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

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools
Old February 18th, 2009, 04:43 PM   #421
bumdingo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 143
Likes (Received): 0

Comparing American and English stadiums with a view to a football / soccer tournament is hugely unfair, our (English) stadiums are designed with the national sport in mind therefore more suited, the Americans have no more need for 10 soccer specific high capacity stadiums than we need high capacity baseball stadiums. Their equally good stadiums are designed for Gridiron. I haven't noticed any Americans ridiculing us for wanting to host the 2012 Olympic Baseball tournament at Lords or the Oval. These are cricket specific stadiums which will satisfy the need at the time.
I'm also a Plymouth Argyle supporter and realise the clubs ability to take 40k to Wembley for any final, I also recognise this doesn't make us a big club in the grand scheme of things. Home park is rarely over half full and gates weren't that great when we were in and out of the play off positions last season. Plymouth is a city of over 250,000 and double again at least in it's catchment area. This also doesn't make it a big club. There are actually very few "big" clubs in any football loving nation. I do find Norwich's ability to consistently attract high capacity percentage every season quite remarkable considering it's level of success and city size / catchment area. Perhaps if the FA were to look at proposed venues for a future English World Cup bid they should be rewarded for their obvious love for the game in that area.
bumdingo no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old February 18th, 2009, 04:57 PM   #422
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10341

Quote:
Originally Posted by bumdingo View Post
Comparing American and English stadiums with a view to a football / soccer tournament is hugely unfair, our (English) stadiums are designed with the national sport in mind therefore more suited, the Americans have no more need for 10 soccer specific high capacity stadiums than we need high capacity baseball stadiums. Their equally good stadiums are designed for Gridiron. I haven't noticed any Americans ridiculing us for wanting to host the 2012 Olympic Baseball tournament at Lords or the Oval. These are cricket specific stadiums which will satisfy the need at the time.
That's because we're not!

Baseball was removed from the Olympic programme during the 2012 bidding process and will not be part of our Games.

Besides, before it was removed from the roster London was planning to have the baseball in temporary venues in Regents Park, not at any cricket grounds:



See page 10 of the original applicant file

Lords will host archery, the Oval was never in any of 2012's plans and, as I said, Baseball was to be at Regents Park before it was removed from the roster.

-----

I agree with the jist of your post though!

Last edited by RobH; February 18th, 2009 at 05:03 PM.
RobH no está en línea  
Old February 18th, 2009, 05:02 PM   #423
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

I take it you are a northerner-o-file based on your commets

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
It's a lot easier than English Premier League, if we were talking about Scotland we'd be saying SPL. I'm in Australia, it's become natural shorthand when discussing football with the locals.
It's not the EPL full stop, it's the FA premier league. You don't call the FA the EFA do you?

Quote:
Noted - but the 'not likely' was based on all three, 1 or 2 is very possible, 3 is 'not likely'.

Only 4 points off the play-offs. They still have a decent shot at promotion.
Lets just say there is a hope leeds stay where they are

Quote:
Purely on the basis that London is already covered - I could quite happily toss West Ham and Spurs into the equation, and I'd LOVE to put Chel$ki in there as well!
hmmm, i'd rather London had 8 teams in the premier league, current 5 + palace, millwall and QPR!

Quote:
Hull have proved this season that they can fill their stadium (average is only 1k off capacity). Bristol may well do the same if given a chance. They always used to appear better supported than most southern clubs to be fair, I'm not sure they could support a 40k venue though.
You say it as if southern clubs aren't generally well supported, if you look through the history books the worst supported clubs for the most part have always been northern clubs. And i'm not talking the bottom 1 or 2. I'm talking the bottom 10ish

Your comments about Bristol city are patronising, when they are much better supported than most northern clubs. And are comparable to medium sized clubs in the north and the midlands. However the fact that have spent long spells in the last 30 years in the bottom two divisions should be noted, previously they had spent most of their time in the top two!!

