Piccadilly Circus. Chelsea is about 3 and a half miles away from the centre-point.

This is followed by the ‘’Zone 2’’ clubs such as Fulham, QPR, Millwall and Spurs being between 5 – 6 miles away from the centre point. This proximity reflects their moderate success as clubs (a bit more than moderate in the case of Spurs lately and less so for Millwall who seem to be underachieving in relation to its zone status).

The ‘’Zone 3’’ clubs located over 6 miles away from the centre point include Charlton, Brentford and Dagenham & Redbridge. These are low profile clubs with Charlton slightly overachieving in relation to its zone status.

There is an obvious pattern here between the success of a club and its zone status which can not be denied or dismissed as coincidental. The pattern surely proves that location must have a key influence on the success of a club.
You're using flawed tube maps as a guide now (Gospel Oak as belonging to central London? wtf) and making up zones. QPR are a tad bit closer to Charing Cross (the true centre point, not pic circus), and a fair bit nearer to the wealthy part of the western portion of central London, than Arsenal. Millwall are closer to central London than the Gunners. Fulham are quite close to some extremely wealthy parts of central London. Charlton are closer to Central London than Spurs, yet the latter are far more successful with more supporters (they're also more successful than several over zone 2 clubs).

There is no clear pattern between a club's 'zone' and its success in London. Transport does play a part, but if it was the sole factor QPR should be fairing a hell of a lot better given LR is near to multiple stations on several tube and rail lines plus a major radial urban motorway.
kerouac1848 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2012, 03:17 PM   #4786
oxo
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 981
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by kerouac1848 View Post
You're using flawed tube maps as a guide now (Gospel Oak as belonging to central London? wtf) and making up zones. QPR are a tad bit closer to Charing Cross (the true centre point, not pic circus)
What makes Nine Elms (south edge of Central London map) any more central or tourist-friendly than the Gospel Oak area, its northern edge?
Very pedantic of you to say QPR is a bit closer to Charing Cross than Piccadilly Circus.
Would that be by 89.7 metres?

Quote:
Millwall are closer to central London than the Gunners.
Not true, Arsenal are a bit closer to Trafalgar Square than Millwall and importantly enough are within walking distance to significant areas such as London's biggest transport hub – Kings Cross/St Pancras, not to mention loads of other places of note.

Quote:
Fulham are quite close to some extremely wealthy parts of central London.
So what? I wasn't try to identify a pattern between wealthy areas and high profile clubs.

Quote:
Charlton are closer to Central London than Spurs, yet the latter are far more successful with more supporters (they're also more successful than several over zone 2 clubs).
No, Spurs are a bit closer to the centre. In any case, Spurs are overachieving relative to their fellow ''Zone 2'' clubs . The zone pattern is evident but not that scientifically clear cut. Millwall should be doing much better as a ''Zone 2'' club - can't work out why they are not in the Premiership.

Quote:
There is no clear pattern between a club's 'zone' and its success in London.
Really? I suggest you take a long hard look at a map of London and study where the low profile and high profile are located in relation to a centre point. The pattern might not belong to an exact science and there will be a few exceptions to the rule but nevertheless the pattern is identifiable.

Quote:
Transport does play a part, but if it was the sole factor QPR should be fairing a hell of a lot better given LR is near to multiple stations on several tube and rail lines plus a major radial urban motorway.
Yes, QPR is not fulfilling its potential as a Zone 2 club. Certainly underachieving in the same way as Millwall is.
oxo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2012, 04:30 PM   #4787
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 3,524
Likes (Received): 1424

Quote:
Originally Posted by oxo View Post
What makes Nine Elms (south edge of Central London map) any more central or tourist-friendly than the Gospel Oak area, its northern edge?
Very pedantic of you to say QPR is a bit closer to Charing Cross than Piccadilly Circus.
Would that be by 89.7 metres?
When did I say anything about Nine Elms?

Re. QPR, the point was they're as near to the West End as Arsenal yet have been no where near as successful (even though support size is more meaningful than success)

Quote:
Not true, Arsenal are a bit closer to Trafalgar Square than Millwall and importantly enough are within walking distance to significant areas such as London's biggest transport hub – Kings Cross/St Pancras, not to mention loads of other places of note.
I said central London. Millwall are near enough as close to London Bridge as Arsenal are to Kings X. They're close to the City (and CW), to all the corporate suits which supposedly help fill expensive sits. London Bridge is hardly a small transport hub either.

