BosworthBear wrote:

LeicesterExile wrote:

Wasn't it done to satisfy the city council being as they provided a large sum for the ground improvements. They wanted WCCC to promote the name of Birmingham.

Publicly the city council stated they weren’t pressuring the Club. In the days when Brian Halford could speak his mind in the Evening Mail.

But even if privately it was true they now have the Birmingham Phoenix.

This is such an easy PR and marketing win for WCCC to revert back to playing as Warwickshire Bears!

Totally agree - When you look down the fixture list Birmingham amongst all the counties looks a little daft. And you never hear the young 'uns chanting Birmingham la lal la !!

What the council appear to forget, we have a fair few fans/supporters/members who like football and the thought that any of the Villa, Wolves, Coventry, W.B.A., etc fans would shout the word 'Birmingham' is very remote. That appears to be why the Yorkshire 'The Hundread' brand didn't want to call themselves 'Leeds' as they knew all other towns/cities in Yorkshire would not turn up to watch a side called Leeds. Strange that the Manchester-based side have actually called themselves 'Manchester'. I would love to know how many members around Lancashire who come from anywhere else in the county, have stayed away because of this.

On the name of the Blast team I'm willing to give the club some slack at this point. I do think traditional members like the traditional name in all formats and that's very valid and concerns are real - it does look daft when seeing the tables just as it looked daft seeing Glamorgan when they were called 'Wales'. However I can understand it from the club's point of view also. The term Warwickshire seems to have less resonance today within the city itself than it did 30 years ago. I very much doubt many kids learn at school that Brum was even part of Warwickshire. I think the club and the city council want Birmingham to have that same gravitas that Manchester has for quite some time now in the north west - that same allure especially given how fantastic the city can show itself to be. Manchester doesn't seem to get the same kind of negative attitude towards it from neighbouring boroughs like Bury and Bolton that Brum used to from Black Country folk and dormitory towns in the shires. Same is true of London and its relationship to other parts of the South East it seems more symbiotic rather than tribal. Maybe this is reducing over time too and youngsters in Sandwell and Dudley etc and dormitory towns like Lichfield and Bromsgrove... now find it very comfortable identifying with the idea that they live and work in an area that could easily be called 'Greater Birmingham' and they'd be happy about that fact in a way that previous generations of Black Country folk would rail against.

In a round about way what I'm getting at is the club seems to have explored ways to widen it's reach within the wider West Midlands conurbation and that has led them to adopting Birmingham or simply 'Bears' as a name reflecting that a significant proportion of the club's potential fanbase are not based in Warwickshire or have any real sense of the county as an entity. Whether the club has been successful in widening it's reach as a result of this is questionable

realcounties.org.uk

I'm sure you'll be aware of this campaign bosworth. It is interesting the way county identity has slipped in the much of the UK in a way that hasn't been the case in for example Ireland. Ireland has done a better job of retaining county identities in the contemporary age where in Britain people are far more likely to identify with their city or town. Britain being more of an urban metropolitan country these days with vast suburbs housing two thirds of the population. Similar to the USA and Australia post 1950's prior to which even in America there was far clearer distinction between town and country

mad wrote:

realcounties.org.uk

I'm sure you'll be aware of this campaign bosworth. It is interesting the way county identity has slipped in the much of the UK in a way that hasn't been the case in for example Ireland. Ireland has done a better job of retaining county identities in the contemporary age where in Britain people are far more likely to identify with their city or town. Britain being more of an urban metropolitan country these days with vast suburbs housing two thirds of the population. Similar to the USA and Australia post 1950's prior to which even in America there was far clearer distinction between town and country

Interesting point of view. However, the problem is we have a cricket club called Warwickshire putting out a team called Birmingham. Perhaps what is needed is for one or two teams to change their name. Warwickshire becomes Greater Birmingham and likewise Lancashire becomes Greater Manchester. Surrey could become South London, Middlesex North London.

