The "do they mean us?" thread pt 2

[OadbyBlue]

7 minutes ago, Stadt said:

Man City were one of the 10 biggest clubs in the country before the take over 

On what basis? Not on trophies won, they were a mid-lower premier league team with a decent sized fan base who won a few trophies 30-40 years ago.

[coolhandfox]

56 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

Fun fact: More players have gone from Manchester United to Leicester rather than the other way round in the last 7 years, and 2 of them have Premier League winners medals which they would not have won at Old Trafford.

I remember a time when players choose Blackburn over those these powerhouses because of Jack Walkers money......

[Stadt]

3 minutes ago, OadbyBlue said:

On what basis? Not on trophies won, they were a mid-lower premier league team with a decent sized fan base who won a few trophies 30-40 years ago.

6th in the all time English football table, record home attendance in English football, surprisingly good honours list. When they were a midtable side the likes of Blackburn and Portsmouth finished above them and they soon disappeared. Pre-Sheikh the clubs I'd say were categorically bigger than Man city would be Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea. Villa, Spurs and Everton probably on a similar level. I hate what they've become but they've always been a fairly big club 

[urban.spaceman]

1 minute ago, Stadt said:

6th in the all time English football table, record home attendance in English football, surprisingly good honours list. When they were a midtable side the likes of Blackburn and Portsmouth finished above them and they soon disappeared. Pre-Sheikh the clubs I'd say were categorically bigger than Man city would be Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea. Villa, Spurs and Everton probably on a similar level. I hate what they've become but they've always been a fairly big club 

Just to play devil’s advocate but is that not a bit boosted by their last 10 years points tally?

[Stadt]

Just now, urban.spaceman said:

Just to play devil’s advocate but is that not a bit boosted by their last 10 years points tally?

Not really, they're 7th in the all time division one only table 

[OadbyBlue]

4 minutes ago, Stadt said:

Not really, they're 7th in the all time division one only table 

Before the takeover they had 2 league titles and 4 fa cups, Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Forest, Villa, Sunderland, Everton, Spurs, Leeds, hudds, Blackburn, sheff weds, wolves all better that

[Stadt]

Just now, OadbyBlue said:

Before the takeover they had 2 league titles and 4 fa cups, Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Forest, Villa, Sunderland, Everton, Spurs, Leeds, hudds, Blackburn, sheff weds, wolves all better that

West Brom and Burnley have won more than us, are they bigger clubs? No.

 

Man City have always been well supported, have a solid history in terms of league finishes and honours which mean they were definitely in the top 10 biggest clubs in the country even pre-takeover.

 

[Stoopid]

1 hour ago, OadbyBlue said:

There’s about 20 clubs in the country bigger than Man City historically though, the fact they are seen as “big” now disproves his argument as they were able to break into the “big” clubs that supposedly no one can compete with

I'm struggling with this. 20 clubs bigger than Manchester City?

Really?

I can think of three, no question. 

After that there's 3 or 4 you could make an argument for, but that's about it.

I find this line of argument pretty tiresome. The obsession that some on this forum have with size of club is frankly weird. It smacks of an inferiority complex.

We are what we are. The beauty is that, being what we are,  we've actually achieved what we have (and look like continuing to...)

[OadbyBlue]

29 minutes ago, Stadt said:

West Brom and Burnley have won more than us, are they bigger clubs? No.

 

Man City have always been well supported, have a solid history in terms of league finishes and honours which mean they were definitely in the top 10 biggest clubs in the country even pre-takeover.

 

You’re right they have been, though they might have been seen as a fairly big club they had been awful on the pitch for decades, point is they were worlds away from being talked about alongside Man Utd and Liverpool, but football fans have short memories and a few top 6 finishes in row will have us being perceived as one of the “big 6” or however many it is by then

[Captain...]

Man U will always be a big club in the same way Liverpool were still seen as a big club when they were regularly finishing mid-table. Everyone knew they had the potential to challenge again and they were still able to attract players like Torres.

Edited 11 December 2019 by Captain...

[Steven]

 

 

As a brand this is undoubtedly correct. However in the Premier League at the moment players have to ask themselves do I want to play for a bigger brand and play for an indifferent football team or play for a lesser brand but a better football team. 

