|
Post by windlesaint on Feb 25, 2006 6:38:36 GMT -5
To say union barely exsists isn't entirely true. Every town in Britain has at least 1 union club each running several sides. However what is true is that for the most part these are watched by the relatives of the players and a few ex-players. Only at the top level do you get 4 / 5 figure crowds. Interestingly prior to the introduction of leagues in the 1980s these top teams were also watched by the same relatives and ex-player type crowds while rl crowds were similar, demographically, to those of a soccer crowd.
To reinforce Kiers point the original 12 members of the football league (soccer) in 1888 were Preston NE, Aston Villa, Wolverhampton W, Blackburn R, Bolton W, West Brom, Accrington, Everton, Burnley, Derby C, Notts C and Stoke C - NO ONE FURTHER SOUTH THAN BIRMINGHAM. It wasn't until 1894 that a southern team (Woolwich Arsenal) entered the league - and they didn't make the top division until 1905. Up to 1915 of the 40 league teams only 5 were in the south of England!
|
|
Basil2
Full Member
Posts: 3,451
|
Post by Basil2 on Feb 25, 2006 15:05:48 GMT -5
From all of this I presume peole in the south are all soccer nuts as well, they just don't have any of the major sides located there?
|
|
|
Post by georgehotel on Feb 25, 2006 18:02:34 GMT -5
By the 1880s soccer was a sport organised into leagues and cups and allowed payment to players. The 'divisions' though were almost exlusively based in the industrial north and midlands. I don't think that a southern team was allowed entry into the "Football League" until the beginning of the twentieth century. Victorian football (of all codes) as a mass spectator sport was almost exclusively a 'northern' pursuit. What is more important is that in the list of soccer areas only Blackburn and Bolton were not initially 'rugby' areas in the early 1880s - Liverpool and Manchester used to be seen as the elite of the rugby clubs - presiding over rugby in the north in the same was as the MCC used to hold sway over cricket. (that is why no soccer club holds the title "Manchester FC" - it was taken by the senior club in the city - a rugby club. Liverpool FC were only able to take the name for the soccer club after the rugby club folded). The origins of RL exist mainly in the need to combat the spread of soccer - without the creation of regular competitive fixtures it is arguable that 'rugby' could have gone the way of Harrow football or a myriad other football codes. Make no mistake about it - rugby was close to disappearing and was not yet the automatic code of choice for GB's middle/upper classes (that came after WWI) many schools played soccer/dribbling footaball codes at the time of the schism - nowadays Eton and Harrow are the only notable 'soccer' schools. The irony is imho that RL gave RU a reason to exist - 'rugby' was maintained as a sport with some popular mass support yet a schism which enevitably became a class divide gave RU it's 'raison d'etre'. Good post Kier, especially the last paragraph. Certainly, inmo, the schism was the reason why RU survived as a sport. However, one of the main reasons RU has spread across other countries, was that it was played extensively in the armed services, and only until relatively recently (the last 10 years or so) was League accepted as a services sport. Some of the great British RL players of the 50's and 60's (when GB were actually winning test series) such as Alex Murphy and Ike Southward, were also playing military services RU, as RL wasn't an option. The paying of players arguement was perputuated by the RU commodores until they could no longer sustain it. The split occurred because 'rugby' was already behind the times in the 1880's, as soccer was offering spectators and players competitions - as in leagues and knockout cups, especially in the industrial north and the midlands. If rugby continued with the amateur ethos then its doubtful (but who knows what would have evolved, as the south of the country was a different scenario) that it would have survived to any extent. As Windy has noted the southern soccer clubs did not reach the top division status until the 20th century. Maybe rugby could have been the dominant code there if they bite the bullet earlier. I think Windy is being a bit unkind to the RU strongholds in the south-west - Penzance, Truro, Bristol, Bath, Exeter, Gloucester, Newlyn, Plymouth, etc. Its like RL in Yorkshire, and certainly rivals soccer there.
|
|
kier
Junior Member
Posts: 378
|
Post by kier on Feb 25, 2006 21:42:25 GMT -5
I don't think RU is a rival to soccer in Plymouth, Exeter and Bristol. The soccer sides in these areas get far larger crowds than any RU side (despite them being in low divisions). I agree about the other places though.
|
|
|
Post by windlesaint on Feb 26, 2006 5:49:00 GMT -5
From all of this I presume peole in the south are all soccer nuts as well, they just don't have any of the major sides located there? Essentially it is all down to demographics. In the late 19th century the north was the industrial power house of the country hence all the top teams. London being a big city also had some teams. The rest of the south had only smaller cities and their teams weren't very good. If you contrast that with the situation today. The north has declined and the south is the place to be. Notice the 'makeweight' teams in the top leagues now tend to be southern - Charlton, Crystal Palace, Southampton, Fulham, etc whereas in the past they would be the smaller northern towns like Burnley, Huddersfield, PNE, etc.
