PDA

View Full Version : When does a big club become not a big club??



Live Forever
23-07-2013, 12:42
Liverpool, for example, have a great history but in last 20 years haven't done a great deal domestically, however still picked up some trophies in Europe.

What's the criteria for a big club and surely it evolves at some point?

Truly big clubs make history, they dont live on it.

Thoughts?

Butcher6
23-07-2013, 12:44
Thoughts are big clubs always come back to the top after barren spells Liverpool have not and long may it continue for the scummy taig coonts:)

Xavi Hernandez
23-07-2013, 12:44
Chelsea are a bigger club than Liverpool.

Currently.

And the second biggest in England.

DavyMcK
23-07-2013, 12:45
Chelsea are a bigger club than Liverpool.

Currently.

And the second biggest in England.

after who ? Man City Or Man United.......................

Live Forever
23-07-2013, 12:46
after who ? Man City Or Man United.......................

Seriously? :confused:

*Stu
23-07-2013, 12:46
A truly big club could attract 45K+ every game in the 4th tier of one of the worst leagues in Europe.

superrangers
23-07-2013, 12:48
A truly big club could attract 45K+ every game in the 4th tier of one of the worst leagues in Europe.

Precisely. Chelsea can't even accommodate that in their stadium, let alone for a 4th tier match.

Xavi Hernandez
23-07-2013, 12:48
after who ? Man City Or Man United.......................

Man U.

As i said on the Fowler thread....:D

Chelsea have won trophies for fun the last 10 years. They have arguably the best manager in the world.

God dammit they are BIG! :D

Oleg_Mcnoleg
23-07-2013, 12:49
*** is a big club anyway? Well supported? Liverpool would still trump Chelsea (as would we). Success? If so, how far back? Forest have had more European success than Chelsea (Villa are level). Wealth? PSG, Monaco and Anzi would all count on that basis.

ulsterbearinbath
23-07-2013, 12:50
A truly big club could attract 45K+ every game in the 4th tier of one of the worst leagues in Europe.

No way of ever knowing, but it would be interesting to see how many clubs could match this having lost such a high percentage of their playing staff.

JammiesBear
23-07-2013, 12:50
Big clubs can't spend their entire life dominating domestically or in Europe it all comes in cycles. In liverpools case it is a lot harder to dominate in England as there have been more teams in the cycle. Scotland, spain, and a few others all have two clubs who more or less dominate.

Were man utd no longer a big club when they weren't winning the league for decades? I think not. Were we not a big club when we didn't win the league for almost a decade?

when I think about a big club I tend to lean to the history and differentiate it from recent success. Chelsea are have a more successful team than Liverpool recently but they re not a bigger club

Butcher6
23-07-2013, 12:50
Chelsea are a bigger club than Liverpool.

Currently.

And the second biggest in England.

Spot on mate.

cupfinalmoustache
23-07-2013, 12:51
Depends how you measure it - Newcastle have the 3rd or 4th highest attendances in english football so that would rank them above the likes of man city, but would anyone call Newcastle a bigger club?

Personally I think it's to do with accepting mediocrity. I'm no fan of Liverpool but they expect to be in a certain position in english football and I think that qualifies them to be a bigger club than one that thinks perpetual top ten finishes (or avoiding relegation) constitutes success.

FFS we were in div3 last season and were still raging we didn't win any of the cup competitions. Unrealistic or not, that shows a level of ambition far above most EPL sides let alone SPL sides. Plus we had higher attendances than most of them too.

Blue Phoenix
23-07-2013, 12:52
Hard to pin down the reasoning but for me there are only 5 big clubs in UK - the mighty Rangers of course, Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, and Liverpool (history gets them in). I don't yet rate City as having the sustained pedigree or history to qualify in my book.

suramericaranger
23-07-2013, 12:53
Are Red Star still a big club? Are Steaua Bucharest? Why not? They used to be. Maybe more interesting examples than Liverpool.

Gazman_Airdrie
23-07-2013, 12:54
Chelsea are a bigger club than Liverpool.

Currently.

And the second biggest in England.

No they're not.


On both accounts.

Live Forever
23-07-2013, 12:56
No they're not.


On both accounts.

Why are they not?

omegaman
23-07-2013, 12:57
*** is a big club anyway? Well supported? Liverpool would still trump Chelsea (as would we). Success? If so, how far back? Forest have had more European success than Chelsea (Villa are level). Wealth? PSG, Monaco and Anzi would all count on that basis.

D. All of the above!

adidasler
23-07-2013, 13:00
Chelsea are far more relevant currently that a whole host of has-beens that people still fawn over.

Bowery Boys
23-07-2013, 13:01
You'll only really see people claim Chelsea are a huge club on Chelsea forums and from a few people on here. As I said in another thread, they should try becoming the biggest club in their city first.

Top_Cat
23-07-2013, 13:02
Are Red Star still a big club? Are Steaua Bucharest? Why not? They used to be. Maybe more interesting examples than Liverpool.

I'd chuck Dinamo Kiev into that mix also

Earl of Leven
23-07-2013, 13:02
Some people confuse wealthy with big too often....

Earl of Leven
23-07-2013, 13:03
I suppose a club ceases to be 'big' when its global reach diminishes and its geographical setting prevents access to lucrative markets, so us, filth, Benfica, Anderlecht, several Greek and Turkish clubs etc.

Marlowe
23-07-2013, 13:04
Are Red Star still a big club? Are Steaua Bucharest? Why not? They used to be. Maybe more interesting examples than Liverpool.

I'd guess because their attraction doesn't go beyond national borders.

adidasler
23-07-2013, 13:04
Some people confuse wealthy with big too often....

