Jump to content

tyne-wear..more than football.


madras

Recommended Posts

Seen it before but I just noted this "In the epoch before the 1600s, King Charles I had consistently awarded the East of England Coal Trade Rights."

Charles I's father James I didn't become King of England until 1603 iirc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not entirely convinced by the coal/civil war elements contributing to the rivalry.

 

I did my Uni dissertation on the Tyne-Wear derby, and investigated the whole historical aspects of it all.

 

It sounds very romantic to say that the rivalry dates back to the early coal merchants and the civil war, but I don't think it's the case.

 

This is probably going to turn into a lenghty post, but I'll explain why.

 

 

There were definitely tensions between the Tyne and the Wear over the coal trade.

Coal mining began on Tyneside in the 1200s with collieries owned by the Prior of Tynemouth and the Bishop of Durham. Even at this time there was feeling that the Palatinate of Durham lacked a satisfactory outlet to export its coals. Newcastle was beginning to grow into a significant coal port due to its status as a Royal Borough which granted the city's burgesses special privaleges and advantages.

In response, the Bishop of Durham Hugh de Puiset chartered his own Borough of Wearmouth and granted privileges to local merchants. However despite this, Newcastle still dwarfed Wearmouth.

 

The position of the Newcastle Burgesses was furthered strengthened by additional privileges during the reigns of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. By 1625, annual exports of Tyne coal had reached 400,000 tons, rising to 600,000 tons by the eve of the Civil War.

 

When the civil war broke out, Newcastle, as a Royal Borough with special privileges declared support for King Charles I. Sunderland, stifled by Newcastle's dominance was a parliamentarian stronghold.

 

That much is all true.

 

The problem is however, that Newcastle did not just dominate and stifle the trade of Sunderland. Newcastle's charters gave the city the rights to all sorts of things. For instance, Newcastle controlled the Tyne, which meant that any fish caught in the river had to be brought to Newcastle and sold there so that the merchants could get the cut bestowed to them by the crown. It was the same for bread and beer. If a ship was stuck at the mouth of the Tyne, it was a Newcastle pilot that went to the rescue. Basically, Newcastle prospered at the expence of the surrounding region. It wasn't just Sunderland that held animosity towards Newcastle. It was also Gateshead, the various towns and villages of Northumberland, North Shields, Tynemouth - all places that very much define themselves as Geordies. All places that are today pro-Newcastle, staunch Mag territories.

 

Also, looking into Victorian times. Immediately before Football, the most popular pastime on Tyneside was rowing. Rowing contests on the Tyne attracted crowds numbering tens of thousands of people, and the 'Tyne Rowers' including the likes of Harry Clasper (a world champion, who was the Victorian sporting superstar). The big rivalry in the world of rowing were the contests between the Tyne Rowers and the Thames Rowers. Not only would tens of thousands line Newcastle quayside, but thousands of spectators from the North East would travel to London to watch the contests down there.

 

I've looked at accounts and reports describing these contests and there is something striking. The support for the Tyneside rowers didn't stop with the people of Newcastle or Tyneside in general. There are reports of the continuous arrivals at Central Station of excursion trains bringing Rowing fans from across the region, from out in Northumberland, from Durham and Consett. But crucially from Sunderland and the towns of East County Durham - towns that are 'Mackem' but that came in support of Harry Clasper and the rowers of the Tyne. Because in those days there was no Tyne-Wear rivalry. The rivalry was the North East v London. It was beating the capital that mattered, and a victory by the Tyne Rowers over the Thames Rowers was a victory for the whole region).

 

If you look at the early days of Football in the North East, the rivalry was not very strong. During the 1880s, there was no interest of any Tyne-Wear rivalry. The main rivalry in both Newcastle and Sunderland came in the form of cross-town affairs.

