Record attendances

FAO I saw the premier league ,
ill have a go at answering your History quandary as im back from work now .

First you have to remove your own opinions on thinking whats a big club and what isnt as the argument cant be only amongst fellow Hull City fans as we will all agree we are the biggest and best in a room by ourselves .
Right now you have to look at things from another point of view - someone with no real interest in our club - say ooooh a Forest Fan.
OK , what do they know about our club generally ? well they cant speak of any meaningful achievements (tho promotion to the prem may be one recorded)

Flip the argument over and instantly people from Hull will be able to recall Forests Achievements in the Leage and in Europe , now to argue current league positions will be shat on from a great hight with a well timed comparison of trophy cabinates Y/N ?

History doesnt matter ? well how instant do you wish to compare as of today ?
well comparing 3 things league position , fan base and average attendances for 2012 well its 2-1 to forest , ok its not a perfect comparison but abroad i wager you will find more people able to identify a forest shirt over a city one.

last thing (all this effort considering you did ask 3 or 4 times )
Huddersfield Town , I consider us to be a bigger club than them despite their past history , i dont conveniently discount that , to me it is too far in the past to be relevant today .
dont ask me about Ipswich as that confuses things further.

 

That's a relevant point, but does it affect anything? That's a serious question. I mean it's well known that Man Utd's popularity in Asia and Africa makes them a lot of money, but does your worldwide thing make you any money? I honestly don't know. Even if it did, Bates isn't going to spend it on the team so it becomes quite irrelevant. Fans attending games will have an effect by cheering the team on etc. and that is one aspect which makes Leeds 'bigger' than other Championhip clubs. But I'd say that the lack of spending power compared to other clubs balances it out, so Leeds are similar size to most other clubs in this league.

But that's just history again. I've still yet to hear why it's relevant even though I've asked outright several times. Forest, Leeds, Blackburn are on that list solely because they used to be good. If big just means 'used to be good' then why use the term? It's completely pointless if that's all it means. If it refers to a teams potential to achieve then it'd make sense, but you'd have to let go of the history thing.

So you're saying having loads of money doesn't count as big but history does? That's just bollocks. I know I'm in the minority but it makes no sense. Being a Russian billionaire's plaything makes a club big if he is spending money, that's what a big club is. Just because someone used to be good it doesn't help them now.

Good point, this is what I was trying to say.

So judging a team on inifitely out of date achievements makes sense but spending power doesn't? What the ****? Why can no one comprehend that money makes teams better, and history doesn't. Man Utd aren't massive now because they were good in the Busby days. They're massive no because they have a **** load of money, awesome players and loads of fans.

Cheers for that. I'm fine with taking Leeds and Hull out of the equation. This is something that goes beyond local rivalry and more an overall football thing that does my tits in. The idea that no club can ever become bigger or better if they weren't good in the 70s is just ridiculous to me. Why would we watch football if we just accepted we will never be better than the teams who are better than us now?

I think the main disagreement is the use of the term 'big'. Most people use the term to describe a club that is a household name, that people have heard of even if they don't like football. That basically comes down to history and doesn't involve anything else, which is my problem with it. It means for example Donny, could never be a bigger club than Forest because they don't have the history. If we need a term to describe a club that has had a successful history then fine.

What I take exception to is that the media for example will show a Forest game ahead of a Swansea one (still being impartial and leaving City and Leeds out of it) or say that player X should sign for Forest ahead of Swansea because they are such a big club. Forest in this example will always be treat as somehow more important than Swansea. How often do you hear pundits coming out with such bollocks about Leeds? Basically a historically successful team are more important than one who haven't been as successful, that just isn't right at all. If I was a Forest fan I would be immensely proud of what my team had achieved, but I wouldn't think my club were better or more important than anyone elses, and unless it was a very recent trophy it wouldn't be any sort of bragging right compared to other teams' fans.

What I'm suggesting is that a far better definition for the term 'big' would be the team you most expect to win the league before a ball is kicked. For example at the beginning of this season it was all about West Ham and Leicester because they seemed to be best equipped, taking into account what will win them games; players, staff, money, fans and facilities.

If big just means historically successful then it shouldn't be used. It just gives teams like Forest and Leeds who simply aren't as good as they used to be, this idea that they deserve to be at the top forever and no other team deserves a chance.

 

Southampton have only ever had a maximum of 30,000 in the Dell due to being closed in housing .

 

i accept most of what you say but man utd were the best known british team world wide in the 1960s. what doesn't get asked in your essay is why man utd have loads of money, loads of fans, and awesome players.