Some people have trouble with modern life.

Live Forever
23-07-2013, 13:04
Are Red Star still a big club? Are Steaua Bucharest? Why not? They used to be. Maybe more interesting examples than Liverpool.


I'd chuck Dinamo Kiev into that mix also

TV Money and the changes to CL setup has loaded everything in favour towards the big leagues. These clubs are similar to ourselves in a way

Gerdownthere
23-07-2013, 13:04
speaking to a few folk down here man utd were always held in awe by many due to their travelling support

they are englands version of Rangers. they turn up, take over, are loud and boisterous.

even when they were poor prior to Fergie they were still the same

for me a good sign of a really big club is their support, but especially their away support

i know some countries fans dont really travel but this definately hold for UK

Gio Van Bronckhorst
23-07-2013, 13:04
Rangers & Celtic have won countless titles since Liverpools last one in 1990.

Do our domestic honours equal 1 Champions League & 1 Uefa Cup win that Liverpool have in that same period? Not for me & I'd dare say most people outside Scotland would laugh at the suggestion that it did.

Going further in Europe than we have despite having less attempts at it.

It's a hard one, it's also unavoidable that Chelsea have joined the rank of big clubs.

200000 Heroes
23-07-2013, 13:04
Chelsea are far more relevant currently that a whole host of has-beens that people still fawn over.

Agreed.

I don't know why I agree, I just think it'll probably annoy the scouser fanboys ... :D

adidasler
23-07-2013, 13:05
You'll only really see people claim Chelsea are a huge club on Chelsea forums and from a few people on here. As I said in another thread, they should try becoming the biggest club in their city first.

The Arsenal argument gets weaker and weaker every year........and it started a few years ago.

weybridgewanderer
23-07-2013, 13:05
leeds was a big club

Xavi Hernandez
23-07-2013, 13:07
You'll only really see people claim Chelsea are a huge club on Chelsea forums and from a few people on here. As I said in another thread, they should try becoming the biggest club in their city first.

Like it or lump it - Chelsea are even a bigger club than us :eek:

glasgowiron
23-07-2013, 13:07
Are Red Star still a big club? Are Steaua Bucharest? Why not? They used to be. Maybe more interesting examples than Liverpool.


Benfica,

200k fee paying members.

Live Forever
23-07-2013, 13:07
I suppose a club ceases to be 'big' when its global reach diminishes and its geographical setting prevents access to lucrative markets, so us, filth, Benfica, Anderlecht, several Greek and Turkish clubs etc.

Trophy hauls and consistently winning things must come in to the mix as well. i.e. making history and not dining out on stuff from way back when

Bowery Boys
23-07-2013, 13:08
Like it or lump it - Chelsea are even a bigger club than us :eek:

If you think football started in 2003 then you'd be right.

JammiesBear
23-07-2013, 13:10
Were man utd not a big club while they were failing to win the English Title?

They may not have been successful for a period but they were still huge

cupfinalmoustache
23-07-2013, 13:12
The Arsenal argument gets weaker and weaker every year........and it started a few years ago.

Arsenal have the 2nd highest attendances in Britain after man utd. This despite the ludicrous ticket prices & fey, innefectual team they've had to watch for the last 5 years or so.

Still turning out when your team's doing shite must surely be one of the biggest indicators of a big club. Were Chelsea filling stamford bridge pre-Ambravovich? Hell, are they even filling it now?

Live Forever
23-07-2013, 13:12
Were man utd not a big club while they were failing to win the English Title?

They may not have been successful for a period but they were still huge

So how long can you hold on to the claim while you continue to fail to win trophies?

All the while, other previously smaller clubs are growing and winning things left, right and centre?

adidasler
23-07-2013, 13:13
Arsenal have the 2nd highest attendances in Britain after man utd. This despite the ludicrous ticket prices & fey, innefectual team they've had to watch for the last 5 years or so.

Still turning out when your team's doing shite must surely be one of the biggest indicators of a big club. Were Chelsea filling stamford bridge pre-Ambravovich? Hell, are they even filling it now?

Yes they are filling it now.

You have confirmed the crustiness of the Arsenal argument too, many thanks.

JammiesBear
23-07-2013, 13:14
So how long can you hold on to the claim while you continue to fail to win trophies?

All the while, other previously smaller clubs are growing and winning things left, right and centre?

were man utd not a big club for twenty odd years? Simple question:D

cupfinalmoustache
23-07-2013, 13:16
Yes they are filling it now.

You have confirmed the crustiness of the Arsenal argument too, many thanks.

Every week, or when Arsenal & man utd play them? ;)

Bowery Boys
23-07-2013, 13:17
Yes they are filling it now.

You have confirmed the crustiness of the Arsenal argument too, many thanks.

What's the argument for having Chelsea ahead of Arsenal, Milan, Inter, Juventus, Ajax?

Scottb1872
23-07-2013, 13:18
Some people confuse wealthy with big too often....

Although I tend to agree with this Earl I do also think the more football continues like it is the greater the impact money is going to have. If Manchester City coninute like they have for the next twenty years it means a whole new generation growing up knowing Manchester City as a big club.

Earl of Leven
23-07-2013, 13:21
Although I tend to agree with this Earl I do also think the more football continues like it is the greater the impact money is going to have. If Manchester City coninute like they have for the next twenty years it means a whole new generation growing up knowing Manchester City as a big club.

