First Press-ing

[dave.woodhall]

If you look at Newcastle's average crowds say from 1970-1990 they would be worse than ours, we could always get some massive crowds given any hope.

Traditionally Villa before 1990 had larger crowds than the Geordies, however, from the 1990 World Cup onwards with a mixture of Keegan Mania and the new Premiership/new fan era Newcastle have found some new fans. We would always average around 25,000 in the period running up to the early 90s before football began to become fashionable, the Geordies and 20-25,000. But in recent years they have been averaging about 50,000 and us about 35,000.

So the easy to attend new footballing era (Free mostly from so called football hooligans, post Gazza crying at Italia 90) has brought Villa around 10,000 extra fans. But with Newcastle this has increased by almost 30,000. I can only sum up that they have had a lot of bandwaggon jumpers fused with a strange blind faith but, ultimately their traditional fan base is no better than ours.

It would be wrong, as several posters have said, not to acknowledge that Newcastle are engrained in the psyche of the north-east in a way that Villa will never be in the Midlands. As amfy pointed out, never underestimate the mentality that comes from being the only club in a city, particularly one where the boundaries of the conurbation are as clearly defined as Tyneside. But equally, it is impossible to get away from the fact that Newcastle have a unique  advantage over every other major club in the country when it comes to the size of the area they can draw on.

[Ad@m]

But equally, it is impossible to get away from the fact that Newcastle have a unique  advantage over every other major club in the country when it comes to the size of the area they can draw on.

Have you got any facts to back this up?

Numbers from the ONS for regional populations and 14/15 average attendances tell the following story:

North East region (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_East_England) population = 2.6m
Aggregate average attendances of league clubs there (Newcastle, Sunderland, Boro and Hartlepool = 121,342 (4.6%)

West Midlands region (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Midlands_(region)) population = 5.7m
Attendances (Villa, Baggies, Blues, Wolves, Stoke, Cov, Walsall, Port Vale, Burton, Crewe, Shrews) = 160,607 (2.8%)

If Newcastle have a 'unique advantage' it's that their local populace has a greater sense of association with the club than the population of Birmingham has with the Villa.  And that's got very little to do with the existence of the Blues and Albion.

[dave.woodhall]

But equally, it is impossible to get away from the fact that Newcastle have a unique  advantage over every other major club in the country when it comes to the size of the area they can draw on.

Have you got any facts to back this up?

Numbers from the ONS for regional populations and 14/15 average attendances tell the following story:

North East region (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_East_England) population = 2.6m
Aggregate average attendances of league clubs there (Newcastle, Sunderland, Boro and Hartlepool = 121,342 (4.6%)

West Midlands region (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Midlands_(region)) population = 5.7m
Attendances (Villa, Baggies, Blues, Wolves, Stoke, Cov, Walsall, Port Vale, Burton, Crewe, Shrews) = 160,607 (2.8%)

If Newcastle have a 'unique advantage' it's that their local populace has a greater sense of association with the club than the population of Birmingham has with the Villa.  And that's got very little to do with the existence of the Blues and Albion.

Even in the immediate area they've got two major clubs competing with them - although for reasons stated above, their idea of competition is a lot different to ours. We've got six on your list, and that doesn't include the East Midlands or Liverpool, Sheffield and Manchester, all of which are closeer to us than anywhere else is to Newcastle.

[AV82EC]

If you look at Newcastle's average crowds say from 1970-1990 they would be worse than ours, we could always get some massive crowds given any hope.

Traditionally Villa before 1990 had larger crowds than the Geordies, however, from the 1990 World Cup onwards with a mixture of Keegan Mania and the new Premiership/new fan era Newcastle have found some new fans. We would always average around 25,000 in the period running up to the early 90s before football began to become fashionable, the Geordies and 20-25,000. But in recent years they have been averaging about 50,000 and us about 35,000.

So the easy to attend new footballing era (Free mostly from so called football hooligans, post Gazza crying at Italia 90) has brought Villa around 10,000 extra fans. But with Newcastle this has increased by almost 30,000. I can only sum up that they have had a lot of bandwaggon jumpers fused with a strange blind faith but, ultimately their traditional fan base is no better than ours.

It would be wrong, as several posters have said, not to acknowledge that Newcastle are engrained in the psyche of the north-east in a way that Villa will never be in the Midlands. As amfy pointed out, never underestimate the mentality that comes from being the only club in a city, particularly one where the boundaries of the conurbation are as clearly defined as Tyneside. But equally, it is impossible to get away from the fact that Newcastle have a unique  advantage over every other major club in the country when it comes to the size of the area they can draw on.

Agreed which makes it all the more annoying that when we had that advantage in the 1990s with only Coventry bloody City for company and no other clubs for 80 miles in all directions we spectacularly failed to capitalise. Thanks Doug....

[Ad@m]

But equally, it is impossible to get away from the fact that Newcastle have a unique  advantage over every other major club in the country when it comes to the size of the area they can draw on.

Have you got any facts to back this up?