Quote:
So what? I wasn't try to identify a pattern between wealthy areas and high profile clubs.
You did try and establish a link between proximity to centre and success though. I said Fulham are close to some central London districts. Funny you ignored that bit.

Quote:
No, Spurs are a bit closer to the centre. In any case, Spurs are overachieving relative to their fellow ''Zone 2'' clubs . The zone pattern is evident but not that scientifically clear cut. Millwall should be doing much better as a ''Zone 2'' club - can't work out why they are not in the Premiership.
Hmm, Charlton are around 5.5/6km from the edge of the City (Tower of London), Spurs probably just over 6km from the northern fringe around Kings X.

Either way, my point is geography isn't as big a factor as you think. There are too many exceptions to your theory.

Quote:
Really? I suggest you take a long hard look at a map of London and study where the low profile and high profile are located in relation to a centre point. The pattern might not belong to an exact science and there will be a few exceptions to the rule but nevertheless the pattern is identifiable.
West Ham and Spurs are bigger clubs than a host of inner London ones, neither were in the old County of London unlike some of their smaller rivals. Leyton Orient played in an area that today is part of Hackney for close to 50 years, yet Spurs and WH got bigger crowds than them, even when playing in the same division.

Clubs mostly have individual reasons for their success - or lack of -, same with support size, often relating to money rather than geography. Barnet for example weren't professional until after WWII. Some clubs were relegated at the 'wrong' time, missing out on boom years in terms of football's growth. For others it was the opposite. QPR had moderate success in the 80s when football hit the buffers, hitting a decline and financial difficulties just before Sky poured cash into the game.

Quote:
Yes, QPR is not fulfilling its potential as a Zone 2 club. Certainly underachieving in the same way as Millwall is.
Neither are Fulham or Charlton. Which might suggest many other factors are important than geography, even though I admit it has a role to play.

Last edited by kerouac1848; July 30th, 2012 at 04:38 PM.
kerouac1848 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2012, 06:07 PM   #4788
alexandru.mircea
Ars longa, vita brevis
 
alexandru.mircea's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,790
Likes (Received): 10507

All those things oxo is talking about have become indeed very important since the businessification of football. But:

- they make their impact in a context modeled by a century long development where the pure sporting aspects of the game were prevalent over the economics of the game.
- even now their importance is not that high, certainly not the most important, as the most important source of income for the larger clubs is TV rights, where the location of the club is irrelevant. Look up weight the TV rights (and think of the new outrageous foreign TV rights deal made since this article was written) in the Premier League's business: http://swissramble.blogspot.fr/2012/...shines-on.html
alexandru.mircea no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2012, 08:05 PM   #4789
legolamb
Advance Kingstonia!
 
legolamb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 6,219
Likes (Received): 634

Quote:
Have you got average attendance figures for Hull City for the last 60 years? I can't take your word for it. Too vague to say they were topping 40,000 regularly, because while the 50s and 60s were a golden era for attendances, averages attendance over 40k were still few and far between.
No averages.And unfortunately, the club's highest attendances all came around the same time at the end of the 40's/early 50's before safety limitations were imposed, so the list of biggest gates below isn't too helpful either. I'll add a couple of early 70's videos of boothferry park though.

26/02/1949 FA Cup 6th Round Manchester United 55,019
27/01/1951 FA Cup 4th Round Rotherham United 50,040
04/02/1950 Second Division (Old) Sheffield Wednesday 49,900
25/12/1948 Third Division (North) Rotherham Utd 49,655 (3rd division!)
27/12/1949 Second Division (Old) Brentford 48,447
29/10/1949 Second Division (Old) Leeds United 47,638




Last edited by legolamb; July 30th, 2012 at 08:13 PM.
legolamb no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2012, 08:39 PM   #4790
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 10,906
Likes (Received): 4580

Quote:
Originally Posted by MS20 View Post
Yeah on reflection I was very conservative with the figure. Whatever the number is, its certainly above a million, which makes Spurs a prime candidate to contest for titles. All thats needed now is that revenue generating new stadium.
Again, mate, I have to revise your figure considerably upwards. I realise that you're erring on the side of caution but you don't have to be quite so conservative with your estimates!

