Explain - No Manchester Super League ?

[WireMan]

Snip.

Alty is not in Trafford. I don't care what facts wiki tells you, i don't care what government official with a pen and ruler says. Its is a seperate town. Governed from Trafford yes. But a SEPERATE TOWN!!!!!!

Next. United not in Manchester is boring so again you can quote your little wiki thing all you like. Its boring and to continue down that path is showing that you have no real Knowledge of the area.


As for the rest what are you actually saying, given i was answering why it is unlikely a new team would appear in Manchester? Where would they play? There is going to be a nice ground, real close to them. Just next to the M60 (thats the MANCHESTER outer ring road but no one thinks its in Manc obviously as its really in Salford/Trafford etc.).

Why didn't team appear in 1895? Well they did, but they were eclipsed by a different sport obviously. The same sport the eclipses it now. Didn't need google to help me out on that one.

 

[bowes]

Altrincham is in Trafford borough undisputably, but it is a separate town. The same way Leigh is in Wigan borough but a separate town within the borough.

You can't have an opinion on what's part of Manchester or not as it has an officially defined city boundary that does NOT include Old Trafford.

 

[bowes]

If we're talking the Metro area, then the biggest club in the area is a RU club (Sale). You'd probably find more RL clubs in the area though (haven't checked, but would assume that is the case).

Depends what you mean by Metro area, though there are more RL clubs than RU clubs in Greater Manchester (36 to 31), but more RU teams (I haven't the figures but fairly obvious given that RU clubs run more teams than RL clubs by some margin).

Rugby union clubs are more spread out though over all boroughs (but higher concentration in Stockport and Tameside), whereas RL has the vast majority of clubs in 4 boroughs (Wigan, Salford, Oldham, Rochdale), where RL is a lot bigger than RU, but only 2 clubs in Bolton, 1 in Manchester, 1 in Bury and none in Stockport, Tameside or Trafford.

So if you're talking Manchester Metro area (excluding Wigan and Bolton I guess) then RU would have more clubs as Wigan has a big chunk of the clubs

 

[bowes]

You can probably tell I've stumbled across the site listing RU clubs by location for the record

 

[WireMan]

Altrincham is in Trafford borough undisputably, but it is a separate town. The same way Leigh is in Wigan borough but a separate town within the borough.

You can't have an opinion on what's part of Manchester or not as it has an officially defined city boundary that does NOT include Old Trafford.

But if you want a serious discussion about why there are no super league clubs in Manchester then its important to define Manchester. On paper United play in Trafford. People don't live on paper though. People live in the real world. A world i'm trying to stress to people not from the area, if you don't want to take that info on-board then there is nothing else to say.

If you want to go off a colourful map instead, you are basically saying there is one semi large unsuccessful football team in Manchester and nothing else other than the cycling team. So Manchester is ripe for expansion and Salford have zero competition for fans. It would be totally wrong. You know it, I know it. To argue anything else is pointless and makes the thread pointless.


I highly doubt there will be expansion into Manchester. Football is to entrenched in the city. The BBC sport department is moving to Salford not Manchester and Granada may be following anyway, hence the Reds.

I guess it went that way historically simply because it did. Its a very unsatisfactory way to answer the question but why football in Liverpool, Manchester, Blackburn, Bolton etc. and rugby in Wigan, Warrington, St Helens etc? I can't imagine workers in the late 1800's giving a stuff what code of football they watched. The teams of the time were factory teams, so it could depend on what university the factory owner went to. Or maybe one town started a team and the other local teams wanted to compete, hence the teams are very localised around the north of the country. They are complete guesses though.

 

[Evil Homer]

If we take it that Man Utd are based in Trafford and not 'Manchester', is there actually any pro sport that is based within the city proper? Neither New York Giants or New York Jets are technically based in New York, or even in the state of New York. Does that mean we can say there is no NFL in New York? It's a stupid debate. People travel to watch teams, just because a stadium is not based within a defined boundary it doesn't mean that teams don't draw support from those areas.

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

But if you want a serious discussion about why there are no super league clubs in Manchester then its important to define Manchester. On paper United play in Trafford. People don't live on paper though. People live in the real world. A world i'm trying to stress to people not from the area, if you don't want to take that info on-board then there is nothing else to say.

No, if you want a serious discussion about an area, you all have to be in agreement about what the area actually is. You can say what you like about what YOU personally consider to be Manchester, and you can say what you like about what YOU personally think others in the area think, but that doesn't make it true. There will be (and definitely are) others that don't agree with you from the area about what is and isn't "Manchester".