That's certainly true...football as we all knew it is changing. Money now shouts, and those without money will gradually (or swiftly) go to the wall. In 15-20 years what people consider a 'big team' will be vastly different to what we consider a big team, as will the reasons for it.

adidasler
23-07-2013, 13:22
What's the argument for having Chelsea ahead of Arsenal, Milan, Inter, Juventus, Ajax?

Why are you avoiding the obvious?

The winning of things? Their adaptation to the modern game? Their management?

Everything they do is an a huge scale.

Live Forever
23-07-2013, 13:22
were man utd not a big club for twenty odd years? Simple question:D

Was before my time.

Bowery Boys
23-07-2013, 13:23
Why are you avoiding the obvious?

The winning of things? Their adaptation to the modern game? Their management?

Everything they do is an a huge scale.

So nothing really then? All of those clubs have won trophies on a much bigger scale than Chelsea.

Earl of Leven
23-07-2013, 13:23
Why are you avoiding the obvious?

The winning of things? Their adaptation to the modern game? Their management?

Everything they do is an a huge scale.

A multi billionaire flew over their stadium en route to buying Spurs and said: "No, that one."

That doesn't make you a big club.

Are people on here just trolling today?

JammiesBear
23-07-2013, 13:23
Was before my time.

well it wasn't before my time. When Utd weren't winning the league they were still massive and probably the second biggest club in England

adidasler
23-07-2013, 13:25
So nothing really then? All of those clubs have won trophies on a much bigger scale than Chelsea.

On a much bigger scale? Utter divel. I can't even guess what that means.

Football is at it's peak right now, along with most other sports it has evolved.

adidasler
23-07-2013, 13:26
A multi billionaire flew over their stadium en route to buying Spurs and said: "No, that one."

That doesn't make you a big club.

Are people on here just trolling today?

Why was a multi billionaire interested in either club Earl?

Earl of Leven
23-07-2013, 13:27
Football at its peak now?

Well not in a football sense its not.

It is peaking in terms of hype, commercialism, media focus etc.

Earl of Leven
23-07-2013, 13:28
Why was a multi billionaire interested in either club Earl?

Spurs because he was Jewish I believe and he'd been told about their Jewish links.

Chelsea due to the financial problems I assume.

Bigger picture: they played in a league shown everywhere across globe and he could use it as a plaything to impress his clients.

Bowery Boys
23-07-2013, 13:28
On a much bigger scale? Utter divel. I can't even guess what that means.

Football is at it's peak right now, along with most other sports it has evolved.

It's really not difficult.

What makes Chelsea bigger than clubs who have won numerous domestic honours as well as European Cups and have much larger fan bases?

adidasler
23-07-2013, 13:28
Football at its peak now?

Well not in a football sense its not.

It is peaking in terms of hype, commercialism, media focus etc.

Where the biggest clubs, with the biggest players, compete for the biggest prizes......

cupfinalmoustache
23-07-2013, 13:29
Why are you avoiding the obvious?

The winning of things? Their adaptation to the modern game? Their management?

Everything they do is an a huge scale.

Arsenal have won 13 league titles to Chelsea's 4.

Arsene Wenger's gone off the boil in recent years, but his approaches to sports science redefined modern English football. Jose Mourinho's charasmatic but apart from increasing the cult of Managers as celebrities can't lay claim to anything like the influence that Wenger's had.

You're right about the scale. John Terry's a world-class c u nt! >:)

Earl of Leven
23-07-2013, 13:29
Where the biggest clubs, with the biggest players, compete for the biggest prizes......

No, an elite of teams get more and more cash to spend.

JammiesBear
23-07-2013, 13:29
Chelsea have FOUR titles in their history. They have been successful over the last 10 years. They are not a big club. If Roman bought birmingham then they could be sitting in the same position as Chelsea just now

Paco
23-07-2013, 13:30
You'll only really see people claim Chelsea are a huge club on Chelsea forums and from a few people on here. As I said in another thread, they should try becoming the biggest club in their city first.

Who in London is bigger than Chelsea? No-one.

adidasler
23-07-2013, 13:31
Chelsea have FOUR

So far................

Live Forever
23-07-2013, 13:31
well it wasn't before my time. When Utd weren't winning the league they were still massive and probably the second biggest club in England

So you reckon Liverpool are the 2nd biggest club in England?

They're regressing while other clubs are growing massively

Earl of Leven
23-07-2013, 13:31
We're not going to agree.

Chelsea have arrived mob handed and the debate is dead. Ho hum.

Bowery Boys
23-07-2013, 13:32
Who in London is bigger than Chelsea? No-one.

Arsenal...

adidasler
23-07-2013, 13:32
Chelsea have FOUR titles in their history. They have been successful over the last 10 years. They are not a big club. If Roman bought birmingham then they could be sitting in the same position as Chelsea just now

You should really put things in draft before you post them. Have a think.

Chelsea have character and pedigree as well as their current wealth.

JammiesBear
23-07-2013, 13:32
So you reckon Liverpool are the 2nd biggest club in England?

They're regressing while other clubs are growing massively

They are the second biggest in England. There is no doubt of that

adidasler
23-07-2013, 13:34
No, an elite of teams get more and more cash to spend.

And the elite teams of the past? No money to spend??

cupfinalmoustache
23-07-2013, 13:38
So you reckon Liverpool are the 2nd biggest club in England?

They're regressing while other clubs are growing massively

Liverpool still had the 3rd or 4th highest attendance in England last year (I can't remember if they or Newcastle were 3rd), despite having one of their poorest sides in my living memory. They're not regressing in terms of fanbase.

What other teams (city & chelsea particularly) are doing is spending massively. Whether they grow as much we'll see in 20 years.

