'Biggest' Club: Discuss

[saxxeblt]

Traditionally the "Big Five" have been Liverpool, Everton, Spurs, Arsenal and Man Utd in no particular order.
And historically they have probably won the lion's share of the trophies in the English game, thing's have moved on of course. But it'll be quite a while for the new rich clubs to catch up or overtake the"Big Five" if they ever can.
Saxxe

[CaptainSlow]

Chelsea 3rd? With their nine years of history??? Chelsea were always considered a second flight team. It's amazing how many lifelong Chelsea fans appeared a few years ago, 15 years ago there seemed to be more Arsenal fans than there are now...where did they all go?

[CaptainSlow]

Le Pop said:

Are Spurs bigger than any of Newcastle Arsenal or Everton?

Newcastle maybe, but below the other two.

[im]

CaptainSlow said:

Le Pop said:

Are Spurs bigger than any of Newcastle Arsenal or Everton?

Newcastle maybe, but below the other two.

For any meaningful discussion you have to define the parameters or you're all talking about different things when coming to your conclusin.

For instance, lets take ability to attract bigger names to the club using the clubs listed above. Who would the bigger players rather play for today?

In that context aren' t Spurs more attractive than Newcastle and Everton? On a par with Arsenal? If your talking about attendances then clearly its Arsenal first followed closely by Newcastle then Everton and lastly Spurs. European history? But if its turnover then....etc etc

In short, without clearly defined context its a non-sense arguement.

[Raja]

I'd also start by defining big by breaking it down in to categories:

History
Recent successes
Aura/Fame
Following
Wealth

[U T]

CaptainSlow said:

Chelsea 3rd? With their nine years of history??? Chelsea were always considered a second flight team. It's amazing how many lifelong Chelsea fans appeared a few years ago, 15 years ago there seemed to be more Arsenal fans than there are now...where did they all go?

I'm a Chelsea fan, since 1969, aged 7, and would have to agree with that. I don't think we're a big club. I don't want to be considered a big club. We're a mediocre club who have done well for a couple of decades, and 80 yrs of failure before than. We're not Liverpool, Man U or Arsenal and I'm glad of that. I'm actually quite proud of following my team home and away trying to avoid the drop to the old division 3, and doing so with a draw against Grimsby on the last day of the season.

[fathomfive]

im said:

For any meaningful discussion you have to define the parameters or you're all talking about different things when coming to your conclusin.

For instance, lets take ability to attract bigger names to the club using the clubs listed above. Who would the bigger players rather play for today?

In that context aren' t Spurs more attractive than Newcastle and Everton? On a par with Arsenal? If your talking about attendances then clearly its Arsenal first followed closely by Newcastle then Everton and lastly Spurs. European history? But if its turnover then....etc etc

In short, without clearly defined context its a non-sense arguement.

how do you define 'big'?

[MaxAndRuby]

Spurs, Everton, Arsenal, Leeds, Forest, Newcastle, Hull


ALL of those clubs are 'bigger' than Chelsea FC. It's impossible to put into words just how small a club they are. They have very few true fans, most people that go to the games are tourists/corporate guests. That's why they have to hand out flags and the bars sell more wine than beer.







Ok, ok not Hull.

[im]

Sorry Max, have to disagree chap. Honest question, have you ever lived in London?

I was born & bred in central London and lived for a short while in Fulham and to be honest Chelsea were and are a massive club in the capital...but, and here's their problem...they are only massive in the capital. Their history is soooo tied in with that of London and in particular the trendy bit of West London that not many people from outside the capital took them to their hearts. Spurs, West Ham and Arsenal coming from comparitively run-down areas built up their fan bases based upon a more general appeal.

Chelsea have probably the biggest catchment area in London, certainly when I was growing up their were many times more Chelsea fans amongst my mates at school and other mates from around central London than their were any other club - and this is (obviously) well before their current success.

They would frequently be the best attended ground back in the days of the old Stamford Bridge with the shed end etc and whilst their attendances in recent years perhaps haven't been commensurate with their on-field success believe me, a few decades ago when they were much less successful they had fantastic support.

I think to understand the football club 'Chelsea', unlike say Spuds and Arse, you do need to have lived in London - their appeal is uniquely capital-centric especially amongst the 'kids'.

[im]

This is an interesting read (and there's a snippet in there that explains the origins of Chelsea's historic hatred of Spurs but not, strangely, Fulham in the 4th paragraph):

http://www.oleole.com/premier-league/chelsea/histo...

This kinda makes my point about their attendances decadeas ago:

In October 1945...it was announced that FC Dynamo Moscow, reigning champions of the Soviet Union, would tour the United Kingdom and play several home teams, including Chelsea...An estimated crowd of over 100,000 people attended the match, with thousands entering the ground illegally. This crowd is the highest ever recorded at Stamford Bridge. Spectators watched from numerous obscure places, including many on the dog track and on the top of stands.

Even I was at Stamford Bridge amongst 55,000 fans.

[U T]

MaxAndRuby said:

Spurs, Everton, Arsenal, Leeds, Forest, Newcastle, Hull


ALL of those clubs are 'bigger' than Chelsea FC. It's impossible to put into words just how small a club they are. They have very few true fans, most people that go to the games are tourists/corporate guests. That's why they have to hand out flags and the bars sell more wine than beer.

I think that's a bit unfair. We're a very well supported club with a good recent history, but a history or mediocraty for many years before that. More impotantly, most of us do not have any delusions of grandeur. In fact, the history of Chelsea and Liverpool is not disimilar up to the early 60s. Both pretty useless. But of course what Liverpool achieved in the 70s and 80s, in Europe especially, has elevated them to a status that your recent history doesn't live up to. But you can't take those achievements away from Liverpool. To be the best team on the whole continenet for years is an increadible achievement.