As I said, a 15 mile radius around White Hart Lane covers a good two thirds of London - including all of the most densely populated areas. So that has to be at least six million for starters!

Add to that the Essex and Hertfordshire suburbs that also fall within a 15 mile radius and I'd be surprised if the total wasn't at least 7 million.
JimB está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2012, 08:58 PM   #4791
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 10,906
Likes (Received): 4580

Quote:
Originally Posted by oxo View Post
A great number of reasons can be given to account for Chelsea’s or Arsenal’s success that are unrelated to issues of location. But the plain fact is that among the 16 London clubs they are the only 2 clubs to be found on most maps of central London.

To dismiss this as being ‘’coincidental’’ strikes me as flippant in the extreme.

Arsenal is about a 4 mile road distance from London’s recognised centre-point Piccadilly Circus. Chelsea is about 3 and a half miles away from the centre-point.

This is followed by the ‘’Zone 2’’ clubs such as Fulham, QPR, Millwall and Spurs being between 5 – 6 miles away from the centre point. This proximity reflects their moderate success as clubs (a bit more than moderate in the case of Spurs lately and less so for Millwall who seem to be underachieving in relation to its zone status).

The ‘’Zone 3’’ clubs located over 6 miles away from the centre point include Charlton, Brentford and Dagenham & Redbridge. These are low profile clubs with Charlton slightly overachieving in relation to its zone status.

There is an obvious pattern here between the success of a club and its zone status which can not be denied or dismissed as coincidental. The pattern surely proves that location must have a key influence on the success of a club.
There is no obvious pattern at all.

Sorry, oxo, but you're talking utter shite.

Arsenal's success was built on the back of an inspired managerial choice in the late 1920's - many decades before the area of Highbury / Holloway was considered anything other than a poor and staunchly working class area.

More recent success was achieved as a consequence of a second inspired managerial choice in 1996.

Location is only important to Arsenal's success in so far as the club is situated in London and therefore had access to a huge potential fan base from its earliest days. But, in that respect, Arsenal had no particular advantage over any other London club. They simply happen to have been more successful - and therefore attracted ever greater numbers of fans.

Chelsea's success is, as everyone without a nonsensical agenda to peddle knows, entirely attributable to some one billion pounds of Russian oil money that has been lavished on the team over the past 8 years.
JimB está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2012, 09:03 PM   #4792
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 10,906
Likes (Received): 4580

Quote:
Originally Posted by kerouac1848 View Post
It isn't really anymore, my gf lives on a street off Holloway Road and can walk to HR tube station in about 30 mins, so under 40mins to the stadium. Most of that side is actually quite nice, her long street is full of 4/5 story town houses kept in good condition. The estates tend to be of the nicer kind. Around Finsbury park it's bit shitter though, but WHL and its surroundings is a lot more visibly crap imo.
All opinion, mate. Fair enough, you disagree. But Holloway Road is grim as ****, IMO! Other than that Waitrose, there isn't the slightest concession to gentrification.

Overall, it is certainly better than Tottenham. No argument there. But it has only relatively recently become so.
JimB está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2012, 09:12 PM   #4793
RMB2007
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,222
Likes (Received): 15003

Hayes & Yeading United's new stadium is finally under construction:



http://hyufc.com/groundworks.html
RMB2007 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2012, 01:24 AM   #4794
oxo
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 981
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
There is no obvious pattern at all.

Sorry, oxo, but you're talking utter shite.
A bit rich coming from you.

Quote:
Arsenal's success was built on the back of an inspired managerial choice in the late 1920's - many decades before the area of Highbury / Holloway was considered anything other than a poor and staunchly working class area.
They moved from Greenwich. If they hadn't they would have remained a low profile team such as Charlton to this very day. You think an Arsene Wenger would have made much of a success of a modern day Arsenal Greenwich club? Unlikely, especially in such a restricted and localised catchment area.

Quote:
More recent success was achieved as a consequence of a second inspired managerial choice in 1996.
You seem to live in a simplistic black and white world in which the main reason for a club's success is the manager.
As England's mediocre players have proved time and time again, the manager can only influence team performance to a limited extent. The best manager in the world could not do much with England although there are managers who could make them play even more abysmally.