Numbers from the ONS for regional populations and 14/15 average attendances tell the following story:

North East region (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_East_England) population = 2.6m
Aggregate average attendances of league clubs there (Newcastle, Sunderland, Boro and Hartlepool = 121,342 (4.6%)

West Midlands region (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Midlands_(region)) population = 5.7m
Attendances (Villa, Baggies, Blues, Wolves, Stoke, Cov, Walsall, Port Vale, Burton, Crewe, Shrews) = 160,607 (2.8%)

If Newcastle have a 'unique advantage' it's that their local populace has a greater sense of association with the club than the population of Birmingham has with the Villa.  And that's got very little to do with the existence of the Blues and Albion.

Even in the immediate area they've got two major clubs competing with them - although for reasons stated above, their idea of competition is a lot different to ours. We've got six on your list, and that doesn't include the East Midlands or Liverpool, Sheffield and Manchester, all of which are closeer to us than anywhere else is to Newcastle.

So in the East Midlands you've got 4.7m people and Forest, Derby and Leicester - I'd say our crowds get a net benefit from that relationship rather than us losing fans to those clubs.

And Liverpool, Sheffield & Manchester?!  Those are cities over 100 miles away - why would we lose fans to clubs in those cities in any greater numbers than Newcastle would?

Your argument is getting more and more tenuous.

[Villa in Denmark]

If you look at Newcastle's average crowds say from 1970-1990 they would be worse than ours, we could always get some massive crowds given any hope.

Traditionally Villa before 1990 had larger crowds than the Geordies, however, from the 1990 World Cup onwards with a mixture of Keegan Mania and the new Premiership/new fan era Newcastle have found some new fans. We would always average around 25,000 in the period running up to the early 90s before football began to become fashionable, the Geordies and 20-25,000. But in recent years they have been averaging about 50,000 and us about 35,000.

So the easy to attend new footballing era (Free mostly from so called football hooligans, post Gazza crying at Italia 90) has brought Villa around 10,000 extra fans. But with Newcastle this has increased by almost 30,000. I can only sum up that they have had a lot of bandwaggon jumpers fused with a strange blind faith but, ultimately their traditional fan base is no better than ours.

It would be wrong, as several posters have said, not to acknowledge that Newcastle are engrained in the psyche of the north-east in a way that Villa will never be in the Midlands. As amfy pointed out, never underestimate the mentality that comes from being the only club in a city, particularly one where the boundaries of the conurbation are as clearly defined as Tyneside. But equally, it is impossible to get away from the fact that Newcastle have a unique  advantage over every other major club in the country when it comes to the size of the area they can draw on.

Agreed which makes it all the more annoying that when we had that advantage in the 1990s with only Coventry bloody City for company and no other clubs for 80 miles in all directions we spectacularly failed to capitalise. Thanks Doug....

Yes.  All that "Manchester United of the Midlands" bollocks, still boils my piss 25 years later.

Douglas we were, are and always will be the Aston Villa of the world. I get the sense Dr. Xia has this outlook rather than Doug's.

[dave.woodhall]

But equally, it is impossible to get away from the fact that Newcastle have a unique  advantage over every other major club in the country when it comes to the size of the area they can draw on.

Have you got any facts to back this up?

Numbers from the ONS for regional populations and 14/15 average attendances tell the following story:

North East region (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_East_England) population = 2.6m
Aggregate average attendances of league clubs there (Newcastle, Sunderland, Boro and Hartlepool = 121,342 (4.6%)

West Midlands region (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Midlands_(region)) population = 5.7m
Attendances (Villa, Baggies, Blues, Wolves, Stoke, Cov, Walsall, Port Vale, Burton, Crewe, Shrews) = 160,607 (2.8%)

If Newcastle have a 'unique advantage' it's that their local populace has a greater sense of association with the club than the population of Birmingham has with the Villa.  And that's got very little to do with the existence of the Blues and Albion.

Even in the immediate area they've got two major clubs competing with them - although for reasons stated above, their idea of competition is a lot different to ours. We've got six on your list, and that doesn't include the East Midlands or Liverpool, Sheffield and Manchester, all of which are closeer to us than anywhere else is to Newcastle.

So in the East Midlands you've got 4.7m people and Forest, Derby and Leicester - I'd say our crowds get a net benefit from that relationship rather than us losing fans to those clubs.

And Liverpool, Sheffield & Manchester?!  Those are cities over 100 miles away - why would we lose fans to clubs in those cities in any greater numbers than Newcastle would?

Your argument is getting more and more tenuous.

And my dad's bigger than your dad. Well done - in your mind you've won an internet argument. Buy yourself a map as a prize.

[Ad@m]

Who said it was an argument? You threw out a baseless statement and I offered some stats to disprove it. And rather than be grown up about it you chuck your toys out of the pram. No argument involved.

[dave.woodhall]

Who said it was an argument? You threw out a baseless statement and I offered some stats to disprove it. And rather than be grown up about it you chuck your toys out of the pram. No argument involved.

That's a bit rich considering that every post you've made has had to come complete with some silly little dig.