Argyle rule
I admit I'm no expert concerning football but can someone explain to me please why Liverpool has two teams in the Premiership whilst Bristol, pretty much the same size, hasn't had one since 1980?
Biding our time... you wait!
Argyle rule
I admit I'm no expert concerning football but can someone explain to me please why Liverpool has two teams in the Premiership whilst Bristol, pretty much the same size, hasn't had one since 1980?
Hastings? Pop: 86,000it's not a town, neither is woolwich tbf, they are both areas in London
Bath is a fairly big place never to have had a league team (apart from when Rovers played there) is it the biggest city never to have had a league team?
Hastings? Pop: 86,000
The reason Bristol has crap teams is probably something to do with the popularity of Rugby in the South West.
My question was as much about Liverpool as Bristol. Anyway, which one do you support, City or Rovers?

I think more puzzling is the absence of Leeds from the top division for long periods. One of the largest cities in Britain, and a large support for football, yet they've spent almost half of the last 25 years out of the first division.bristol city (don't tell jtg) played several seasons in division one (old school) in the late 70s
Or the fact that Bristol is two small to support two elite teams and sgould have done the sensible thing and amalgamated years ago!Hastings? Pop: 86,000
The reason Bristol has crap teams is probably something to do with the popularity of Rugby in the South West.

Hastings? Pop: 86,000
The reason Bristol has crap teams is probably something to do with the popularity of Rugby in the South West.
True. If you asked what is the biggest city never to have a top flight rugby team, I reckon the answer would be a larger place! birmingham? manchester? - dont know much about rugger!

What is the criterion for defining a City? It always used to be somewhere with a cathedral but this seems to have changed eg as far as I know Brighton & Hove has no cathedral.
True. If you asked what is the biggest city never to have a top flight rugby team, I reckon the answer would be a larger place! birmingham? manchester? - dont know much about rugger!
What is the criterion for defining a City? It always used to be somewhere with a cathedral but this seems to have changed eg as far as I know Brighton & Hove has no cathedral.

Won't by Plymouth for long, Argyle are going up next year sure as eggs is eggs. With any luck they'll beat Newcastle in the playoff final![]()

A cathedral or a royal warrant is necessary IIRC. Plymouth's a city despite not having a cathedral (apart from the R C one).
Nottingham lacks for a cathedral also. The cathedral thing is a daft way to define a city, based on that you've got pisspot little barely-even-a-place-never-mind-a-city towns like Ripon and Bangor which are technically cities.
it can be having an Abbey or a University, that's how Bath got the city gig
Bath is allowed to be a city because it's got all history and that. And it's pretty.
The population of Wakefield is only 70,000. The figure of 300,000 is the population of something called Wakefield city district, which includes totally separate towns such as Castleford and Featherstone.Its NOT Plymouth at all tho. it will be when Wakefield get to the Prem and Plymouth are still waiting!!![]()
true, but it is pretty small for a city tbf, about 85,000 iirc
That's still a lot more than some of the quote unquote cities in the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallest_cities_in_the_United_Kingdom
Ely, there's another blatantly-just-a-town-with-a-big-church. Someone needs to get the old city secateurs out and do some trimming.
Liz is bang out of order, needs to make Northampton a City cos it is massive.

Ely, there's another blatantly-just-a-town-with-a-big-church. Someone needs to get the old city secateurs out and do some trimming.
Evidently her majesty is not utterly devoid of taste![]()
