Are there too many football clubs in London?

[FatFreddysCat]

Saw some stats yesterday which showed that of all the cities with top-flight sides, London had by far the lowest attendance/population ratio in the country.
I don't think the said ratio included Football League clubs; however, if it did, London would still be bottom.
This could, perhaps, tenuously suggest that London, for its size, does not have too many football clubs.

It could also suggest that London have by far the highest ratio of plastic supporters of clubs like Liverpool and Manchester United.

:011:  :Sparkyticus:  :Sparkyticus:

[White Noise]

It would be interesting to know what the average distance travelled by each season ticket holder at each London club is - I am sure the clubs could profile such information.

I would think less than half of the 'Fulham' people at Craven Cottage on any given match day live in London. Far fewer live in South West London or Fulham itself.

In terms of people who are on the Fulham FC database as spending money with the club in the year I would imagine that at least 20%-30% are from outside the UK.

London matters less and less to Fulham with each passing year.  086.gif

[Rambling_Syd_Rumpo]

well I travel from Reading,as does a couple who sit near me,3 lads travel from Milton Keanyes and one comes down from Scotland once a month :001:

[finnster01]

London matters less and less to Fulham with each passing year.  086.gif

Mr WN,
You can take the kid out of Fulham, but you can't take Fulham out of the kid.  092.gif

[Rambling_Syd_Rumpo]

It would be interesting to know what the average distance travelled by each season ticket holder at each London club is - I am sure the clubs could profile such information.

I would think less than half of the 'Fulham' people at Craven Cottage on any given match day live in London. Far fewer live in South West London or Fulham itself.

In terms of people who are on the Fulham FC database as spending money with the club in the year I would imagine that at least 20%-30% are from outside the UK.

London matters less and less to Fulham with each passing year.  086.gif

does that matter more than have a full stadium? Man U don't seem to mind having fans all over the world,why should we?

[FatFreddysCat]

well I travel from Reading,as does a couple who sit near me,3 lads travel from Milton Keanyes and one comes down from Scotland once a month :001:

One of the MK lads wouldn't be Mark would it?  Used to see  him and his dad in the Chancellors every home game a good few seasons back before the land lady Bella?? knocked me on her apartment in Tenerife, worst £20 she ever made, cost her at least £150 every home game after that.

[Rambling_Syd_Rumpo]

he's not one of mine Fred,but then are loads that come down from MK,it's a sign that the club is growing that we are coming "home" from all over :clap_hands:

[Pata]

Saw some stats yesterday which showed that of all the cities with top-flight sides, London had by far the lowest attendance/population ratio in the country.
I don't think the said ratio included Football League clubs; however, if it did, London would still be bottom.
This could, perhaps, tenuously suggest that London, for its size, does not have too many football clubs.

I suspect that this might be due to London's status as a 'city of immigrants' (immigrants in the true sense as well as people who have moved there from another part of the UK). I've read that as many as half of the people who live in London weren't born there (can't seem to find anything to back this up at the moment, however).

While many of these (e.g. Norwich born me) come to support a London club, often these 'immigrants' will stick to their home town club.

I'd be willing to bet that London clubs have the highest away attendances in the country (i.e. London grounds have away ends that are filled to capacity more often).

On the other hand, people come from outside of London to support the clubs (as mentioned by several other posters).
Good point re: away attendances but then, say, Liverpool sell out the away end no matter where they play.

Anyway, I had a closer look at the numbers in the article and instead of "average" attendances, the author took the "highest" attendance of the season, which makes the numbers unreliable.

[Scrumpy]

...erm, that is a moose isn't it? :49:

From http://www.watfordfc.com/page/History/0,,10400~65848,00.html: The familiar Watford club crest. It features the head of a hart, the symbol of the county of Hertfordshire, and not a stag or a moose, as many people think.

Thanks for clarifying mate. Well, a hart is an old fashioned name for a deer in the UK. I ain't never seen a deer with antlers like that! Conclusion:  Hertfordshire has poor football teams and even poorer wildlife artists!

[ron]

The answer to "Are there too many clubs?" depends on which one you support. Just after the war most clubs could fill the terraces because there was little else to do. Now that there are all kinds of activities available there are probably too many London clubs to survive on gate money and direct merchandise alone. But they all have to survive to satisfy the near tribal loyalties that they have built up over the years.

The question "Are there too many dog tracks?" has already been answered, because fashion moved on and most of the familiar names have gone. Similarly the 70,000 odd pubs of 1970's Britain have been decimated in recent times from, say, drink driving laws, cost of drink dictated by pub franchisers, smoking bans, lousy landlords, changing tastes etc.

Luckily (?) football is dictated to by the Sky etc. barons. The real sadness imho is that the cash bonanza to the big clubs is sent abroad in exchange for foreign players instead of being used to keep the grass roots of the game thriving via a trickling effect down the pyramid. Those tribal loyalties to long established lower league clubs are too important to allow the clubs to die through starvation (of cash and by the stealing of prospective fans) by a handful of super-rich clubs, who already enjoy plastic support from far and wide.