FFS for all their League One tribulations in recent years city couldn't fill their ground for their Champions League ties. I think once we're back in that position Ibrox will be packed & rocking.

spirit_of_93
23-07-2013, 13:43
You have to break it down and decide what matters more.

History?
Success?
Support?
Prominence in the modern game as of today?
Wealth and purchasing power?

Chelsea are among the biggest around in terms of the last two, but insignificant in terms of the first three.

Rangers2011
23-07-2013, 13:45
Some people confuse wealthy with big too often....

Wealth means big club mate, it has for at least 20 years.

adidasler
23-07-2013, 13:45
You have to break it down and decide what matters more.

History?
Success?
Support?
Prominence in the modern game as of today?
Wealth and purchasing power?

Chelsea are among the biggest around in terms of the last two, but insignificant in terms of the first three.

Insignificant is inaccurate.

buster
23-07-2013, 13:48
When does a big club become not a big club??

When it is run as a Wee club.


Comfort Zone > Levels of Professionalism

Gravy Train > Raw Ambition


Has been pretty much the same for decades IMO.

spirit_of_93
23-07-2013, 13:49
Insignificant is inaccurate.

They'd be behind a fair number of teams across europe for support, history, or honours.

deedle
23-07-2013, 13:49
I suppose a club ceases to be 'big' when its global reach diminishes and its geographical setting prevents access to lucrative markets, so us, filth, Benfica, Anderlecht, several Greek and Turkish clubs etc.

In a sense, this is happening to Liverpool.

The North - or, at least Lancashire - has been dominant in English football.

Of course, Arsenal have always been a 'big club', but until recently not too many other London-based clubs had won the title regularly.


Under Ferguson, Manchester United dominated at just the right time in relation to the growing financialisation of football.

How many kids growing up outside these shores will have heard of Dalglish or Rush?

Geographical and economic factors suggest that Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs stand a much better chance of establishing themselves at the top of the English game than Liverpool.

Manchester United is a very special case, but then again, the Manchester conurbation is much larger than Liverpool's. It possesses all the advantages in terms of wealth and transport links.

Oleg_Mcnoleg
23-07-2013, 13:52
I suppose a club ceases to be 'big' when its global reach diminishes and its geographical setting prevents access to lucrative markets, so us, filth, Benfica, Anderlecht, several Greek and Turkish clubs etc.

Global reach is surely a pretty recent phenomenon: everyone used to rely on their domestic market. So presumably, no team outside England, Spain, Germany and Italy can ever be 'big'?



Who in London is bigger than Chelsea? No-one. Arsenal and Spurs certainly have more supporters. But as nobody's said what 'big' means it's a pretty meaningless claim anyway.

Earl of Leven
23-07-2013, 13:54
Global reach is surely a pretty recent phenomenon: everyone used to rely on their domestic market. So presumably, no team outside England, Spain, Germany and Italy can ever be 'big'?



Sadly that is probably the case, certainly for the foreseeable future. Football is more and more dependent on selling 'TV season tickets' rather than actual ones, and like ALL armchair fans since TV began showing football they want only certain clubs, certain fixtures and certain players.

reidy
23-07-2013, 13:59
Had this argument before, facts remain the same.

No one factor makes a clug "Big", it's a combination of factors.

Support
Historical Standing
Current Standing
Finances
Ability to attract the best players
Ability to compete at the top level
Possibly a couple more factors....

The big clubs tick all these boxes. The biggest clubs have more clout in each category.

DerbyBlue
23-07-2013, 13:59
speaking to a few folk down here man utd were always held in awe by many due to their travelling support

they are englands version of Rangers. they turn up, take over, are loud and boisterous.

even when they were poor prior to Fergie they were still the same

for me a good sign of a really big club is their support, but especially their away support

i know some countries fans dont really travel but this definately hold for UK

I'd go with this too! Big Clubs still retain a good travelling support even when their team is on a downer and the hangers on have f*cked off!

Oleg_Mcnoleg
23-07-2013, 13:59
Sadly that is probably the case, certainly for the foreseeable future. Football is more and more dependent on selling 'TV season tickets' rather than actual ones, and like ALL armchair fans since TV began showing football they want only certain clubs, certain fixtures and certain players.
Which brings us back to the meaninglessness of the term. Does it simply mean TV viewing figures and shirt sales in Asia? Wealth? Certainly doesn't seem to equate to historic success or attendance.

Earl of Leven
23-07-2013, 14:00
Which brings us back to the meaninglessness of the term. Does it simply mean TV viewing figures and shirt sales in Asia? Wealth? Certainly doesn't seem to equate to historic success or attendance.

It is age related mate:

For us the factors are allure, name, crowds, etc.

For youngsters now and moving on it will be people/teams on Sky, shirts sold in Asia, money pumped in by benefactor etc.

200000 Heroes
23-07-2013, 14:00
Global reach is surely a pretty recent phenomenon: everyone used to rely on their domestic market. So presumably, no team outside England, Spain, Germany and Italy can ever be 'big'?

I think that is right.

Unless you now have a strong international presence, and are based in one of the Big Four TV countries, I reckon a massively wealthy sugar daddy is the only to now get "big".

Spyro
23-07-2013, 14:01
I love everybodys' expert diagnosis to what equates to a big club. :D Fans+Income/Trophies won*last 10 years to the power of 7 equals how big the club is.

I think the overall reputation of the club in question is a good indicator. Notthingham Forest would be considered a big club by some, but would they be considered a big club by teenagers in Romania? Doubt it sadly. Would Manchester City? Probably. If Manchester City slumped to the lower leagues of English Football, they would vacate the minds of fans, and lose their reputation as a big club, like Forest probably have.

