Jump to content

Team located farthest from represented city?


Recommended Posts

My local non-League soccerball side is Bridlington Town who, perhaps unsurprisingly, play in the town of Bridlington. However, for the best part of ten years they’ve been sharing their ground with a team that represents another town entirely.

 

Scarborough Athletic were formed in 2007 following the liquidation of former Football League side Scarborough FC, and as mentioned the new club play their games in Bridlington, around 18 miles from Scarborough. An additional quirk is that - to the best of my knowledge - Scarborough Athletic have never actually played a single match in the town whose name they carry.

 

As an aside, due to various legal issues Bridlington Town themselves were forced to play their home games in another town for a spell in the 1990s - they ended up as tenants of Doncaster Rovers, some 60+ miles away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, tigerslionspistonshabs said:

 

I was thinking this as well, but the Coliseum was only about 20 miles or so. 

 

 

They claim the city of San Francisco. Not the Bay area. 

 

No they claim the entire Bay Area as their region. They have San Francisco on the team name, but they represent the entire region as the entire region as well as the Bay in the middle of it are named after San Francisco as well.

 

I agree that they're outside the city limits of San Francisco City and County, but they're not necessarily outside the region their namesake also lends its name to and are still well within the confines of the region they represent. (and yes I understand this makes Oakland (A's/Raiders) look like they don't represent the region, but frankly that's the reality of sports in the Bay Area. SF teams are the regional team, the Oakland teams are largely irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the crow flies, the Los Angeles Angels play 26 miles and change from downtown Los Angeles and a little under 20 from the city limits at its closest point (waaaaay down by Long Beach).

 

Yeah, yeah, "of Anaheim," and all, but they went through great pains to shoehorn Los Angeles into their name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dfwabel said:

So they represent just a body of water?

I've discovered, since moving here, that the term "Tampa Bay" is commonly used to describe Tampa, St. Pete, Clearwater, and the areas around each. So in that case the Bucs, Lightning, and Rays could move to any one of those cities and still claim to be within the Tampa Bay area. They're still within the area represented by the name. 

 

With the 49ers? I take it the San Fransisco Bay area is used much like the term Tampa Bay area is. It's used to describe San Fransisco, San Jose, Oakland, Santa Clara, and the communities around each. 

So if the team was the San Fransisco Bay 49ers? It's all good. Claiming they represent the whole Bay area while using just San Fransisco though? That doesn't really work. That would be like a team in St. Pete using just the Tampa name. 

Sure, it's appropriate enough, but it's still a case of the team playing outside of the area they claim to represent. Much like the 49ers currently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

I've discovered, since moving here, that the term "Tampa Bay" is commonly used to describe Tampa, St. Pete, Clearwater, and the areas around each. So in that case the Bucs, Lightning, and Rays could move to any one of those cities and still claim to be within the Tampa Bay area. They're still within the area represented by the name. 

 

With the 49ers? I take it the San Fransisco Bay area is used much like the term Tampa Bay area is. It's used to describe San Fransisco, San Jose, Oakland, Santa Clara, and the communities around each. 

So if the team was the San Fransisco Bay 49ers? It's all good. Claiming they represent the whole Bay area while using just San Fransisco though? That doesn't really work. That would be like a team in St. Pete using just the Tampa name. 

Sure, it's appropriate enough, but it's still a case of the team playing outside of the area they claim to represent. Much like the 49ers currently.

 

Guess we'll just have to disagree. If they're in the accepted metro area of the name they're using they're still in the "city" the represent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jaffa said:

My local non-League soccerball side is Bridlington Town who, perhaps unsurprisingly, play in the town of Bridlington. However, for the best part of ten years they’ve been sharing their ground with a team that represents another town entirely.

 

Scarborough Athletic were formed in 2007 following the liquidation of former Football League side Scarborough FC, and as mentioned the new club play their games in Bridlington, around 18 miles from Scarborough. An additional quirk is that - to the best of my knowledge - Scarborough Athletic have never actually played a single match in the town whose name they carry.