Quote:
Taking large numbers of supporters to Wembley is no indicator of real support - many clubs have done the same down the years.
NOT northern clubs though, whereas so called small SOUTHERN clubs like Gillingham can more than fill their allocation 2 years in a row. "bigger" northern clubs like Bolton etc don't!! and the efforts of small northern clubs is laughable, Wigan etc

Quote:
No point in having fans who will travel to London to say "I was there" if the buggers don't turn up at Ashton Gate on Saturday.
quite true but they add to your fan base, for eventualities when you might be successful

Quote:
Hull are there by virtue of (a) already being in the EPL (sorry), which is the biggest element in the equation of who needs/can support a larger venue, and (b) being geographically separated from the other cities listed, thus being an attractive option if the FA wanted to spread the bid around the country.
This is there first season in the top flight ever, next season it looks a given they will be relegated, for me anyway. They have been found out and are playing poorly now. So i reckon they will have gone back from whence they came within 2 years!

Quote:
As I said before, if Bristol get up they may prove that they could regularly fill a 30-40k stadium - hopefully they do because a large venue in Bristol would be a massive boost for an English world cup bid.
I think it's a given that they would

Quote:
As for Swindon, Plymouth, etc., being big football towns - they may or may not be bigger than Hull, but as I've said - Hull are up there and doing it, Swindon, Plymouth etc, aren't.
I would concede that swindon isn't bigger than hull, but not plymouth, probably about equal sized.

Quote:
Supporter numbers may be low because of a lack of success, but if they were really so passionate about their team and their football, wouldn't these supporters be going along regularly anyway?
Not necessarily, depends on a lot of factors.

Quote:
Swindon - average crowd 7.5k.
Huddersfield - average crowd 13k (despite a similar lack of success over the last few decades).
It's easy to quote stats, you gotta read into them first though!

Huddersfield who play at a modern stadium with modern facilites, swindon who play in a dump!

Huddersfield pushing for promotion out of the division and swindon struggling to survice with in it???

Swindons crowds are the 7th highest in the division

Huddersfield drew 9K last season, swindon drew 7k last season. Huddersfields crowds have gone up because they are pushing for promotion. Swindon's have stayed around the same despite them fighting to stave off relegation

Quote:
Plymouth - average crowd 11k.
Norwich - average crowd 23k (from a capacity of 25k).
Why are you comparing Plymouth to Norwich?

Norwich were in the premier league what 2-3 seasons ago and are still experiencing the hang over from that.

Plymouths crowds have gone down this season!
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old February 18th, 2009, 05:05 PM   #424
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
"I am passionate about football so am delighted to be standing alongside many other people and football greats up and down the country in bidding for this event.
Who's he trying to kid!
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old February 18th, 2009, 05:07 PM   #425
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10341

Well, he's a typical Chelsea fan!

But it's good to have such a big hitter on board. His track record of played 1, won 1, isn't bad, you have to admit.
RobH no está en línea  
Old February 18th, 2009, 05:10 PM   #426
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by bumdingo View Post
Regarding Hull v Bristol City play off match, we must remember that Bristol is much nearer to Wembley than Hull is. It should be appreciated that for these one off games cost / distance will go out the window but there comes a point of thinning out where x amount of supporters will travel regardless of match importance, cost and distance. We could suggest that both Bristol City and Hull could take say 40k each to Wembley of hard core money / distance no object supporters, after that we have the supporters where these factors influence their decision. For Bristol City fans these factors are less detrimental allowing more will they won't they fans to make the trip. Personally I would say the clubs are of very similar size and stature though you would have to say on current league position Hull are the "bigger" club. Hull get relegated, Bristol promoted and the balance shifts.
That's not a good excuse. Bristol is hardly close to london.

For the record hull is 154 miles away and Bristol is 105 miles away, a negligible difference really.
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old February 18th, 2009, 05:12 PM   #427
bumdingo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 143
Likes (Received): 0

I didn't compare Norwich with Plymouth, they were simply mentioned on the same posting. You seem to be looking for an argument, are you possibly my wife? Who can argue with a man who has all the paper work and statistics in front of him that prove Norwich's high attendance figures are down to a Premiership hangover! Would you email me a copy? Many thanks for also pointing out Plymouth crowds have gone down this season though wasn't that something I was alluding to anyway! I think perhaps by this time you were getting carried away with yourself.
bumdingo no está en línea  
Old February 18th, 2009, 05:14 PM   #428
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
Well, he's a typical Chelsea fan!

