Big Club!

[KingsX]

1 hour ago, Pete from the USA said:

Question for the group: Is there really only one way to be a "big club"?

 

We know from Man City that if you spend enough money (billions) and are ruthless enough (poach other clubs, sell anyone who isn't instantly performing at a top level), you can become a big club and win titles. Doing this is totally uninspiring, at least to me, no matter how beautiful the football. 

 

On the other hand, we all know that money isn't everything. Players are people and can perform amazing in one context but tank in another. Also, whether a side wins depends most on whether they gel and play as a team.

 

Leicester showed us in 2016 that a group of talented but imperfect players, in a supportive environment--if they play like a team--can rise up and win a title. Maybe they can't do it day-in and day-out, but great things are possible. Leicester winning the title wasn't a fluke: They were the best team that season. The club will never be the same again. Football as a sport will never be the same again. 

 

So, here's the question: Is it possible to be "big" in a different way, supporting talented but imperfect players and working as a team, rather than just dumping tons of cash?

 

People on this forum agree that Leicester will never be able to spend like Man City do. Personally, I would consider it a failure anyway, because then they would just become another bunch of ruthless elites.

 

Is there another way?

 

 

It takes sustained revenue to attract and retain the very best players and staff, and put them in the best facilities.  League position is 90% correlated to revenues over a 10-year period in the top European leagues. 

 

League results, CL football, worldwide fanbases, etc. are a cash-powered feedback loop for big clubs.  They may have entered the loop from different foundations (existing fanbase; oil-country ownership; dominant position in a major city and European league).  But the gate is now largely closed.  FFP, Bosman free agency, and player/agent power have become huge barriers to entry.

 

You can out-scout and out-negotiate the competition -- take Spurs.  Add in their London base, new stadium, and media connections and they are now part of a PL “big six”.  But if they continue to win zilch, they may yet fall back.

 

Our title did give LCFC the chance to become “the people’s club” which could have established a worldwide brand, thus getting us “in”.  But the window was brief (a major consultancy estimated it at six to nine months at the time).  And we lacked the long-term PL organizational infrastructure and historical success that would have enabled us to climb through it.  Kante was lost, recruitment was randomized between the manager and an inexperienced staff, and we had little to attract world-class players.  We were scrambling just to upgrade existing contracts.  In retrospect that would have been a 5,000-1 shot on top of a 5,000-1 shot.

 

So, big club?  No.  But I would like to think there is another niche.  That of the stable, well-resourced, well-run club valued in the world top 30.  With ideas and infrastructure ahead of most (even some of the big clubs).  A club quite attractive to players and true fans.  With an identity based on history and a locality, but universal exposure and appeal.  And yes, a billionaire ownership.

 

Stability would still be tough in the long term.  Anything other than an entrenched big club is one ownership change, or a few transfer windows, away from the fall.  But I perceive a momentum behind our rise that keeps me optimistic.

Edited 18 July 2018 by KingsX

[Spudulike]

Are Everton and Newcastle big clubs ?? Perhaps even Leeds if they were ever to return to the Premier League ??

 

Why does the media seem to think so ?? Perhaps that's the type of big club that we aspire to.... or perhaps we already are.

 

No one has ever nailed the definition of what makes a big club. We need a formula.

[MC Prussian]

5 hours ago, crisp packet said:

We are A LOT bigger than we was !

 

Other clubs with prominent representation in Russia included familiar domestic powerhouses such as Tottenham, Juventus, Bayern Munich, Manchester United, Barcelona and Paris Saint-Germain.

Interestingly, the next club on that list is 2015/16 Premier League champions Leicester - who had 10 members of their squad appear on the world stage.

 

The number of players used at a World Cup (or any other tournament for that matter) isn't truly reflective of how "big" or well-oiled or professional or good or dominant a club is in the great scheme of things.

It's a bit like clinging onto straws in that regard. This is but a momentary snapshot in time.

There's many reasons why some players are picked over others at tournaments/in national teams - personal preference by the manager, influence in the dressing room, current form, age/experience, lack of suitable options due to injury, etc.

Edited 18 July 2018 by MC Prussian

[Pete from the USA]

2 hours ago, KingsX said:

 

It takes sustained revenue to attract and retain the very best players and staff, and put them in the best facilities.  League position is 90% correlated to revenues over a 10-year period in the top European leagues. 

