Portsmouth ,Plymouth and Southampton all with populations of around 250,000,Exeter playing their biggest game for yrs with a population of around 130,000 and we’re well ahead of them .

It’s not the size that counts.

When we were in Plymouth recently a Janners fan told us that Plymouth (population circa 240,000) is officially the largest city in England never to have hosted top flight football. Burnley must be amongst the smallest cities/towns ever to be in the top flight.

When city population is measured, I’m assuming the boundaries of the city cover a much larger area than Burnley town? We’ll always be smaller than big city clubs, but if you added in Pendle, Rossendale, etc and look at it as a catchment area I’m not sure the difference is so stark?

Back in the days of our really big attendances our population was 130-140k though.

No doubt we’re doing fantastically well for our size though and that shouldn’t be overlooked when issuing out the criticism of the manager, players, etc.

I heard our wage bill is the 2nd highest in this division which means we’re ever so slightly punching below our weight.

How many people live nearby isn’t really a useful measure.

Guitargeorge wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2025 7:31 am

It’s not the size that counts.

Leeds are a sound example. Only one club in a large city around 10 times the size of Burnley (I'd only class only Newcastle in the same bracket in the whole country) and have spent the best part of 20 years outside the Premier League. Ridiculous.

rexe78202 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2025 8:33 am

Leeds are a sound example. Only one club in a large city around 10 times the size of Burnley (I'd only class only Newcastle in the same bracket in the whole country) and have spent the best part of 20 years outside the Premier League. Ridiculous.

Good, innit ?

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2025 8:19 am

When city population is measured, I’m assuming the boundaries of the city cover a much larger area than Burnley town? We’ll always be smaller than big city clubs, but if you added in Pendle, Rossendale, etc and look at it as a catchment area I’m not sure the difference is so stark?

Back in the days of our really big attendances our population was 130-140k though.

No doubt we’re doing fantastically well for our size though and that shouldn’t be overlooked when issuing out the criticism of the manager, players, etc.

All towns/cities have out-lying areas not included in their population.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2025 8:19 am

When city population is measured, I’m assuming the boundaries of the city cover a much larger area than Burnley town? We’ll always be smaller than big city clubs, but if you added in Pendle, Rossendale, etc and look at it as a catchment area I’m not sure the difference is so stark?

Back in the days of our really big attendances our population was 130-140k though.

No doubt we’re doing fantastically well for our size though and that shouldn’t be overlooked when issuing out the criticism of the manager, players, etc.

You’re quite right that the urban area that Burnley is a part of is much bigger, think it’s roughly 150k at the moment, but the highest Burnley’s population has ever been recorded at is just over 106k in the 1911 census.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2025 8:19 am

When city population is measured, I’m assuming the boundaries of the city cover a much larger area than Burnley town? We’ll always be smaller than big city clubs, but if you added in Pendle, Rossendale, etc and look at it as a catchment area I’m not sure the difference is so stark?

Back in the days of our really big attendances our population was 130-140k though.

No doubt we’re doing fantastically well for our size though and that shouldn’t be overlooked when issuing out the criticism of the manager, players, etc.

When has the population of Burnley ever been as high as 140,000?

I didn’t know the football league table was actually ordered based on size of population.

Targetman wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2025 9:30 am

When has the population of Burnley ever been as high as 140,000?

I was looking at this, only recently really, and I saw a chart on google that said it went as high as 130-140k in 30s/40s from memory.

I’ll have only googled something very simple but can’t seem to find it. Will keep looking.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2025 10:33 am

I was looking at this, only recently really, and I saw a chart on google that said it went as high as 130-140k in 30s/40s from memory.

I’ll have only googled something very simple but can’t seem to find it. Will keep looking.

Quick Google found this:

https://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit ... be/TOT_POP

rexe78202 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2025 10:34 am

Quick Google found this:

https://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit ... be/TOT_POP


pop.png

That was the one, thanks. What did you Google to get that? Can’t find it at all now.