But it's good to have such a big hitter on board. His track record of played 1, won 1, isn't bad, you have to admit.
How long has he been a season ticket holder, since 2004 i'd imagine, seen as he is northern and i doubt he would've been supporting them in 80s!

TBF i don't think we need him to win votes, i don't actually know what we need him for...
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old February 18th, 2009, 05:17 PM   #429
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by bumdingo View Post
I didn't compare Norwich with Plymouth, they were simply mentioned on the same posting. You seem to be looking for an argument, are you possibly my wife? Who can argue with a man who has all the paper work and statistics in front of him that prove Norwich's high attendance figures are down to a Premiership hangover! Would you email me a copy? Many thanks for also pointing out Plymouth crowds have gone down this season though wasn't that something I was alluding to anyway! I think perhaps by this time you were getting carried away with yourself.
??? i didn't say you compared norwich and plymouth, that was benjuk??

unless.... no it can't be... that would be....
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old February 18th, 2009, 05:22 PM   #430
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10341

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
How long has he been a season ticket holder, since 2004 i'd imagine, seen as he is northern and i doubt he would've been supporting them in 80s!

TBF i don't think we need him to win votes, i don't actually know what we need him for...
His experience leading the 2012 team to victory against the toughest field in Olympic bidding victory will be an asset to England 2018. We don't need him but it's surely a positive to have someone with his experience on board.
RobH no está en línea  
Old February 18th, 2009, 05:38 PM   #431
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,022
Likes (Received): 4813

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jizzy View Post
2022 should go to australia. i think the football in oz is very underappreciated. plus their players are alot better than the yanks. for example, harry kewell, a champions league winner - far more successful than any (name one who has a champions league medal). and again, it shouldnt go to america. their stadiums are old and , they think just because its bigger that means itll be better when this is clearly not the case; the world dont has such 5-yr old style of thinking. plus i think oz is capable of an upset. and they've never hosted it before, which will be refreshing for once. and it sounds quite exotic too, i love to see sydney host the final, sounds wicked.

"Inappropriate Language"
Jizzy. You appear to have a rather large chip on your shoulder about our American cousins.

For your own sake, get over it. Not least because you make yourself look pretty ridiculous when you slag off US stadiums. They have more 60K+ stadia that require no or minimal work than all of Europe combined.
JimB no está en línea  
Old February 18th, 2009, 05:59 PM   #432
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,778
Likes (Received): 10341

His posts have been edited by the mod to remove the worst insults and he's been brigged. He can't post a response. If he's let back in don't feed the troll Jim.
RobH no está en línea  
Old February 18th, 2009, 10:57 PM   #433
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,883
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by berkshire royal View Post
I agree Rob I donít like that sort of attitude. If England are to win the rights to host the 2018 World Cup I want it to be because the bid is quality not because it's been to long or we have a passion for game. Hopefully the FA and the government use this opportunity to put some money into stadiums and infrastructure after all this could give a much needed boost to the economy. And none of us should be drawn into bashing other nations itís childish.
Are you one of those money grabbing freak who care more about corporate boxes and sight lines rather than large terraces and a cracking atmosphere? I want England to host the World Cup solely because the English are passionate about football.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea  
Old February 18th, 2009, 11:55 PM   #434
bumdingo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 143
Likes (Received): 0

For the record hull is 154 miles away and Bristol is 105 miles away, a negligible difference really.[/QUOTE]

So 100 miles extra then for the return journey. I'm guessing you're an Arsenal fan, why don't you channel some of your energy into creating a atmosphere at that morgue of a stadium.
bumdingo no está en línea  
Old February 19th, 2009, 01:27 AM   #435
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Guilty on the Northern bias. With the exception of Arsenal, Spurs and possibly Chelsea, none of the clubs in the south are as big as the Manchester or Liverpool clubs, or Leeds, or Newcastle, Sunderland, Sheffield Wednesday or Aston Villa... I accept there is an element of success breads support, but you have to ask why these northern clubs have attained and maintained support levels and success on the pitch, whilst the southern clubs, by and large, haven't. My assumption has always been that the support up north is simply more fanatical - both in numbers and in volume. Comparing my several visits to Highbury Library with visits to the various northern clubs, confirmed this to me.

