Depends how much you take not-so-recent history in to account. In my opinion, West Ham, yes, they are better than Championship level and have maintained the squad to show that. Leeds, no. They haven't been in the Premier League since 2004, just because they were third in the PL in 2000 doesn't mean they still qualify to be a 'big club' 12 years later. Every Leeds fan will tell you how big they are because they won the Europa League twice in the late 60's and early 70's.. but to me that no longer counts. Birmingham are bigger than Leeds IMO, and Leeds are probably on a par with us.. perhaps a slight edge because of the size of their stadium but that's it.
Oh so boring... I would say however that in terms of attendances this season so far we are 8th.. I would say that was about right in terms of our stature in the NPC.
Easily West Ham and Leeds. Probably followed by the likes of Derby, Boro and Birmingham. After that Forest, Cardiff, Soton, Leicester and Ipswich. Wed probably figure in the next group with the likes of Pompey, Coventry, Reading and Palace
West Ham, they have largely a premier league squad and are probably better than the likes of Wigan, Bolton and QPR. Pains me to say it but despite their decline in fortunes Leeds will have that big club status, not on par with the premier league heavyweights but the club carries that notion of a big club imo and their following as annoying as it can be is among the best in the league and perhaps the country. I guess you can also say the same for Southampton, Birmingham and Boro. We'd be on par with the likes of Reading, Cardiff, Palace, Bristol City etc.
birmingham city are half the team Villa are and villa aint all that are they - neither club can realise their potential so must lose points on that basis. I still stand by Forest tho even if most of their kudos would come from the 70s and 80s oh and they have the classiest badge in football ,
Sorry but most of you are full of **** on this topic. It's not your fault though, it's a general football misconception. Everyone has it in their head that how many trophies you won in the last century is so important. It isn't. What matters is fanbase, ground, money and squad. All current things that affect the now. To me the 'biggest' club is the one who you would expect to be promoted before a ball is kicked. With that in mind, yes West Ham (unfortunately) are the biggest club and even more unfortunately the next biggest is probably Leiester. Leeds are on a par with us (they have more fans, we spend more money) Forest? COVENTRY?! WTF makes them big? Oh yeah that nonsense history thing we love to care about so much.
How does one define a big club.... attendances ???, history ??? available finances ??? squad`s quality ???combination of the four ???.... `Big Clubs` are the likes of Manchester Utd, Manchester City, Tottenham, Arsenal and Chelski, nothing in this Division comes remotely near `Big Club` status. West Ham are a good Championship/ lower Premiership outfit, they have a proven track record over recent years which supports that. If people wish to call Leeds a `big club` then they may as well add Sheffield Wednesday, Southampton, Derby and Forrest to the list. As it stands at the moment, these clubs have a history of winning things, but that is very old history, at this rate we could call PNE and Blackpool big clubs because they won something in the past. I`m sorry but I don`t follow the arguments that this team and that team are so called `Big Clubs`, absolute bollox to me.
I actually agree with this more than what I posted. The big clubs you mention are very good teams right now, but 'big club' is used to describe anyone playing below their usual historic level, which is balls.
"What matters is fanbase, ground, money and squad". But how often do all those things coincide? I really think that what "matters" is what's inside the fan's head, how she perceives the club she supports. Supporters who go on and on about how "big" their club is are like little kids in the playground. Who the hell cares?
