Washington and Chester Le Street tend to be Sunderland areas (anyone old enough reading the fines handed out after matches against Sunderland in the 1970's will confirm that there were numerous ones from Chester Le Street amongst them. Someone mentioned drawing a 15 mile circle around St James Park and countint the people. A bit pointless as it is only 13 miles to Sunderland so you can count a lot of those. Because of Tynesside/Wearside boundaries some fans of those two clubs actually live nearer the other club. You can find half a dozen lists with different sizes for cities. But it was always said that the team with most people as their nearest league club was Plymouth. And that the second was Hull City. Even more so now that York aren't a league club.
Im sorry but you're completely wrong, even using the 2001 census. STOP USING WIKI AS A RESEARCH TOOL. And how is stating population figures putting Hull down? I really dont udnerstand this link you have made.
How many times can I state this bit: I don't use wiki as a research tool I simply used it quickly to find a link supporting what someone else had said. It happened that it contains the results from the 2001 census, how can you deny what the census says simply because wikipedia have associated themselves with it? Do you really think one of the few people in thsi country who give a **** about our beautiful city has gone onto wikipedia and changed the listed statistics to favour Hull. It'd be far more likely that someone would do the opposite, in an attempt to keep the Hull is **** attitude going.
You might find the office of national statistics a better tool: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/00cj.asp http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/00fa.asp
Lists of populations vary greatly on different lists, due to the different definitions and boundaries used, by far the most accurate way to compare the actual populations is by looking at the urban areas, which for England are as follows: 1 Greater London 8,278,251 2 West Midlands (Birmingham) 2,284,093 3 Greater Manchester 2,240,230 4 West Yorkshire (Leeds) 1,499,465 5 Tyneside (Newcastle) 879,996 6 Liverpool 816,216 7 Nottingham 666,358 8 Sheffield 640,720 9 Bristol 551,066 10 Brighton 461,181
I can see Hull (&c) is not in the top 10. So where does Hull come after that 10th spot/ what population incl. Haltemprice + Bilton?
Surely West Midlands includes places like Wolverhampton, which are completely seperate. Same goes with Greater Manchester, it probably includes Wigan and Bolton among other places. There is nothing near Hull, so this is clearly an unfair way to measure. I don't get why it's worth considering anything other than just the cities themselves?
This is getting boring, if you would rather continue believing that Hull's as big as Newcastle, then go right ahead.
Taking a reasonable look at the demographic, Newcastle's main area is about 800,000 whereas Hull struggles to make 280,000. As far as singing goes, I don't know the words apart from "Come on you 'u-ull!" If you want singing we need (a) hymn sheets (b) nice-looking, preferably female conductor/singer to hold hymn practise before the match (c) some guide track mp3 uploads here or somewhere suitable for home study (d) a better acoustic in the KC for crowd singing. A bit of disciplined singing would get national coverage, and make the atmosphere in the KC less TV-watching and more participatory. If you want singing, let's get organised.
Plymouth may be the nearest league club for a lot of people but the travel is too far for a lot of them. That doesn't apply to Hull City.
Because it is pointless if using it to consider the number of fans going to matches. How can you think an artificial boundary has any meaning in this?