Quote:
Location is only important to Arsenal's success in so far as the club is situated in London and therefore had access to a huge potential fan base from its earliest days. But, in that respect, Arsenal had no particular advantage over any other London club. They simply happen to have been more successful - and therefore attracted ever greater numbers of fans.
'They simply happen to have been more successful''? Nothing ''simply happens'' without a reason.
Fans don't ''simply happen'' to support teams for no reason.

Quote:
Chelsea's success is, as everyone without a nonsensical agenda to peddle knows, entirely attributable to some one billion pounds of Russian oil money that has been lavished on the team over the past 8 years.
Why do you think Abramovich chose to invest in Chelsea as opposed to a Charlton, West Ham or a QPR?
He didn't achieve his business success by making short-sighted decisions and understood the significance of club location and catchment areas. You on the other hand think that any old team such as a Watford or a Crystal Palace would become successful after having billions poured into it.
oxo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2012, 01:32 AM   #4795
oxo
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 981
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by kerouac1848
Re. QPR, the point was they're as near to the West End as Arsenal yet have been no where near as successful (even though support size is more meaningful than success)
Centrality can be gauged with a tourist map. You'll find Arsenal on such a map but not QPR because Loftus Road is too far west to be included. Highgate near Arsenal is a touristy area and Islington is fast becoming one. Since when has Shepherd's Bush near QPR been an attraction for tourists?

Quote:
I said central London. Millwall are near enough as close to London Bridge as Arsenal are to Kings X. They're close to the City (and CW), to all the corporate suits which supposedly help fill expensive sits. London Bridge is hardly a small transport hub either.
Yes, there's something gone wrong at Millwall because their geographic position suggests they should be in the Premiership, competing for a top 6 place. However, they do not even have a tube connection so connectivity is poor. Arsenal on the other hand enjoy much superior connectivity to most parts of London.

Quote:
You did try and establish a link between proximity to centre and success though. I said Fulham are close to some central London districts. Funny you ignored that bit.
Fulham is close to some central London districts such as Chelsea but is not central itself. Some central London districts are not necessarily wealthy anyway.

Quote:
Hmm, Charlton are around 5.5/6km from the edge of the City (Tower of London), Spurs probably just over 6km from the northern fringe around Kings X.
Charlton have poor connectivity with most of London because of the lack of tube stations in the area and only the one rail station. Nearest tube about 2 miles away! The Victoria Line makes Spurs more accessible and draws it ''nearer'' to other parts of London. However, compared to the Arsenal and Chelsea clubs Spurs are poorly connected to the transport network.

Quote:
Either way, my point is geography isn't as big a factor as you think. There are too many exceptions to your theory.
Only one or two exceptions to my theory. What about Zone 3 clubs? Funny you ignored that bit: Barnet, Brentford, Dagenham, AFC Wimbledon - all lower league clubs based further away from the centre and will never become high profile because of their outward location.


.

Last edited by oxo; July 31st, 2012 at 01:44 AM.
oxo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2012, 04:25 AM   #4796
RonyFurtado
Registered User
 
RonyFurtado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ourinhos-SP
Posts: 893
Likes (Received): 1603

I love the English stadiums... I am Brazilian and my team is the Corinthians. In England my favorite club is the Fulham FC.

I hope that at the end of the year, Chelsea and Corinthians can play the final of world cup for clubs in Japan.

Sorry for my horrible English. =)
__________________
Sport Club Corinthians Paulista. 2x champion of the FIFA Club World Cup 2000/2012
RonyFurtado está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2012, 12:10 PM   #4797
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 10,906
Likes (Received): 4580

Quote:
Originally Posted by oxo View Post
They moved from Greenwich. If they hadn't they would have remained a low profile team such as Charlton to this very day.
Pure speculation on your part.

Quote:
You think an Arsene Wenger would have made much of a success of a modern day Arsenal Greenwich club? Unlikely, especially in such a restricted and localised catchment area.
If an Arsenal based in Greenwich had the same players, resources, staff and fan base as the one that is in north London, then yes, I'm quite certain that Wenger would have made every bit as much a success of the job.

Quote:
You seem to live in a simplistic black and white world in which the main reason for a club's success is the manager.
You seem to live in a Lala Land, in which location (to the preposterous point of fractions of miles) is the sole determining criterion for success. At least my "simplistic black and white world" is based on logic.

