eric olthwaite wrote:I’ll be honest, though it’s probably a profound heresy to say it on here: every article like this tries to harp on about the ‘character’ of Leeds as a city as though it’s significant.
Now, a few years back, the same kind of articles were being written about Brighton and the Goldstone / lost years / Gillingham / Withdean / Amex / Premiership story, but none of them tried to invoke the ‘character’ of the city of Brighton.
But as a neutral observer it’s clear that Brighton is more ‘unique’ than Leeds if you will; whether it’s the gay scene, the vegans and the green MP, the heroin deaths or just being known as the place to take your PA for a dirty weekend shag. But no one there seems to obsess about Brighton’s identity. It just is what it is.
Bottom line is probably just that Yorkshire obsessives shouldn't be allowed to write about LUFC in the national press.
It's a bit of a heresy, but not quite a burning-at-the-stake offence. A light beating of the sole of your left foot.
Brighton certainly has its USPs, as you say. Probably more than Leeds. But every place is what it is.
The thing about Leeds' identity is that it's very much wrapped up in the football club.
Brighton's identity has many facets, but BHA is well down the list.
If you ask people what Brighton is known for, then football would probably be a good option on an episode of Pointless.
Ask people what Leeds is known for and LUFC will probably come first.
So in purely football terms ( not in others) talking of the city's identity is fair enough imo.
We are not Leeds fans or Leeds supporters or any nickname.
No definite or indefinite article is needed, no qualifiers, no adjectives.
We are Leeds.
Mirrors and copulation are abominable, since they both multiply the numbers of men.