As is quite clear from this thread, I'm the font of not giving a **** about regions. If people want to be precious about their little corner of the country then that's great for them.
Was reading this last night and found it amusing. (although not the 'piss taking', which was utterly lame and not even slightly funny) What are these 'regions' based on? Geography, BBC TV regions or some notion that 'The North East' is very very special and is only allow to include the far north east? Because as Hull is geographically further north than both Manchester and Liverpool, both of which are very much in the North West, then Hull is in the North East, assuming the country is split into four quadrants.
The people of Birmingham would tell you it is at least 5. I think generally people think in terms of North-East, North-West, Midlands, London & SE and South West for English Regions. The Midlands can be split into East and West. London and South East can be split and you can include the South between South West and South East. In all of these Hull is in the North-East. I'm sure locally all these regions can be further split but people outside those regions wouldn't be interested in that in general. You'd need a specific reason to worry about where the East Ridings start and finish
Its based on a sense of identity as well as more practical measures. FFW there are officially 9 regions in England. Birmingham falls into the West Midlands, while Hull is in Yorkshire and the Humber. I refuse to believe people are dumb enough to need that explaining.
I think the point is that no one gives a ****. Yes, officially there are nine regions but most people wouldn't look at our small country that minutely.
As Watford say, most of us don't really give a ****e but you lot seem very precious about it. You share an identity with Geordies then? (or Mackems and as I don't know which one you are). As one of the 'official' regions of the England is the North West I can confirm I don't share an identity with scousers. I would agree that if asked where Hull was I'd say Humberside but geographically it's north east England. Clearly though, it's not in THE North East.
I don't really know what goes on up North. But, I uinderstand that there are a lot of Aldi and Lidl supermarkets up there, and that there's a lot of robbing going on all the time. Am I right?
I identify with people of my race, location, football team etc. to varying degrees. I don't feel the need to get uppity if people would dare say that someone in, say, Oxfordshire is similar to me. They probably are.
So then why did you make an issue out of it? Just because I said there were too many London clubs, you then go and try to make it an issue about regions? Its just odd.
My point was that someone from a region incapable of producing many good football teams despite covering vast swathes of the country probably shouldn't be having a pop at one that can maintain half a dozen Premier League clubs and plenty more in the leagues below that. You actually think it's a good idea to merge London teams when the evidence suggests it's the teams in areas like the North-East that need merging more given their inability to be competitive relative to London and the North-West.
Translation: "You make a very good point, and one in respect of which I am finding it extremely difficult to make any kind of sensible reply."