Quote:
As England's mediocre players have proved time and time again, the manager can only influence team performance to a limited extent. The best manager in the world could not do much with England although there are managers who could make them play even more abysmally.
See, that's the thing with international teams - the player pool is limited. Not so for club teams. Which is why Wenger was able to spot the potential in players like Vieira, Henry, Petit, Pires, Anelka, Fabregas etc etc.

Quote:
'They simply happen to have been more successful''? Nothing ''simply happens'' without a reason.
Fans don't ''simply happen'' to support teams for no reason.
Of course. Arsenal were successful for a number of reasons. But not because they were a mile or two (or even a fraction of a mile) closer to central London than some other clubs.

Quote:
Why do you think Abramovich chose to invest in Chelsea as opposed to a Charlton, West Ham or a QPR?
Because, as I've already said, Chelsea were:

- already a high profile, Premier League club
- with a decent fan base and stadium
- in the Champions League (albeit as a consequence of spending money that they didn't have)
- available to buy at a bargain basement price (as a consequence of their woeful mismanagement over the preceding 5-10 years)

Quote:
He didn't achieve his business success by making short-sighted decisions and understood the significance of club location and catchment areas.
You think that the decision to buy Chelsea was a business decision? Arf! He's poured more than £1 billion into it, all told. He's received no income from it. If he was to sell right now, he wouldn't make any profit from it.

Quote:
You on the other hand think that any old team such as a Watford or a Crystal Palace would become successful after having billions poured into it.
Blackburn Rovers were pretty successful for the few years that Jack Walker poured modest amounts of his money into the club (modest by comparison to the vast sums poured into City and Chelsea).

So there is no reason whatsoever why a club with the potential of Crystal Palace couldn't be very successful if it became the beneficiary of billions of pounds of petro money.
JimB está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2012, 12:41 PM   #4798
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexandru.mircea View Post
All those things oxo is talking about have become indeed very important since the businessification of football.
Not at all what oxo is talking about has always been relevant. For example Arsenal moved to Islington in 1913 because of its (then) humungous population and the fact it had a tube station next to it and West Brom moved to the Birmingham side of the town to try and increase support back when it was largely empty fields. The idea that the bussinessification [sic] of football is a recent thing is a pretty niave assumption.

Oxo's problem is that he misinterprets catchment area. He sees London as one city and teams should aim to reprsent it all, but as Paris shows big cities are massively divided and it is better to try and represent a district. Hence why London clubs represent a particular compass point first.

Quote:
But:

- they make their impact in a context modeled by a century long development where the pure sporting aspects of the game were prevalent over the economics of the game.
The market place is different. The bosman ruling and the growth of non match day revenue has meant that budget has become a much more important factor.

Quote:
- even now their importance is not that high, certainly not the most important, as the most important source of income for the larger clubs is TV rights, where the location of the club is irrelevant. Look up weight the TV rights (and think of the new outrageous foreign TV rights deal made since this article was written) in the Premier League's business: http://swissramble.blogspot.fr/2012/...shines-on.html
The size of PL TV contract impacts inter league competition not intraleague competition. What makes it such a large stream in absolute terms for the bigger clubs is that despite being raised collectivetly it isn't distributed that way. It's no coincidence that in England the first clubs to receive CL revenue are the ones that clean up and they were the biggest spenders back then and that was more gate based than today.
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2012, 12:59 PM   #4799
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Oxo, wow...

Quote:
Originally Posted by oxo View Post
They moved from Greenwich. If they hadn't they would have remained a low profile team such as Charlton to this very day.
This is your problem; you think Charlton are a "low profile team" because of their location. Not so, Charlton are a "low profile team" because they haven't had much success since the TV era began in the 1960s.

Let's remember a number of things about London; until 1930s the population was overwhelming based in the inner core which was much denser meaning that suburban clubs had less of an opportunity to draw large amounts of fans. When Arsenal played in Woolwich (not Greenwich, that wasn't created until 1965) it was a more or less separate town from London, it was still referred to as Woolwich, Kent by locals despite being stupidly in the County of London.

