Two Team Cities & Home Attendances

[GaryHamsonsLeftBootLace]

I thought I'd get a thread going to take all our minds off of the circus that is Transfer Deadline Day and leave Sky and Twitter to whip itself into an inexplicable frenzy...

Was just looking at a website to see what Birmingham City's average home attendance was (to see if they could have any change of justifying all the signings within the FFP rules) and saw that Leeds' average (albeit at this early stage of the season) is 30,899. Ours is 26,064 and the unclean from S6 have 26,584.

Just to amaze you with my brilliant mathematical brain, I make that a combined Sheffield average attendance of 52,648.

Now, this is not a "mine's bigger than yours" debate, and I'm definitely not going to be so rude to go down the unthinkable merger route, but the above stats did get me thinking whether if we weren't in a two club city would our attendances really be over 50,000 (subject to a large enough stadium of course) or is there a glass ceiling that keeps one club cities potential attendance lower?

I guess I'm asking, does the rivalry that exists between the Blades and the Pigs keep interests high, enabling both teams to attract 26k per game, and if we were only a one club city, would it still be around the 30k mark, as it is in Leeds.

I suppose Sheffield is fairly unique due to its football heritage and socio-demographics. One could also argue that Leeds has two clubs (one football, one rugby league) which keeps their attendances low.

Or does it also come down to capacity. If Elland Road could hold 40,000 would they get 40,000?

Anyone got any thoughts or shall we just get back to looking at Sky News for fax machine fault updates?

 

[snootyfenooty]

Or does it also come down to capacity. If Elland Road could hold 40,000 would they get 40,000?

Elland Road does hold nearly 40,000.

Despite what either side would care to admit, the rivalry between the two Sheffield clubs does add to their support. There's quite a lot to like about seeing the other lot suffer and I think without the rivalry a lot of potential supporters would be indifferent about football.

 

[JJBlade]

Leeds always start off with a big attendance or two, but their 30,899 will depend on whether they keep up their promotion challenge
If they don't they will get about 24,000

Our 26,000 will be maintained regardless and improved upon if we are allowed to play some of our big games on a Saturday at 3.00pm

 

[Keef Chedwyn]

Don't think Sheffield's combined attendance is that good compared to Manchester, Liverpool and even Glasgow.

I know what you're going to say about league position and success etc but we'd still be miles behind whether we were much better or them much worse.

 

[S64 Blade]

Leeds' catchment is much larger too. They have a hell of a lot of fans from places like Wakefield, York, Wetherby etc.

Don't let them try and kid you on with the rugby thing either. Bradford and Huddersfield get proportionate attendances.

Both Sheffield clubs do brilliant when you consider we've both been generally rubbish for years and the city is isolated.

 

[ZoneManWilf]

What about Liverpool though? Smaller city by population than Sheffield but their attendances are much bigger than ours. Success plays a factor obviously but that just illustrates the appalling under-achieving of both Sheffield clubs compared to the size of the city.

 

[metalblade]

There is one slight mistake in the OP's thinking adding two together also adds in two lots of away fans so no if there was one club in Sheffield we probably wouldn't attract 50,000 for home games

 

[Pinchy]

What about Liverpool though? Smaller city by population than Sheffield but their attendances are much bigger than ours. Success plays a factor obviously but that just illustrates the appalling under-achieving of both Sheffield clubs compared to the size of the city.

Everton are no big thing. We would match their crowds if in the Premiership with a bigger stadium.

 

[snootyfenooty]

What about Liverpool though? Smaller city by population than Sheffield but their attendances are much bigger than ours.

Not when you count Ireland in their catchment area.

 

[Sheffsteel]

Not when you count Ireland in their catchment area.

And north Wales

 

[Netsix_and_chill]

Think you must have missed a couple of zeroes off of their attendance, they get that many showing up to watch training

 

[FlamingLip]

Can't compare Sheffield with Manchester or Liverpool. Sheffield is still a very locally supported city. The other clubs have fans travelling in from all over the place as the club, brand and history now transcend the city. Not doubting they have a historic very strong local support but city catchment ares is now an irrelevance to them.