Edited 11 December 2019 by Steven

[Koke]

I dont know man, I never rated Man City as a club, even before takeover. They had a decent trophy haul pre 2008 but I always viewed them in the same context as West Ham/Sunderland level. Well supported but a bit meh otherwise.

Edited 11 December 2019 by Koke

[Dorkingfox]

I do not buy into this big club stuff, they may be a bigger brand currently, we are in the now and history is irrelevant. Look at Villa, they have never won the Premier League, have a load of Div 1 wins in victorian times and one 70+ years later in 1981, like many of the once big teams have had their day, some of the current big brands may start to fade away and others will take their place, this happens slowly at first, as it always has done, so ignore all these plastic supporters from these so called big clubs, most of which do not even live anywhere near Manchester, Liverpool or London. We are having a go, to achieve better things, that is all that matters.

[st albans fox]

History is not irrelevant - not modern history anyway. Liverpool are huge globally - especially in the Asian sub continent and se asia

 

kids of 70’s/80’s lpool supporting winners have grown up as Liverpool supporters, winning the odd cup now and again .... 

 

same is now true of yanited fans - seems less so re arsenal, Chelsea and certainty  Man City 
 

im afraid that I can never see us having the draw of a Liverpool or yanited, irrespective of what we achieve over the next decade ..... but spurs, Chelsea and Man City could be fairly easily displaced over that timescale ....

[Glorious Leicester Fan]

I have always found the ‘big club’ debate slightly absurd. My main issue is how do you quantify a ‘big club’? 

 

Is it trophies won? If so, why are spurs defined as a ‘big club’ and not us? Is it attendance? If so, why are Chelsea a ‘big club’ and not Sunderland or Newcastle? Also, if Peterborough United are suddenly given a shiny new 60,0000 seated stadium (Man City), would they suddenly be a ‘big club’? 

 

I find the ‘history’ argument revisionist claptrap, romanticising a bygone age that probably never existed; and even if it did, who would want to go back? Also, are Preston, Stoke or Northampton (all of whom have a great history) ‘big clubs’?

 

I suppose you could argue that a combination of the above constitutes a ‘big club’, (Man U/Liverpool) but I would argue that it’s partly a marketing ploy, aimed at creating a monopoly that prohibits other clubs entering. That what makes our achievements  of ‘plucky’ Leicester more astonishing. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Markyblue]

Who wants to be a man utd mancity Liverpool,  they have a huge plastic /armchair following.  We are Leicester we dont need to emulate anybody,  winning the premier league for me was an experience all of their plastic fans wouldn't understand., we are what we are and i for one love it.

[Koke]

Would Rafa had gone to Newcastle if they weren't perceived to be a big club? Would he have gone to Brighton instead? Their finances are not far apart.

 

Would Bielsa had gone to Leeds if they also weren't perceived as a big club? Bielsa wouldn't have gone to Bristol City or Birmingham City.

 

The "big club", debate are tiring but they do matter. Supposed big clubs can attract better names than clubs around them who have similar finances  

[Leeds Fox]

53 minutes ago, Koke said:

Would Rafa had gone to Newcastle if they weren't perceived to be a big club? Would he have gone to Brighton instead? Their finances are not far apart.

 

Would Bielsa had gone to Leeds if they also weren't perceived as a big club? Bielsa wouldn't have gone to Bristol City or Birmingham City.

 

The "big club", debate are tiring but they do matter. Supposed big clubs can attract better names than clubs around them who have similar finances  

 

Not being very good with the English language, it helped that the majority of Leeds’ fanbase have the same struggles. 

[Captain...]

Liverpool and Man United will always be the 2 biggest clubs in the country. Arsenal will be third for a long time unless it goes catastrophic and they get relegated and Chelsea/Man City/Spurs sustain it for another 10 years.

 

If you think of sports you don't know much about, there are teams that stand out. New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox in baseball, Tigers in Rugby Union, Wigan in Rugby League, they transcend results and will always be one of the biggest clubs even if they are not actually doing that well. The best NBA team in recent years are the Golden State warriors, but the NY Knicks and LA Lakers are still bigger teams.

 

I honestly think it would take 20 years of finishing above United/Liverpool/Arsenal to be considered a bigger club.

