Jump to content
Cardiff_Fox

The "do they mean us?" thread pt 2

Recommended Posts

Just now, Les-TA-Jon said:

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your posts and tone, but it comes across that you're irritated that we are considered to be in a lower bracket compared to Spurs, Arsenal, Chelsea, Man Utd, Man City and Liverpool? 

Not bothered to be honest. Just want to understand this new status of 'elite'. No one has ever produced a formula to define 'big' so wondered why the term has changed. Doesn't seem any different to me and no one knows what it means either. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

Not bothered to be honest. Just want to understand this new status of 'elite'. No one has ever produced a formula to define 'big' so wondered why the term has changed. Doesn't seem any different to me and no one knows what it means either. 

I'm not particularly bothered about getting bogged down in terminology and semantics on abstract concepts like 'big' and 'elite' clubs. It's why a neutral would probably describe Arsenal as a 'big' club and not Leicester, despite us generally having been a better side over the last few years and Arsenal being 17 years away from their last title win. 

 

As I say, terminology aside, it's quite demonstrably clear on many different metrics that Leicester are in a different bracket to the 'big 6', but in a way it's kind of irrelevant, because we're doing well, we have a plan and are going in the right direction. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

Yeah, but what's an 'elite' club? 

Well, when I was playing it was one where you didn't have to carry your own goalposts off after the match...

  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Blue and white said:

Why does everyone say we're not a big club? Even Leicester fans enjoy calling us little Leicester for some weird reason and reminiscing about a season in League One.

Leicester is a big city. We pack the stadium every week and would fill 40,000 every week if we had the stadium for it. Just because we've not had ambitious owners in the past doesn't mean we're not a big club. Even when we had next to no funds in the 90s we had success, three cup finals, two qualifications for Europe, top half Premier League finishes.

And if we go back 40-50 years we were in alot of cup finals back in that era, had no end of well known players including providing the two main England goalkeepers Banks and Shilton, Lineker, we've had iconic players like Frank Worthington. This isn't just a recent thing. Personally I find it an extreme put down every time someone says we're not a big club, using that as a reason why we shouldn't be where we are. Why?

I can remember not too long ago as a season ticket holder watching games at Filbo in front of 8000 fans. We didn't look a big club between relegation in 1987 and 1991/92!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Steve Earle said:

I can remember not too long ago as a season ticket holder watching games at Filbo in front of 8000 fans. We didn't look a big club between relegation in 1987 and 1991/92!

Attendances did slump in the mid-late 80s, in line with a dreadful team and form that lasted a good 4-5 years similar to 2005-08 era it was that bad. But before then we were regularly getting 25,000+.

 

This is good to see how attendances slumped during that period and then gradually increased again https://www.foxestalk.co.uk/history/attendance-records/

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Steve Earle said:

I can remember not too long ago as a season ticket holder watching games at Filbo in front of 8000 fans. We didn't look a big club between relegation in 1987 and 1991/92!

To be fair all attendances were low then . Newcastle not far off that in those days . Then we packed Filbert Street out for the big game against Oxford and I recon we would've hit 30,000 that day if the ground held that much . Goes to show even in the dark days people of Leicester and Leicestershire just needed a little something to get them back. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Steve Earle said:

I can remember not too long ago as a season ticket holder watching games at Filbo in front of 8000 fans. We didn't look a big club between relegation in 1987 and 1991/92!

True but you could say this about most clubs at that time when crowds were down everywhere mostly due to hooligans attaching themselves to clubs as 'fans'.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The good news is they are referred to as the 'Big 6' now as opposed to the 'Top 6'.   So in theory the new reference makes more sense if you are talking in terms of popularity, fan base, income etc. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Flappit said:

These are the finishing positions for the last 10 years. There is literally no measure that puts us anywhere near that level of consistency. Factor in revenue, global fan base and owner wealth and we're nowhere other than "promising newcomers" that need another 5 years of good finishes to even be close to any of that existing list. We're currently having what looks like being our second decent season in a row. Let's strut about a bit if we're still showing this level of form in another 5 years.