Leeds is a funny one as like the above they have fans from all over, their away numbers are always very good. But their home attendances since their decline have been average.

 

[Boxer Blade]

I understand the thought behind the two clubs rivalry making the attendances higher but if the clubs had merged around the fifties early sixties when there was no fierce rivalry the new club would have grown to probably have leeds as the main rivals and I can imagine our gates would have been higher and who knows maybe winning things? Europe? Bloody hell getting carried away now, literally. :-o

 

[dublin 10 blade]

Not when you count Ireland in their catchment area.

Your not wrong snooty ,
You can include both Manchester clubs , both scouse clubs , Arsenal , Spurs , Chelsea ,
the scum in West Yorkshire have a fucking huge following for some reason
and celtic have about 30 supporters clubs over here .
In fact more fans go over to watch the premiership every week ,
Than watch league of Ireland soccer , each week .

 

[cahill]

Greater Manchester is huge. You could say that Sheffield has a higher population than the city of Manchester but that doesn't take into account, Trafford, Salford, Tameside. Stockport, pop. 325,000 is about 6 miles from Picaddily ( Manchester centre) and Oldham is only a cock stride away. That's before you take into account the satellite towns

 

[Sharrow Snuff Mill]

What about Liverpool though? Smaller city by population than Sheffield but their attendances are much bigger than ours. Success plays a factor obviously but that just illustrates the appalling under-achieving of both Sheffield clubs compared to the size of the city.

I think you`ll find that Liverpool has always had a larger population than Sheffield.

 

[GreasyChipBeattie]

I suppose Sheffield is fairly unique

unique
juːˈniːk/
adjective

1. 1.
   being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else.

 

[JJBlade]

Don't think Sheffield's combined attendance is that good compared to Manchester, Liverpool and even Glasgow.

I know what you're going to say about league position and success etc but we'd still be miles behind whether we were much better or them much worse.

Given the success of Liverpoool, London, Manchester and Glasgow's teams I think Sheffield would more than hold it's own attendance wise if it had the same level of success.

Man Utd, Arsenal and Celtic have the huge stadium big enough to stand out
But if we had the same level of success in the UK and Europe as those clubs there's no way Bramall Lane would be even close to being big enough, we'd have picked up support Nationally and Internationally as well

The question you should be asking is if Liverpool had had the same 50 years that we've had how many would they be getting, bearing in mind that 50 years ago Liverpool were a second division club going nowhere and constantly being overshadowed by their neighbours Everton.

50 years of our "achievements" on top of their ordinariness at the time and I don't think they'd have as many watching them as we do.

 

[Inter_blade83]

I think you`ll find that Liverpool has always had a larger population than Sheffield.

Incorrect

 

[Keef Chedwyn]

Given the success of Liverpoool, London, Manchester and Glasgow's teams I think Sheffield would more than hold it's own attendance wise if it had the same level of success.

Man Utd, Arsenal and Celtic have the huge stadium big enough to stand out
But if we had the same level of success in the UK and Europe as those clubs there's no way Bramall Lane would be even close to being big enough, we'd have picked up support Nationally and Internationally as well

The question you should be asking is if Liverpool had had the same 50 years that we've had how many would they be getting, bearing in mind that 50 years ago Liverpool were a second division club going nowhere and constantly being overshadowed by their neighbours Everton.

50 years of our "achievements" on top of their ordinariness at the time and I don't think they'd have as many watching them as we do.

Points taken and respected. Still disagree. Peace.

 

[grafikhaus]

I've always thought that inter-city rivalry drags fans along just to keep the bragging rights. Many times in the Third Division, I've gone to utterly unattractive games such as Yeovil, Stevenage, Crawly etc. for no other reason that I wanted the pigs to open their paper the next day look at our crowd and think 'Bastard!'

 

[Sharrow Snuff Mill]

Incorrect

Unless irrelevant boundary changes have skewed reality, Sheffield`s population has always been around 500,000, and Liverpool`s around 700,000.