The only way you can discuss it is if you use the proper boundaries. We're talking Manchester (the City of). A place that only has 2 RL teams at a very low level. That is the real world. The rest is just your opinion of the world.

If you want to go off a colourful map instead, you are basically saying there is one semi large unsuccessful football team in Manchester and nothing else other than the cycling team. So Manchester is ripe for expansion and Salford have zero competition for fans. It would be totally wrong. You know it, I know it. To argue anything else is pointless and makes the thread pointless.

I wouldn't call a top-4 Premier League football team attracting 40k+ a game "unsuccessful". I'd say that's a pretty big competitor!

And saying Salford has no competition is a ridiculous argument. How could anyone who is discussing the boundaries of Manchester using the ACTUAL boundaries governed by the land argue that? Even if there were NO clubs in Manchester, how would that make Salford (a team OUTSIDE Manchester) have no competition? If you're talking about a club OUTSIDE Manchester, you have to look at other clubs OUTSIDE Manchester as well as competition, and that would include your (technically) Man Utds, Sales, Oldhams, Burys, Rochdales, Stockports, etc.

I highly doubt there will be expansion into Manchester. Football is to entrenched in the city. The BBC sport department is moving to Salford not Manchester and Granada may be following anyway, hence the Reds.

I think expansion into Manchester is very possible, but not on a major level. Not on a SL level. But playing numbers and and increase in amateur teams is certainly possible and something that should be happening (alongside the other boroughs). Spectator-wise, Salford should be targeting fans from Manchester in more significant numbers than they are getting (they have a huge catchment area but only average 4-5k fans), which compared to Sale (who for all intents and purposes are still a poorly supported RU club in a non-RU area) is still poor.

Football will always be king, but RL should definitely be the prince in a big northern city. At the moment, it is a bit of a jester.

I guess it went that way historically simply because it did. Its a very unsatisfactory way to answer the question but why football in Liverpool, Manchester, Blackburn, Bolton etc. and rugby in Wigan, Warrington, St Helens etc? I can't imagine workers in the late 1800's giving a stuff what code of football they watched. The teams of the time were factory teams, so it could depend on what university the factory owner went to. Or maybe one town started a team and the other local teams wanted to compete, hence the teams are very localised around the north of the country. They are complete guesses though.

Simply because it did isn't really an answer in the slightest. There are reasons, even if we don't know them. Even if the answer is "we didn't get in there quick enough, and by the time we tried it was too late to make a decent effort because of the juggernaught that is football".

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

If we take it that Man Utd are based in Trafford and not 'Manchester', is there actually any pro sport that is based within the city proper?

Yes, Manchester City, based at the City of Manchester Stadium (hence the name of the stadium).

Neither New York Giants or New York Jets are technically based in New York, or even in the state of New York. Does that mean we can say there is no NFL in New York? It's a stupid debate.

Yes, it means there is technically no NFL in New York State. However, there will be other forms of American Football in New York (unlike Manchester) so it is not a like-for-like argument.

However, both those teams represent the New York Metropolitan Area, which includes parts of New Jersey. Just like Manchester United represent the Manchester Metropolitan Area. They do not represent those cities alone.

Salford, on the other hand, do not represent the Manchester Metropolitan Area. They may want to draw from it (no harm in that), but they do not represent it. (This part is my opinion here, by the way). They represent City of Salford. If they truly want to capture the Manchester audience and make themselves feel like they are a representative of the Manchester Metro Area, they need a name change. However, the fans don't want this and they are happy the club remaining as Salford and representing the City of Salford (no problem with that).

People travel to watch teams, just because a stadium is not based within a defined boundary it doesn't mean that teams don't draw support from those areas.

And no-one has argued otherwise.

However, someone has tried to argue that RL is popular in Manchester (or more popular than RU) because of one game a year which consists of 99% of the spectator audience at the ground being from OUTSIDE Manchester. You can't have it both ways, and I'm sure you will agree with that.

If there are people in Manchester (which I'm sure there are) that travel to watch other RL clubs outside of Manchester (City of), then there will also be (and are) people that travel to watch other RU clubs outside of Manchester. Considering there are hardly significant numbers of spectators at the clubs in the Manchester Met Area as they are, I'd say they pretty much cancel each other out, and so you need to check other means to determine which is more popular in Manchester (City of). Bowes has listed the playing side (which people seem to forget when they're counting empty seats), which shows RU as being a fair bit stronger than RL (but still pretty weak, despite what a certain poster keeps saying we're saying as he is lacking any sort of reply). And apart from 4 boroughs in the GM county, RL is pretty much non-existent playing-wise. So is RU, but it is more existent than RL in those remaining 6 counties.

