Do you tire of being completely wrong? Clearly not. On a serious note, do other Spurs fans feel embarrassed by this guy (assuming you're a guy here by the way)? Obsessed with Liverpool, arrogant, spouts rhetoric and nonsense 99% of the time.
Coming straight out of the gate with the victim complex I see... ...and then moving on to the history lesson, rather than mention the present day facts - such as three seasons in a row without Champions League football, and out of Europe entirely this season. By that logic, you're saying that Stoke are a bigger club than you because they can qualify for Europe when you cannot. But such a statement is ludicrous. Here's the ultimate proof that history is irrelevant in calculating the "size" of a club: Nottingham Forest have won the European Cup as many times as Juventus. This would make Forest a "big club" in your view, yet Forest haven't been in the top flight for the best part of a decade, and the City Ground has vast swathes of empty seats - usually around 8000 - every game, which means they are not. Or you could then try and say that, because Manchester United have never won the UEFA Cup/Europa League, they aren't as big a club as Ipswich Town. There's a subtle difference between real life events and a game of Top Trumps, you know. It's also funny you aren't tripping over each other to bang on about Celtic's European Cup win making them bigger than I listed them (and if anyone does, I'll just point out that puts them on the same level of bigness as Red Star Belgrade...) I was in Tokyo this time last year, and do you know which clubs' shirts that were available in the sporting chain stores there alongside that of the Japan national team? Manchester United, Barca, Real Madrid - not a Liverpool shirt in sight. It's not a global fanbase when your fanbase is concentrated in Liverpool and Dublin, just like Celtic's isn't global because theirs is in Glasgow and Dublin (and Japan, when Shunsuke Nakamura played for them...) Spurs can claim they have global support, given our games get coverage in the Croatian press (entirely down to the Croatian contingent) but that doesn't make us a "big club" - if we were covered without having a single Croat on our books at any point in our history we would be a "big club" - and it can be argued our links to the San Jose Earthquakes and Supersport boosts our profile in the US and South Africa, but that doesn't put us anywhere near the global ubiquity of Manchester United, Barca, Real Madrid or to a certain degree the Milan clubs.
Let's see if we can get it back. What must be stressed, going back to the OP - or Holte's tiresome and delusional crap about Villa being a big club on Old606 - is that the perceived size of a club can change over time, based on circumstances beyond winning X trophy in year Y. Take, for example, Ajax. Whilst you can say that they were one of the biggest clubs in football in the 1970s, with three straight European Cup wins, it has to be said that they have lost the mantle of being the biggest club in Holland to PSV due to a combination of PSV winning more titles, and they have been closing in on Ajax's number of titles in recent years, whilst neither team has set the European stage alight in recent years as in this day and age the top players don't move on after a few successful seasons at Ajax/PSV/Feyenoord, as they're more likely to get poached from their academies or after their debut season. Think about it: Cruyff spent nine years in Ajax's first team and Bergkamp seven, meanwhile Davids, Sneijder and Van Der Vaart left within five years of signing professional forms, whilst Kluivert and Seedorf were gone in three. On the flip side to that, Bayern also won three straight European Cups in the 70s, immediately after Ajax's wins, but are considered "bigger" because they can hold on to their top players (notably Ribery, Laham and Schweinsteiger in their current team) which Ajax have been unable to do since the late 90s, and have a more consistent record in their domestic league. There's also the fact Porto have always been considered "small" on the European stage, yet their two European Cup/Champions League wins matches that of Juventus, who are considered "big."
Who even cares whether Sunderland or Us are bigger? Supporting a team has nothing to do with the size of their fan base, stadium capacity/attendance, the club's revenue or trophies won long before your time. It's really scraping the barrell when you get concerned with bragging rights on the internet, I'd rather talk about what goes on, on the pitch than argue about stuff that bears little resemblance to the reason I love football and Spurs.