 

[JJBlade]

Unless irrelevant boundary changes have skewed reality, Sheffield`s population has always been around 500,000, and Liverpool`s around 700,000.

Incorrect again

 

[cahill]

Merseyside has a population of 1, 406, 000. You have a choice of three football clubs but somehow I can't imagine many will,choose TR fc,

 

[Sharrow Snuff Mill]

Incorrect again

In the 1960`s when I first went to watch the Blades at Anfield, Liverpool`s population was over 700,000. Sheffield`s was 500,000. These figures did not alter much in spite of Liverpool`s industrial decline from the 70`s onwards. Boundary changes, and slum clearances, together nominally changed population figures all over the country. For example, Middlesbrorough, always a Yorkshire town, became part of Teesside. Therefore Yorkshire`s population declined at the stroke of a pen, but in reality was nonsense. The Liverpool city region, (as is the modern parlance), has a population of about two and a half million, Sheffield city region has a population of about one and three quarter million. Liverpool on the old measure or new measure is the bigger city.

 

[SW12 to S12 to S18]

In the 1960`s when I first went to watch the Blades at Anfield, Liverpool`s population was over 700,000. Sheffield`s was 500,000. These figures did not alter much in spite of Liverpool`s industrial decline from the 70`s onwards. Boundary changes, and slum clearances, together nominally changed population figures all over the country. For example, Middlesbrorough, always a Yorkshire town, became part of Teesside. Therefore Yorkshire`s population declined at the stroke of a pen, but in reality was nonsense. The Liverpool city region, (as is the modern parlance), has a population of about two and a half million, Sheffield city region has a population of about one and three quarter million. Liverpool on the old measure or new measure is the bigger city.

Just had a look at a couple of web sites, one gives Sheffield 512k another says 530k. Liverpool 414k and 470k.
I agree that Liverpool once had a population of over 700k but I assume the new satellite towns have taken a lot of the population out of the city.
By the same token leeds suddenly went from 440k to something like 700k overnight but I think that is for the metropolitan region and not the city. Same with Rotherham, it suddenly got a population of 250k which would imply it's similar in size to a medium sized city which it just isn't.

 

[blade too long]

Don't think Sheffield's combined attendance is that good compared to Manchester, Liverpool and even Glasgow.

I know what you're going to say about league position and success etc but we'd still be miles behind whether we were much better or them much worse.

to be fair I dont think weve won quite as much
1 league cup win in 80 years in manchester might have curtailed their crowds a tad

 

[CarlMcBlade]

What about Liverpool though? Smaller city by population than Sheffield but their attendances are much bigger than ours. Success plays a factor obviously but that just illustrates the appalling under-achieving of both Sheffield clubs compared to the size of the city.

Many many football tourist go to Liverpool.

 

[CarlMcBlade]

The second club in Leeds (Rhinos) could stand shoulder to shoulder with half the clubs in the EFL Championship for crowds.

 

[cahill]

In the 1960`s when I first went to watch the Blades at Anfield, Liverpool`s population was over 700,000. Sheffield`s was 500,000. These figures did not alter much in spite of Liverpool`s industrial decline from the 70`s onwards. Boundary changes, and slum clearances, together nominally changed population figures all over the country. For example, Middlesbrorough, always a Yorkshire town, became part of Teesside. Therefore Yorkshire`s population declined at the stroke of a pen, but in reality was nonsense. The Liverpool city region, (as is the modern parlance), has a population of about two and a half million, Sheffield city region has a population of about one and three quarter million. Liverpool on the old measure or new measure is the bigger city.

Agree. To give populations of individual towns and cities isn't the full picture when looking at football club catchment areas. For example the counties of Leicestershire and Derbyshire have a population of almost 1 million each. Barring Chesterfield it means that Derby County have a huge catchment of potential support. The same applies for Norfolk, Suffolk, Naarich and Ipshite respectively.
Talk to Barnsley fans and they argue that as the Town has a population of 76,000 they are one of the best supported clubs in the country, conveniantly forgetting that Barnsley Borough has a population of 230,000.