18 replies to this topic

[adam_nufc]

What would you consider main attributes for a club to be considered as a big club?
Is current history more important than the full history of a club? What would be considered as recent history?

Bigger fan base? Higher average attendaces? Most trophies? Most TV appearances?

The reason why I ask is a friend and I are constantly arguing about the two main north east clubs, Newcastle and Sunderland. Obviously I am slighty (okay, majorly) swayed towards Newcastle being a more successful, well known and well supported club over Sunderland.

Any opinions on this?

[Bazza`]

Everything has to be taken to consideration for me although I would say recent success is more important than past success - if you have a good history of winning trophies then your going to be a big club but if you haven't got any recent success then there are always going to be clubs that are currently bigger (no good being a "sleeping giant"). Fan base is one the biggies too as that's what ultimately decides how much £££ you have and weather we like it or not money is a factor, although the fan base is also important for being well known and having a bigger appeal etc. Bigger stadiums are usually a good indicator too. Overall though I don't really think there is a defining factor.

In the case of Newcastle v Sunderland - neither side will like this but I don't really think there is a lot to separate the two clubs in terms of size at the moment. There was a time when Newcastle where by far and away the biggest club in the NE (they were ofcourse one of the very biggest clubs in the country not that long ago) but I'd say recent turmoils have had their impact and Sunderland have been building steadily and investing heavily. If I was being forced to pick the bigger of two I'd still say Newcastle but the gap is smaller than it used to.

Edited by Bazza`, 06 February 2012 - 05:59 PM.

[Barside]

Just look at Tottenham for an example of a big club. Sell out each game, have about a 20k waiting list for season tickets, won numerous FA Cups and couple of league titles. Had many great players over the years.

Then look at West Ham United for an example of a club who are not big. Never ever won a league title, don't sell out each game, they sell all their best players to the big clubs such as Tottenham, never been in European Cup/Champions League.

[Mark]

I think Global appeal is a big factor, the amount of people who recognise the team world wide, not just in the North East of England and based on that neither are big clubs. But only the most successful clubs have proper global appeal so there has to be other factors too, fan base is a good shout as is earnings, rather than how much money they actually have.

[Mark]

Barside, on 06 February 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

Just look at Tottenham for an example of a big club. Sell out each game, have about a 20k waiting list for season tickets, won numerous FA Cups and couple of league titles. Had many great players over the years.

Then look at West Ham United for an example of a club who are not big. Never ever won a league title, don't sell out each game, they sell all their best players to the big clubs such as Tottenham, never been in European Cup/Champions League.

I read just look at Tottenham and I already knew that was a dig at Martin, it's getting predictable now, either that or you just can't live up to your own standards, take it whichever way you want.

[Barside]

OK I'll take that on board. Cheers Mark.

[Toffee]

A better question would be: what's the point in talking about 'big clubs' these days when money is the primary factor that dictates whether players will join you and whether you'll be successful?

Football has changed. Traditionally big clubs with a trophy-laden history (like my own) don't count anymore because we're skint, we haven't won anything for years and have no prospect of doing so any time soon. This genuinely isn't meant to sound arrogant but Everton have won considerably more trophies than Newcastle and Sunderland, especially in the post-war period, but is there really any difference between the three clubs these days? Not from where I'm standing.

This might sound a bit pessimistic. One of the great things about English football is that there is still some respect for the attributes that helped define big clubs, but really it matters not a jot whether Chelsea were getting 15k in the old Division 2 25 years ago, as they possess all the attributes that define big clubs in 2012 (earning potential, global reputation, large demand from both hardcore and casual fanbases) as opposed to the likes of Everton, Newcastle and several others who are rooted in their communities, have huge hardcore support bases but have little more beyond that and their history.

[adam_nufc]

Great opinions so far. Cheers lads.

I've got to agree with pretty much everything everyone has said above but toffee does make an interesting point. Inevitably money is changing the face of the beautiful game and it's a sorry state when money buys you the league but we can all live in hope!

[Indigo Lion]

Fan base has to play a part as well as history, but recent history also has to play a big part, unfortunately what Toffee says is true, money plays a huge factor in this nowadays in pulling power as the best players at your club will attract more fans making you a "Big Club"

For the sake of your argument/banter with your friend I have always perceived Newcastle as being a bigger club than Sunderland.

[Toffee]

For the record I would say Newcastle are traditionally a bigger club than Sunderland. In fact I don't think there's much room to debate it. But whether that really matters these days is another question. Sunderland are a well developed club and there appears to be little difference between the two in set-up, infrastructure (two fantastic grounds) and finance.

Mind you, the way Newcastle are going at the moment coupled with Sunderland's improvement under O'Neill could make the rivalry very interesting to watch in the next season or two if you're both jostling for position on the fringes of the top six.