You never met one kid I went to school with. In the five years he was there he supported: Norwich, Liverpool and Man Utd in the same year, Newcastle, and was considering switching to Blackburn as he "liked their kit." Lats time I bumped into him, in about 1998, I just bluntly asked if he was a Gooner yet... Actually, Blackburn are a case in point - they've won the Overcompensating For Something Trophy whilst teams like Spurs, Newcastle and Liverpool haven't, so on the face of it that would make them a "bigger" club. The reality of the situation is that they are one of the "smallest" clubs in the league this season.
I've been to quite a few countries throughout Europe and I always see Liverpool shirts, wherever I go. You talk to Africans, Americans and Asians online (and I have, mainly on music websites really) they will tell you that people support Liverpool en masse. Milan, United, Liverpool, Bayern, Barca and Madrid, in no particular order, have HUGE worldwide support. Just look at the pre-season tour Liverpool took to Asia last year - it was massively well attended. And to say our support in Ireland is limited to Dublin is simply ludicrous - I live in Northern Ireland, and believe me, we practically ALL support United or Liverpool (and it's pretty much 50/50), with a small minority of Arsenal/Chelsea fans. One guy that lives down my street supports Spurs and he's the only one I know. I know two Everton fans, also. To say we don't enjoy huge worldwide support, and really we could be here all night proving the point, is simply wrong. Sorry, it's just wrong. Other aspects of a big club - we have a good (but not big enough) stadium which we fill every match, rich European success, rich domestic success (albeit no league titles for a long time), recent major trophy (2012 and another final), rich owners who will invest, several good and indeed arguably world class players. We're the worst we've been in a long time and we're still hugely disappointed to be finishing 6-8th in the league.
You've lost the plot lad. Our history was added to in march,and why go back only 3 seasons?,could'nt be that Spurs never had a sniff of the CL before then could it? We have'nt won the European Cup twice,we've won it only less times than Real and Milan,ffs of course Utd are bigger than Ipswich Celtic 60,000 home attendance,been champions of Europe,got a worldwide support,guess that would make them a big club. http://www.nafcsc.com/clubs/world.shtml Keep telling yourself our support isn't global,because You never saw a Liverpool shirt on sale in the sports shop you visited in Tokyo. Theres even a Tokyo branch of our 'global' supporters clubs you prune. http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/club/aib/ You've deffo seen your arse on this topic lad. Keep biting.
I think Spurs are bigger than Sunderland, we've won six major trophies since they last won one. We have a bigger income, and have done so for many years. We are Prem ever presents, they aren't. Here's Spurs and Sunderland's place on the trophy table. http://www.krysstal.com/trophies.html We're 5th, they're 13th. Here's our top flight points total http://www.statto.com/football/stats/england/premier-league/all-time-table/full We're 7th they're 10th Here's our Prem points total http://www.statto.com/football/stats/england/premier-league/all-time-table/pl-years We're 6th they're 17th. Notice how the gap between us and Sunderland has grown in the Prem era, compared to the all time table. Sunderland's glories are very much rooted in the pre-war past, in the Prem era we've opened up a massive gap on them. Re fan base, my guess would be domestically we have a 2 or 3 three times bigger fanbase than them. If you take into account all our fans globally, it would be about 3 or 4 times bigger in favour of Spurs. You're on Facebook, check the stats there, I bet we're at least 4 times bigger than Sunderland.
These days, I tend to play to the gods. With threads on both the Gooner and Chav boards, I've got to think of my fans
If you had a clue what the plot was in the first place, you could comment on other people losing it. I must've missed the meeting where it was agreed that League Cups count double in calculating what makes a "big club" Why do I mention you haven't been in the Champions league for three seasons? Easy, because it's far more relevant to your club winning the trophy way back when, in those dark days before the back pass rule was changed. Since the back pass rule was changed, your success dried up overnight. Coincidence? You really don't get the part about me pointing out the ridiculousness of going on about winning trophies way back when, do you? Just because there's one way Ipswich can beat Man Utd in a game of Top Trumps, that doesn't make Ipswich bigger than Man Utd. It's the same as the Forest fans when they were in League One that were chanting that they won the European Cup - it means nothing when you're playing a home fixture against Hartlepool. Red Star Belgrade: 55,000 home support and been champions of Europe a hell of a lot more recently than Celtic. Would you consider them a big club? No, you wouldn't. You don't register on the Far Eastern market, so your brand is not as far-reaching as you'd believe. To my knowledge, Liverpool have never been on a Far Eastern tour - like Man Utd, Chelsea, Barca and Real have - which indicates a lack of support for Liverpool in the Far Eastern market, which is a lucrative market if you can crack it. Seriously, don't apply for a job in marketing or advertising... Yet there isn't a market for replica shirts of the club to tour there. There's also the fact their Facebook site has the grand total of 650 members - the page for my local pub has more members that that. If you like, you can apply for a job in Liverpool's marketing department, spend the summer spending the club's money appeasing those 650 people, and wonder why the club have to lay off several members of staff - especially you - to cover the losses. I've seen you talking out of yours.
