According to my next door neighbour Manchester United's record attendance was set at Manchester City's Maine Road ground when United played there when Old Trafford was being rebuilt due to war damage. He is a Man City fan but attended the match as a teenager and soon after migrated to Australia. He does further comment that the Manchester City record was at an FA Cup match and Manchester United still hold the record for the highest League attendance.
Sigh. Without going into the debate fully; people only think that based on pointless historical stuff. It doesn't matter. All that matters is now (fanbase, squads, spending power, etc.) Just because Leeds have a more successful history than us it doesn't mean they're massive now, or bigger than us. We're closely matched in terms of the stuff that matters; they have more fans but we are more likely to spend money on players.
ok then , scrubbing history .... we are about evens on the pitch , but Leeds have a far greater fanbase in yorkshire and lets be fair around the world. so sorry to say it , i'd say Leeds are a far bigger club , and i think history counts for something !
A worldwide fanbase would only matter if it was generating some sort of revenue (I have absolutely no idea how that works for TWS) But as for matchdays, yes they have a few thousand more than us and we are a bigger force in the transfer market (though there are obviously many much bigger clubs than us in that respect) Don't they even each other out? If you think history affects anything, please explain why.
Is it the 'history doesn't matter' bit you don't agree with? If so I'd love to hear why, seriously. I'm always having this debate and I've yet to hear one explanation as to how being more successful in the past affects anything at all now. The stage is yours.
In early 2004, Leeds dropped into the Championship, whilst City were promoted to League One. Since then, City have enjoyed 2 promotions and 1 relegation, spending two years in the Premier League in the process. Leeds were relegated to League One for a few seasons and have not occupied a Premier League spot for 8 years. Their stadium capacity is approximately 15,000 larger than ours, but as things stand they only get a few thousand more fans attending each home game than we do. Rather than using one-word answers can you please explain how (in the present day) Leeds are a bigger club than us? Other than the stadium...
I never really understood why Leeds were considered 'massive'. Their honours list is somewhat lacking compared to even the likes of Blackburn or West Brom. Their fans insist that they 'dominated' English football from the mid-60's to mid-70's, yet in the decade or so in-between they won the league just twice and the domestic cups once each. OK, they maybe didn't finish below 4th at any point in that time, but nobody remembers the losers. And after all, the team in 2nd place is the first loser. If it weren't for them insisting that such a record meant something, we wouldn't even give it a second thought. However, Leeds are a club who have a good record in English and European football, a national fanbase, a famous ground and they have also had some fantastic players in the past; Bremner, Charlton, Charles, etc. Leeds United are a bigger club. They are not, as some Peacocks () fans claim, one of the 'biggest four or five' clubs in the country. They are, in my book, smaller than at least a dozen other sides. I don't actively dislike them, but nor do I necessarily like them. I respect them though and accept that they are bigger - not better - than us.
It's a good post but you basically said you think history matters and still haven't explained why. You've mentioned their ground. It's one of the worst you'll see at this level. If that's their big selling point then god help them. I don't see how their ground being famous makes them a big club. Nor the fact they had good players in the past or had a good record in Europe. I don't know why everyone overlooks that they are the side recently promoted from League 1 while we came down recently from the PL. They're the team who haven't spent serious money on a player in years. The only reason everyone ****s over them is this history thing, it doesn't affect anything now and aside from that they're no bigger than any other Championship team. Based on the other teams you've mentioned I guess like most people it all comes down to history for you. I just can't understand it myself. If the term 'big club' means one that used to be better than they are now then it's a stupid term and shouldn't ever be talked about. People in the media say things like 'That player should go there because they're such a big club' or 'They should expect to be promoted, being such a big club'. If that term referred to facilities, money, squad, etc. then yes it makes sense. But why should clubs like Leeds or Blackburn be given such massive respect just because they used to be better? It's utter bollocks. The biggest clubs in this country now (in terms of what actually matters) are Man U, Chelsea, and Man City. Then there's the likes of Arsenal, Liverpool and Tottenham. The rest of the PL clubs and many in this league are bigger than Leeds in that respect too. I don't there's anything I find more annoying in football than this ****ing history thing. I can't see why everyone just accepts it either. "Yeah, we're just insignificant. We should be grateful we're allowed to grace the same pitch as massive clubs like Leeds."
most of those IF not all of them were indeed in the days when you could cram as many people in as you liked. The year of Wembley and the white horse, the attendance was anything between 122,000 and 200,000+ depending on what you beleave. FA.Cup games @ BP against Chelsea and Stoke City were mad. Standing up straight and unable to move as we were packed in like sardines. As for going to the toilet ? forget it. Happy days in so many ways.
I understand what you mean regarding those who say "they should be promoted because they're a massive club". Ipswich have won domestic and European trophies, and few people give them the same special status as Leeds. I'm not one of those types. I think Leeds have decent attendances, as their prices are extortionate and they do always take a big away following. Clearly not every single thing is going to be consistent with a football club. Attendances will fluctuate dependent on performances, success will come-and-go. The year Leeds went down to League One I think they got about 16,000 for a game against Wolves, but the year after they reach Wembley and 50,000 of them turn up, some paying enough money to cover 25% of the cost of a season ticket. You mention their attendances being poor, despite being higher than ours. Why? Because you expect, perhaps subconsciously, such a big club to always be getting 40,000 fans. That just won't happen. Another point you made is that we were in the Premier League more recently than them, and that negates any point made regarding their success in the past. However, you could just as easily highlight to the fact that we've spent a mere two seasons there (the top-flight) in our history, or to the fact that they finished above us last season, to make the opposing point. A player now would much rather play for QPR, Bolton or Wigan than Leeds. Why? Because they are better teams, Premier League sides who pay bigger wages in a league containing some of the best payers in the world. Are any of those three bigger clubs? I don't think so. I make my judgment on an "all things being equal" (as in, were we all in the same league and of a similar footballing level) basis to define who is and isn't a big club.
the old Valley ground was massive. had 2 standing terraces behind each goal for starters which held thousands so Charlton is no surprise to me at all.
I didn't mean to say their attendances were poor if I did, I was saying they were better than ours but it was negated by us being more financially powerful. Hence my conclusion that we were similarly matched clubs. You're also right that the 'recently in the PL' thing is as irrelevant as their ancient history thing is, so I'll happily withdraw that point. However I would say that your last paragraph sums up what a big club is (basically it affects player pulling power and chances of success). If you ignore that and look at only history (as your final sentence suggests) then fine clubs like Leeds and Blackburn are 'big', but the term 'big' to me suggests it should be about the overall stature of the club, not just one aspect like history (especially as history is insignificant).
History is only really going to be a decider in the following situation: If we offer a player who's got no connection to us a contract, and another club with no connection to them in the same division and with the same chance of promotion offer the same terms to the player.