 

League results, CL football, worldwide fanbases, etc. are a cash-powered feedback loop for big clubs.  They may have entered the loop from different foundations (existing fanbase; oil-country ownership; dominant position in a major city and European league).  But the gate is now largely closed.  FFP, Bosman free agency, and player/agent power have become huge barriers to entry.

 

You can out-scout and out-negotiate the competition -- take Spurs.  Add in their London base, new stadium, and media connections and they are now part of a PL “big six”.  But if they continue to win zilch, they may yet fall back.

 

Our title did give LCFC the chance to become “the people’s club” which could have established a worldwide brand, thus getting us “in”.  But the window was brief (a major consultancy estimated it at six to nine months at the time).  And we lacked the long-term PL organizational infrastructure and historical success that would have enabled us to climb through it.  Kante was lost, recruitment was randomized between the manager and an inexperienced staff, and we had little to attract world-class players.  We were scrambling just to upgrade existing contracts.  In retrospect that would have been a 5,000-1 shot on top of a 5,000-1 shot.

 

So, big club?  No.  But I would like to think there is another niche.  That of the stable, well-resourced, well-run club valued in the world top 30.  With ideas and infrastructure ahead of most (even some of the big clubs).  A club quite attractive to players and true fans.  With an identity based on history and a locality, but universal exposure and appeal.  And yes, a billionaire ownership.

 

Stability would still be tough in the long term.  Anything other than an entrenched big club is one ownership change, or a few transfer windows, away from the fall.  But I perceive a momentum behind our rise that keeps me optimistic.

 

In other words, your answer to my question is "no". There is only one way to be a big club, and it is spending large amounts of money. The alternative to spending large amounts of money is not being a big club, though one could be a medium-sized club by spending medium-sized amounts of money, and this is not so bad. But Premier League titles are for the rich people who run the world. 

 

Would you say that is a good summary?

[Spudulike]

8 minutes ago, Pete from the USA said:

In other words, your answer to my question is "no". There is only one way to be a big club, and it is spending large amounts of money. The alternative to spending large amounts of money is not being a big club, though one could be a medium-sized club by spending medium-sized amounts of money, and this is not so bad. But Premier League titles are for the rich people who run the world. 

 

Would you say that is a good summary?

Spurs are seen as a big club, aren't they ?? ... but haven't they spent less on player transfers and wages than LCFC in the past two seasons ?? (I don't have figures to back this up to hand). Transfer net spend is one part of the equation, but not the only one, I think.

[ajthefox]

52 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

The number of players used at a World Cup (or any other tournament for that matter) isn't truly reflective of how "big" or well-oiled or professional or good or dominant a club is in the great scheme of things.

It's a bit like clinging onto straws in that regard. This is but a momentary snapshot in time.

There's many reasons why some players are picked over others at tournaments/in national teams - personal preference by the manager, influence in the dressing room, current form, age/experience, lack of suitable options due to injury, etc.

 

It isn't necessarily an indicator but look at the company we are in. You can't say that's not impressive and a testament to our development in recent years.

[leicesterseddon]

2 hours ago, Spudulike said:

Are Everton and Newcastle big clubs ?? Perhaps even Leeds if they were ever to return to the Premier League ??

 

Why does the media seem to think so ?? Perhaps that's the type of big club that we aspire to.... or perhaps we already are.

 

No one has ever nailed the definition of what makes a big club. We need a formula.

 

It's a combination of history, fanbase, wealth, current stature, stadium size, trophies, catchment area/local population, etc. 

 

No one will ever nail a formula because fans of different clubs will inevitably pick those criteria which show them in the best light. 

 

Personally I don't think England has a 'Big Six' anyway...Man Utd and Liverpool are as different from say Spurs as they are in turn from a club like us. 

[KingsX]

44 minutes ago, Pete from the USA said:

In other words, your answer to my question is "no". There is only one way to be a big club, and it is spending large amounts of money. The alternative to spending large amounts of money is not being a big club, though one could be a medium-sized club by spending medium-sized amounts of money, and this is not so bad. But Premier League titles are for the rich people who run the world. 

 

Would you say that is a good summary?

I admit it needed a summary.     And the best one-word summary is “No.”

 

But I would prefer "No, but ... there are better things than being a big club." 

 

Even newbies like me and you understand how much sweeter this      was, compared to     .

 

And that whether it happens again isn’t the most important thing. 

 

 

[HighPeakFox]

I defend your collective right to have this discussion.

 

And I defend my right to tell you all that it's utterly ridiculous!

