Considering SB's recent comments about us being a small club and some interesting comments on the "Bruce close to quitting" thread I was wondering whether we could pin down a list of valid categories that define the "size" of a club and then see how we compare to others? The obvious ones to me are: A) Average league position over a defined number of years. = (Category worth ?% of total) / Our score (?%) B) Club wealth = (Category worth ?% of total) / Our score (?%) C) Fan base size (existing and potential) = (Category worth ?% of total) / Our score (?%) D) Average attendance = (Category worth ?% of total) / Our score (?%) E) Ground size = (Category worth ?% of total) / Our score (?%) F) Team quality and value = (Category worth ?% of total) / Our score (?%) G) Youth system = (Category worth ?% of total) / Our score (?%) H) Success (medals, promotion, finals, Europe etc) over a defined number of years = (Category worth ?% of total) / Our score (?%) I) History = (Category worth ?% of total) / Our score (?%) J) Coverage/ Interest (Media / National/ International/ Betting) = (Category worth ?% of total) / Our score (?%) K) Merchandise sales = (Category worth ?% of total) / Our score (?%) Any others?
Club privilege largest in the world according to The Guinness book of records, holds over 10,000 people...
I don't really care about big/little/medium sized or whatever. All that really matters is how well you are doing. I don't think any club has a divine right to do better than others.
media coverage international interest betting interest merchandise sales Man City probably tick most boxes , but as i grew up in the 70s and 80s i will always consider Liverpool and Forest as being bigger I know im giving historical success more weight than it needs , but theres no hiding from the fact that history is what we remember If Man City can be a top side for a few years , those 7-18 yr olds of today will look at Man City forever as a "Big Club"
I would have thought that the club with the largest attendance, which Man City have, would be considered a big club.
Generally speaking - although Sunderland are probably the most notable example - I'd say the size of the city is also a factor.
History plays far too big a part in peoples thinking. For instance, Leeds utd are a bigger club, because they have won things in the past ect. But then you could argue, Hull city are bigger,because they are a premier league club. Premier league games are shown all over the world and Championship games are not. Weve spent four of the last five years in the top flight,so young people(the important ones if we want to grow as a club),will be far more conscious of Hull City, than they are of Leeds Utd. When we first made the prem,an eight year old for instance,will now be a 13 year old. That kid will be far more aware of Hull,than he will be of Leeds. The longer we stay in the top flight and the longer Leeds stay down,the bigger the gap will become. I think if this remains the same for maybe another five years, then there will no longer be an argument. Now all we need to do is stay up. Bring on Leicester City
Wasn't always the case but is more nowadays. The first 6 years I took,any tnterest in football Wolves won the title twice, Burnley and Ipswich as well. The cup was won by Wolves and Bolton. Then the maximum wage was abolished. Look at the list of largest attendances. If we had got the same percentage of population watching as Huddersfield, Bolton and Blackburn did we would have had over 120,000 in the case of Burnley over 150,000. Liverpool however are surprisingly low on the list. As are Nottingham Forest. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_home_attendances_of_English_football_clubs
Being a big club and being a successful club are not necessarily the same thing, especially where attendances are concerned. When Ajax were dominating Europe they had a stadium which held 27,000 (though they used the Olympic stadium for big European matches). Similar with Borussia Monenchengladbach, they had a relatively small stadium when they were a power in German football.
I wouldn't class half the PL as big clubs, however I also wouldn't class the likes of Forest & Leeds as big clubs either. I would say that the half in the PL that I'm not counting are small teams looking to establish themselves as PL clubs, not as big clubs. The ones who have dropped down the leagues, I would say are fallen Giants, however, that doesn't mean that I have a bigger feeling of happiness when we beat them. I think the big clubs is down to always battling for the top 4 or Europa League places, getting to the latter stages of cup competitions, even quarter finals. Historically as well I think the likes of Villa are no longer classed as a big club, but neither are West Ham. Most people would say that half the PL is punching above their weight, with others now classed as also rans. Everton would technically still be classed as a big club despite this seasons struggles. A lot is down to how opposition fans see the team. Is beating Forest a huge deal that fans talk about for ages? No. Is getting a point at Man City a big deal? Yes.
It's a weird one, but I class Nottingham Forest as a bigger club them both Man City and Chelsea. Maybe because there success was more organic.
If you exclude this (incomplete) season and take the previous 10 season's final league positions, we achieved: 2013/14 - 16th 2012/13 - 22nd 2011/12 - 28th 2010/11 - 31st 2009/10 - 19th 2008/09 - 17th 2007/08 - 23rd 2006/07 - 41st 2005/06 - 38th 2004/05 - 46th Average = 28.1 or 28th place (if we finished 17th this season that average would rise to 23.5 or 23rd/ 24th place) So that would answer point 'A' on the OP, but we need to decide how much weight (%) that category has over all.
