Question Football question

Shrimper · Feb 16, 2009

Can someone tell me the biggest town/city without a football league team, or football team at all. Thanks. Oh the biggest i have is Dudley but that's just Birmingham.

MK Shrimper · Feb 16, 2009

Isn't is Salford?

Mad Cyril · Feb 16, 2009

Biggest without a league team I think is Wakefield.

Shrimper · Feb 16, 2009

Looks like it could be Wakefield, but technically both are Boroughs of bigger places.

Uncle Leo · Feb 16, 2009

Depends how you classify population (i.e.where do you draw the borders?) but Wakefield is pretty big and they don't have a football league team. All about t'rugby league up there lad.

Rusty Shackleford · Feb 16, 2009

Apparently it's Croydon, but that is according to the Grauniad:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2003/may/29/theknowledge.sport

Napster · Feb 16, 2009

The answer is is Wakefield.

Dudley is the 2nd biggest, followed by Salford, then Basingstoke, then Maidstone

The Flying Scotsman · Feb 16, 2009

It used to be Milton Keynes until they stole a team.

Shrimper · Feb 16, 2009

Looks like it is Wakefield, i'll go with that, cheers.

Napster · Feb 16, 2009

Rusty Shackleford said:
Apparently it's Croydon, but that is according to the Grauniad:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2003/may/29/theknowledge.sport

But they refuted it next issue

LARGEST TOWN WITHOUT A LEAGUE GROUND (2)

"What's the largest town/city without a League club?" asked Peter Driver in last week's Knowledge.

Last week we suggested that Croydon (330,668), which narrowly pipped Dudley (310,800) as the winner. Chris Tringham (born in Croydon) however, is not impressed.

"Can I be the 500th person to point out the suggestion of Croydon is not controversial, it's just plain wrong!

(1) Crystal Palace play at Selhurst Park, which is definitely in the London Borough of Croydon.
(2) Croydon is not a city and so does not have city boundaries!

"Boring fact No1: the Crystal Palace area is actually the meeting point of no less than three London boroughs (Croydon, Bromley and Lambeth). The public library there is jointly funded by all three boroughs!

"Boring fact No2: Croydon has applied for city status a few times, but has not so far been successful."

So if you ditch Croydon - and it seems there's a reasonable case for doing so - then Wakefield, with a population of 315,173 has a good claim for being the largest. Unless you know better.

BLUEBLOOD · Feb 16, 2009

The Flying Scotsman said:
It used to be Milton Keynes until they stole a team.

Excellent point TFS .. franchise scum

Rusty Shackleford · Feb 16, 2009

Napster said:
But they refuted it next issue

LARGEST TOWN WITHOUT A LEAGUE GROUND (2)

"What's the largest town/city without a League club?" asked Peter Driver in last week's Knowledge.

Last week we suggested that Croydon (330,668), which narrowly pipped Dudley (310,800) as the winner. Chris Tringham (born in Croydon) however, is not impressed.

"Can I be the 500th person to point out the suggestion of Croydon is not controversial, it's just plain wrong!

(1) Crystal Palace play at Selhurst Park, which is definitely in the London Borough of Croydon.
(2) Croydon is not a city and so does not have city boundaries!

"Boring fact No1: the Crystal Palace area is actually the meeting point of no less than three London boroughs (Croydon, Bromley and Lambeth). The public library there is jointly funded by all three boroughs!

"Boring fact No2: Croydon has applied for city status a few times, but has not so far been successful."

So if you ditch Croydon - and it seems there's a reasonable case for doing so - then Wakefield, with a population of 315,173 has a good claim for being the largest. Unless you know better.

I should have known that using that Trotsky-ite rag as a reference would cause my downfall.

manor15 · Feb 16, 2009

I am pretty sure that without a league football team is Wakefield (definitely not bath)

Napster · Feb 16, 2009

manor15 said:
I am pretty sure that without a league football team it is bath

Bath's population is 80,000. Which is rubbish. Wakefield is over 300,000.

manor15 · Feb 16, 2009

Napster said:
Bath's population is 80,000. Which is rubbish. Wakefield is over 300,000.

true, sorry! I think it was a c*l ewe fan who told me that

BLUEBLOOD · Feb 16, 2009

manor15 said:
true, sorry! I think it was a c*l ewe fan who told me that

That would explain it, it probably got lost in translation baa and baaa sound alike but have very different meanings obviously

Rusty Shackleford · Feb 16, 2009

It's a far easier question when you take it to the other side of the pond. Largest city without a football (US version) team in the US? I would hazard a guess at Los Angeles.

ldnfatso · Feb 16, 2009

Rusty Shackleford said:
It's a far easier question when you take it to the other side of the pond. Largest city without a football (US version) team in the US? I would hazard a guess at Los Angeles.

Thats true, The Raiders relocated to Oakland in 1992.

Rusty Shackleford · Feb 16, 2009

ldnfatso said:
Thats true, The Raiders relocated to Oakland in 1992.

And the Rams moved to St Louis in 1995.

The largest 'metropolitan area' in the US without a team in any of the four major leagues (NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA) is Las Vegas, with the Hampton Roads area of Virginia a close second. The most populous city without a team is Austin, Texas.

pringlejon · Feb 16, 2009

Napster said:
Bath's population is 80,000. Which is rubbish. Wakefield is over 300,000.

bath's population is 80,001. i moved here since that count was made.
and interesting fact...team bath is the highest ranking university football team...ranking just below bath city in Blue Square South. i'm yet to make an appearance for them though...there's always next year......