As this thread is essentially about the elite clubs, in terms of size and support, I think it's a perfectly valid point to make that most clubs in the south simply don't have the numbers to justify major stadiums. And I reiterate that the same stands for the likes of Wigan, Bolton, 'Boro, etc.

This is 2009, if they needed a large venue, they'd have a large venue. The only club I can think of who have consistantly got close to filling their 'small' venue is Norwich (see below).

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
It's not the EPL full stop, it's the FA premier league. You don't call the FA the EFA do you?
Understand this. If you are in England - it's the Premier League or whatever you want to call it. If you are overseas, it becomes the English Premier League, so that it can be differentiated from other Premier Leagues, and also for the sake of shorthand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
Lets just say there is a hope leeds stay where they are
For the sake of the world cup, I'd like them promoted. For any and every other purpose I'd like them relegated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
hmmm, i'd rather London had 8 teams in the premier league, current 5 + palace, millwall and QPR!
Toss Orient and Charlton in there as well, why not?

End of the day we can go around and around on the argument about how well supported this club or that one is - my point remains that building a 40k venue in the likes of Plymouth, Swindon, Brighton, etc., would be pointless because they wouldn't be likely to get it more than half full...

Perhaps if promoted to the EPL they would - but as none of them have shown any indication of getting into the EPL in the last decade (Plymouth flirting with making a run at the play-offs last season doesn't count) that's probably not something to worry about.

Hull, on the other hand, are there (for now), and staying there is easier than getting there (by which I mean 3 out of 20 EPL sides leave each season, but only 3 out of 72 league clubs can get in).

Finally...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
Why are you comparing Plymouth to Norwich?

Norwich were in the premier league what 2-3 seasons ago and are still experiencing the hang over from that.

Plymouths crowds have gone down this season!
Two clubs in a similar league position, both in similarly 'remote' places with no major teams near by to nick young fans.

Plymouth's crowds going down due to their struggles is an example of a lack of real support - the ultimate reason I picked Norwich was because they demonstrate that a smaller, 'rural' club, can have consistant good supporter numbers, even in a stadium of limited size, even after relegation from the EPL and consistantly average form (currently bottom 3 in the CCC).

Re: Bumdingo's comments...
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
??? i didn't say you compared norwich and plymouth, that was benjuk??

unless.... no it can't be... that would be....
Nope. Bumbingo is an *unprintable* who's opinions I rarely agree with.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old February 19th, 2009, 02:13 AM   #436
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jizzy View Post
2018 will go to england. if it boils down to america vs england, england would win easily. their stadiums are newer and refurbished, they actually care about the sport whereas the stupid yanks see it as a profit opportunity, and we havent hosted the damn thing for over 40 years, whereas america hosted it in 94 and look how boring that tourny turned out to be. furthermore, english passion for football crushes anything the americans are capable of. plus the.....at football - they even have the.....to label it 'soccer' not 'football'!!

2022 should go to australia. i think the football in oz is very underappreciated. plus their players are alot better than the yanks. for example, harry kewell, a champions league winner - far more successful than any (name one who has a champions league medal). and again, it shouldnt go to america. their stadiums are old and , they think just because its bigger that means itll be better when this is clearly not the case; the world dont has such 5-yr old style of thinking. plus i think oz is capable of an upset. and they've never hosted it before, which will be refreshing for once. and it sounds quite exotic too, i love to see sydney host the final, sounds wicked.

"Inappropriate Language"
(1) If football being called 'soccer' upsets you, perhaps note that the term 'soccer' originated in England. Secondly, if the American's use of the word 'soccer' offends you to the point that you think they shouldn't be allowed to host the finals, please note that the vast majority of Aussies also refer to our beautiful game as 'soccer', so scratch your 2022 hopes.