I await: "So we're not a big club then". Same question applies, how well known are we abroad currently? Have we been forgotten? No. If we are in the lower leagues for 10 years? Afraid so.

ruglenbear
23-07-2013, 14:06
It's a purely subjective argument to be honest.

Myself, I look at fanbase, success, history but also what being a supporter of that club means. Is it seen as "more than a club" if you like.

It's just my opinion but that's where club's like Chlesea fall down for me, but then again, perhaps that's arrogant because I'm sure Chelsea fans see their club as "more than a club" so to speak.

That said, Chelsea are clearly a big club. The idea they had no history pre-2003 is frankly ludicrous

Marsh
23-07-2013, 14:08
The debate of 'big' club matters not. Money talks these days, look at france. Other than debating on forums it doesn't really matter all that much. It is kind of like, my dads bigger than your dad.

There are teams who will win things currently and if managed properly will continue to do so. Man United have seen off all pretenders in many a year in the premiership. The others haven't maintained what needs to be done. Some have competed back and forth but thats all.

Could you class the tims as a bigger club than us because when we are in the same league they can claim a higher average attendance throughout a season. The same goes for them having won a larger european trophy. Them having had a better bank balance. I still don't think they are as big a team as us and these seem to be the 3 main factors people base their arguments on.

bluenose1979
23-07-2013, 14:11
I always think the size of following a club has, the fans determine the scale of the club. My reasoning is always along the lines that when people wanted to claim our club died because a number on a piece of paper changed I found it laughable. How do you define a 'club'? I argue every time that the fans, the blood of the institution, the generations who have followed and held it together are the club. They are the history, the present and the future of it and when our great grandparents went along to cheer on the teams they supported they were part of that so-called 'entity' as much as and more than any corporation, businessman or document.

I agree with reidy above, there are lots of factors in determining the scale of a club and some of those factors may change and fluctuate, but I will always turn it back to the fan-base.

Unfortunately, the danger is that this is skewed by the current trend for rich businessmen buying 'smaller' clubs, throwing oodles of cash at them and instantly attracting 'glory-hunters' to generate bigger fan-bases in the short-term.

However, looking at things more sensibly, IMHO, a club that has had a huge following and had that scale of fan-base historically and maintained it through generations will always remain a big club, regardless of barren spells in the trophy room.

Lochgilphead_Bear
23-07-2013, 14:11
Hard to pin down the reasoning but for me there are only 5 big clubs in UK - the mighty Rangers of course, Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, and Liverpool (history gets them in). I don't yet rate City as having the sustained pedigree or history to qualify in my book.

Chelsea are no bigger than Celtic

Bowery Boys
23-07-2013, 14:12
It's a purely subjective argument to be honest.

Myself, I look at fanbase, success, history but also what being a supporter of that club means. Is it seen as "more than a club" if you like.

It's just my opinion but that's where club's like Chlesea fall down for me, but then again, perhaps that's arrogant because I'm sure Chelsea fans see their club as "more than a club" so to speak.

That said, Chelsea are clearly a big club. The idea they had no history pre-2003 is frankly ludicrous

Nobody has said they 'had no history pre 2003' only that it is insignificant compared to some of the clubs they are apparently bigger than (Inter, Milan, Juventus, Ajax).

two2tango
23-07-2013, 14:22
Chelsea couldn't sell their allocation of tickets for a champions league semi final at a field a few years back large gaps in their end

Imagine what we would have taken to such a game

Small club small fan base rich owner who will get bored eventually

doyle55
23-07-2013, 14:23
Were man utd not a big club while they were failing to win the English Title?

They may not have been successful for a period but they were still huge

As are Liverpool...

GingerFurball
23-07-2013, 14:23
That's certainly true...football as we all knew it is changing. Money now shouts, and those without money will gradually (or swiftly) go to the wall. In 15-20 years what people consider a 'big team' will be vastly different to what we consider a big team, as will the reasons for it.

Things change.

Chelsea weren't a big club when I was growing up, but as much as it pains me to admit it, they are now.

Liverpool are no longer a big club. Past success doesn't count for much when nobody under the age of 30 can remember you winning a league title.

oranje-viola
23-07-2013, 14:33
I think that is right.

Unless you now have a strong international presence, and are based in one of the Big Four TV countries, I reckon a massively wealthy sugar daddy is the only to now get "big".

If you go to Australia or Germany etc then you will still see that Red Star, Fenerbache, Partizan, Galatasaray, Olympiakos, AEK and others have a global appeal due to their 2nd and 3rd generation fans in their diaspora.

Us and the filth are much the same, the filth arguably even more so due to themselves marketing their club more and more like a famine theme park for Irish.

There are huge footballing institutions in South America that are big in ways the likes of Chelsea, Paris and Man City could only ever dream of being. Corinthians, River, Boca, Flamengo etc. These clubs, and others, have fanbases in the tens of millions. Yet any star at any of these giants will always look to further his career by moving to a 'bigger' club in Europe:blink:

Then there are other giants whose support transcends national borders, clubs like Schalke, Hamburg, Atletico Madrid, Ajax and Roma. Are these clubs to be considered lesser in size just because they can't afford the top bracket of players?

It's confusing and it shows up how much of a whore modern TV dominated football is.

neilyblueboy07
23-07-2013, 14:40
*** is a big club anyway? Well supported? Liverpool would still trump Chelsea (as would we). Success? If so, how far back? Forest have had more European success than Chelsea (Villa are level). Wealth? PSG, Monaco and Anzi would all count on that basis.

Define European success?

