The word 'big' has no real relevence in football unless it relates to the ability to generate more revenue than others and support a better squad than other clubs. Leeds do neither of these things more than most clubs in this league so I would say their current position reflects their size pretty well. The same can be said of Hull City, but our squad and set-up (including players, management and owners) seems to be better and more promising for the future.
Size can only refer to measurable things, and the only measurable things in football to determine what a big club is are income, trophies, squad quality and fanbase. Out of those, it's obvious to me which is easiest to measure and which one people refer to when they talk of big clubs. Fanbase. That's the reason why Leeds are still regarded as one of the biggest clubs in the country. I can give you figures and **** if you're into that sort of thing.
Fanbase certainly comes into it but I'd say income, squad quality, league position and spending power are just as important. Trophies isn't particularly relevant unless it's in the last season or two. For example Liverpool have loads of trophies and won the Champions League fairly recently, but it isn't going to help them win the league ahead of Man City this season because their squad quality and spending power makes them a smaller club these days. Leeds' fanbase obviously is larger than most clubs at this level, but under Bates any income is irrelevant from a football point of view and I'd say that negates the fanbase thing and puts you on a similar footing to most other sides in this division. I'd say West Ham and (unfortunately) Leicester are bigger than either of our clubs but teams like Peterborough and Donny are obviously smaller. Most of the others are pretty similar I'd say.
ISTPLT, how the **** can you say Leicester are a bigger club than Leeds?! "Oh, that way madness lies"
Because, as I keep saying but being ignored, it isn't about history. Leicester can buy who they want, that matters. Leeds used to be good, that doesn't. I really can't get my head around this big debate. Even people who think they aren't obsessed with history are obsessed with history without knowing it.
You still can't explain why. It's in your head that Leeds are massive because it's the generl football view, but you don't even know why you think that. I mentioned West Ham as well but you didn't question that. Presumably because you think their history is really important. I was referring more to the fact that they signed 3 strikers on deadline day better than anyone at most other teams in this league. That makes them big. Leicester's similar ability to buy players also makes them big. We can't buy on that scale and Leeds certainly can't (or won't at least, I'm not going to pretend I understand Bates' finances) That's what matters right now, not who used to be good.
Crawley Town have by far the biggest budget in League Two. I wouldn't say they were a bigger club than Oxford United, Swindon Town, Bradford City, Plymouth Argyle or even non-league clubs such as Luton, Wrexham or Grimsby.
I didn't think I was obsessed with history but now I know that,sub consciously, I might be ,I think I am. Well I might be but not know it or I might not be and know it. I really don't know anymore.
perhaps someone could create a formula for club bigness. just decide between you what counts and how much it counts.
So you're going on history again. Crawley are buying the whole of league 2, just because they haven't been historically good doesn't mean they can't ever be big. In 100 years time if Leeds were playing in the 9th tier of football, would they still be massive because 130 years prior they used to be good. And what if Crawley carry on getting promoted every year and win the Champions League, I guess they'll still be tiny because they weren't good in the 70s? It sounds daft but that's basically what you're suggesting; size of clubs were set in the 70s and they will never change. It wouldn't even be that hard. Just factor things like money, squad, division, fanbase and that'd do.
No need to be rude. I was just expressing myself as best I could in testing times. I'm now off into my loft to see if I can find that holdall with my school books in.
There's a difference between current power, which is based on success and wealth, where we are a Championship club end of, and potential and historical size, i.e. if every team was competing at the same level, with the same budget etc., in which case I'd say we're one of the 3-5 clubs competing for 4th place behind Arsenal, Liverpool and the scummers.
That's quite the opposite of what I'm saying. You're effectively saying that the richer a club is, and thus the more attractive a draw for transfer targets, is a major factor in determining the size of a club. If Crawley went on to win the Champions League, then clearly they'd have been successful in England and in Europe, they'd no doubt have a far bigger fanbase than now, they'd be a bigger name in world football than we are or have ever been. That's what would make them big. Not the money that made it happen.
I always talk sense. People just don't like me because I laugh at ethnic minorities and the disabled.
FFS Warnock said it himself before he was even offered our job! The only reason you disagree is because you dislike us. We have the 7th largest worldwide fanbase of any English club despite being in the Championship, that's right now, no history or living in the past there.