Despite this when Woolwich Arsenal first played in the first division (in 1904) they were renowned for having the most season ticket holders in England. The club's problem wasn't support it was geographic isolation vis-a-vis the fact that the Football League was near exclusively Northern in make up. A losing team would always struggle with the high travel costs and unattractive match ups which Arsenal faced back then. That's why when Henry Norris got involved he deliberately ran the club down so it would be easy to move them. Two things changed, the population of the area increased and the Football League merged with the Southern League. This allowed Charlton Athletic to prove in the 1930s, 40s and 50s that a well supported team could exist in that area.

Nowadays they're a medium sized club with a strong fan base. If you'd ever lived round here you'd know that. However Charlton's problem has always been Arsenal and the fact that despite moving away from the area they have always retained a strong fan base here (obviously because they became successful). The second problem is that they were unlucky to hardly play in the top flight between 1960 and 2000 and that is what is key. In the 1980s Charlton played in the top flight whilst exiled from the valley playing home games miles away at Selhurst Park and Upton Park with poor support, they couldn't achieve that in better supported seasons at the valley in the same era.

Quote:
You think an Arsene Wenger would have made much of a success of a modern day Arsenal Greenwich club? Unlikely, especially in such a restricted and localised catchment area.
Is this a serious point?

1. Arsene Wenger's initial success is because of the budget he was given and the fact the Bosman ruling had just come in allowing him to fill his team with better foreign players from less wealthy leagues for less than they'd be worth coming from an English club. He would've been successful at any club in England with the same budget, as Blackburn rovers proved with their "spendathon" proved.

2. If your belief is that Arsenal wouldn't have been in as strong a position if they had remained in Woolwich because of (as you put it) a "restricted local catchment area" then you'd be making assumptions you can't back up.

Firstly your idea of what a restricted local catchment area is nonsense, Greenwich, Bexley and Lewisham have a combined population of c.750,000, not to mention Newham and North West Kent which add another 300,000 and 200,000 respectively. That's a comparable catchment to Newcastle and that's only the local area.

Secondly Charlton were drawing 70,000 plus crowds in the 30s-50s era and pulling good averages too, including one above 40k. Back in those days winning leagues was much more of a crap shoot than it is today so who knows what would've happened if they had. And given Woolwich is better sited (despite being further out) than Charlton I'd argue there is every chance they would've been successful.

Quote:
You seem to live in a simplistic black and white world in which the main reason for a club's success is the manager.
You live in an even more simplistic black and white world if you think the main reason for a club's success is "immediate catchment area". It is a factor no doubt, but luck plays a heavy part in it. I mean Wimbledon are/were a much smaller club than Crystal Palace but spent 14 consecutive seasons in the top flight despite being exiled, that's a couple more seasons than the Eagles. In fact if Palace hadn't been unlucky enough to be the only team to be automatically relegated after finishing fourth bottom they may have built something. They were touted as potentially the Spurs/Arsenal of South London in the 1970s but once again it was bad luck which messed them up, they still have oodles of potential but you laughably think they should throw that away and move to Elephant LOLOL.

Quote:
'They simply happen to have been more successful''? Nothing ''simply happens'' without a reason.
Well back then it did. Spending didn't necessarily guarantee success until relatively recently so size of club didn't matter as much. Spurs have always had a budget to rival Arsenal but what have you to show for it? Until the 1990s a manager and luck were very important in success.

But in reality it's because Arsenal have played 80 odd consecutive years of top flight football and thus have remained in the media spotlight. They didn't have to get promoted in as well the others started off handicapped.

Quote:
Fans don't ''simply happen'' to support teams for no reason.
He never said that they do. But fans and the budget that having more of them potentially allowed until recently (1980s) didn't dictate success. Therefore the position clubs were in wasn't necessary down to their size and this would have a natural impact on how they drew future fans to the clubs. For example in 1972 Millwall came third in the second division, back then only the top two went up, two years later things had changed. If they had been promoted that season the direction of themselves and London football would've changed considerably (as they would've replaced Palace). Arsenal drew Ajax in QF of the European Cup in 1971-72, the draw was random. A luckier draw may have seen us reach the final and who knows even with a defeat what impact that would've had.

Quote:
Why do you think Abramovich chose to invest in Chelsea as opposed to a Charlton, West Ham or a QPR?
Because they'd just qualified for the Champions League and because of their financial position they were probably a lot cheaper than they otherwise would've been.