1. Who said anything about the league cup counting as double? Since 2000, we have won 9 trophies (7 if you don’t want to count the Super Cup) yes we have not won the league since 1990 but we have still consistently won things. Yes we have not been in the Champions League for the last couple of seasons but the discussion is about ‘big clubs’, now ask every supporter across Europe to name 3 football teams in England and I would stake a bet Liverpool would be named the majority of the time. 2. Yes, it is such a shame the backpass rule was changed, remind me again what it was? Are you trying to suggest Liverpool (and Liverpool alone) were expert exponents of the art of the backpass and used it to win title after title? Did no other team know they were allowed to backpass? So in your wisdom how far back is it acceptable to go back? Should all those Utd fans sing about winning 12 premier league titles, not 19 league titles? 3. Thanks for saying ‘to my knowledge Liverpool have never been on a Far Eastern Tour’ firstly who is our shirt sponsor? I will give you a clue, around 90% of its profits come from Africa, Asia and the Middle East, they do not do a great deal of business in the UK and do not plan to do so, they began the sponsorship for you guessed it, global exposure. Now back to your all important tour, I am surprised with all your knowledge of LFC that you cannot remember as far back as summer 2011 were your favourite team travelled to China and Malaysia. 4. I have also been to Tokyo before (incidentally Liverpool have played in Tokyo, it’s a little know event called the Intercontinental Cup, look it up its where all the big boys play) and I have seen Liverpool shirts, you only need to walk around Anfield on matchday and you will regularly see Japanese tourists (if thats the bar of being deemed a 'big club'). As PMK said, based on our total trophies won, our global fanbase and merchandise sales, the fact that we are still in the worlds top 10 most valuable clubs(according to Forbes), and not forgetting our being European Champions 5 times makes us a very big club (and why don't we also add the all important, toured the far east). But it is pointless arguing with you as you know this. I would love to know where your hatred of LFC comes from.
Page_Moss_Kopite did. Why else did you think I brought it up? As for asking supporters across Europe to name three English clubs, the liklihood is the answers would be: Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal - in that order. Considering the other teams who regularly reached European finals in the 70s and 80s (such as Ajax, Bayern, Milan, Real et al) have consistently done so since the back pass rule was changed, which Liverpool have not, I would say your attempt to say it wasn;t just Liverpool that were wrecking European football as a spectacle has one fundamental flaw - nobody else has been affected by it. If UEFA outlaw goalkeepers having wobbly legs during penalty shoot-outs, you wouldn;t have a prayer even if you did reach a CL final. Let's get this straight: Because your shirt sponsor does business in the Far East, that means your club has a massive following in the Far East? Errm...care to run that past me again? Does that mean that, when Carlsberg were your sponsors, you were a massive club in Denmark? Don't be so utterly absurd. Also, in case you weren't aware, China and Japan are not the same place... So not an tour of Japan to appease those 650 die-hards that Page_Moss_Kopite said made you a club with massive global appeal (but not as massive as a pub in Croydon...) and to expand the brand awareness in the country? And again your first defence is to jump into the history books, rather than look at the present day. Also, the smoke and mirrors of you bringing up the Forbes list cannot hide the following facts: 1.) Liverpool placed eighth on the list - and their value is closer to 13th placed Lyon than 3rd placed Arsenal 2.) Liverpool's value is less than half of Arsenal's 3.) Liverpool's value plummeted 33% for the 2011 list 4.) Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal are all more valuable than you are 5.) Liverpool were ranked 5th in 2009, 6th in 2010, and 9th in 2011 - noticing a pattern here? http://www.forbes.com/2011/04/20/worlds-most-valuable-soccer-teams_slide.html Have you read the entry for Liverpool on the list? Here it is, in full: New England Sports Ventures paid $476 million to buy the debt-laden team from Tom Hicks and George Gillett in October. Meanwhile, here is the entry for Tottenham: Great job of managing player costs while achieving success on the pitch has made team extremely profitable. Participation in Champions League has helped surge in value as broadcast revenue and commercial revenue were up 15% and 10%, respectively, last season. Hotspur is also among the strongest English soccer brands, with a season ticket waiting list of 33,000 and 166 million followers worldwide. Liverpool being described as "debt laden" and little more, Spurs being described as "one of the strongest English soccer brands" with increased commercial and broadcast revenue and, crucially, it meantions the number of worldwide followers. For an investor, that is saying one thing: Spurs are a better investment than Liverpool at the moment. And again with the victim complex... Two things that should have occurred to people on Not606 by now: 1.) I have a low tolerance of idiotic people - and Liverpool fans are the most idiotic set of fans in English football 2.) When I say something, you can bet your backside that I can back it up.
Well we will have to agree to disagree on that one There can be many arguments made for why we have not won the league since 1990, I would put the backpass rule right at the bottom. Since the rule change in 92 we have won 11 trophies (6 less than Spurs have won in 130 years, or 9 more than Spurs in the same time) would suggest the rule change isnât the issue (sorry I forgot we won those trophies from wobbly legs) Your mixing up your arguments around now, you claimed âyou don't register on the Far Eastern market, so your brand is not as far-reaching as you'd believeâ China is in the Far East I believe. My point was if a sponsor pays £80mill to put its name on a shirt the club better well register in its most important markets. Hereâs what Standard Chartered say âIt's no real surprise then that our sponsorship of Liverpool FC is already proving popular in our markets across the world. We've been able to bring the club to events in Kenya, Hong Kong and Korea - and that's just for starters!â Carlsberg are a worldwide brand, along with selling to worldwide markets they have a heavy presence in the UK. Standard Chartered do not, they became our sponsor to specifically grow their business overseas, not in the UK. They obviously believe LFC give them worldwide exposure and specifically in their key markets of Africa, Asia and the Middle East. I also would imagine they did a little bit of research first (well more than taking a trip to Tokyo and see what shirts are in a shop) I would trust their judgement before I believe your research. I agree with you on the Forbes list, it is hightly debateable, Forbes valuation of us in 2008 was a laughable $1billion hence why their valuation has gone down each year. But lets just point out, Liverpool are no longer debt laden, Liverpools turnover is about 30% more than Spurs even without the Champions League. You point out: 1.) Liverpool placed eighth on the list - and their value is closer to 13th placed Lyon than 3rd placed Arsenal â So yes I would include the 8th most valuable club, along with one of the most successful clubs in the world as a âbig clubâ 2.) Liverpool's value is less than half of Arsenal's â Whilst its turnover is only 20% more, in anycase they are a more valuable company but does that not make us a âbig clubâ? 3.) Liverpool's value plummeted 33% for the 2011 list â See above, Forbes valuation in 2008 was based on nothing more than what the cowboys claimed the club was worth. Itâs been brought down to a more realistic valuation based on a sale, note that most others on the list the valuation is an estimate. 4.) Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal are all more valuable than you are â Indeed and they are all big clubs, is there a ceiling in the amount of clubs allowed to be called âbigâ? 5.) Liverpool were ranked 5th in 2009, 6th in 2010, and 9th in 2011 - noticing a pattern here? Yes, were still top 10 and despite ownership and debt issues in the past, and no champions league football we are still in the top 10. I only started this discussion as I am puzzled by your obvious distain for my club. In the greater scheme of things these arguments about âbig clubâ âsmall clubâ are just petty and mean very little. I will go on supporting and being proud to support my team as Iâm sure you will go on supporting Spurs, good luck with that.