(2) Saying that Aussie players are better than Yanks because Harry Kewell has a champs league winners medal (and let's remember that Liverpool we're losing when he went off and only turned things around when he was gone - same with the FA Cup final he played in for them), is rediculous. One player does not make a nation.

(3) You refer to Americas aging stadia as a reason for them not hosting, then suggest that Australia should host. Firstly, most of Australia's large stadiums are pretty old, and even with these large venues we haven't enough to host a world cup. Secondly, if we sidestep the issue of field width (which can be sorted by removing seats) the US could host the world cup in a dozen venues that have been built since 2000.

(4) If the world cup was played in Australia the final would most likely be in Melbourne at the MCG, capacity 100k, rather than Sydney at the ANZ, capacity 83k. As it would be in the middle of our winter it would be quite mild rather than exotic.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old February 19th, 2009, 02:28 AM   #437
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,022
Likes (Received): 4813

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
Guilty on the Northern bias. With the exception of Arsenal, Spurs and possibly Chelsea, none of the clubs in the south are as big as the Manchester or Liverpool clubs, or Leeds, or Newcastle, Sunderland, Sheffield Wednesday or Aston Villa... I accept there is an element of success breads support, but you have to ask why these northern clubs have attained and maintained support levels and success on the pitch, whilst the southern clubs, by and large, haven't. My assumption has always been that the support up north is simply more fanatical - both in numbers and in volume. Comparing my several visits to Highbury Library with visits to the various northern clubs, confirmed this to me.

As this thread is essentially about the elite clubs, in terms of size and support, I think it's a perfectly valid point to make that most clubs in the south simply don't have the numbers to justify major stadiums. And I reiterate that the same stands for the likes of Wigan, Bolton, 'Boro, etc.
Sorry, mate, but you appear to have swallowed the myth about the north being more passionate and fanatical. Like the myth of the southern softie, it's simply not true.

White Hart Lane and Upton Park have among the best atmospheres in the top flight. So did Stamford Bridge before being taken over by jcl's. And Fratton Park has had consistently the best atmosphere of any Premiership club over the past four years or so. Of current northern Premiership teams with a decent atmosphere, only Stoke really stands out. The rest are average at best. Certainly no better than southern teams.

As to attendances, you'll find that pretty much all the Premiership clubs with large swathes of empty seats on view are based in the north (Boro, Blackburn, Sunderland, Man City, Wigan, Bolton and even Newcastle this season). By contrast, southern Premiership stadiums are almost always full - despite the vast prices that those of us in the south have to pay.
JimB no está en línea  
Old February 19th, 2009, 07:21 AM   #438
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Man another long as hell post, but I feel I covered all bases

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
Guilty on the Northern bias. With the exception of Arsenal, Spurs and possibly Chelsea, none of the clubs in the south are as big as the Manchester or Liverpool clubs, or Leeds, or Newcastle,
You've just gone right off the bat and named the biggest clubs and conurbations in the north. As all the big cities in this country (bar London and Brizzle) are in the north not the south thatís a given.

And itís not a possibly Chelsea itís a definitely Chelsea, Chelsea are a few streets bigger than Newcastle

Your faith in the size of Sunderland and Sheffield Wednesday and even to an extent aston villa is massively misguided.

These are big clubs in times of success, but in normal times they are back with the medium sized pack,

Quote:
Sunderland,
Modern Sunderland never got huge crowds until the stadium of Light, their crowds fluctuated with success like most other clubs regardless of region

Infact I have instances of many southern clubs averaging more than them in the same division. In fact in 80/81 west ham averaged more than them in divison 2. Sunderland in Division 1.

Quote:
Sheffield Wednesday
Sheffield Wednesday havenít averaged over 30,000 since the 67/68 season for a massive club that isnít good.

Since 1967/68 southern clubs Southampton, Crystal Palace, West Ham, Tottenham, Arsenal and Chelsea have all averaged above 30,000 at least once.

