'Biggest' clubs in England.

[Guest Bilo]

I think Liverpool are the biggest club in the league.

What makes a club big though? It's the history of the club isn't it? In that case, Liverpool are the most successful in the country. Look at the players they have had, and look at what they have won.

They had abit of a knock within the last few seasons, when was the last time they won something? 2005? They were poorly owned as well. They top that table on page 1 - what can't speak, can't lie.

A club's history is only part of what defines their size though. Nottingham Forest have won the European Cup twice but does that make them bigger than every English club who haven't? I think Arsenal, Tottenham, Chelsea, Everton, Manchester City etc etc would fall about laughing at the suggestion. Bury have won the FA Cup twice and we never have, nobody called our Carling Cup win at Gigg Lane a giant killing.

History is a part of it, of course it is, but I would argue aspects such as fanbase, attendances, the level at which a club has consistently played over the course of its history and its ambitions are as important if not more important. That's why Nottingham Forest are considered by most neutrals a fairly average club in spite of their success in the late 70s and early 80s and Arsenal are considered a massive club, the latter have far more of the other aspects going for them that knocks Forest's long-forgotten-by-most-not-affiliated-with-the-club European success into a cocked hat.

It's the same with Liverpool. In 1992, yes they were a more successful club than Manchester United but a lot of the other aspects were the same. Manchester United were a sleeping giant who awoke at exactly the right time. 19 years later, Manchester United have grown not only their honours list but every other aspect of what defines a club's size. That's why they're the biggest club in England right now.

[The Year Of The Fox]

I know football wasn't created by sky (and the Premiership) but look at what titles Liverpool have won since then. Nada.

Pretty much overrated, certainly since I was born. The fanbase is a big myth too. Their home support in troubled times is shocking

[accessory]

In my opinion yes. Although Manchester United have more Premier League titles, and they get a bigger gate (how many fans actually in there are from Manchester?) I still think Liverpool are bigger. Theres just something about Liverpool for me.

Old Trafford can hold more than what Anfield can anyway.

Old Trafford has expanded from 45k to 76k capacity since the start of the Premier League.

Liverpool couldn't even fill Anfield for most of last season. Like their manager, they are living on past glories. I can't see them challenging for a title in the next decade, especially now both of the Manchester clubs are able to outspend them.

The only way forward for them is if they and Everton bite the bullet and agree to share the costs of a new stadium which will give the clubs the chance to extend their active fanbase and commercial activities.

[Fox92]

A club's history is only part of what defines their size though. Nottingham Forest have won the European Cup twice but does that make them bigger than every English club who haven't? I think Arsenal, Tottenham, Chelsea, Everton, Manchester City etc etc would fall about laughing at the suggestion. Bury have won the FA Cup twice and we never have, nobody called our Carling Cup win at Gigg Lane a giant killing.

History is a part of it, of course it is, but I would argue aspects such as fanbase, attendances, the level at which a club has consistently played over the course of its history and its ambitions are as important if not more important. That's why Nottingham Forest are considered by most neutrals a fairly average club in spite of their success in the late 70s and early 80s and Arsenal are considered a massive club, the latter have far more of the other aspects going for them that knocks Forest's long-forgotten-by-most-not-affiliated-with-the-club European success into a cocked hat.

It's the same with Liverpool. In 1992, yes they were a more successful club than Manchester United but a lot of the other aspects were the same. Manchester United were a sleeping giant who awoke at exactly the right time. 19 years later, Manchester United have grown not only their honours list but every other aspect of what defines a club's size. That's why they're the biggest club in England right now.

Old Trafford has expanded from 45k to 76k capacity since the start of the Premier League.

Liverpool couldn't even fill Anfield for most of last season. Like their manager, they are living on past glories. I can't see them challenging for a title in the next decade, especially now both of the Manchester clubs are able to outspend them.

The only way forward for them is if they and Everton bite the bullet and agree to share the costs of a new stadium which will give the clubs the chance to extend their active fanbase and commercial activities.