Yes, Forest have won the European Cup twice (and the Uefa Supercup once), but Chelsea have won one European Cup (or C.L), the Cup Winners cup twice, the Uefa cup and Uefa supercup.

Looks to me like Chelsea have been more successful in Europe than Forest!

BLNZ
23-07-2013, 14:50
Chelsea are not the second biggest club in England, they are not even the second biggest in London, you have to consider tradition and current status, Chelsea were probably just a close second in size to West Ham, but Spurs and Arsenal will always be bigger, Chelsea have also had a change in fan culture, the guys who supported then in the 80's have all been priced out the market by west-enders.

Back on subject Dunfermline reached the semis of the European cup

Forest like Chelsea we made artificially big.
Derby were the bigger club in that area.

Leeds and sheff-Wed were once big clubs

Newcasle are the best example of a big club who will never amount to 3/8ths of hee haw.

Eintract Frankfurt were once big, will be again but were in the widerness

Dundee used to considered the bigger club in errrrrr Dundee, before the New Firm, the Sheep were big for 5 minutes,

Preston North End were massive one time, as were Queens Park up here

but back to Chelsea they have bought success, and once the money runs out they will be in the lower leagues for a generation or two as they don't have the traditional fan base to keep them as a going concern, pure glory hunters!!!

doyle55
23-07-2013, 14:50
Things change.

Chelsea weren't a big club when I was growing up, but as much as it pains me to admit it, they are now.

Liverpool are no longer a big club. Past success doesn't count for much when nobody under the age of 30 can remember you winning a league title.

What a load of PISH.

Liverpool SELL OUT 100,000 seater MCG in Melbourne in record time.

Liverpool sell out two 85,000 seater stadiums in hours in Asia. Chelsea need to hand out free tickets in Malaysia to fill seats.

adidasler
23-07-2013, 15:28
It is age related mate:

For us the factors are allure, name, crowds, etc.

For youngsters now and moving on it will be people/teams on Sky, shirts sold in Asia, money pumped in by benefactor etc.

Age related my wanking foot!

You are as young as you feel Earl!

And Chelsea have held unsurpassed allure for me, South of the border, since the 80s.

adidasler
23-07-2013, 15:31
but back to Chelsea they have bought success, and once the money runs out they will be in the lower leagues for a generation or two as they don't have the traditional fan base to keep them as a going concern, pure glory hunters!!!

Where are you digging up these "facts"? Total myth.

Oleg_Mcnoleg
23-07-2013, 15:33
Clearly the answer is Chelsea and we just keep changing the definition

adidasler
23-07-2013, 15:38
Clearly the answer is Chelsea and we just keep changing the definition

There is no definition........thats why it never fkn ends:D

BLNZ
23-07-2013, 15:38
Where are you digging up these "facts"? Total myth.

To be fair its based on going to games up and down the country for the best part of 35 years, and people I did know supported Chelsea in the 80's now go to Fulham, palace and Millwall as they cant afford to go and watch Chelsea, and it is over a period you do notice a change, not claiming them as facts but there is a trend. Chelsea are just a fad and that's not a myth sorry to disagree

adidasler
23-07-2013, 15:42
To be fair its based on going to games up and down the country for the best part of 35 years, and people I did know supported Chelsea in the 80's not go to Fulham, palace and Millwall as they cant afford to go and watch Chelsea, and it is over a period you do notice a change, not claiming them as facts but there is a trend. Chelsea are just a fad and that's not a myth sorry to disagree


Thats some of the worst trolling on the thread:D

TPABear
23-07-2013, 15:43
When your great and turn crap

deedle
23-07-2013, 15:45
This should lay a few myths to rest.

These stats go back to the formation of the Football League.

There is not as much separating the top clubs that some would have us believe.

Chelsea have always had a strong support.

http://i43.tinypic.com/15yzmlw.jpg

If you can't read the data, here's a link:

http://www.wearetherangersboys.com/forum/showthread.php?60011-Average-Attendances-Over-Each-Club-s-History

ruglenbear
23-07-2013, 15:53
Nobody has said they 'had no history pre 2003' only that it is insignificant compared to some of the clubs they are apparently bigger than (Inter, Milan, Juventus, Ajax).

People say it on here all the time

I was referring more to comparison's with the likes of Spurs. Spurs have been English champions just twice. Once more than Chelsea before Abramovich. It really isn't that big a difference.

BLNZ
23-07-2013, 16:04
Thats some of the worst trolling on the thread:D

Perhaps the best depending of the size of the fish you catch:angel:

BLNZ
23-07-2013, 16:12
This should lay a few myths to rest.

These stats go back to the formation of the Football League.

There is not as much separating the top clubs that some would have us believe.

Chelsea have always had a strong support.

If you can't read the data, here's a link:

http://www.wearetherangersboys.com/forum/showthread.php?60011-Average-Attendances-Over-Each-Club-s-History

Ok you cant argue with the facts, but Manchester and Liverpool both have 2 clubs in the top 10, London 3, Birmingham 1 despite having a greater population than the whole of Scotland,

kirkieger
23-07-2013, 16:18
3rd highest ever English attendance, Chelsea v Arsenal, 82,905 Stamford Bridge First Division 12 October 1935.

This always confuses people who think there was no football before Sky.

deedle
23-07-2013, 16:36
Ok you cant argue with the facts, but Manchester and Liverpool both have 2 clubs in the top 10, London 3, Birmingham 1 despite having a greater population than the whole of Scotland,

I'm not sure of the point you're making.


Clubs like Chelsea, Newcastle United, Spurs and Manchester City have always had large supports.