Quote:
or Aston Villa...
And Aston Villa are a paradox they average 32,000 in division 3 in 71/72, but could only manage 34,000 when they won the league in 1980/81 and itís not like they were restricted by capacity like others

Quote:
I accept there is an element of success breads support, but you have to ask why these northern clubs have attained and maintained support levels,
You can argue Manchester united and to a smaller extent Liverpool and maybe Arsenal are out on their own but generally:

The big northern clubs have similar support to the big southern clubs. The medium sized southern clubs, to the medium sized northern clubs, so on and so forth. With the exception being there aren't that many small southern clubs in the league (compared to the amount of small northern clubs), for reasons I explained in previous posts!



Quote:
and success on the pitch, whilst the southern clubs, by and large, haven't.
On your trophy point you obviously don't have a grasp of League history, otherwise you would know why the trophy count of southern clubs is ďsmallerĒ.

let me just say this, most southern clubs started at a MASSIVE disadvantage compared to northern clubs.

Like I said before 1920 only 8 southern clubs had played in the league, Arsenal, Tottenham, Chelsea, West Ham, Orient, Fulham, Bristol City and Luton Town. Luton only lasted a few seasons and rejoined in 1920. But out of the rest they had all played top flight football by the 1960s.

Out of the 22 Southern clubs who joined in 1920. 15 have played top flight football. But only Luton and Portsmouth did so before they got rid of the restrictive regional divisional set up. Once that was ridded southern clubs started getting promoted in fair numbers to Northern Clubs and at times the top flight has been overwhelmingly southern based.

1982/83 and 1983/84 9 of the 22 clubs were from the south east corner of England
1986/87 12 of the 22 were
1987/88 13 of the 21 were (yes 21)

Even as recently as 2002 weíve had 8 south eastern clubs in the top flight

Like I said if you take stats as post 1920 itís fair because southern clubs had joined the league. Even fairer would be post 1958 when movement between divisions has been freer and thus restrictions to many medium southern clubs smaller, and has seen the traditional powers of the north struggle and need lots of money (in the case of Boro, Wigan and Blackburn to compete)

63 clubs have played top flight football. Of them 22 have been southern (Not including Northampton, Cardiff and Swansea who came originally from the southern league) . All 24 have played top flight football post WW2,. 39 have been Northern/midlander (including Northampton)

If we take off the teams that havenít played top flight football post WW2 (Accrington, Glossop, Darwen, BPA and Bury). That leaves 34.

34 to 22 is not a bad ratio considering all of the northern and midland clubs (except wigan) who have played top flight football were in the league (thus at least division 2) before 1920. Whereas 15 of the southern clubs werenít!!!!!!

and also thatís two regions vs one!!

On Trophies. The league is a hard barometer, given Liverpoolís dominance of the 80s and Manchester Unitedís current dominance. Thus I will concede northern clubs have dominated. Although 5 southern clubs (10 northern / Midland) have won the league post war, many have come very close. Still the ration is favourable

Lets take FA cups as a barometer for mid sized club strength, between 1970 and the present day it has been contested 39 times it has gone South on these occasions (ones in bold all southern)

1970,71,75,76,78,79,80,81,82,88,91,93,97,98,2000,02,03,05,07,08. I think youíll find thatís more than 50% of the time, and has been spread out amongst 8 clubs, Whereas the other 19 have been split between 6 northern/midland clubs. Given you said there are only 3 big southern clubs and there are 9 big northern clubs, your maths donít seem to add up!!

Quote:
My assumption has always been that the support up north is simply more fanatical - both in numbers and in volume. Comparing my several visits to Highbury Library with visits to the various northern clubs, confirmed this to me.
As JimB said (finding a way to big up Tottenham), you have fallen massively into the stereotype trap.

Your assumption is based on a rubbish stereotype, the same stereotype that says everyone up north works down a coal mine and everyone down south speaks like the queen.

I will explain in my JimB post about "highbury the library" but once again you are falling into a stereotype.