Recalled it as peaking slightly higher and later too.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2025 10:38 am

That was the one, thanks. What did you Google to get that? Can’t find it at all now.

Recalled it as peaking slightly higher and later too.

I just Googled: burnley population since 1900

This was an odd one I just found whilst trying to find the one above.

This is used in some article discussing how Preston better transitioned to a service economy. This must have wider areas included (or just be totally wrong) as it suggests we have a bigger population than Blackburn.

https://theurbantechnologist.com/tag/burnley/

smaller than Blackburn, Preston, Blackpool, Wigan, Bolton, Rochdale, Oldham, Rochdale, even Halifax.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2025 10:38 am

That was the one, thanks. What did you Google to get that? Can’t find it at all now.

Recalled it as peaking slightly higher and later too.

Think this might be where we get into Burnley Town vs Burnley District. Same website:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140810111 ... be/TOT_POP

ChorltonCharlie wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2025 8:43 am

All towns/cities have out-lying areas not included in their population.

Yes, appreciate that, my point was more that presumably City boundaries have a larger area than town boundaries. For example, when I go to Sheffield I seem to pass in to the City of Sheffield sign mid Peak District when I still have another 30 minutes to go to get to the ground

Slight exaggeration perhaps, but for a like for like comparison, you’d need to compare the same number of square miles from the town/city centre which I don’t think is true or available from population data?

RicardoMontalban wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2025 10:53 am

Think this might be where we get into Burnley Town vs Burnley District. Same website:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140810111 ... be/TOT_POP

That would explain it. Is there any clear map of town vs district? I have had a quick google but can’t see one?

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2025 11:07 am

That would explain it. Is there any clear map of town vs district? I have had a quick google but can’t see one?

There was on the page with the larger number, though it was a little amateur. Click the boundary map tab on the left.

https://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit ... be/TOT_POP

Burnley was the smallest town out of the 92 before Accrington joined the party.

There may be other clubs since that are smaller than Burnley doubt there’s anyone smaller than Accrington.

As for top flight, at some point in time maybe but not on current standings.

As for champions of England, no one.

rexe78202 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2025 10:34 am

Quick Google found this:

https://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit ... be/TOT_POP


pop.png

Where did everyone go after 1920? Barley?

stateofthenation wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2025 11:19 am

Burnley was the smallest town out of the 92 before Accrington joined the party.

Mansfield...63000
Shrewsbury...76000
Burslem (Port Vale)...6900
Crewe...76000
Grimsby...85000
Chesterfield...76000
(2021 census)

Might be others too.

All were established decades in the 92 well before Accy.
(Unless Accringtons first stint in the league is being considered.)

So quite a few smaller.

You can only judge size by the actual Burnley boundaries,counting down he catchment area is totally false .cities like Plymouth and Exeter have huge catchment areas and hardly any competition.

Catchment is an interesting one

The brochure that John Sullivan used to try and attract Russian investment interest in the summer of 2013 stated that the town had a metropolitan population of 149k.

The brochure was produced by Eurofin Capital, who were engaged by Brendan Flood and claim to have been working on behalf of and with the full approval of the club's board). There is an interesting article in the current issue of London Claret's magazine 'Something to write home about' (issue 272) written by John Sullivan himself about the episode. For none subscribers the clarets archive at Burnley Library gets a copy of every issue.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2025 11:02 am

Yes, appreciate that, my point was more that presumably City boundaries have a larger area than town boundaries. For example, when I go to Sheffield I seem to pass in to the City of Sheffield sign mid Peak District when I still have another 30 minutes to go to get to the ground

Slight exaggeration perhaps, but for a like for like comparison, you’d need to compare the same number of square miles from the town/city centre which I don’t think is true or available from population data?