[gw_leics772]

4 hours ago, st albans fox said:

History is not irrelevant - not modern history anyway. Liverpool are huge globally - especially in the Asian sub continent and se asia

 

kids of 70’s/80’s lpool supporting winners have grown up as Liverpool supporters, winning the odd cup now and again .... 

 

same is now true of yanited fans - seems less so re arsenal, Chelsea and certainty  Man City 
 

im afraid that I can never see us having the draw of a Liverpool or yanited, irrespective of what we achieve over the next decade ..... but spurs, Chelsea and Man City could be fairly easily displaced over that timescale ....

You wrote a good post but came to the wrong conclusion.

Leicestershire youngsters are now predominantly leicester and therefores kids of the 20teens will grow up as leicester supporters, therein breeds the generational change of "big" clubs. And we have picked up a fair few international fans along the way from the first title win, which will only increase WHEN we win more.

 

2016 was the start but this is the real beginning.

[Dahnsouff]

Club size is no longer tied to its domestic appeal, but now to the scale of its marketing department’s global success.

Sad and cynical perhaps, but true I feel.

[Captain...]

35 minutes ago, gw_leics772 said:

You wrote a good post but came to the wrong conclusion.

Leicestershire youngsters are now predominantly leicester and therefores kids of the 20teens will grow up as leicester supporters, therein breeds the generational change of "big" clubs. And we have picked up a fair few international fans along the way from the first title win, which will only increase WHEN we win more.

 

2016 was the start but this is the real beginning.

I think that is a good point we need to make Leicester like Newcastle or Leeds where every kid that grows up there grows up a Leicester fan. I am a little jealous of the fanatical support in Leeds and Newcastle.

 

When I grew up there were loads of plastic United and Liverpool fans. We make Leicester blue then we go a long way to creating a fan base that will sustain a big club.

[OadbyBlue]

25 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Club size is no longer tied to its domestic appeal, but now to the scale of its marketing department’s global success.

Sad and cynical perhaps, but true I feel.

Tbh its the only possible explanation behind Man Utd being “the biggest club in the world” as is often claimed

[st albans fox]

41 minutes ago, gw_leics772 said:

You wrote a good post but came to the wrong conclusion.

Leicestershire youngsters are now predominantly leicester and therefores kids of the 20teens will grow up as leicester supporters, therein breeds the generational change of "big" clubs. And we have picked up a fair few international fans along the way from the first title win, which will only increase WHEN we win more.

 

2016 was the start but this is the real beginning.

 

2 minutes ago, Captain... said:

I think that is a good point we need to make Leicester like Newcastle or Leeds where every kid that grows up there grows up a Leicester fan. I am a little jealous of the fanatical support in Leeds and Newcastle.

 

When I grew up there were loads of plastic United and Liverpool fans. We make Leicester blue then we go a long way to creating a fan base that will sustain a big club.

Sorry fellas but even if every person in Leicestershire was an Lcfc fan, it still wouldn’t make us a ‘big club’

 

im talking globally - when you go into a bar in the middle of nowhere in China and there are a few people wearing liverpool shirts and you think ..... seriously??  When we were in Hong Kong for the tournament and you couldn’t move for Liverpool fans ..... even the ‘Nepal reds’ !!!!

[MarriedaLeicesterGirl]

2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

 

Sorry fellas but even if every person in Leicestershire was an Lcfc fan, it still wouldn’t make us a ‘big club’

 

im talking globally - when you go into a bar in the middle of nowhere in China and there are a few people wearing liverpool shirts and you think ..... seriously??  When we were in Hong Kong for the tournament and you couldn’t move for Liverpool fans ..... even the ‘Nepal reds’ !!!!

I remember three years ago, Leicester was the most popular Premier league club in two countries: Thailand and Algeria (admittedly, two more countries than most Premier League clubs). I seriously think that was one of the reasons the club signed Ghezzal, hoping you would catch fire, and keep that Algeria connection going.

 

As long as King Power own the club, I think we will be big in Thailand. It's good that the "story" happened just as the Premier League became more readily available in the US (and for many US fans, it was their first "story"), so Leicester has a bigger base in the US than some traditional clubs like Aston Villa or Leeds. Leicester won't ever be one of the big 4 (Man City and Spurs just aren't in that category), but I think it can have a sizable international following that puts it firmly in the top 10 for English clubs.