That this wasn't always reflected in silverware accumulated doesn't mean that we can write them off.


The striking factor in the stats above is that there is so little difference in average attendance between the successful and the not-so-successful and that some of the latter are potentially huge in worldwide terms.

Xavi Hernandez
23-07-2013, 16:39
Let’s list reasons why I think Chelsea are a “Big Club”:

Champions League winners in 2012 (first London club to do so – Hello Arsenal)
Current holders of Europa League (back to back Euro trophies, not many clubs can claim that one)
Cup Winners Cup in 98 (they can claim to have held all 3 European trophies)
7 FA Cups (including 5 since the turn of the century)
4 League wins (including back to back titles)

Whilst their success has clearly arrived since the arrival of there is no doubt that they are currently a huge club

If trophies don’t qualify:

Ashley Cole – best left back in the world (IMO), He wouldn’t play for a "small" club surely?
Jose Mourinho – best manager in the world? He wouldn’t manage a “small” club.
Mata, Luiz, Hazard, Oscar, Ramires – world class talent, or will be.

I am no Chelsea fan, but to suggest they are not a big club is mental.

Admiral Bear
23-07-2013, 16:51
Let’s list reasons why I think Chelsea are a “Big Club”:

Champions League winners in 2012 (first London club to do so – Hello Arsenal)
Current holders of Europa League (back to back Euro trophies, not many clubs can claim that one)
Cup Winners Cup in 98 (they can claim to have held all 3 European trophies)
7 FA Cups (including 5 since the turn of the century)
4 League wins (including back to back titles)

Whilst their success has clearly arrived since the arrival of there is no doubt that they are currently a huge club

If trophies don’t qualify:

Ashley Cole – best left back in the world (IMO), He wouldn’t play for a "small" club surely?
Jose Mourinho – best manager in the world? He wouldn’t manage a “small” club.
Mata, Luiz, Hazard, Oscar, Ramires – world class talent, or will be.

I am no Chelsea fan, but to suggest they are not a big club is mental.

Chelsea were always considered a moderately sized club and traditionally probably even only the 4th biggest club in London after Arsenal, Spurs and West Ham. They won the lottery with Abramovich though but I'm not sure having a mega-wealthy sugar daddy is enough of a reason to confer massive club status on them though. Had Abramovich brought Charlton Athletic they would probably be in Chelsea's position now.

Xavi Hernandez
23-07-2013, 16:54
Chelsea were always considered a moderately sized club and traditionally probably even only the 4th biggest club in London after Arsenal, Spurs and West Ham. They won the lottery with Abramovich though but I'm not sure having a mega-wealthy sugar daddy is enough of a reason to confer massive club status on them though. Had Abramovich brought Charlton Athletic they would probably be in Chelsea's position now.

And be currently a big club :dance:

kirkieger
23-07-2013, 16:55
Chelsea were always considered a moderately sized club and traditionally probably even only the 4th biggest club in London after Arsenal, Spurs and West Ham. They won the lottery with Abramovich though but I'm not sure having a mega-wealthy sugar daddy is enough of a reason to confer massive club status on them though. Had Abramovich brought Charlton Athletic they would probably be in Chelsea's position now.

How old was Abramovich when Chelsea won the Cup Winners Cup? (Both times)

GingerFurball
23-07-2013, 18:09
What a load of PISH.

Liverpool SELL OUT 100,000 seater MCG in Melbourne in record time.

Liverpool sell out two 85,000 seater stadiums in hours in Asia. Chelsea need to hand out free tickets in Malaysia to fill seats.

Size of support does 't define the size of a club.

GioVanB
23-07-2013, 18:21
If you don't think Liverpool are a big club you're a halfwit.

Chelsea are big, but still only the second biggest in their city.

waltersgotstyle.
23-07-2013, 18:30
A real big club would reach European finals, attract 40k+ at every home game and wear Royal Blue

kylegib
23-07-2013, 18:59
Liverpool, for example, have a great history but in last 20 years haven't done a great deal domestically, however still picked up some trophies in Europe.

What's the criteria for a big club and surely it evolves at some point?

Truly big clubs make history, they dont live on it.

Thoughts?

Liverpool have won many trophies over the last 20 years they just haven't won the league and the only club in England that are arguably bigger is Man Utd.

rocker
23-07-2013, 19:01
Liverpool have the biggest support in England after Man United. They are the 2nd biggest club in England therefore.

Oleg_Mcnoleg
23-07-2013, 22:49
This thread seems entirely based around trying alleviate Chelsea fans' inferiority complex. It's ok lads, Chelsea are a perfectly normal size. Absolutely normal and nothing to be embarrassed about at all. Besides, not every supporter likes a really huge club. I'm sure many prefer regular sized ones.

gazzatails
23-07-2013, 22:52
Liverpool are a club who can only live on their history to preserve a reputation

Modern day they are way behind Chelsea

CaptainCourageous
23-07-2013, 22:56
When they stop winning major trophies.

Big clubs win trophies regularly.

LivingstonLoyal
23-07-2013, 22:59
Hibsfansthink they are a big club, they can't compete with a crippled Hearts and they have consistently been failures in every competition over the years

doyle55
23-07-2013, 23:02
Liverpool are a club who can only live on their history to preserve a reputation

Modern day they are way behind Chelsea

Way behind chelsea?? Is it their history that sold out the 100,000 seater MCG.

gazzatails
23-07-2013, 23:06
Yeah cause modern day they are a average at best team with fans stuck in the past and in the shadows of bigger clubs

Earl of Leven
23-07-2013, 23:08
Are all these recent threads about 'what makes a big club' designed ONLY for Chelsea fans to talk shite? Is that their sole reason for existing? To see them humiliate themselves by having no knowledge of anything at all?

