Measuring "BIG" clubs

[blueste41]

A few years ago everyone talked about "the big four" based on the fact that they always finished 1-4 in the league. Obviously, these were


The rags
Chelsea
Arsenal
Liverpool

For me, we have replaced Liverpool in that group. Pretty simplistic and only looks at English teams but their you go.

If it floats the boat of Liverpool fans to still think of themselves as a big club because of history-fill yer boots, but I would rather be winning trophies here and now as a small club than harking back to the days when we did!

 

[Cellarite]

Made me laugh when bacon described Newcastle as a "wee club." How many clubs in the world would average 50,000 attendances (including United) when they haven't won a domestic trophy for almost 60 years. I always think size of crowds and revenue are the most important things when considering whether a club is big or not. In the UK City are a big club but we are nowhere near the summit in global terms (though that will change overtime) In world terms you have got United, Barca, Real, Liverpool and Bayern Munich as the top tier.

Plus the Milans, Juventus and possibly Ajax.

My only issue with Juve is that though they have a famous name they have always attracted pitiful attendances..often below 20,000. They are followed by armchair fans across the whole of Italy. They would be in my second tier. Because of their exploits in the 70s Ajax are still a huge iconic club..bit like a smaller scale Liverpool

Ajax are every bit as big as the others you've mentioned but have been marginalised by UEFA bringing in the Champions League. I believe if we saw a change back to the old style European Cup, the true giants of the game would show themselves. Benfica, Ajax, Marseille and others who are pushed aside to pander to the countrys with the strongest leagues.

I agree about Juventus but think that support is different in Britain than anywhere else in Europe. There's never more than a thousand or two away fans at El Clasico.

 

[sir baconface]

Oh and you need an 'Obnoxiousness of Fans' factor too - the other 19 PL clubs would rank this really really highly thus demoted the Rags to last place in the list of big clubs ;-)

And by implication we would be top. Yes, I'll have some of that.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The answer to this question depends almost entirely on what club you support.

People will tailor their answers to ensure that their club is as elevated as possible.

Liverpool fans will pick European success, united domestic. Newcastle recent home attendances, Celtic global support.

How 'big' your club is has become a major badge of honour in recent years. A form of self vindication. It is a little absurd that we all get so worked up by it, but get worked up by it we all do.

It is why united's taunting of us for being 'massive' has come back to haunt them with such force. City becoming 'big' is their vision of footballing hell, and why, I guess, the fact we are now a big club, by any objective measure you wish to apply, is such an enjoyable experience.

Let me play devils advocate here. You stated above that City are "now" a big club. Which would indicate that we weren't prior to the investment in the club. So lets say that the investment was taken away, would we automatically revert to our earlier status? Because if that's the case, then we couldn't be considered a big club. Liverpool have been garbage for 20 years, but are still in the top 5 for shirt sales in world football.

Worldwide Shirt sales 2012

1) Manchester United and Real Madrid 1.4m

2) Barcelona 1’15m

3) Chelsea 910k

4)Bayern Munich 880k

5) Liverpool 810k

I have always considered City to be a big club. I used to cite our attendance records in the 30's and late 90's as evidence of this. Our attendance figures since we moved to the Etihad have consistently placed us among the top 5/6 supported clubs in the country, which surely justifies the label of 'big club'.

My point was that the reasons that others used to ascribe to us not being a big club: lack of trophies, lack of global recognition, lack of financial clout are palpably no longer in operation.

As to us reverting if the money disappeared tomorrow, quite possibly, but I suspect in a few years the answer will be a very different one.

 

[fulabeer]

(re-posted here from the Sturridge thread)

Liverpool are a historic club. They have genuine passionate fans, and are known globally.
But they are a fading light, and unless they do something to turn it around, the new generation of (world) fans won't know (or care) who they are.

Some on here think we are suddenly a big club again. The truth is we are not there yet. The good thing is that we have everything in place to get there. Bringing money into a club can get instant results, but that is not enough. Look at Blackburn as a good example. Being a big club involves more than one element. The first thing you need to do is win something, then keep winning. This then tends to attract a bigger fan base, that means more income. Sometimes winning isn't enough though. It is how you win that can have more of an impact. Take Chelsea last season. Won the champions league (and the FA cup), yet nobody is talking about it. All talk is about the 1-6 derby, and the last day of the season. Balotelli is another case in point. Failing to reach his potential on the pitch, but an advertising dream. He is a global product reaching people who only know who City are because of him. This in turn makes us a bigger club. (rightly or wrongly)

Because City cannot just keep pumping money in, they have to be more realistic on how we conduct our business. The new training academy will take care of that. It will produce players for us, and money from those who we sell on. Because we will be getting the pick of the bunch, we will be guaranteeing future success. At some point in time, that success will translate into us being one of the most successful (hense biggest) clubs around.

I would also suggest the biggest club is the one attracting the best players. At one time, they were beating the door down to get into Liverpool and United, not anymore. We had to pay more to get the top players here (what else did we have to offer, the weather?!!!). But that is changing, as top players can see the direction we are going. We had to offer the big wages, but now we are offering the chance of success. One thing nobody can deny to be considered a big club is Champions league success. We can batter the English league all we want, but must crack this nut pretty sharpish!

Or you could just forget all of the above, and realise that the biggest club is the one winning at that moment in time. In that case who wins this year? Chelsea won the FA cup and Champions league, we only won the Charity Shield and the Premier league. I know which club is being talked about more....!

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I'm struggling to think of anything I care less about than whether we are a "big club" or not.

Dick waving for insecure football supporters.

Exactly my feelings.

I would have thought, TMQ, that anything that was designed to irritate the hoards of armchair rags is something that you would care about to some extent.


Perhaps I have overestimated your sentiments in that regard.

 

[Cobwebcat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deloitte_Football_Money_League

http://www.starcount.com/#!chart/sports-team/4f2ad56a2418ae215b000084/alltime

 

[Stretford Born Blue]

Difficult question to answer as it's somewhat objective...
My view is this...
How is the club viewed on a local, national and international basis..?
You could say some clubs a 'big' and some are 'huge' based on various criteria including:
Fan base locally, nationally and internationally.
Ticket sales and demand.
Past history.
Future potential success.
Present commercial strength.
Future commercial growth.
Present social media interest levels.
Future social media levels.

You could go on.......................

 

[deafmanstevo]

Real Madrid not a big club, they could only sell the bottom tier in our champs league game.
well according to the rags , we arent cos we coudnt sell out arsenal away, so we are on par with Real then.:)

 

[Shaelumstash]

Re: Measuring "BIG" clubs

For me a big club takes in to account support and success both historically and in the modern day, with more weight added to how recently it happened.

I'd say there's clearly a "big 3" who have competed with each other over the past 50 years as the biggest clubs in the country:
Liverpool
Shite
Arsenal

I'd put us in the second tier behind them, in no particular order:
Chelsea
Everton
Villa
City
Leeds
Spurs
Newcastle

Liverpool were clearly the biggest club in the country in the 80s, no matter what any Shite fan will tell you, they weren't even close. Unfortunately, because of recent success, the Shite have edged in front of them, but if they went 20 years without winning the league and Liverpool started winning titles again, the roles would be reversed again.

If you'd asked who was a bigger club out of City and Leeds in 1992, there wouldn't be many who would argue City were bigger, whereas now you wouldn't get many saying Leeds are bigger today. There is clearly more weight added to how recent the success / level of support is.

So in 2013 you could argue Chelsea and City are as big as Liverpool and Arsenal. Put it this way, if City, Liverpool and Arsenal offered Falcao the same wages, who would he be most likely to join?