 

[manoj p]

Never seen so many people trying to confuse a basic principle... One wonders about their motivation.

Union has had barely a crowd of significance in Manchester (however defined).

Rugby league has had many, many decades of big crowds in Manchester.

2005 - 2011... lol

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Never seen so many people trying to confuse a basic principle... One wonders about their motivation.

Union has had barely a crowd of significance in Manchester (however defined).

Rugby league has had many, many decades of big crowds in Manchester.

2005 - 2011... lol

What do you wonder our motivation is? You accused people of being trolls earlier, so one thinks maybe your thinking we're union fans?!

My motivation is the truth: getting the facts out there so people can make informed opinions.

Your motivation appears to be covering your eyes and pretending everything is rosey for league in Manchester. Pretending things are good doesn't mean they are, and doesn't help RL at all.

At the end of the day, even if you want to include the GF figures, one game per season means very little to how popular RL is in Manchester. It is an anomoly. 364 days a year, the crowds for RL games in Manchester are 0. One day a year, 70,000 people from outside of Manchester transend onto a football ground for a RL final. It can't be used to prove anything. It's just like saying NFL is a big sport in England because of one sell-out at Wembley a year. Do you agree with that? (And I expect an answer to that question if you actually want some credibility in this discussion other than flooding it with the same unconstructive jibes).

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Alty is not in Trafford. I don't care what facts wiki tells you, i don't care what government official with a pen and ruler says. Its is a seperate town. Governed from Trafford yes. But a SEPERATE TOWN!!!!!!

This quote alone shows your lack of understanding of what a borough actually is. If you don't know what a borough is, how can you argue that something ISN'T in it?

Just because Alty is in Trafford doesn't mean it isn't a town in its own right. In fact, that's what the government website says! Leigh is in Wigan borough, but is still a town in its own right.

Next. United not in Manchester is boring so again you can quote your little wiki thing all you like. Its boring and to continue down that path is showing that you have no real Knowledge of the area.

It's boring because you are refusing to accept it. It isn't in Manchester. It's not in the city boundaries. It's not difficult to comprehend. No matter what the locals think, that is a fact. It's just like people from Cottingham thinking that it's in Hull and arguing that because they are from the area it makes it true. I can tell you, there are plenty that say it, but I'm also from the area, and I can tell you it's bullsh*t.

As for the rest what are you actually saying, given i was answering why it is unlikely a new team would appear in Manchester? Where would they play? There is going to be a nice ground, real close to them. Just next to the M60 (thats the MANCHESTER outer ring road but no one thinks its in Manc obviously as its really in Salford/Trafford etc.).

You forgot to highlight the OUTER part. Pretty much all of the Ring Road circles OUTSIDE of Manchester, hence why it is the OUTER Ring Road and not the INNER Ring Road. The only part of Manchester it actually is in is the southern part that cuts out the Airport and Wythenshaw IIRC. The rest of it is in the 7 adjoining boroughs to the City of Manchester.

As for where a new team would appear, you appear to think we're talking about a professional team here. We're not. There are only TWO open-age teams altogether in Manchester. There are plenty of places a new team could spring up.

Why didn't team appear in 1895? Well they did, but they were eclipsed by a different sport obviously. The same sport the eclipses it now. Didn't need google to help me out on that one.

Rugby League may have begun as a seperate organisation in 1895, but that's not when all the teams began. Why wasn't there a big team pre-1895 when all the football clubs were in their infancy? Salford are 5 years older than Man Utd and 7 years older than Man City. Both clubs weren't even 20 years old when the NRFU was formed, and Liverpool was only 3 years old!

Maybe you should use Google, as your hear-say knowledge isn't really cutting it. There's no shame in backing-up your argument. In fact, it's a good thing as it stops misinformation coming out.

 

[WireMan]

Ok Wellsy, you don't want to know. Stick to your maps, administrative zones and wiki.

Whatever.


Sorry Bowes, i was trying to have a discussion about Rugby in Manchester, throw some ideas around etc. but I have just been bored out of the thread by multi quote wiki knows all replies. Shame.

 

[Johnny_L_O]

WTF!

I've not looked back but are there really 13 pages on the geography of Manchester?

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

WTF!

I've not looked back but are there really 13 pages on the geography of Manchester?

No, but most of it is.
It seems to be a case of me and Bowes having to tell one person what actually is Manchester and him refusing to listen to us, even though we've shown him maps, government websites, etc. to prove the point and his response is "I don't care, lalalalala" and fingers in ears like a child.