Not so much about population, but would be interesting to see a map where there's a visual representation of closest league team. Rural towns/cities like Plymouth and Norwich have huge areas including many reasonable sized towns where they're the closest club. Some clubs based in suburbs of big cities will have a surprisingly low number. We're in strange location as there's huge areas north of Burnley where we're the closest club, and we do traditionally draw some support from the Yorkshire Dales. Yet there's parts of our historical catchment areas that are closer to other current or former league clubs, such as Accrington, Bury, Rochdale.

History also plays a big part. A club like Coventry won't have the same pull as some neighbouring towns like Nuneaton because the historic success of teams like Villa.

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2025 12:55 pm

Catchment is an interesting one

The brochure that John Sullivan used to try and attract Russian investment interest in the summer of 2013 stated that the town had a metropolitan population of 149k.

The brochure was produced by Eurofin Capital, who were engaged by Brendan Flood and claim to have been working on behalf of and with the full approval of the club's board). There is an interesting article in the current issue of London Claret's magazine 'Something to write home about' (issue 272) written by John Sullivan himself about the episode. For none subscribers the clarets archive at Burnley Library gets a copy of every issue.

Interesting stuff. 150k would’ve been my guess at catchment area just from looking at other local towns too.

Stonehouse wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2025 12:01 pm

You can only judge size by the actual Burnley boundaries,counting down he catchment area is totally false .cities like Plymouth and Exeter have huge catchment areas and hardly any competition.

I disagree on your first point. Ultimately if you’re measuring a city area as say 12 square miles and a town population as say 3 square miles (I’m making this up), then naturally you’d expect a city population to be four times larger than the town even if it had the same population density per mile.

To use population fairly you’d need to know relative populations say within a 2, 5, 10, 20 mile radius of the town/city centre or probably more fairly from the ground. I’d love to see how we place in the 92 against all of those metrics, bet there would be some fascinating results.

I think the way ours are portrayed sometimes underplays the size of our catchment area which as CP suggests above, club research in the past place much higher than the population of Burnley town. Although we’re no doubt one of the smallest and definitely punching above our weight.

I agree on your last point about competition - that’s one big downside for us vs many one club cities.

As a boy I remember that the Burnley home programme used to say the only town ream in the first division (prem for those who dont remember old money)

ChorltonCharlie wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2025 1:05 pm

Not so much about population, but would be interesting to see a map where there's a visual representation of closest league team. Rural towns/cities like Plymouth and Norwich have huge areas including many reasonable sized towns where they're the closest club. Some clubs based in suburbs of big cities will have a surprisingly low number. We're in strange location as there's huge areas north of Burnley where we're the closest club, and we do traditionally draw some support from the Yorkshire Dales. Yet there's parts of our historical catchment areas that are closer to other current or former league clubs, such as Accrington, Bury, Rochdale.

History also plays a big part. A club like Coventry won't have the same pull as some neighbouring towns like Nuneaton because the historic success of teams like Villa.

Yes, just posted about this, it’d be really interesting to know population by radius.

I say this because I’ve always felt we don’t do much marketing to these areas. Definitely in the premier league years we were the only premier league club pretty much on the doorstep of surrounding towns and I’d have thought we’d do much more to develop fan bases in them really. Maybe not the done thing in the football world.

The competition and history factor is definitely relevant though because so many of our traditional support have left the area over the years.

pureclaret wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2025 1:31 pm

As a boy I remember that the Burnley home programme used to say the only town ream in the first division (prem for those who dont remember old money)

I think we just ignored Ipswich.

ElectroClaret wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2025 11:54 am

Mansfield...63000
Shrewsbury...76000
Burslem (Port Vale)...6900
Crewe...76000
Grimsby...85000
Chesterfield...76000
(2021 census)

Might be others too.

All were established decades in the 92 well before Accy.
(Unless Accringtons first stint in the league is being considered.)

So quite a few smaller.

If you use the borough / districts figures which are the ones often used for these sort of things, Burnley are currently 3rd behind Shrewsbury and Hyndburn.

I remember looking at this around the end of university when Shrewsbury must of been outside the football league.

As for top flight we are still number 1.