Jose Mourinho led one of them to Champions League glory, Rafael Benítez inspired another to back‑to‑back league titles, and Sven‑Goran Eriksson managed a third to domestic and European success. Ten years ago, it seemed unthinkable that Porto, Valencia and Lazio could ever be described as smaller clubs than Hull City, Crystal Palace and Cardiff City. Hence, of all the findings from the latest edition of the Deloitte Football Money League, the fact that the Premier League’s peasantry has usurped several members of the European aristocracy is perhaps the most startling. For the first time since the accountancy firm began its annual assessment of revenues generated by the world’s biggest clubs, all 20 of the previous season’s Premier League teams made it into the top 40 of the 2013-14 Money League. The results of Deloitte’s research lay bare the impact of the Premier League’s £5.5 billion television deal, which represented a 70 per cent increase on the previous contract. It has allowed clubs with one major trophy between them to turn over more money last season than serial champions from across the continent, despite them having been in the Championship 12 months earlier. A quick glance at the money paid out by the Premier League to its 20 clubs last season demonstrates how promotion to the Premier League has now become football’s ultimate get-rich-quick scheme. "Basically just stay in the prem!!!!
Some clubs considered to be smaller than us by some of our fans are somewhat bigger in reality. Much talk of how we should drop our ticket prices but looking at the difference in revenue between us and most other PL clubs it wouldn't help our being competitive. Especially the difference in commercial revenues despite us having a marketing genius in charge. Maybe being Hull Tigers would make up the Difference? Meanwhile back in the real world...http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30915985
Lazio are a small club to be honest. They get low crowds and other than a brief period of financial recklessness leading to success around the turn of the century they've got a very sparse trophy cabinet from the last 50 years. They're only famous here cos of Gazza and are kind of the Fulham to Roma's Arsenal.
Their average last season was 29.548, ours was 23, 201. I wouldnt say 6300 was "much bigger". And lets not forget that includes a one-off derby attendance of over 50k. I'd suggest if we had a 80k capacity stadium we'd average over 30k when you take into account increased crowds versus Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea etc.
So we aren't much bigger than teams getting 16-17,000? Presumably in this 80,000 stadium the increased crowds will be because we have extended the away section as we aren't selling out the home sections in a 25,000 one.
Do you really think we wouldnt get 40k for Man Utd or Liverpool at home? Now obviously many of these wouldnt be true City fans but locals who support both us and the oppo from their armchairs but sadly there are ****loads of them. And we could if we wanted give 17,000 tickets for away fans as Lazio do for Juventus. And I clearly stated the big games. Did we not sell out home sections for Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea? And personally I dont think attendance has anything whatsoever to do with club size, or indeed income as suggested by the article itself. I was merely stating that Lazio would never be considered a big club in Italy. I would argue with the article writer how does us earning more money than Porto or Valencia make us bigger than them?
How many "true" Arsenal* fans go to the Emirates* do you think? *Insert top 8 club/stadium of your choice here. Do you think it matters? Or do you think they do very nicely out of it?
I dont know who you are referring to here? If you mean me then yes I do think they do very nicely out of it. We're going off the OP but I never said non- "true" fans shouldnt attend, I was stating that because of these types I think we'd get much bigger attendances for the "big games" if we had a stadium capacity 3 times what we currently have.
Does it matter? Not if you are a spectator happy to be sat watching the big stars. If you are a supporter there to get behind your team and fo whom the result is the important thing then it does. Of course the clubs only consideration is that they are full. However get a stadium full of mute spectators and it would change. A while ago Thete was some club, can't remember where, and they were cracking down on what they considered over exuberant fans behind the goals. The fans announced they would sit in silence like the more expensive seats. After one game and players expressing their feelings on playing in a funereal atmosphere the club quickly announced they were backtracking. Some people on hete have expressed the view making a noise isn't important. I have read clubs appealing for fans to get behind the team but never one asking them to be quiet.
Castro, I inow what you're referring to, I think it was some club in Sweden. I remember watching a video of their big derby match in total silence, it was very eerie.
Didnt you just say in the same para that a club asked their fans to quiet down and then state that you've never heard of one asking them to be quiet?!
The trick is getting a balance. The successful clubs manage to accommodate their noisy fans and also the tourists. The noisy ones don't sneer and look down on the others either.
That is key, the noisy ones who sneer and look down on others are the worst sort and should be ****ed off instantly.