[crisp packet]

50 minutes ago, ajthefox said:

It isn't necessarily an indicator but look at the company we are in. You can't say that's not impressive and a testament to our development in recent years.

This .

Was more tongue in cheek regarding the clubs that was on the image..

[Pete from the USA]

5 hours ago, Spudulike said:

Spurs are seen as a big club, aren't they ?? ... but haven't they spent less on player transfers and wages than LCFC in the past two seasons ?? (I don't have figures to back this up to hand). Transfer net spend is one part of the equation, but not the only one, I think.

This question got me wondering so I looked up some numbers on Transfermarkt for the 2017-18 season (sorry, everything is in Euro):

 

Leicester: 88M (purchase of 7 players) - 48M (sale of 4 players) = 40M spent

Spurs: 122M (purchase of 6 players) - 104M (sale of 6 players) = 18M spent
Man United: 164M (purchase of 3 players) - 12M (sale of 2 players) = 152M spent

Arsenal: 122M (purchase of 3 players) - 119M (sale of 7 players) = 3M *earned*

Man City: 318M (purchase of 10 players) - 96M (sale of 13 players) = 222M spent

Chelsea: 258M (purchase of 8 players) - 201M (sale of 9 players) = 57M spent

Crystal Palace: 48M (purchase of 4 players) - 3M (sale of 1 player) = 45M spent

Everton: 203M (purchase of 9 players) - 127M (sale of 8 players) = 76M spent

Southampton: 62M (purchase of 4 players) - 11M (sale of 1 player) = 51M spent

 

A few observations:

 

1. Premier League clubs lose a huge amount of money on players that they bought for big money, didn't work out, then sold at a loss.

2. Man City and Man U blow insane amounts of cash compared to everybody else burning through players.

3. Leicester's net spending is similar to some of the top clubs, and more than Tottenham or Arsenal, at least that season.

4. Despite the problems, Leicester have done better than most clubs at recouping transfer fees, though not as well as Tottenham. 

 

So, what does this tell us? 

 

If you're willing to base some big statements on one season, you'd say that clubs vary a lot not only on how much they spend, but on how much their players retain value. Leicester players keep their value a lot better than players at Man City or Man United, meaning players develop and prosper more at Leicester, though Tottenham seem to do the best at this.

 

 

Man City players do the worst. It is a shark of a club that eats players. Good luck Riyad. 

 

 

 

Edited 19 July 2018 by Pete from the USA

[Chrysalis]

On 16/07/2018 at 21:53, ourla said:

On the general point we are undoubtedly at a cross roads. Another couple of seasons with no Europe and inconsistent form and the Prem win and CL run memories will start to fade.

 

But the owners have proved to be smart cookies and are doing the right things. We just have to get it right on the pitch again.

 

And personally I'd rather be mixing it than average Joes. No reason why we can't keep our identity.

Most of our transfer business seems to be about prioritising young players with potential, the sort of thing that makes a profitable transfer policy and makes the club money, but these young players if they prove good will leave the club as they will be at an age that is prime for the vultures, thats the problem with out current transfer policy.

 

We definitely need to target some 28-31 year old players then we can improve the squad without worrying about the players leaving.

[Carl the Llama]

3 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

Most of our transfer business seems to be about prioritising young players with potential, the sort of thing that makes a profitable transfer policy and makes the club money, but these young players if they prove good will leave the club as they will be at an age that is prime for the vultures, thats the problem with out current transfer policy.

 

We definitely need to target some 28-31 year old players then we can improve the squad without worrying about the players leaving.

I'm not sure how true this is, we seem to have a fairly even spread:

Last season we signed 7 players for the first team squad, 3 of whom were 28 or above (Silva, Iborra, Jakupovic).  So far this window we've signed a 30 y/o Evans, 24 y/o Pereira and 21 y/o Maddison.  To me that's a pretty well rounded approach to balancing youth and experience.  We don't want to be West Brom churning out old squads and getting relegated.

[Gerard]

20 hours ago, Spudulike said:

Are Everton and Newcastle big clubs ?? Perhaps even Leeds if they were ever to return to the Premier League ??

 

Why does the media seem to think so ?? Perhaps that's the type of big club that we aspire to.... or perhaps we already are.

 

No one has ever nailed the definition of what makes a big club. We need a formula.

 

Simple answer in one word................................. revenue.