But, I think fans of Barcelona & Real Madrid would find it astonishing that any club that hasn't won their own domestic league for 2 decades can claim to be a big club. Err , computer says no.

Liverpool cannot live on past glories for ever.

[Pothole]

U T said:

MaxAndRuby said:

Spurs, Everton, Arsenal, Leeds, Forest, Newcastle, Hull


ALL of those clubs are 'bigger' than Chelsea FC. It's impossible to put into words just how small a club they are. They have very few true fans, most people that go to the games are tourists/corporate guests. That's why they have to hand out flags and the bars sell more wine than beer.

I think that's a bit unfair. We're a very well supported club with a good recent history, but a history or mediocraty for many years before that. More impotantly, most of us do not have any delusions of grandeur. In fact, the history of Chelsea and Liverpool is not disimilar up to the early 60s. Both pretty useless. But of course what Liverpool achieved in the 70s and 80s, in Europe especially, has elevated them to a status that your recent history doesn't live up to. But you can't take those achievements away from Liverpool. To be the best team on the whole continenet for years is an increadible achievement.

But, I think fans of Barcelona & Real Madrid would find it astonishing that any club that hasn't won their own domestic league for 2 decades can claim to be a big club. Err , computer says no.

Liverpool cannot live on past glories for ever.

nor do they expect to, nor do their fans expect them to. In fact the only people who think that may be the case are fans of other clubs and mean-spirited pundits...living on past glories implies not making any effort to keep winning trophies. Liverpool are making every effort to do more of that.

As far as the OP goes, sadly United appear to have attracted more glory hunters even than Liverpool did in the 80s. Their PR machine is big and slick and works well. Their whinging manager and cheating players don't seem to turn these people off so they'll carry on being the biggest club in the country until Ferguson loses his touch or retires, then the slide will begin.

[Cheib]

[quote=im

They would frequently be the best attended ground back in the days of the old Stamford Bridge with the shed end etc and whilst their attendances in recent years perhaps haven't been commensurate with their on-field success believe me, a few decades ago when they were much less successful they had fantastic support.

[/quote]

I've no idea how old you are but in my memoty/lifetime (I'm 43) Chelsea have never been had the best attendance in London. Check out these stats for Arsenal and Chelsea....looks like Chelsea had better attendance in 1970...even in Arsenal's dark days in the mid 80's they had better support.

Chelsea http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn...

Arsenal http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn...

Not sure I buy the biggest crowds on occasion either...Highbury actually had the biggest capacity in the country in the 80's before the Clock End had the boxes built above it. I remember going to a couple of games in the 80's with a 60,000 crowd.

[im]

The point I'm making is that even when Arsenal did their first double they averaged only 4,000 fans per game more than Chelsea who finished 6th.

Anyway, calling Chelsea a small club is ridiculous and lord knows I don't like Chelsea.

And frankly 25,000 at the bridge felt bigger than 60,000 at highbury.

[U T]

All this "my club is bigger than yours" rubbish doesn't really bother me.

I'm a Chelsea fan and I love my club. I couldn't give a flying fk what anyone else thinks of my club, and I don't know anyone else would care what I thought of their club.

It's nonsense. Apparently Newcastle fans are the most fanatical. Says who? It hasn't done them much good. They're certainly the most perochial fans. I don't think they'll be happy until Ant & Dec are joint chairmen, Jimmy Nail is in goal and Gina Mckee is up front. But if that makes them happy to think they're better fans than anyone else, let them. No skin off my nose.

Same with the scousers. If they think they're still a big club good on 'em. If it makes them happy. matters not to me. The only teams I care about is Chelsea, and who Chelsea are playing next.

[aka_kerrly]

Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool are the 3 biggest clubs in terms of their history, their fan base, their successes and form over the years even prior to the Premier League.

Manchester City, Chelsea, Everton and Newcastle form the next tier although I despise how city/chelsea can buy success and by doing so increase the number of glory supporters.

[Cheib]

im said:

The point I'm making is that even when Arsenal did their first double they averaged only 4,000 fans per game more than Chelsea who finished 6th.

Right but Chelsea had won the FA cup the year before and finished third...and Chelsea had a bigger attendance the year before (1970) as I pointed out;)

[CaptainSlow]

My view on the 'biggest' clubs whatever that means

Man Utd
Liverpool
Arsenal/Spurs/Everton
Newcastle/Villa/Leeds

I grew up in West London in the 80's half way between Watford and QPR. Teams supported by 15 male classmates only Liverpool and Spurs had more than one supporter. Everton, Chelsea and QPR had one each, I don't think anyone supported Man Utd or Arsenal.

Fast-forward a few years and it would look completely different, early 90's Man Utd, late 90's Arsenal, early 00's Chelsea. A measure of the true size of a club is to measure the attendences when they aren't winning anything or are perceived to be unfashionable. Would Chelsea get the same attendencies if they had the same levels of recent success as Newcastle or Everton? I doubt it.

[CaptainSlow]

aka_kerrly said:

I despise how city/chelsea can buy success and by doing so increase the number of glory supporters.

+1

Buying success can be stopped but glory supporters are just a natural part of human behaviour.

When I talk to a supporter I only respect their choice of club if they were a supporter before the age of 10. I'm fed up with the amount of people (tend to be Arsenal fans but that's just because they were successful at the time)saying how great their team is, upon closer discussion it becomes clear that they became a supporter in their 20's.

[ascayman]

chelsea never have been and never will be a big club.

The only two real bug clubs in the country are liverpool and man utd. after that there are a clutch of large clubs spurs, arsenal, everton and villa.