I can't disagree with those posts.

[The Year Of The Fox]

Old Trafford has expanded from 45k to 76k capacity since the start of the Premier League.

Liverpool couldn't even fill Anfield for most of last season. Like their manager, they are living on past glories. I can't see them challenging for a title in the next decade, especially now both of the Manchester clubs are able to outspend them.

The only way forward for them is if they and Everton bite the bullet and agree to share the costs of a new stadium which will give the clubs the chance to extend their active fanbase and commercial activities.

This exactly.

As chelsea say to Liverpool, 'creating history, not living off it'

[weluv]

there's no accurate way to judge who's 'big' and who isn't. Past glories & current success matter, so do attendances and media profile, so we're never going to be able to say which clubs are big, and which aren't. But FWIW, here's my 20

1) Manchester United

2) Arsenal

3) Chelsea

4) Liverpool

5) Tottenham Hotspur

6) Manchester City

7) Aston Villa

8) Newcastle United

9) Everton

10) Leeds United

11) West Ham United

12) Nottingham Forest

13) Sunderland

14) Birmingham City

15) Leicester City

16) Wolverhampton Wanderers

17) Sheffield Wednesday

18) Middlesbrough

19) Blackburn Rovers

20) Southampton

18)

[somebum]

Its laughable that you include Leicester in your top 15, a list which doesn't even include Derby - but hey, whatever

[Guest MattP]

there's no accurate way to judge who's 'big' and who isn't. Past glories & current success matter, so do attendances and media profile, so we're never going to be able to say which clubs are big, and which aren't. But FWIW, here's my 20

1) Manchester United

2) Arsenal

3) Chelsea

4) Liverpool

5) Tottenham Hotspur

6) Manchester City

7) Aston Villa

8) Newcastle United

9) Everton

10) Leeds United

11) West Ham United

12) Nottingham Forest

13) Sunderland

14) Birmingham City

15) Leicester City

16) Wolverhampton Wanderers

17) Sheffield Wednesday

18) Middlesbrough

19) Blackburn Rovers

20) Southampton

18)

You can't seriously have us 15th when we have never won the League or the FA cup and play outside the top flight.

[Bellend Sebastian]

If I had a time machine I'd travel back to the moment before the first person that ever used the word 'big' to describe a football club and use a big spanner to bludgeon them to death. If anyone knows who it was or indeed can help me finish my time machine, please let me know.

I'm struggling to think of another thing where people spend so much time debating on whether it's big or not except perhaps our penises, and at least you can measure those and compile a spreadsheet of your findings.

The table at the start of the thread is based on results, but doesn't that just identify the most successful club? Does bigness = success? I've heard all sorts of arbitrary factors thrown into the mix, so many in fact that I normally need to have a good lie down. Personally I think the number of pies sold is as good a gauge as any, or perhaps the number of fans that support your club has for no reason other than you win a lot, and they're not really fans anyway, based on another entirely made up set of criteria about what constitutes a proper fan.

I'll post my penis spreadsheet as soon as I can work out how to do it

[Zingari]

how big a club is is not important .

it's how massive the club is what really counts

[Bellend Sebastian]

how big a club is is not important .

it's how massive the club is what really counts

At last some sense!

[Alexikokopops]

If I had a time machine I'd travel back to the moment before the first person that ever used the word 'big' to describe a football club and use a big spanner to bludgeon them to death. If anyone knows who it was or indeed can help me finish my time machine, please let me know.

I'm struggling to think of another thing where people spend so much time debating on whether it's big or not except perhaps our penises, and at least you can measure those and compile a spreadsheet of your findings.

The table at the start of the thread is based on results, but doesn't that just identify the most successful club? Does bigness = success? I've heard all sorts of arbitrary factors thrown into the mix, so many in fact that I normally need to have a good lie down. Personally I think the number of pies sold is as good a gauge as any, or perhaps the number of fans that support your club has for no reason other than you win a lot, and they're not really fans anyway, based on another entirely made up set of criteria about what constitutes a proper fan.