|
|
Basil2
Full Member
Posts: 3,451
|
Post by Basil2 on Feb 26, 2006 15:19:30 GMT -5
PNE?
|
|
|
Post by Aaron Gibson on Feb 26, 2006 16:23:51 GMT -5
Preston North End
|
|
|
Post by georgehotel on Feb 26, 2006 17:31:20 GMT -5
Was it Preston and Blackburn that started the whole paying of players issue in football?
|
|
kier
Junior Member
Posts: 378
|
Post by kier on Feb 27, 2006 1:56:52 GMT -5
I think it was - there was a great deal of regional autonomy - and areas were often left to make their own decisions. The FA was formed in 1863 but for many decades had very little power over clubs (except in the administation of it's cup competition).
The organisation that really is at the heart of the spread of soccer is the Sheffield FA - an organisation that decided to work alongside the FA - and was for several years the 'big brother' to the southern based FA.
Before the 1880s the midlands & South Yorkshire were the home to the major 'soccer' teams and the rest of Yorkshire and Lancashire were 'rugby' strongholds. By the mid 1890s many rugby clubs had switched over to soccer and the switch of Liverpool and Manchester (at the time two of the wealthiest cities in the world) is symptomatic of a trend that would have swept nationally if the NU hadn't formed.
Traditional 'clubs' of various codes existed in the rest of the country but these didn't (as a rule) have the economic pressures of mass support or regular competitive fixtures. 'Clubs' were exclusive organisations (the use of the word 'club' initially having the same use as it does today in the 'gentlemen's clubs') and were exclusive 'members only' organisations which adopted the (then) new amateur ideal to exclude working men. These were the clubs that were the constituency of the FA (and the RFU).
Despite the similar situations of the FA and RFU in the 1880s the FA didn't have the clout to take on the clubs - by the 1890s the RFU felt strong enough to cut ties with it's strongest clubs (despite the fact that the clubs themselves didn't want this).
|
|
|
Post by windlesaint on Feb 27, 2006 3:13:32 GMT -5
Yes as previously said Preston North End - the team I support. First winners of the league. Lost their unbeaten run of 22 games last Saturday. They were unbeaten between about 1887 - 89 (except for the '88 cup final) because they bought all the best players in the land. They were thrown out of the FA Cup on several occasions for 'professionalism' before the game went 'open'. It's no coincidence that they won the first 2 league competitions and were runners up for the following 3. They haven't won it since.
|
|
Basil2
Full Member
Posts: 3,451
|
Post by Basil2 on Feb 28, 2006 12:08:45 GMT -5
Yes as previously said Preston North End - the team I support. First winners of the league. Lost their unbeaten run of 22 games last Saturday. They were unbeaten between about 1887 - 89 (except for the '88 cup final) because they bought all the best players in the land. They were thrown out of the FA Cup on several occasions for 'professionalism' before the game went 'open'. It's no coincidence that they won the first 2 league competitions and were runners up for the following 3. They haven't won it since. What division do they play in now?
|
|
|
Post by georgehotel on Feb 28, 2006 17:18:23 GMT -5
Yes as previously said Preston North End - the team I support. First winners of the league. Lost their unbeaten run of 22 games last Saturday. They were unbeaten between about 1887 - 89 (except for the '88 cup final) because they bought all the best players in the land. They were thrown out of the FA Cup on several occasions for 'professionalism' before the game went 'open'. It's no coincidence that they won the first 2 league competitions and were runners up for the following 3. They haven't won it since. What division do they play in now? Preston are in the Championship, which is the name for the division below the Premiership. Don't know if Windy will agree, but they are having a good season, are in a play-off place and just lost a long unbeaten run to the leaders Reading at the weekend. They still need to complete their ground though if they are to go into the Premiership.
|
|
|
Post by windlesaint on Mar 1, 2006 3:17:43 GMT -5
Yep, we're having a decent season. If they can get another run going we should get to the play-offs! The ground will only be finished if / when we get to the premiership. We have been out of the top flight since 1961 and since then have had the worst run in the history of the club. I've seen them in 4 finals of various types either live or on the tv and have lost them all. Saints should redevelop Knowsley Road along the lines PNE have done - replace a stand at a time. Forget all this kack about moving to a new ground! Incidentally PNE now have the oldest soccer ground in continuous use in the world and it's home to the Football League Museum - well worth a visit too!
|
|
Basil2
Full Member
Posts: 3,451
|
Post by Basil2 on Mar 2, 2006 3:53:31 GMT -5
Bit like the Dragons from 1956-1966. Pity the present lot can't emulate them!
|
|
rus
Full Member
Posts: 1,312
|
Post by rus on Aug 23, 2007 18:08:55 GMT -5
Hull:
|
|