Measuring "BIG" clubs

[Aaronj]

This has been fuelled by Sturridge's comments about Lpool bein a "bigger" club than the two previous employers.

My question is how so you define what a bigger club is? Do you measure it on attendances, income, global shirt sales, recent success, past success & history or future chances of success or all of these?

Interesting to see everyone's thoughts because I'm having a heated discussion at work as I think I measure the "big" club in a different way than most.

 

[gkmcfc]

Liverpool will always have a big following but they lag behind Chelsea on the social networks and we're catching up fast.
The younger generation particularly won't view Liverpool as much because they've not challenged or won the league for over 20 years

 

[M24-CRC]

This has been fuelled by Sturridge's comments about Lpool bein a "bigger" club than the two previous employers.

My question is how so you define what a bigger club is? Do you measure it on attendances, income, global shirt sales, recent success, past success & history or future chances of success or all of these?

Interesting to see everyone's thoughts because I'm having a heated discussion at work as I think I measure the "big" club in a different way than most.

tell me how you measure a big club and i will tell you if you are right or not

 

[normski6071]

2 some1 of my generation Liverpool will always be a big club and if u did what kids do today most support the top teams we would all be scouse fans lol

 

[Deleted member 52846]

Recent success
Historical success
Stadium
Stadium size
Recent attendances
Historical attendances
Record attendances
How many follow away from home on a regular basis
Income
Media profile
Public interest
Infrastructure
Name in other sports
What a club provides for its local community
Employment opportunities
Youth development

Liverpool try to portray themselves as if they're this huge club. Yet their stadium size, recent attendances, record attendances, income, name in other sports and youth development is nowhere near at the level of many of the other giants of this sport across Europe.

 

[Kippax.]

Liverpool are bigger than Chelsea and City. For us to be as big we would need to have a period of 20/25 years of League and Cup success.

 

[mcfcdjr]

This is a tough one. History must play a part but I think the potential for a club to succeed should also be a factor. People always called us a small club but now we have money we are labelled one of the big clubs. What has made that change ? The money ? Top Players ? Trophies ? or Potential ? This is just one of those things that is subjective and depends on who you ask lol

 

[dancity19]

Liverpool are bigger than Chelsea and City. For us to be as big we would need to have a period of 20/25 years of League and Cup success.

Liverpool are historic. If they are currently bigger it really depends what the measurement is, and that is what is being debated.

They still have a huge fanbase across the UK. But in conversations with any Lpool supporting mates, they, and I think this is Liverpools last season where they can live off the name. That is all they are doing at the moment.

I'm really not sure you could say Liverpool are bigger than Chelsea. City, yes, they probably are.

I guess it really is 'old money' vs 'new money'. Liverpool are the aristocratic family, with the land, and the family name. Chelsea (and us) are the seriously rich 'new boys', we are buying all their land, and they are left thinking they are better than us, because of the name. We are a bigger player across the world now. We live in the better house. We are doing the deals. They are left complaining about us, wishing life was what it used to be....

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

This has been fuelled by Sturridge's comments about Lpool bein a "bigger" club than the two previous employers.

My question is how so you define what a bigger club is? Do you measure it on attendances, income, global shirt sales, recent success, past success & history or future chances of success or all of these?

Interesting to see everyone's thoughts because I'm having a heated discussion at work as I think I measure the "big" club in a different way than most.

It's a combination of all of these I'd say. So the really big clubs would be the rags, Arsenal, Liverpool with us and Chelsea now in that group as junior members. Obviously Arsenal & Liverpool haven't won anything significant for a while but they still have global pull whereas us and Chelsea have won things but maybe haven't yet quite got the global pull that the others have.

Behind that you've got Spurs, West Ham, Newcastle, Villa, Everton & Sunderland, who all have a good following and decent history in terms of success over the last 50 years.

 

[Deleted member 52846]

Liverpool are bigger than Chelsea and City. For us to be as big we would need to have a period of 20/25 years of League and Cup success.

Liverpool, in the height of their most successful years, were bigger than City and Chelsea are currently. Liverpool of 2013 are not the same Liverpool of 1982; just like they weren't the same Liverpool in 1982 as they were just before Shankley took over in the 60s (obviously a vice-versa situation).

City and Chelsea both have record attendances of well over 80000; Liverpools is something like 61000. City and Chelsea easily match Liverpool's current attendances (and Liverpool have ONE other club in their city; Chelsea and City have about a dozen others in theirs, one in each have much higher attendances than Chelsea and City too [Arsenal/United]). Chelsea have won more in the last ten years than Liverpool have in the previous quarter of a decade. City and Chelsea are both in the top ten most popular sporting club's websites in the world.