Back to the day - here are my reflections:
https://deepextracover.com/2023/05/blast-off/

mad wrote:

realcounties.org.uk

I'm sure you'll be aware of this campaign bosworth. It is interesting the way county identity has slipped in the much of the UK in a way that hasn't been the case in for example Ireland. Ireland has done a better job of retaining county identities in the contemporary age where in Britain people are far more likely to identify with their city or town. Britain being more of an urban metropolitan country these days with vast suburbs housing two thirds of the population. Similar to the USA and Australia post 1950's prior to which even in America there was far clearer distinction between town and country

I am aware of the work they do to highlight the historic counties. Its often forgotten that when the administrative counties like West Mids were set up the legislation specifically stated this wasn't supposed to change traditional loyalties or sports clubs.

Birmingham seems to have a problem. Manchester still willingly describes itself as Lancashire. Leeds and Sheffield describe themselves as Yorkshire. somehow Birmingham lost its identity in the traditional county of Warwickshire.

But even putting that aside I'm not sure I've ever met anybody from anywhere who welcomes the change to Birmingham Bears.

It just seems like the Club knows it made a mistake. The then Chairman of ECB told me they told Warwickshire not to do it and how important Warwickshire was as a brand. But rather than admit they were wrong the Club are trying to call them "the Bears" as a half way house. But it doesn't work because of the formal listings. This is such an easy won for them if they embrace it and change the name to the Club's actual name!

Bosworth Bear you have just used a word quoted by the chairman of the ECB which is probably the most compelling reason to return to Warwickshire Bears. That word is "BRAND". Warwickshire is a brand with history and explains why kids from across Birmingham will chant it.

Birmingham as a city is so different to Manchester and Leeds/Sheffield in that several counties converge there - Worcestershire, Staffs, Warks. but then they did when the club was established.

LeicesterExile wrote:

mad wrote:

realcounties.org.uk

I'm sure you'll be aware of this campaign bosworth. It is interesting the way county identity has slipped in the much of the UK in a way that hasn't been the case in for example Ireland. Ireland has done a better job of retaining county identities in the contemporary age where in Britain people are far more likely to identify with their city or town. Britain being more of an urban metropolitan country these days with vast suburbs housing two thirds of the population. Similar to the USA and Australia post 1950's prior to which even in America there was far clearer distinction between town and country

Interesting point of view. However, the problem is we have a cricket club called Warwickshire putting out a team called Birmingham. Perhaps what is needed is for one or two teams to change their name. Warwickshire becomes Greater Birmingham and likewise Lancashire becomes Greater Manchester. Surrey could become South London, Middlesex North London.

I certainly wouldn't want any of that. We just have to see the motivation at play here. Warwickshire because they have a big ground and a recent (post 1980's) record of success overall either 1st or 2nd most successful county side in that period, see themselves as a big county up with Yorkshire Lancs and Surrey. The next generation of cricket fan available to a club based in what was at least up until the commonwealth games a rather unppealing/uninviting inner city area of South Biimingham (particularly during rush hour and late evening) may not identify with Warwickshire as a real place (other than when they did English civil war history topic at school). To get the locals to take notice of the club it was thought required a complete overhaul. I do however think now the precinct around the stadium coupled with decent public transport options (pretty please) and the long overdue installation of cycle lanes separated from the main highway and a slight fall in rush hour traffic particularly on Fridays makes it more appealing for visitors so they can have confidence reverting to the historic and famous name

Edgbaston is a similar walking or taxi distance from the centre of Brum as the Oval is from Charing Cross Station so could in theory be able to draw in that type of crowd perhaps not midweek however

Regarding cities v counties, what ECB Chair Richard Thompson has to say in The Cricketer is interesting:
""Cities are crucial to us because of the huge population in those areas. And also a lot of diverse communities live in cities. So that's where we as a game need to play. So I think it certainly will be reflected in the County Partnership Agreement version two, ensuring that those areas don't get overlooked."