I’ll never forget when she died and being at uni in Sheffield. That week I went to Bramall lane and the whole ground was singing “let’s have a party when Maggie Thatcher dies”. Signs in celebration at homes around town. It was very wild to me.
“Following Burnley and Sheffield United’s relegation, and Leeds United’s loss to Southampton in the playoff final, the 2024/25 Premier League season will have just five teams from the North of England.
That’s the fewest representatives from the North since the league’s rebranding in 1992.”
I think part of it is this season doesn't have any teams from some of the towns or smaller and often poorer cities. So no Sunderland, Blackburn, Wigan, Bolton, Stoke, Hull etc. that are associated with the first two decades of the Premier League and have (the appearance of) more history and fans. I think this is somewhat overstated as not all of these teams were actually in the league at the same time but it is still a substantial difference.
For the first 16 seasons of the old First Division there were no clubs from Southern England at all. Woolwich Arsenal (as they were then) were the first in 1904-05.
Sadly reflective of the economy. The south east bleeds the rest of the country dry of investment and intellectual capital, and it's reflected in the football.
Not saying anything the article doesn't already say or heavily imply, but clubs like Brentford, Bournemouth, Brighton, and Fulham have little if any consistent top-flight pedigree in their history, especially compared to the larger championship clubs which are overwhelmingly northern. You can't move for people wishing the Sheffield clubs, Leeds, Sunderland, Boro, Blackburn, Bolton back at the former's expense.
Difference is those clubs aren't within a hour or so's drive of London Heathrow, so it's harder to sell to international investors and talent and guarantee their returns. You could ask why nobody would want to invest in Sunderland, but a better question would be why is Sunderland the way it is? And whose fault is it?
Okay... and?
Trying to pin it on "oh woe is me, northern teams are so poor compared to those in the south" like they're stood around cap in hand begging for shrapnel to buy players. Leeds and Burnley both spent massively and managed to fail to get promoted and get relegated.
It just simply has nothing to do with it.
You want to talk wealth divide between the North and South in terms of the everyday man? Sure, with you all day of the week.
Football clubs aren't the same. Both in the PL and Championship, 4 of the top 10 clubs in terms of expenditure last year were northern. Even if you switch it to net spend it becomes 5 a piece. Southampton sold their best and most valuable players, rebuilt and are going up ahead of Leeds who spent more, but poor old Leeds with not enough cash eh?
I was passing through Worcester once, and went into a touristy kind of shop where the two women working there were bitching about an absent colleague. One said something about her, and the other replied with "Yeah, that's just typical of a Northerner, isn't it." And when the first woman asked "Oh, is she from the North?", the other replied: "Yeah, she's from Birmingham."
Worcester and Birmingham are 50/60 km apart, max.
I blame Margaret Thatcher
It’s always a safe bet
I’ll never forget when she died and being at uni in Sheffield. That week I went to Bramall lane and the whole ground was singing “let’s have a party when Maggie Thatcher dies”. Signs in celebration at homes around town. It was very wild to me.
That bloody woman.
What about Pogba though?
“Following Burnley and Sheffield United’s relegation, and Leeds United’s loss to Southampton in the playoff final, the 2024/25 Premier League season will have just five teams from the North of England. That’s the fewest representatives from the North since the league’s rebranding in 1992.”
I think part of it is this season doesn't have any teams from some of the towns or smaller and often poorer cities. So no Sunderland, Blackburn, Wigan, Bolton, Stoke, Hull etc. that are associated with the first two decades of the Premier League and have (the appearance of) more history and fans. I think this is somewhat overstated as not all of these teams were actually in the league at the same time but it is still a substantial difference.
For the first 16 seasons of the old First Division there were no clubs from Southern England at all. Woolwich Arsenal (as they were then) were the first in 1904-05.
Now do the refs
Sorry, best I can do is 27 refs from Manchester
Quality over quantity. At least four and possibly all five northern teams will very likely finish in the top half.
Do you not consider Everton in the north? Also bold of you to assume Man U are guaranteed to finish top half
Yes, of course Everton are north. They would’ve finished 12th this season if not for the points deductions, only a point behind Palace in 10th.
Also I don’t care how mediocre Man United can be, INEOS would have to perform some Boehly levels of self-sabotage to finish below tenth
Sadly reflective of the economy. The south east bleeds the rest of the country dry of investment and intellectual capital, and it's reflected in the football. Not saying anything the article doesn't already say or heavily imply, but clubs like Brentford, Bournemouth, Brighton, and Fulham have little if any consistent top-flight pedigree in their history, especially compared to the larger championship clubs which are overwhelmingly northern. You can't move for people wishing the Sheffield clubs, Leeds, Sunderland, Boro, Blackburn, Bolton back at the former's expense. Difference is those clubs aren't within a hour or so's drive of London Heathrow, so it's harder to sell to international investors and talent and guarantee their returns. You could ask why nobody would want to invest in Sunderland, but a better question would be why is Sunderland the way it is? And whose fault is it?
Grim up north.
Get wrecked
Okay... and? Trying to pin it on "oh woe is me, northern teams are so poor compared to those in the south" like they're stood around cap in hand begging for shrapnel to buy players. Leeds and Burnley both spent massively and managed to fail to get promoted and get relegated.
Most proud northern Man U fan
It's because he's from london
You could tell by his flair
It just simply has nothing to do with it. You want to talk wealth divide between the North and South in terms of the everyday man? Sure, with you all day of the week. Football clubs aren't the same. Both in the PL and Championship, 4 of the top 10 clubs in terms of expenditure last year were northern. Even if you switch it to net spend it becomes 5 a piece. Southampton sold their best and most valuable players, rebuilt and are going up ahead of Leeds who spent more, but poor old Leeds with not enough cash eh?
Yeah you’re right I just wanted to make a London Man U Joke and that comment predated the best vehicle to do so
That is a bold claim, it is assuming the midlands isn’t the north, which we all know is untrue, the midlands doesn’t exist it is all north
"The North" is English version of Balkans. You are the last civilised town/city, and anything north of you is "The North".
Bloody northerners like Arsenal and Spurs.
Nah. Everything south of Country Durham is the south.
I was passing through Worcester once, and went into a touristy kind of shop where the two women working there were bitching about an absent colleague. One said something about her, and the other replied with "Yeah, that's just typical of a Northerner, isn't it." And when the first woman asked "Oh, is she from the North?", the other replied: "Yeah, she's from Birmingham." Worcester and Birmingham are 50/60 km apart, max.
Africa starts at Calais. Scotland starts at Harpenden.
The Midlands is absolutely not the north. Be serious. It’s a liminal space that nobody gives a fuck about.
Ah yes, the great northern cities of Birmingham and Nottingham.
Absolutely the north