Northern clubs ARE NOT generally better supported!!!!!!!!!!!! How many times

Quote:
As this thread is essentially about the elite clubs, in terms of size and support, I think it's a perfectly valid point to make that most clubs in the south simply don't have the numbers to justify major stadiums. And I reiterate that the same stands for the likes of Wigan, Bolton, 'Boro, etc.
Pfft what the hell,

Look at it like this, Weíd say Sunderland, Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and London can all justify a 40,000+ seater based on current and historic attendances, no?

But then if you are not advocating southern clubs because they have never had historically astronomical attendances, then are you not going to advocate Nottingham, Sheffield, Birmingham, Leicester or Derby too??? Here come the stats!!

Forestís record average attendance is 32,000 in 1967/68 when they were runners up playing in a stadium holding about 50,000. Good eh!!

Sheffield has seen 2 30,000+ averages since 1968. These were both from Sheffield United, one in the early 70s and one in their most recent Prem campaign.

Leicesterís record average is 31,359 despite filbert street holding nearly 50,000, and until the walkers hadnít had a sniff of a +30. And thatís only happened once since then

Birmingham, Birmingham. City and Villaís attendances have consistently been poor (by your standards).

Derbyís record attendance is 41,000

Based on your logic, no club has shown they have the capability or deserve a 40,000 seater stadium, but of course your logic was based on facts that you didnít have, inflating the status of places to higher levels (in your mind), than they actually are!!

All these clubs since safety in sports grounds and smaller capacities, have had comparable and some times smaller crowds, than equally sized and position southern clubs. If you believe that these northern cities can sustain a 40,000 seater, then many southern cities can also!!!

Quote:
This is 2009, if they needed a large venue, they'd have a large venue. The only club I can think of who have consistantly got close to filling their 'small' venue is Norwich (see below).
Not true in 1999 we needed a large venue but we didn't have one. In 2009 Tottenham need a large venue but they don't have one.

You really don't have a clue, until they got promoted, or had sniff of premier league promotion, Norwich did not fill their ground week in week!!!

Nor do most clubs in the Lower divisions, atm, only Norwich and Cardiff are anywhere near filling their ground, not even Derby despite all the fan fair, although Derbys attendances have stayed high because of the hang over. They are averaging 3,000 more than the season that they went up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Quote:
Understand this. If you are in England - it's the Premier League or whatever you want to call it. If you are overseas, it becomes the English Premier League, so that it can be differentiated from other Premier Leagues, and also for the sake of shorthand.
Thatís not the name of the league though...

I don't call Roma, Rome because Roma is the name of the club.

Do Italians call it the IPL because England starts with an I in Italian.

I don't call it the German bundesliga, Spanish La liga or Or Italian Serie A. The premier league is the premier league. The SPL is actually called the SPL that's what it is branded and marketed as!!!

Quote:
For the sake of the world cup, I'd like them promoted. For any and every other purpose I'd like them relegated.
We don't need them promoted at all, They need a new stadium we can't leave the city of Leeds off and it will benefit them when they return!

Quote:
Toss Orient and Charlton in there as well, why not?
Orient pahahah, Brentford are bigger than them

i don't like Charlton or their army of pre pubescent fans!

Quote:
End of the day we can go around and around on the argument about how well supported this club or that one is - my point remains that building a 40k venue in the likes of Plymouth, Swindon, Brighton, etc., would be pointless because they wouldn't be likely to get it more than half full...

Perhaps if promoted to the EPL they would - but as none of them have shown any indication of getting into the EPL in the last decade (Plymouth flirting with making a run at the play-offs last season doesn't count) that's probably not something to worry about.
I never said we should build a 40k venue in Swindon LOL.

I didn't actually say Plymouth either, although I wouldn't be averse to building there. It'd be a gamble, but they have the potential!

I merely mentioned Brighton as it has all the other factors to cope, and potentially is a massive club!

Quote:
Hull, on the other hand, are there (for now), and staying there is easier than getting there (by which I mean 3 out of 20 EPL sides leave each season, but only 3 out of 72 league clubs can get in).
Not really,

Your maths are off

Any club theoretically can make the premier league so it's 3 in 1000+

But in any given season only 24 are fighting for those 3 places, not 72.