[Toffee]

Also, I think another point I've intended to make is that there will inevitably come a time when we won't even have tradition and history to cling to. For example, we've won 9 league titles all spread quite evenly throughout our history. In other words, we've consistently been up and around there (with of course the odd drop or two like every other club) ... until the last 25 years.

It is staggering to think that Everton had won more league titles than Man Utd when the Premier League was born. A better example, though, is Chelsea. They've won 4 league titles now (3 since 2005) and within 10-20 years will probably surpass Everton's tally. At that point, any Evertonian still claiming our club is 'big' won't even have the trophy stick to beat the likes of Chelsea with.

I can relate to these debates quite well because a lot of our fans judge the Everton of 2012 with the Everton of 1987 and before, which is wrong because football has changed and we make up the numbers rather than lead the pack these days. Still proud of Everton, proud of our history and tradition, but that's life!

Edited by Toffee, 06 February 2012 - 08:30 PM.

[Bluebaws]

Toffee, on 06 February 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

A better question would be: what's the point in talking about 'big clubs' these days when money is the primary factor that dictates whether players will join you and whether you'll be successful?

Football has changed. Traditionally big clubs with a trophy-laden history (like my own) don't count anymore because we're skint, we haven't won anything for years and have no prospect of doing so any time soon. This genuinely isn't meant to sound arrogant but Everton have won considerably more trophies than Newcastle and Sunderland, especially in the post-war period, but is there really any difference between the three clubs these days? Not from where I'm standing.

This might sound a bit pessimistic. One of the great things about English football is that there is still some respect for the attributes that helped define big clubs, but really it matters not a jot whether Chelsea were getting 15k in the old Division 2 25 years ago, as they possess all the attributes that define big clubs in 2012 (earning potential, global reputation, large demand from both hardcore and casual fanbases) as opposed to the likes of Everton, Newcastle and several others who are rooted in their communities, have huge hardcore support bases but have little more beyond that and their history.

Brilliantly summed up and you could have swapped my teams name for yours there. Brilliant history, huge fan base but lack of money and playing in an unattractive league bringing in peanuts means the glory days are gone (for the time being).

[Ace]

Toffee sums it up superbly. Pretty much stole my thunder but saved me writing it out and probably put it better anyway!

For me, when you say 'big' football club, as you do you associate big with size. So you think, size of fan base, stadium, attendances etc. From then, you look at history, trophies won. However, a sad state of affairs has to be when young kids start saying the clubs with money are the 'big' clubs.

[mickey]

I hate this conversation. It's just as meaningfull as the who's ffuking world class conversation.

[adam_nufc]

mickey, on 06 February 2012 - 10:07 PM, said:

I hate this conversation. It's just as meaningfull as the who's ffuking world class conversation.

I always say that which is why current results and current league standings is what counts in my opinion.

[Toffee]

mickey, on 06 February 2012 - 10:07 PM, said:

I hate this conversation. It's just as meaningfull as the who's ffuking world class conversation.

It is if it's about scoring petty points between fans. I don't think there's any harm in discussing the demise of the traditionally 'big clubs' as that is nothing to do with tribal warfare, it's a discussion about how the modern-day economics of football distort competition. Previously the support of your local community could be enough to generate substantial gate receipts and 'push on', especially if you could breed a couple of good young footballers through your youth system. Now, that's not enough. You need global appeal, TV rights from markets in all corners of the world and most crucially of all the ability to pay top dollar (which comes from the 'global appeal' or investment far removed from the lives of fans). Look at Rangers and Celtic, 50k+ through the gates most weeks (until recently when attendances seem to have declined), huge support bases in Scotland and Ireland but because their TV contract isn't big enough they can't compete in Europe.

Of course, the globalisation of football has brought a lot of benefits too, most notably the quality of footballer playing in the English league now and in the past decade or so. But it comes at a price too. Now, clubs outside the big lot are less focused on organic growth and development and focused more on short-termism and, if possible, hawking themselves to another investor in the vain hope they can try and spar with the big boys.

[mickey]

I would prefer more talk on the actual game. Not stuff around it. We don't talk that much about the game for some reason.

[Toffee]

What happens on the pitch is intrinsically linked to what happens off it. You can't talk about one and ignore the other.

Personally I prefer reading about the traditions, history and culture of clubs, all influenced by what happens on the pitch, as they're invariably more interesting than the latest discussion about whether Ronaldo is better than Messi or how unfair it is that Rory Delap takes two minutes to take every single throw Stoke have in the opposition half.

Edited by Toffee, 09 February 2012 - 08:34 PM.

[Bluebaws]

Mickey has a point today, was getting my hair cut tonight and the bloke who cuts my hair had the fitba phone in on and we were talking about the fact that all we seem to talk about these days up is debt, players wages, money matters, bigotry, racism, the law, referees and all the negatives surrounding football. We never seem to talk about what happened in games any more and that is a sad reflection on modern football.