Could do with that advert about now.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The perfect fumble
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 24,467
It's interesting that there are really only 3 genuinely big clubs in London though whereas there are 2 in Manchester, 2 in Liverpool, 1 in Birmingham (struggling badly) and 2 in the North East (both struggling badly). London is about four times bigger than either Manchester or Birmingham (urban area population) and considerably bigger than all other cities. Really they should dominate based purely on population. Arsenal, as their biggest club, are serious underachievers. Paris is an even stranger situation: I really don't know how to explain that one! Turkey and Argentina are dominated by clubs from Istanbul and Buenos Aires. Really I think it's all based upon historical factors unless somebody can give a better explanation.
I'd say Spurs are the equivalent of Everton and West Ham will grow now they've won the Olympic lottery.
it's not so strange that the capital doesn't dominate football, Berlin and Rome don't dominate their leagues, it's often the case in sport that second cities, Melbourne is an example, dominate their countries sporting landscape.
KenTheLandlord
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2009
- Messages
- 4,256
It's interesting that there are really only 3 genuinely big clubs in London though whereas there are 2 in Manchester, 2 in Liverpool, 1 in Birmingham (struggling badly) and 2 in the North East (both struggling badly). London is about four times bigger than either Manchester or Birmingham (urban area population) and considerably bigger than all other cities. Really they should dominate based purely on population. Arsenal, as their biggest club, are serious underachievers. Paris is an even stranger situation: I really don't know how to explain that one! Turkey and Argentina are dominated by clubs from Istanbul and Buenos Aires. Really I think it's all based upon historical factors unless somebody can give a better explanation.
There is a theory that once a capital becomes large its population has other things to do. When you look at the European Cup / Champs League, there are few capitals with winners.
Madrid 9, Amsterdam 4, Lisbon 2 Belgrade 1 Bucherest 1 London 1
Madrid has got 4 teams, Athletico, Real, Rayo Vallecano and GetafeNot sure I completely agree with you there mate, at least at the top of the football pyramid. If you look at capital cities like Paris, Madrid, Rome and Berlin they have (off the top of my head) one or two clubs in the top flight whereas London currently has five - six if you want to stretch credibilty a little and include Watford. This isn't an untypical figure either. It's why London has never produced a true footballing giant (although Arsenal are close) and why the European Cup had only ended up in London once. The support is spread much more thinly.
KenTheLandlord
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2009
- Messages
- 4,256
I'd say Spurs are the equivalent of Everton and West Ham will grow now they've won the Olympic lottery.
it's not so strange that the capital doesn't dominate football, Berlin and Rome don't dominate their leagues, it's often the case in sport that second cities, Melbourne is an example, dominate their countries sporting landscape.
We are on the same lines. It is a chance for the provincial cities to show the capital they are better through sport.
Mad Eyed Screamer
Moderator
If you are going to dismiss West Brom from being in Birmingham, then Manchester only has one team too ;)It's interesting that there are really only 3 genuinely big clubs in London though whereas there are 2 in Manchester, 2 in Liverpool, 1 in Birmingham (struggling badly) and 2 in the North East (both struggling badly). London is about four times bigger than either Manchester or Birmingham (urban area population) and considerably bigger than all other cities. Really they should dominate based purely on population. Arsenal, as their biggest club, are serious underachievers. Paris is an even stranger situation: I really don't know how to explain that one! Turkey and Argentina are dominated by clubs from Istanbul and Buenos Aires. Really I think it's all based upon historical factors unless somebody can give a better explanation.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Fair enough. I did say it was off the top of my head!Madrid has got 4 teams, Athletico, Real, Rayo Vallecano and Getafe
quiet_riot
Well-Known Member
Don't like the managers - both jobsworth cunts who reckon they are world class, but actually they can just shout and swear.
Don't blame that Seddon bloke for going modelling, no-one on £400 a week would turn down a 5k job, no matter who you are.
Don't blame that Seddon bloke for going modelling, no-one on £400 a week would turn down a 5k job, no matter who you are.
lancs blue
Well-Known Member
London football support is still quite regional and parochial rather than city-wide, for example you won't find that many local-born East-enders supporting Arsenal or Chelsea. This limits the growth of even the biggest London clubs which is why those clubs are as keen as City to exploit the global market.It's interesting that there are really only 3 genuinely big clubs in London though whereas there are 2 in Manchester, 2 in Liverpool, 1 in Birmingham (struggling badly) and 2 in the North East (both struggling badly). London is about four times bigger than either Manchester or Birmingham (urban area population) and considerably bigger than all other cities. Really they should dominate based purely on population. Arsenal, as their biggest club, are serious underachievers. Paris is an even stranger situation: I really don't know how to explain that one! Turkey and Argentina are dominated by clubs from Istanbul and Buenos Aires. Really I think it's all based upon historical factors unless somebody can give a better explanation.
bluelol
Well-Known Member
Can someone please confirm or is it just gossip?
That this program was the brain child of Garry Linacre who I believe has his own production company.
I also heard that the BBC threatened Linacre with some kind of sanction to run this program themselves. Hence all the publicity the rags are getting on the BBC at present, i.e. Whisky nose, Class of 92 and this Salford program and a pending program on Ronaldo.
We all know that whisky nose banned the beeb, and seem to be wanting to get back in shall we say as I also heard that, the main individuals for sport at the beeb are rags and this close association is good for both sides with publicity which will no doubt be welcomed at the swamp given there present situation.?
That this program was the brain child of Garry Linacre who I believe has his own production company.
I also heard that the BBC threatened Linacre with some kind of sanction to run this program themselves. Hence all the publicity the rags are getting on the BBC at present, i.e. Whisky nose, Class of 92 and this Salford program and a pending program on Ronaldo.
We all know that whisky nose banned the beeb, and seem to be wanting to get back in shall we say as I also heard that, the main individuals for sport at the beeb are rags and this close association is good for both sides with publicity which will no doubt be welcomed at the swamp given there present situation.?