However for a promoted team staying in the league is a lot harder than getting in. It's a given fact. If staying in was easier the bookies wouldn't ever have the promoted teams as favourites to go down.

Quote:
Finally...



Two clubs in a similar league position, both in similarly 'remote' places with no major teams near by to nick young fans.

Plymouth's crowds going down due to their struggles is an example of a lack of real support - the ultimate reason
Not at all. Thatís your logic based on no knowledge.

There crowds are down 13% hardly a lot. Derby (a northern team) have dropped the same amount, yes I know that Derby dropped from the prem, but based on the logic you have displayed. If they were real fans they would stay!

I can spout of many instances of clubs dropping similar or larger amounts despite not being relegated or threatened by relegation from clubs like Derby, Wolves, Cardiff etc (have they got a lack of real support too???)

Quote:
I picked Norwich was because they demonstrate that a smaller, 'rural' club, can have consistant good supporter numbers, even in a stadium of limited size, even after relegation from the EPL and consistantly average form (currently bottom 3 in the CCC).
Norwich are not a small club!!!!!!

They are a well supported club, with a massive catchment area. Who have spent most of the last 40 years in the top flight!!!

As I have said most clubs have a premier league attendances hangover, some it last longer than others, depends on euphoria and optimism etc. I know a Norwich fan who reckons 1 more season of shite and the fans will skedaddle. A lot of these fans are season ticket holders not match by match fans


Quote:
Re: Bumdingo's comments...


Nope. Bumbingo is an *unprintable* who's opinions I rarely agree with.
glad to hear it
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old February 19th, 2009, 07:27 AM   #439
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
Sorry, mate, but you appear to have swallowed the myth about the north being more passionate and fanatical. Like the myth of the southern softie, it's simply not true.

White Hart Lane and Upton Park have among the best atmospheres in the top flight.

So did Stamford Bridge before being taken over by jcl's.
No offence but white hart lane is NO better than Highbury used to be, The “Highbury the library” stuff is bull, yes it could be eerily quiet at times but at the big games it buzzed!! The emirates well, that’s a whole new ball game… Also Arsenal have had the biggest Johnny come lately over taking known to man, me and a mate got told to sit down and stop singing by some old hag at the Arsenal/yids carling cup semi a few years back, it pains me to see fans like that support THE Arsenal

And West ham fans only know one song and they repeat it over and over again!!

Quote:
And Fratton Park has had consistently the best atmosphere of any Premiership club over the past four years or so. Of current northern Premiership teams with a decent atmosphere, only Stoke really stands out. The rest are average at best. Certainly no better than southern teams.
agreed

Quote:
As to attendances, you'll find that pretty much all the Premiership clubs with large swathes of empty seats on view are based in the north (Boro, Blackburn, Sunderland, Man City, Wigan, Bolton and even Newcastle this season). By contrast, southern Premiership stadiums are almost always full - despite the vast prices that those of us in the south have to pay.
Exactly exactly and exactly
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old February 19th, 2009, 07:48 AM   #440
MoreOrLess
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,240
Likes (Received): 228

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
Guilty on the Northern bias. With the exception of Arsenal, Spurs and possibly Chelsea, none of the clubs in the south are as big as the Manchester or Liverpool clubs, or Leeds, or Newcastle, Sunderland, Sheffield Wednesday or Aston Villa... I accept there is an element of success breads support, but you have to ask why these northern clubs have attained and maintained support levels and success on the pitch, whilst the southern clubs, by and large, haven't. My assumption has always been that the support up north is simply more fanatical - both in numbers and in volume. Comparing my several visits to Highbury Library with visits to the various northern clubs, confirmed this to me. .
If Villa are a "northern" club then the majority of the country is in the north. As far as the southern third of the country goes I'd say the lack of large cities, the draw of London in the east and the popularity of Rugby Union in the west are big factors. Historically I'd guess the south has tended to have fewer rich benefactors outside London aswell.
MoreOrLess no está en línea  


Closed Thread

Tags
world cup 2018

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 08:53 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