 

Chelsea    1   2   6   3   3   1   10   1   5   3   4  3.9

Man Utd    2   1   2   1   7   4   5   6   2   6   3  3.9

Arsenal     3  4   3   4   4   3   2   5   6   5   8  4.7

Spurs       4   5   4   5   6   5   3   2   3   4   6  4.7

Man City  5   3   1   2   1   2   4   3   1   1   2  2.5

Liverpool  7   6   8   7   2   6   8   4   4   2   1  5.5

 

Leicester  0   0   0   0   0   14   1   12   9   9   5  15.5 (allowing 21 for times outside of top flight and that's generous...)

 

 

 

10 years? Do you mean 11?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Flappit said:

These are the finishing positions for the last 10 years. There is literally no measure that puts us anywhere near that level of consistency. Factor in revenue, global fan base and owner wealth and we're nowhere other than "promising newcomers" that need another 5 years of good finishes to even be close to any of that existing list. We're currently having what looks like being our second decent season in a row. Let's strut about a bit if we're still showing this level of form in another 5 years.

 

Chelsea    1   2   6   3   3   1   10   1   5   3   4  3.9

Man Utd    2   1   2   1   7   4   5   6   2   6   3  3.9

Arsenal     3  4   3   4   4   3   2   5   6   5   8  4.7

Spurs       4   5   4   5   6   5   3   2   3   4   6  4.7

Man City  5   3   1   2   1   2   4   3   1   1   2  2.5

Liverpool  7   6   8   7   2   6   8   4   4   2   1  5.5

 

Leicester  0   0   0   0   0   14   1   12   9   9   5  15.5 (allowing 21 for times outside of top flight and that's generous...)

 

Why 10 years? You wouldn't use the 2010/11 season as a basis for predicting our finish this season - its completely irrelevant - so why does it factor in to the argument here?

If instead you took the last 5 seasons you'd get:

Chelsea    10   1   5   3   4  4.6

Man Utd    5   6   2   6   3  4.4

Arsenal     2   5   6   5   8  5.2

Spurs       3   2   3   4   6  3.6

Man City  4   3   1   1   2  2.2

Liverpool  8   4   4   2   1  3.8

 

Leicester  1   12   9   9   5  7.2

 

Still below the rest, but much more comparable and we're clearly on an upward trend (whereas the likes of Spurs, Arsenal, Chelsea seem to be slowly drifting the other way).

 

Its easy to cherry-pick data which fits a narrative especially with such a small sample size. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Xen said:

 

Why 10 years? You wouldn't use the 2010/11 season as a basis for predicting our finish this season - its completely irrelevant - so why does it factor in to the argument here?

If instead you took the last 5 seasons you'd get:

Chelsea    10   1   5   3   4  4.6

Man Utd    5   6   2   6   3  4.4

Arsenal     2   5   6   5   8  5.2

Spurs       3   2   3   4   6  3.6

Man City  4   3   1   1   2  2.2

Liverpool  8   4   4   2   1  3.8

 

Leicester  1   12   9   9   5  7.2

 

Still below the rest, but much more comparable and we're clearly on an upward trend (whereas the likes of Spurs, Arsenal, Chelsea seem to be slowly drifting the other way).

 

Its easy to cherry-pick data which fits a narrative especially with such a small sample size. 

Cherry picking... well, ok. But we'd need 4 1st place finishes in a row to get our average to 4.4, so we have a way to go ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I don't understand why people do not get it? We are not "big 6" for the following reasons: 

 

  • We have not yet had the prolonged "success" over a number of seasons like the "big 6" have had - i.e. number of times finishing in the top 6
  • We have not yet got the history, fan base, finances of the "big 6"
  • IF we end up losing some of our current players and our recruitment isn't as successful as it has been in recent years then we could fall into the abyss again.

Now if we go onto winning more, staying in the top 6 positions for 5+ years and we now manage to keep our best players and/or our recruitment stays on its current level then YES absolutely we can be aggrieved if we are not talked about in the "big 6" debate. For now we just need to keep doing what we are doing build that reputation. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

We are nowhere near the rich six (as I like to call them). Here’s why:


https://www.google.com/amp/s/theathletic.co.uk/1729003/2020/04/08/premier-league-finances-accounts-newcastle-palace/%3famp

 

 

It’s a bit out of date (it’s based on 18/19 figures), but it shows the gulf between our revenues and the richest clubs. On purely financial terms we shouldn’t be competing. It’s often the case that the management gets accused of “lacking ambition” by financially illiterate fans of forums, but the reality is that we’re competing in a different market.