 

As an aside, due to various legal issues Bridlington Town themselves were forced to play their home games in another town for a spell in the 1990s - they ended up as tenants of Doncaster Rovers, some 60+ miles away.

I'm thinking Trafford is close enough to Manchester that it's not ridiculous to call those guys in red Manchester United :D  But then you got me thinking about Rushden & Diamonds...the original incarnation played in Diamonds' pre-merger home of Irthlingborough, the current club plays in Wellingborough (though apparently not for much longer), and apparently neither incarnation of R&D has ever played in Rushden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Claiming they represent the whole Bay area while using just San Fransisco though? That doesn't really work.

 

Works just fine when teams representing the whole New York area play in Jersey and use simply "New York" as their name. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anythinglogos said:

For parts of the 2011/12, 2012/13, and 2013/14 seasons Cagliari Calcio, who usually play their football in Sardinia, used Trieste as their home stadium, some 500 miles away. 

 

That's a good point - for a short while we had the Chicago Bears play in Champaign, which is only 140 miles away.  But that was during a stadium renovation, was that why Cagliari was so far from home?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nowadays, if you want to look for that, you gotta go to MLS...Here are the distances of SSSs from their represented cities (aside from Frisco listed earlier):

 

Red Bull Arena (Harrison) (10 miles from New York City)
Rio Tinto Stadium (Sandy) (14 miles from Salt Lake City)
Toyota Park (Bridgeview) (15 miles from Chicago)
StubHub Center (Carson) (16 miles from Los Angeles)
Talen Energy Stadium (Chester) (20 miles from Philadelphia)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

 

Works just fine when teams representing the whole New York area play in Jersey and use simply "New York" as their name. 

The Jets and Giants are less than 10 miles from New York City though. That's fine.

The 49ers are a ways away from San Francisco.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MBurmy said:

Nowadays, if you want to look for that, you gotta go to MLS...Here are the distances of SSSs from their represented cities (aside from Frisco listed earlier):

 

Red Bull Arena (Harrison) (10 miles from New York City)
Rio Tinto Stadium (Sandy) (14 miles from Salt Lake City)
Toyota Park (Bridgeview) (15 miles from Chicago)
StubHub Center (Carson) (16 miles from Los Angeles)
Talen Energy Stadium (Chester) (20 miles from Philadelphia)

From downtown, maybe.  To the city limit?  Barely a mile.

 

LA's a different animal - our downtown isn't the grand focal point that it is in other cities.

 

Plus, Carson is in LA County so it has that going for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

"Legally"?

 

In the sense that the City of New York is a separate legal entity from Nassau County, I guess.

 

I asked in another thread when "Tampa Bay" became the prevailing name for the Tampa-St. Pete region and whether the Buccaneers in fact coined it as such. No one got back to me, sooooo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Jaffa said:

My local non-League soccerball side is Bridlington Town who, perhaps unsurprisingly, play in the town of Bridlington. However, for the best part of ten years they’ve been sharing their ground with a team that represents another town entirely.

 

Scarborough Athletic were formed in 2007 following the liquidation of former Football League side Scarborough FC, and as mentioned the new club play their games in Bridlington, around 18 miles from Scarborough. An additional quirk is that - to the best of my knowledge - Scarborough Athletic have never actually played a single match in the town whose name they carry.

 

As an aside, due to various legal issues Bridlington Town themselves were forced to play their home games in another town for a spell in the 1990s - they ended up as tenants of Doncaster Rovers, some 60+ miles away.

 

It's not a great distance all things considered, but when non-league Worcester City FC left their ground in 2013 they played a couple of seasons at Kidderminster Harriers' Aggborough Stadium, around 16 miles from their previous home. They now play home games at Bromsgrove's ground, a mere 13 or so miles.

 

Don't know if this counts, but for their final season the WLAF's London Monarchs played certain home games both in Bristol (about 120 miles away) and Birmingham (about 130 miles away) in an attempt to drum up bigger crowds. It didn't work, seeing as they shut down at the end of that season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.