Newcastle was involved in the East End - West End split which shouldn't be underestimated. When West End folded and East End moved to St James' and took the name Newcastle United, the club lost a lot of support. West End fans were furious that their ground had been taken over by their rivals. East End fans were also angry that the club had moved out of Heaton, away from the club's support base. The very early years of Newcastle United were plagued by poor crowds, which in turn resulted in financial difficulties, caused directly by cross-town animosities. It took a couple of years for fans to come to terms with it, and for both East and West to rally behind United.

 

In Sunderland, Sunderland AFC had formed in 1879, but arguments amongst members led to some members leaving to form the breakaway Sunderland Albion. That also split support in Sunderland between the two clubs throughout the 1880s. Eventually Sunderland Albion folded in 1892, the same year as East End did, and although Sunderland didn't suffer as much financial problems as Newcastle (Sunderland had established themselves in the league, and therefore drew a greater support base than Albion) there was split, and it took Albion's fans a while to come around to supporting their rivals.

 

In fact, Sunderland were actually supportive of Newcastle. As a First Division club, Sunderland were able to offer support and encouragement to, and helped to alleviate Newcastle's financial problems by playing friendly games against Newcastle as fundraisers.

 

I then went on to study the competative derby matches, looking at Newspaper reports in the Evening Chronicle, the Journal, the Sunday Sun and the Sunderland Echo for EVERY SINGLE DERBY MATCH played between December 24 1898 and April 17 2006.

 

I'm not going to go into it in any great detail, but although right from the start, there are references to 'Local Rivals' the whole tone and accounts of the games portray the games as competative but friendly. Wors such as 'good-natured', 'good-humoured', 'neighbourly' are used constantly right up until around the mid 1960s. The first newspaper report that focusses on a fierce or violent rivalry comes in March 1969 with skinheads fighting at Central Station and along Neville Street.

 

Of course there were occassional incidents of violence and disorder. The most famous being the 'Good Friday' derby of 1901 at St James' Park. However, like much of the disorder that occurred in Football grounds before the First World War (and perhaps even up until the 1950s) it was an isloated incident, caused not by rivalry, but by overcrowding and the decision of the referee to call the game off because of it.

 

There was simply to big a demand to see the game. St James' at the time had a capacity of 30,000, but 70,000 people attempted to get in. The gates were locked 45 minutes before kick off with many tens of thousands of supporters locked out. They were desperate to get in, and broke down fences, forcing their way inside past outnumbered gatemen and police officers. There were so many inside, that the crowd was spilling out onto the pitch, making it impossible to play the game. The referee took the decision to call it off, which angered many and fighting broke out. Not Newcastle against Sunderland, just a free for all basically. Which is how the majority of the rare examples of Football violence at this time can be explained.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest RodrigoPalacio

It's a game of football to me, and I hope we win, just like every other, except I'm going to get grief off the folk at uni (Sunderland Uni at that!) if we lose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kill them?

 

aye kill the basdas

 

You're the worst WUM we've ever had on this forum. :clap:

 

what do you mean

i am passionate about the derbies and i am not a wum

Of course i don't mean kill them but i do hate them and if you have a problem with that then tough as for the people who say it is just another game get a grip of yourselves idiots

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kill them?

 

aye kill the basdas

 

You're the worst WUM we've ever had on this forum. :clap:

 

what do you mean

i am passionate about the derbies and i am not a wum

Of course i don't mean kill them but i do hate them and if you have a problem with that then tough as for the people who say it is just another game get a grip of yourselves idiots

 

 

I'm passionate about the derbies. Most exciting match of the season, but I don't hate any of 'em. Considering some of my best mates will be in stands, wouldn't really make sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest jimmy1982

Nice one Tom, interesting stuff. Bet you had a whale of a time researching for your dissertation - musn't have felt like work in a way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest RodrigoPalacio

HANG ON A SEC.....

 

Did my grandad just inform me that he had two tickets for the game and wanted me to go with him?

 

Thought so.  Do we have a case of soopafanitis?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...