Live Forever
23-07-2013, 23:47
Are all these recent threads about 'what makes a big club' designed ONLY for Chelsea fans to talk shite? Is that their sole reason for existing? To see them humiliate themselves by having no knowledge of anything at all?

Nope. Don't think I mentioned Chelsea in the op.

Xavi Hernandez
24-07-2013, 00:06
Chelsea are massive.

deedle
24-07-2013, 08:32
Size of support does 't define the size of a club.

It is surely a critical factor.

The size of support ultimately has a bearing on potential revenue and, thus, the quality of player a club can afford.

In modern times it obviously has a bearing on how attractive a club is to billionaires.


It is remarkable that a club like Newcastle has the 6th highest average attendance, despite not having won a domestic trophy since the 50s. It suggests they have huge potential.

Do we judge everything on silverware accumulated? Would we really place Nottingham Forest above Arsenal?


It is obvious to me that many posters on this thread have assumed that Chelsea were hitherto something of a 'diddy club' and got lucky when Abramovich arrived. This is not accurate by any stretch of the imagination.


As late as the 60s, there was little difference in prestige between the major English clubs - I'd define these as the top 9 in the list above.

Manchester United only pulled away relatively recently, largely due to SAF. Liverpool had 25 years of tremendous success before falling behind. Arsenal have arguably been the most consistent club.

Several others have underachieved.


Liverpool, Everton and Newcastle United suffer a disadvantage in terms of location.

In the future, along with Manchester Utd., the major London clubs are likely to dominate.

jivman
24-07-2013, 09:08
Chelsea have a similar trophy haul to Porto in this century.

Porto are conspicuous by their absence on this thread.

Porto are a bigger club than Chelsea in terms of trophies, history and attendances, large South American following also. So if nobody is saying that Porto are a big club then Chelsea certainly are not.

Marsh
24-07-2013, 09:38
Chelsea have a similar trophy haul to Porto in this century.

Porto are conspicuous by their absence on this thread.

Porto are a bigger club than Chelsea in terms of trophies, history and attendances, large South American following also. So if nobody is saying that Porto are a big club then Chelsea certainly are not.

The whole argument is pointless. A teams current stature is determined by global following and recent seasons performances(Barca and man united being the main name on everyones lips at the moment due to the last 4-5 years). Little or no attention is paid to a clubs prestigious history as pointed out on here when I thought tottenham had pretty done nothing in terms of europe.

Anyway, take a look at the the following reasons for deciding if someone is a big club.

European history. Celtic European cup winners.
Average Attendance per season. Celtics higher than rangers due to larger stadium(when the only show in town is in their league)
Money in the bank, celtic obviously had more 2 years ago.

So answer this, who do you think is a bigger club. Us or them. It is clearly us.

Earl of Leven
24-07-2013, 09:39
Nope. Don't think I mentioned Chelsea in the op.

Sorry, but it has been dragged way off track.

glasgowrangersno1
24-07-2013, 09:45
I said this on another thread, they are judged on 4 things:

Wealth
Recent Success
Fanbase
History

The more you have of each the bigger you are.

For example, we have 2/4 just now (Fanbase and History) so this would affect players we can sign.

papasmurf
24-07-2013, 10:00
I think personally there is no definitive answer to the question. People will always use a mix of different measures. Personally for me, its all to do with domestic success, european success and fan base over a recent period of 15-20 years. Money can buy some of these so will go hand in hand. A big club needs to have a tick in those 3 boxes for me.

Man U as an example tick all 3, as do Chelsea.
We tick 2, as do many clubs, which would put us in the second tier in terms of stature.
Some clubs tick 1. Newcastle as an example.

papasmurf
24-07-2013, 10:13
I said this on another thread, they are judged on 4 things:

Wealth
Recent Success
Fanbase
History

The more you have of each the bigger you are.

For example, we have 2/4 just now (Fanbase and History) so this would affect players we can sign.

I personally dont think history plays a major part in whether a club is "big" or not. It certainly makes a club more interesting but I dont think just because a club has had a successful history allows them the ability to be classed as a big club. Just my tuppence worth.

90minsofmadness
24-07-2013, 10:27
I personally dont think history plays a major part in whether a club is "big" or not. It certainly makes a club more interesting but I dont think just because a club has had a successful history allows them the ability to be classed as a big club. Just my tuppence worth.

History is the most important part of what makes a club big. Including recent history.

kirkieger
24-07-2013, 10:34
History is the most important part of what makes a club big. Including recent history.

A club like Nottingham Forest (during the Clough years) were very succesful however due to their small fan base I've never considered them a big club.

Newcastle have always had a large (local) fan base and I would consider them a big club despite their lack of honours.

Live Forever
24-07-2013, 12:39
A club like Nottingham Forest (during the Clough years) were very succesful however due to their small fan base I've never considered them a big club.

Newcastle have always had a large (local) fan base and I would consider them a big club despite their lack of honours.

Cant just be about fan base.

Gazman_Airdrie
24-07-2013, 13:11
Why are they not?

Liverpool are going through a drought period, they will return to the top eventually IMO.

Chelsea's real history began under 10 years ago, they struggle to fill out what is quite a modest sized stadium, and before Abramovich were a mid table fodder club.

Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool are 3 clubs bigger than Chelsea, and I'd also go as far as saying Tottenham are bigger too.

KingFish
24-07-2013, 13:12
A truly big club could attract 45K+ every game in the 4th tier of one of the worst leagues in Europe.

What he said :)