[gurru991]

5 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

Most of our transfer business seems to be about prioritising young players with potential, the sort of thing that makes a profitable transfer policy and makes the club money, but these young players if they prove good will leave the club as they will be at an age that is prime for the vultures, thats the problem with out current transfer policy.

 

We definitely need to target some 28-31 year old players then we can improve the squad without worrying about the players leaving.

The problem with that is you pay top dollar with very little chance of ever recouping the investment. I like that we are signing mid twenties players who may form a solid core to take the club forward.

[DelBoy73]

To make it simple, any club that makes it to the top 8 on a regular basis is a " big club ".

We need to avoid relegation first and have a full decade of history in this league under our belt, then we will be seen as an established top-tier club.

 

Edited 20 July 2018 by DelBoy73

[fleckneymike]

On 13/07/2018 at 22:00, pazzerfox said:

As the title suggests I'm interested to know the views of forum members as to how we (or any other club for that matter) make the jump into the realms of a "big club"?  I currently get slightly irked when pundits and ex professionals call our players out to move to a "big club".  We are already seeing the decimation of our title winning team, so I'm curious as to how we can stop this happening in the future?

 

How do we turn ourselves into a big club without players wanting to jump ship?

 

To me it seems like a catch 22 situation.  You can only attract the best players if you are winning trophies and paying high wages, but you can only win trophies regularly if you have the top players and pay high wages!

 

Your views would be appreciated.

 

 

Big clubs win things. Small clubs talk about winning things. 

[Spudulike]

42 minutes ago, fleckneymike said:

Big clubs win things. Small clubs talk about winning things. 

Liverpool have been talking about winning the Premier League for 26 years.

 

Guess that must make them small.

[limeydale]

 Let Manchester have City, it's so boring and un-inspirational. I don't want us to be known as City, I want us to be known as LEICESTER!! there is only one and we represent more than the City. I propose we drop "City" from the clubs name and be known as Leicester...for We Are Leicester!! there can be only one.

[limeydale]

4 hours ago, fleckneymike said:

Big clubs win things. Small clubs talk about winning things. 

That's it right there, it's the way it is in all sports the world over. The world will let us know when we're a big club, till then enjoy the ride.

[Spudulike]

3 hours ago, limeydale said:

 Let Manchester have City, it's so boring and un-inspirational. I don't want us to be known as City, I want us to be known as LEICESTER!! there is only one and we represent more than the City. I propose we drop "City" from the clubs name and be known as Leicester...for We Are Leicester!! there can be only one.

Leicester is a rugby club.

 

Our club is named Leicester City FC and has been since 1919.

 

No club is simply named City and should be not be referred to as such by National media.

[Chrysalis]

On 19/07/2018 at 17:31, gurru991 said:

The problem with that is you pay top dollar with very little chance of ever recouping the investment. I like that we are signing mid twenties players who may form a solid core to take the club forward.

they will just leave if they prove good in the league, so wouldnt be a solid core moving forward.

[davieG]

53 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

they will just leave if they prove good in the league, so wouldnt be a solid core moving forward.

Replace them with better ones? Even the older ones will need replacing, no football team successful or otherwise stays the same the secret is to change/evolve gradually so you hardly notice it happening.

[VIKTOR-LE5]

Couldn't give a puck about other clubs, Leicester City rule the Midlands,and to me we are a big club and on th verge of being even biggger. New training ground, stadium expansion and ambitious owners who are ruthless, only means long term success.

Edited 22 July 2018 by VIKTOR-LE5
Spelling errors

[Mr Weller]

‘Big club’ is an absolute term but in reality it is all relative. Spurs are not as big as Man Utd who are no longer as big as Man City etc. 

 

We are undeniably much bigger than 5 years ago but it’s still too precarious to be secure. So called big clubs are almost certain not to get relegated and get at least 40k attendances every week. We’re not there yet but we could be soon.

 

Those who say we had a 6-9 month window after the league win to become big, fail to appreciate that the term includes sustained success. The Thai owners know this and are building a long term brand. The league win was an unexpected early bonus.

 

A key part of that brand is having a back story, a myth to go behind the reality and our improbable league win gave us that. Forest also have a myth but their problem was that it was identified with just one man-Clough-and in reality he was the brand rather than the club. With us it’s different, and providing our owners remain with us for long another there is a good chance we can become an established ‘big club’. 

 

We need a bigger stadium and we need to be able to fill it and we also need more trophies. It’s takes time and few clubs manage it but we’re much closer than ever before.