I'll post my penis spreadsheet as soon as I can work out how to do it

We're one step closer to that time machine!

[Bellend Sebastian]

Those CERN boys have been in touch and have confirmed that my plan is the most productive use of time travel anyone can think of, so when the time machine is up and running they're going to let me have a go on it first

[Dr The Singh]

Those CERN boys have been in touch and have confirmed that my plan is the most productive use of time travel anyone can think of, so when the time machine is up and running they're going to let me have a go on it first

Make sure you don't bump into yourself the world can barely cope with one Bellend but two combined.............., and can you post me all the lottery results!!!

[Zingari]

tip for anyone who goes back in time .

make sure you don't kill any of you're grandparents etc , it would really complicate things

[ajthefox]

how big a club is is not important .

it's how massive the club is what really counts

and we zing, are indeed MASSIVE.

[BlueSi13]

Hmm but who are the biggest underachievers in the country?

Us with only 3 League Cups, no Championships or FA Cup medais? All this whilst being the 15th biggest city in the UK with only one professional club within its border? (i'd say so)

Perhaps Middlesbrough would be a good candidate with only 1 League Cup medal? But then again, it's only a town.

Maybe Stoke City with only 1 League Cup as well despite it being a city with a big fanbase?

It's an interesting debate

[davieG]

Hmm but who are the biggest underachievers in the country?

Us with only 3 League Cups, no Championships or FA Cup medais? All this whilst being the 15th biggest city in the UK with only one professional club within its border? (i'd say so)

Perhaps Middlesbrough would be a good candidate with only 1 League Cup medal? But then again, it's only a town.

Maybe Stoke City with only 1 League Cup as well despite it being a city with a big fanbase?

It's an interesting debate

Cue debate about which are the biggest cities, there's many answers to that. I thought we were 10th

[FuriousFox46]

Cue debate about which are the biggest cities, there's many answers to that. I thought we were 10th

8th in England

[accessory]

Hmm but who are the biggest underachievers in the country?

Us with only 3 League Cups, no Championships or FA Cup medais? All this whilst being the 15th biggest city in the UK with only one professional club within its border? (i'd say so)

Perhaps Middlesbrough would be a good candidate with only 1 League Cup medal? But then again, it's only a town.

Maybe Stoke City with only 1 League Cup as well despite it being a city with a big fanbase?

It's an interesting debate

Hull and Bristol City, given their respective catchment areas, have arguably been far bigger underachievers than us.

I'd hardly say we're underachievers when only four clubs have won more major trophies than us during the Premier League era.

[The Doctor]

Hull and Bristol City, given their respective catchment areas, have arguably been far bigger underachievers than us.

I'd hardly say we're underachievers when only four clubs have won more major trophies than us during the Premier League era.

But we've not won any "major" trophies in the past 2 decades - the League Cup is so often considered a minor trophy.

[BlueSi13]

But we've not won any "major" trophies in the past 2 decades - the League Cup is so often considered a minor trophy.

In other words we've never won a major trophy

Also i hate this "Premier League" years shizzle...the "Sky Years" is a more apt way of putting it in my opinion. Over a hundred years of footballing history should be taken into account and not just since Sky essentially made football pay-per-view.

[Fox92]

Also i hate this "Premier League" years shizzle...the "Sky Years" is a more apt way of putting it in my opinion. Over a hundred years of footballing history should be taken into account and not just since Sky essentially made football pay-per-view.

Exactly my thoughts.

[Corky]

But we've not won any "major" trophies in the past 2 decades - the League Cup is so often considered a minor trophy.

Okay, we've won more "minor" trophies than most other clubs in the past 2 decades.

[fadedfox]

Are we really that deluded to think we are bigger than West Ham?

Their attendance was over 34,000 yesterday, compared to Leeds miserly 23,000 in comparison and according to Deloitte football money league they have the 31st largest turnover in the world!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deloitte_Football_Money_League