Here endeth the lesson. I'm off to raid the fridge for a beer !

[Scrumpy]

The answer to "Are there too many clubs?" depends on which one you support. Just after the war most clubs could fill the terraces because there was little else to do. Now that there are all kinds of activities available there are probably too many London clubs to survive on gate money and direct merchandise alone. But they all have to survive to satisfy the near tribal loyalties that they have built up over the years.

The question "Are there too many dog tracks?" has already been answered, because fashion moved on and most of the familiar names have gone. Similarly the 70,000 odd pubs of 1970's Britain have been decimated in recent times from, say, drink driving laws, cost of drink dictated by pub franchisers, smoking bans, lousy landlords, changing tastes etc.

Luckily (?) football is dictated to by the Sky etc. barons. The real sadness imho is that the cash bonanza to the big clubs is sent abroad in exchange for foreign players instead of being used to keep the grass roots of the game thriving via a trickling effect down the pyramid. Those tribal loyalties to long established lower league clubs are too important to allow the clubs to die through starvation (of cash and by the stealing of prospective fans) by a handful of super-rich clubs, who already enjoy plastic support from far and wide.

Here endeth the lesson. I'm off to raid the fridge for a beer !

Spot on. A Football Club is still the centre of the local community, especially at the lower levels. I remember too well the Fulham Park Rangers debacle, so would actively support any of the smaller London Clubs if they faced similar problems..............except QPR, who were quite happy to merge with little old Fulham at the time. :dft007:

[b+w geezer]

Very good post from Ron. What circumstances may parallel those for dog tracks and pubs? The medium we are using right now maybe. To actually see all the matches -- home and away -- of premier league clubs it is no longer necessary to attend. There must be a chance that this will sufficiently scratch the itch of a proportion of those in upcoming generations who would previously have brought money in via the turnstiles -- not just, or at any rate predominantly, of clubs in the prem.

Precedent lies in what the Sky TV effect has already encouraged, since live football transformed from a once-a-year treat (FA Cup Final) to something viewable near constantly, at home or in a pub. For example, Hendon FC in the London suburbs was a leading non-league side when I grew up. Average home attendances were 2,000-plus, and those in its league in general -- other Greater London outfits mainly -- were also well into four figures. Once the world of less inept football became on tap, attendances reduced to two men and a dog plus the players' families.

There will always be those who relish the live experience, standard of football regardless, for reasons indeed unrelated to that standard. Those who in future feel the pinch most may in that case not be the real minnows -- who at least remain cheap and carefree to attend -- so much as the clubs who charge serious prices in their all-seater, heavily stewarded stadia, without the football to match.

[SG]

Luckily (?) football is dictated to by the Sky etc. barons. The real sadness imho is that the cash bonanza to the big clubs is sent abroad in exchange for foreign players instead of being used to keep the grass roots of the game thriving via a trickling effect down the pyramid. Those tribal loyalties to long established lower league clubs are too important to allow the clubs to die through starvation (of cash and by the stealing of prospective fans) by a handful of super-rich clubs, who already enjoy plastic support from far and wide.

Here endeth the lesson. I'm off to raid the fridge for a beer !

Spot on Ron. I pees me off no end that average run of the mill foreign players are paid in a week what our local league clubs and youth clubs require to operate in a season. If only some of that money could be channelled down to grass roots football it would prevent the constant struggle that prevails at grass roots levels. I think it is a criminal waste and the FA and the Premier League are yet again to blame. Despite all their protestations about their achievements I know from first hand experience how tough it is still in the regional county leagues and youth teams

[Logicalman]

The answer to "Are there too many clubs?" depends on which one you support. Just after the war most clubs could fill the terraces because there was little else to do. Now that there are all kinds of activities available there are probably too many London clubs to survive on gate money and direct merchandise alone. But they all have to survive to satisfy the near tribal loyalties that they have built up over the years.

The question "Are there too many dog tracks?" has already been answered, because fashion moved on and most of the familiar names have gone. Similarly the 70,000 odd pubs of 1970's Britain have been decimated in recent times from, say, drink driving laws, cost of drink dictated by pub franchisers, smoking bans, lousy landlords, changing tastes etc.

Luckily (?) football is dictated to by the Sky etc. barons. The real sadness imho is that the cash bonanza to the big clubs is sent abroad in exchange for foreign players instead of being used to keep the grass roots of the game thriving via a trickling effect down the pyramid. Those tribal loyalties to long established lower league clubs are too important to allow the clubs to die through starvation (of cash and by the stealing of prospective fans) by a handful of super-rich clubs, who already enjoy plastic support from far and wide.

Here endeth the lesson. I'm off to raid the fridge for a beer !

Spot on there Ron, and with the dog tracks went the Speedway with them (the only true working class motor sport) together with the seafood we used to get at the local - I recall attending White City to see the Rebels in their 2 seasons back in the '75 era.

Great time that, '75 Wembley Final, and the Rebels won the British League Title.

Memories .......


Regarding the 13.5 M in London, the problem also exists that a lot of people commute to the City for the weeks work, and then go 'home' for the weekends.