Quote:
He didn't achieve his business success by making short-sighted decisions and understood the significance of club location and catchment areas.
He made the bulk of his money sellng off a company which sold NATURAL RESOURCES I don't call that achieving in business. Even then for him it's about having fun with his unearned income he doesn't "care" about making Chelsea self sustaining.

Quote:
You on the other hand think that any old team such as a Watford or a Crystal Palace would become successful after having billions poured into it.
Of course they would. Look at Wigan or Blackburn in the 1990s FFS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oxo View Post
Yes, there's something gone wrong at Millwall because their geographic position suggests they should be in the Premiership, competing for a top 6 place.
No it doesn't, that is complete and utter bull. Their geographic location suggests they should be able to draw above average support relative to their success. However that is only the case if you don't take into account transport links. It's chicken and egg, a large fan base follows success and success follows a large fan base. It's no coincidence that the four largest clubs in London are the ones that started in the second division and never had to play in the 1 up, 1 down third division south. They were given a competitive advantage from the start (only Orient and Fulham threw that away). Nothing went wrong with Millwall except that luck didn't shine their way. The idea that they should be competing for a top 6 place is certified bull sht. I’d like to know who else would be in your bizarro world.

Also their crowds aren't representative of their fan based because much of it is in outer South East London and into Kent and there is no train station on the train lines from those areas by the den. Their (unfair) reputation has also dented their ability draw black fans from their local area despite historically having a pretty significant black fan base. Then again their reputation (historically not for racism) has always scared fans away. Even then Crystal Palace will always have more potential than them.

Quote:
However, they do not even have a tube connection so connectivity is poor. Arsenal on the other hand enjoy much superior connectivity to most parts of London.
Wimbledon or East Croydon have better connections than where Millwall currently play and they are much further out. East Croydon ahs better connections than most places in inner London too.

[
Quote:
Charlton have poor connectivity with most of London because of the lack of tube stations in the area and only the one rail station. Nearest tube about 2 miles away! The Victoria Line makes Spurs more accessible and draws it ''nearer'' to other parts of London.
As the crow flies the Valley is 400m further away from a tube station than White hart Lane and via roads it's about 800m. The distance is negligible as you well know. Even then The Valley is next to Charlton station which is served by more trains and is more connected station than White Hart Lane Station.

Do you seriously think people chose whether to support Spurs based upon how accessible they are? And then would make their decisions based upon 800m? LMAO

Quote:
However, compared to the Arsenal and Chelsea clubs Spurs are poorly connected to the transport network.
And how do you not realise that is more the key in terms of maximising their attendances. East Croydon and Wimbledon would be better locations than North Tottenham if it was solely about connectivity. With regards to transport links it's not about distance from central London but distance from the most connected transport links.

The catchment area of London clubs is their compass point (and the adjacent home county/ies); to draw from outside of that catchment area the most important thing is on field success which the big four have had. To maximise take from fans on match days you want as good as possible transport links so that you can reach as many as your fans as possible, that’s all its good for.

Quote:
Only one or two exceptions to my theory.
Those three exceptions are damning and show your theory to be a whole load of nonsense. It's based entirely upon lack of understanding of why and how football fan bases develop(ed).

Quote:
What about Zone 3 clubs? Funny you ignored that bit: Barnet, Brentford, Dagenham, AFC Wimbledon -
Zone 3 clubs? What like West Ham and Spurs two of the biggest clubs in the country.

All but Brentford have recently been non league clubs and play zone 5/6. Brentford are just unlucky, especially in the last 20 years where they've not been abled to escape the third tier, not through lack of trying and loads of near misses. Also Bentford's distance from the centre is about the same as West Ham and little further than Spurs. Notice how you ignore Leyton Orient who moved out from inner London in search of fans.

Quote:
all lower league clubs based further away from the centre and will never become high profile because of their outward location.
Fulham show how you can increase a fan base with success and that required a lot of outside money (which will never be paid back). Outside of that the positions are cemented.

The outward location is a factor to their current success, but not for the reasons you think. With the exception of Brentford (and to a lesser extent Wimbledon) what they all have in common is that they play in areas developed as population centres since the interwar years and especially post WW2. Dagenham was still fields when West Ham played in the White Horse cup final FFS.