The rest of it is another person trying to convince people that RL is bigger than RU in Manchester because of one game a year, and constantly rewording other people's arguments so he doesn't actually have to contribute!

So, I'll advise you to probably not get involved unless you want to get dragged into people sticking fingers in their ears and refusing to accept facts or other people's arguments!

 

[Evil Homer]

To be fair RL is probably bigger on the basis of the one game, and the fact that there are so many pro clubs in the vicinity compared to RU clubs. Neither are big though.

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

To be fair RL is probably bigger on the basis of the one game, and the fact that there are so many pro clubs in the vicinity compared to RU clubs. Neither are big though.

But at the same time there are far less amateur teams in the area, and thus players. There's more to measuring a sport than just its spectator appeal.

And on top of that, even if you did include spectator appeal, if you add up all the averages of the pro teams in the Manchester Met area (i.e. the built-up continuous urban core that is linked to the city), it is still smaller than that of Sale on their own. A lot of the people in the area will watch SL games, with that I have no doubt. But they will also most likely watch union internationals as well, and probably in greater numbers.

 

[WireMan]

No, but most of it is.
It seems to be a case of me and Bowes having to tell one person what actually is Manchester and him refusing to listen to us, even though we've shown him maps, government websites, etc. to prove the point and his response is "I don't care, lalalalala" and fingers in ears like a child.

The rest of it is another person trying to convince people that RL is bigger than RU in Manchester because of one game a year, and constantly rewording other people's arguments so he doesn't actually have to contribute!

So, I'll advise you to probably not get involved unless you want to get dragged into people sticking fingers in their ears and refusing to accept facts or other people's arguments!

lalala can't hear you. ;-)

Meanwhile there is a rugby union club in Alty so the sport is huuuuge in Trafford.


Best not to get invloved, unless you want to be preached at by an internet expert.

 

[bowes]

What a bizarre thing to say that a RU club in Altrincham would make the game huuuuge. However, there's no RL at all in Altrincham so RU is clearly bigger there.

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

lalala can't hear you. ;-)

Meanwhile there is a rugby union club in Alty so the sport is huuuuge in Trafford.


Best not to get invloved, unless you want to be preached at by an internet expert.

Love how you're now making up things to create your own argument in hope that you might actually win one. That is the sign of defeat.

No-one on this thread has said that rugby union is big/huge in Manchester (or the local area). The fact you're pretending somebody is says it all. You've fallen down to the levels of that other one that (thankfully) has stopped "adding" to this thread.

By the way, just for your information, there is not ONE rugby league club in the whole of the Trafford Borough according to RFL's club locator. Shows how big the sport is there. (Just so you understand, that doesn't mean the RU is big. HTH).

 

[WireMan]

Love how you're now making up things to create your own argument in hope that you might actually win one. That is the sign of defeat.

No-one on this thread has said that rugby union is big/huge in Manchester (or the local area). The fact you're pretending somebody is says it all. You've fallen down to the levels of that other one that (thankfully) has stopped "adding" to this thread.

By the way, just for your information, there is not ONE rugby league club in the whole of the Trafford Borough according to RFL's club locator. Shows how big the sport is there. (Just so you understand, that doesn't mean the RU is big. HTH).

Fallen down to levels? :lol:

For my information? :lol:

Ok, you win, we should expand into Trafford. Think of the children, there is no rugby teams there, what would a youngster in Trafford do if they wanted to play the game?

Just like the poor kids of Manchester only have one football team to play for, Salford there is no professionally team, its like a footballing desert. Trafford have got it made though, what with the cricket as well.

Or maybe an administration map which you put on before is not that important, especially as geographically the old boundaries never moved which is why Manchester, Warrington and Liverpool are in Lancashire.

The Alty point was to raise the fact that has predictably gone over your heads that if a team is in Alty it doesn't mean those deprived kids in Trafford have a local team to support, making your maps even more irrelevant. Especially as Alty is south of the canal so is geographically in Cheshire.


I officially give up, you have your ideas, i have mine. I think a map showing no rugby league in an area doesn't mean kids there can't an don't play it, and a lack of league clubs in the city doesn't mean it is not followed. There is no professional football team in Salford, Warrington, St Helens and Widnes therefore no crowds at all. Does that mean its not followed there? Of course not. The only way to see what people think and how people move around is to live and work there. If i lived in Hulme (Manchester) and there was a Union club in the Stockport (Manchester), and a League club in Salford (not in Manchester), which is easiest to get to and which would you associate yourself with? Give you a clue, getting across Manchester is a pain.