 

Purely on squad performance and ability it’s remarkable that we’re so close to the richest clubs. We’re not far off, but last season showed we still struggle to have the depth of squad to maintain a top four push - even though a top six finish is an incredible achievement for a club like ours. 
 

We need to constantly finish in the top six, expand our stadium, re-invest in players and increase our brand. To be considered a rich six, big six or top six club will be a long process. Nobody has ever achieved it by slow sustainable investment (Man City and Chelsea did it by throwing billions at short term games) so patience is key. We’re nowhere near yet. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve got a great idea for a thread!

 

We could have one place where we gather all the articles and broadcast material about Leicester City that other fans might have missed and post it for them to enjoy.
 

If it’s not a good idea, we could just chuck those articles in the ‘Endlessly making the same point about the Big 6’ thread.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stoopid said:

Well, when I was playing it was one where you didn't have to carry your own goalposts off after the match...

 

You had goalposts? :o

 

Did you have someone to chew your half-time orange for you, as well?

Edited by Buce
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

You had goalposts? :o

 

Did someone chew your half-time orange for you, as well?

Sometimes I got pulled off at half-time. 

(Made a nice change from oranges!)

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that really winds me up about this fanbase is when Leicester fans cry when we’re not the feature on skysports every second of the day. And then when we do get a mention, that’s not right either. 

The tv and media selling their product eg skysports news to us as the punters is the equivalent of Sports Direct selling shirts in their shops. Would you expect to walk into a Sports Direct and the whole shop be full of leicester shirts? No. It’s gunna be full of Man City, Liverpool, Chelsea, utd etc with maybe a few Leicester shirts out the back to stick out if we play well. As is skysports news, these things are products that are sold and as with any mainstream product, you pitch it to the biggest target market possible. Don’t take it personally 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TJB-fox said:

One thing that really winds me up about this fanbase is when Leicester fans cry when we’re not the feature on skysports every second of the day. And then when we do get a mention, that’s not right either. 

The tv and media selling their product eg skysports news to us as the punters is the equivalent of Sports Direct selling shirts in their shops. Would you expect to walk into a Sports Direct and the whole shop be full of leicester shirts? No. It’s gunna be full of Man City, Liverpool, Chelsea, utd etc with maybe a few Leicester shirts out the back to stick out if we play well. As is skysports news, these things are products that are sold and as with any mainstream product, you pitch it to the biggest target market possible. Don’t take it personally 

I think the wind-up doesn't always come from the amount of air-time but the way the club is often portrayed by the 'experts'. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

I think the wind-up doesn't always come from the amount of air-time but the way the club is often portrayed by the 'experts'. 

Disagree. A lot of our fans are genuinely delusional and think that just because our team may be better on the pitch than some bigger clubs are currently, we’re now magically more marketable and bigger than said big clubs. Also seem to think that tabloids and media shouldn’t allow other clubs to be linked to our players. I understand the whole Sky selling our players for us escapade but now every time a player of ours is linked with a club our fans cryyyyyy.

The reaction on here after we played Sheffield utd on super Sunday and sky swiftly moved on after our game finished around 4.00-4.15 to the 4.30 kickoff, which they do, every single week was hilarious. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TJB-fox said:

Disagree. A lot of our fans are genuinely delusional and think that just because our team may be better on the pitch than some bigger clubs are currently, we’re now magically more marketable and bigger than said big clubs. Also seem to think that tabloids and media shouldn’t allow other clubs to be linked to our players. I understand the whole Sky selling our players for us escapade but now every time a player of ours is linked with a club our fans cryyyyyy.

The reaction on here after we played Sheffield utd on super Sunday and sky swiftly moved on after our game finished around 4.00-4.15 to the 4.30 kickoff, which they do, every single week was hilarious. 

What I find odd is in the situation where there's a none Rich 6 clash on sky at Circa 2.00 on Sunday followed by a Rich 6 team playing at Circa 4.30 and 90% of the Pre-match chat for the early game is about the Rich 6 club playing later. I just wonder how many fans and potential advertisers will take the time to tune in and watch the pre-match chat to the early game. I suspect very few so what is their reason for this? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steve Earle said:

I can remember not too long ago as a season ticket holder watching games at Filbo in front of 8000 fans. We didn't look a big club between relegation in 1987 and 1991/92!

Not being funny but that was 30 years ago. That's a generation.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...