Location from the centre of London is not the key factor is location vis-a-vis their catchment area and what you can't see is that each clubs catchment area is much more localised.

Last edited by bigbossman; July 31st, 2012 at 02:12 PM. Reason: reworded it
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2012, 01:29 PM   #4800
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 3,524
Likes (Received): 1424

Quote:
Originally Posted by oxo View Post
Centrality can be gauged with a tourist map. You'll find Arsenal on such a map but not QPR because Loftus Road is too far west to be included. Highgate near Arsenal is a touristy area and Islington is fast becoming one. Since when has Shepherd's Bush near QPR been an attraction for tourists?
What a surprise, you now change the goalposts. After arguing from proxmity to London's central point (which you couldn't even get right despite it beng well known), you now use... a tourist map. Ok then, show me the many tourist maps which have the area around Holloway Rd/Finsbury Park in their map. I googled 'tourst maps of London' and couldn't find one. I did find an old central London bus map (1999) which had Shepherd's Bush and White City though. I looked at the central London tube map on my train this morning (met and jub line) and didn't see Holloway Rd, Arsenal or Finsbury Park tube stations. I saw SB and White City though.

Oh, and with Holland Park, BBC HQ (until now), number of nearby hotels and Westfield SB is more of a tourist area than Holloway Rd and Finsbury Park.

Quote:
Yes, there's something gone wrong at Millwall because their geographic position suggests they should be in the Premiership, competing for a top 6 place. However, they do not even have a tube connection so connectivity is poor. Arsenal on the other hand enjoy much superior
connectivity to most parts of London.
Read about something called the Second World War, it ****ed the club over (SE London was a target and the Den got bombed) who were decent pre-1939 and got large crowds.

Quote:
Fulham is close to some central London districts such as Chelsea but is not central itself. Some central London districts are not necessarily wealthy anyway.
But neither are Arsenal central. SB is also not considered central London by Londoners. Anyway, you were arguing from proximity to central London and Fulham are barely any further from Charing Cross/West End as Arsenal are. It's closer to Victoria and Westminster (that touristy bit with HoP and Big Ben) than them.

Quote:
Charlton have poor connectivity with most of London because of the lack of tube stations in the area and only the one rail station. Nearest tube about 2 miles away! The Victoria Line makes Spurs more accessible and draws it ''nearer'' to other parts of London. However, compared to the Arsenal and Chelsea clubs Spurs are poorly connected to the transport network.
Indeed they do, not that I ever claimed transport was irreverent (stop thinking the tube is the be-all as well). However Charlton drew huge crowds just before WWII, finishing in the top 3 consecutively, so clearly it wasn't that much of an issue re. bringing fans in. Money dried up, club declined and fans stayed at home. They almost went bust during the 80s and were forced out of The Valley.

Quote:
Only one or two exceptions to my theory. What about Zone 3 clubs? Funny you ignored that bit: Barnet, Brentford, Dagenham, AFC Wimbledon - all lower league clubs based further away from the centre and will never become high profile because of their outward location.
Fulham, QPR and Milwall is three. West Ham, further out, and Spurs are more popular and successful than those clubs.

I already said Barnet didn't turn pro until after WWII. D&R were formed in 1992 FFS, and the clubs that merged were post-WWII creations anyway. AFC Wimbledon were formed a decade or so ago and started below the conference.

That leaves Brentford, who suffered cash problems after WWII and almost got bought out by QPR. They also had several other West London sides as rivals for their catchment area, with Fulham and QPR with them in the old FL South durig the 30s, but lacking the local population of the latter two.

Like I said money is often a major factor. Arsenal's owners started pouring cash into the club when Chapman came and got the nickname 'The Bank of England club' during the 30s. Crowds swelled as the dominated that decade with 5 titles and they cemented their place at the top of the table. They also cashed in on the growth around North London (the 30s building boom and expansion of the tube). It's the same with many other sides, Man City were bigger spenders during the inter-war period, becoming more successful and generating bigger crowds than their rivals, before United gained success and media attention during the booming 50s, swelling their support. I also never claimed geography and transport connections have no impact, I said it's not the sole factor and is less important than money.

Anyway, I'm done. You're still as clueless as when you were spouting nonsense about the Olympic Park.

Last edited by kerouac1848; July 31st, 2012 at 01:38 PM.
kerouac1848 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu