Seen a lot of posts (well at least 3) describing us as a 'small club', or "little old QPR' recently. Given that we have spent the majority (just) of the last 40 seasons in the top division, I am wondering exactly what people mean by this. We have small support? Our ambitions should be small/ we shouldn't get above ourselves? You have to have a winning history to be big? I am genuinely interested. We are obviously not a 'big' club like Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal. Have City and Chelsea always been 'big' clubs or have they turned themselves into big clubs....and if yes, why shouldn't we? When I look at the Premiership table I see a lot of teams that don't seem especially 'big' to me - Norwich, Palace, Hull, Swans, WBA, Southampton, Stoke, Fulham, Cardiff - surely we are on a par with them? Some of them should be 'bigger' than they are - I had a chuckle at the Norwich board the other day, a lot of bleating about the media/pundits picking on 'little' Norwich for sacking Hughton. Fact is they have a competition free hinterland of nearly 900,000 people in Norfolk. Its only lack of ambition, risk aversion and poor marketing that stops them getting 40k crowds every week - less than 5% of the potential support. London is a big city but there is much more competition for crowds, yet TF reckons we can get 40k. Ambition or folly? The floor is yours.
Stan, A very interesting question. I would say that all of the clubs you mentioned have a bigger catchment population than we do solely down to the competition for "custiomers" in West London, football or otherwise. Ipswich, Leicester, Wolves & Forest also fall in to that bracket. I don't think, though, that this means they are "bigger" clubs than we are. Realistically I feel that these are the clubs that are our main competition & some of them will be in the lower reaches of the Premier whilst others are near to the top of the Championship. Built into this must be the chance that at some point all of those clubs will "over" & "under" perform. Would it be possible for Queens Park Rangers to be turned into one of the giants? Possibly, but it would take a fantastic injection of money & marketing over a long period of time. This may be one of the objectives of Tony etc. but they may have miscalculated the time & money it will cost. The next question is - Do we want our club to become a biggie?
Very good OP. I was one of the posters that referred to us as being a small club. Let me reflect on it and get back to you.....mmmmm
Very good question. We have not followed the popularity curve of football since getting relegated (I mean 18 years ago), Scum were not really bigger than us then, and just look at the difference now. Not buying, or being able to buy, the White City Stadium site was a major disaster for us. If we had then built a bigger ground we would have grown over the years. Just think about the promotion season from the third tier; the ground was banged out every game (at least after Xmas), often with the away team having the lower school end and us selling out the upper. In other words, in answer to the question, we are not a little club.
Size isnt everything Stan For me its not about being a big or small club, its our chaotic approach to every aspect of 'football' that i love about us. We will never achieve Arsenal levels of consistency and thats just fine with me
Lets look at numbers to get our answer. Four teams qualify for the Playoffs and one wins. A one in four chance of success. Barring a few Pro Clubs in the Conference, we have 92 full time, FL Clubs. Taking everything into account, we're towards the upper end of Mid-Size. So in answer to the OP, we're neither big nor small.
The losing team in the first round of the play-offs has nothing to do with the equation of the eventual winners. Mathematics, me old china!
More maths: If a baseball bat and ball costs €11 and the bat costs €10 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost?
In my opinion the "big" clubs are those with traditionally a large support, the current league position is irrelevant. Wolves are still a big club, as are Leeds and Sheffield Wednesday. Even when we were beating Chelsea on a regular basis they were still a bigger club than us. I remember El Tel, when he was our manager, wanting to be as big as Chelsea; he said something on the lines of "they have thousands of fans hiding in the woodwork waiting to come out", we don't. As for where we do rank, I guess it depends on how many categories we want to classify clubs by.
My point was that we have been left behind because of many years in the wilderness, missing out when English football was booming. Just now we are "somewhere in between", but we had, and still have, a great chance of development. Who knows where we will be in ten years? Do you?
Ball costs â¬0.50 Bat costs â¬10.50 Ergo bat costs â¬10.00 more than the ball! Simples.... or have I missed something here?!
Clever clogs! Usually people read it wrongly and except the initial thought of €10 and €1 without reflecting. (It's obvious with the key!) Even maths students at university often get it wrong.
I prefer this version.... At the supporters player of the year awards night - Joey Barton and Benoît Assou-Ekotto collectively amass 11,000 votes. Joey has 10,000 more than Benoît. How many votes did Benoît Assou-Ekotto amass?