Can a club be big without having a Champions League/European Cup trophy to your name?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by KD35
A good way to see how big a club is is the value of the club.
In terms of monetary value, Real Madrid, Man Utd, Bayern and Barca are top 4 and after these guys its Arsenal.
In terms of monetary value, Real Madrid, Man Utd, Bayern and Barca are top 4 and after these guys its Arsenal.
So City are the 7th biggest in the world? Lol
Original post by Wilfred Little
Terrible criteria. So teams in London are automatically bigger because they're in London. Right.
Can't claim to be in the elite club with no World Cup. Sorry.
(BTW it's the Netherlands not Holland.)
No he's right.
Can't claim to be in the elite club with no World Cup. Sorry.
(BTW it's the Netherlands not Holland.)
No he's right.
On London, if it means they have a bigger fan base and more contact with international fans, then yes, it does make you a bigger club. Manchester aren't in London and Man Utd are bigger than all the clubs in London so your theory is false.
Holland are an elite team, you are a ****ing idiot if you say otherwise. Also it's funny that you have to resort to comments like that to try move the attention away from your lack of intelligence.
Original post by KD35
They definitely do.
No they don't.
Original post by KD35
On London, if it means they have a bigger fan base and more contact with international fans, then yes, it does make you a bigger club. Manchester aren't in London and Man Utd are bigger than all the clubs in London so your theory is false.
Holland are an elite team, you are a ****ing idiot if you say otherwise. Also it's funny that you have to resort to comments like that to try move the attention away from your lack of intelligence.
Holland are an elite team, you are a ****ing idiot if you say otherwise. Also it's funny that you have to resort to comments like that to try move the attention away from your lack of intelligence.
He didn't say every club in London is bigger than every club not in London
Original post by malevolent
no they don't.
what's your evidence?
Original post by manchesterunited15
So City are the 7th biggest in the world? Lol
They've been built up to be. How famous are Manchester City now?
Remember there are lots of factors that come into play, not just overall trophies, something Liverpool and Utd fans like to look at because of their current situation.
City have been made into a big club, they have a decent stadium, a growing fan base, good youth set up, can attract stars and are getting a lot of comercial revenue. Please don't just look at overall CL wins or history, that doesn't make you a big club.
Original post by Wilfred Little
Terrible criteria. So teams in London are automatically bigger because they're in London. Right.
Can't claim to be in the elite club with no World Cup. Sorry.
(BTW it's the Netherlands not Holland.)
No he's right.
Can't claim to be in the elite club with no World Cup. Sorry.
(BTW it's the Netherlands not Holland.)
No he's right.
Nah it's pretty much Holland.
Few Dutch people refer to the Nederlands football team, it's just Holland or Oranje. Bizarrely alot of Dutch people like to call out foreigners for using 'Holland' when they hear it every week from other Dutchies without blinking.
And Holland are certainly an elite footballing country. We've had more impact on the game than France, Argentina and other winning nations. And 3 runners up medals is not to be sniffed at.
Original post by manchesterunited15
He didn't say every club in London is bigger than every club not in London
Yeah, I was pointing out that location does matter and being in London does have advantages but that it's not the be all and end all.
Original post by Zürich
Nah it's pretty much Holland.
Few Dutch people refer to the Nederlands football team, it's just Holland or Oranje. Bizarrely alot of Dutch people like to call out foreigners for using 'Holland' when they hear it every week from other Dutchies without blinking.
Few Dutch people refer to the Nederlands football team, it's just Holland or Oranje. Bizarrely alot of Dutch people like to call out foreigners for using 'Holland' when they hear it every week from other Dutchies without blinking.
Spoiler
Obviously you know all that, just felt like being a pedant tbh. I've actually had a Dutch person call me out on it as well since you said that
And Holland are certainly an elite footballing country. We've had more impact on the game than France, Argentina and other winning nations. And 3 runners up medals is not to be sniffed at.
I know, in terms of tactics & modern football, and the number of great players and managers, tbh just wanted to get you to bite.
Dutch consistency > English consistency. English peak > Dutch peak.
Original post by manchesterunited15
Of course finances are relevant, but my point is that finances themselves don't make a club big - it has to be converted into actual success. Like you said in the bolded bit, it shows that they can compete, so let's look at how well they actually do compete rather than just look at how they could compete.
And I'm interested to know how Arsenal have the best facilities in England? United have a bigger stadium, and their training ground cost 6 times more.
Of course finances are relevant, but my point is that finances themselves don't make a club big - it has to be converted into actual success. Like you said in the bolded bit, it shows that they can compete, so let's look at how well they actually do compete rather than just look at how they could compete.
And I'm interested to know how Arsenal have the best facilities in England? United have a bigger stadium, and their training ground cost 6 times more.
No, it's very important. You're on a hiding to nothing in the CL over the long term without revenues on Arsenal's scale.
Old Trafford is bigger but it's not better. You can look up the fascilities but their is no comparison, the Emirates is the most expensive club stadium ever built. Alex Ferguson marvelled over it in is book btw, I think it was ''they do things properly down at Arsenal'' that he said
Well you built your training ground some time after, so you need to consider inflation etc. England certainly rate it since they use it as their training base too.
The Emirates is a decent copy of the Estadio da Luz in Lisbon.
Original post by Wilfred Little
Obviously you know all that, just felt like being a pedant tbh. I've actually had a Dutch person call me out on it as well since you said that
I know, in terms of tactics & modern football, and the number of great players and managers, tbh just wanted to get you to bite.
Dutch consistency > English consistency. English peak > Dutch peak.
Spoiler
Obviously you know all that, just felt like being a pedant tbh. I've actually had a Dutch person call me out on it as well since you said that
I know, in terms of tactics & modern football, and the number of great players and managers, tbh just wanted to get you to bite.
Dutch consistency > English consistency. English peak > Dutch peak.
Het Nederlands Elftal would be like something you'd hear at a KNVB press conference etc. Some guy down the bar watching the WC is talking about Holland or Oranje
''Hup Holland hup''
Ive seen that myself, I think people everywhere get a kick out of claiming some insider knowledge on such things to strangers.
Original post by Zürich
No, it's very important. You're on a hiding to nothing in the CL over the long term without revenues on Arsenal's scale.
Old Trafford is bigger but it's not better. You can look up the fascilities but their is no comparison, the Emirates is the most expensive club stadium ever built. Alex Ferguson marvelled over it in is book btw, I think it was ''they do things properly down at Arsenal'' that he said
Well you built your training ground some time after, so you need to consider inflation etc. England certainly rate it since they use it as their training base too.
Old Trafford is bigger but it's not better. You can look up the fascilities but their is no comparison, the Emirates is the most expensive club stadium ever built. Alex Ferguson marvelled over it in is book btw, I think it was ''they do things properly down at Arsenal'' that he said
Well you built your training ground some time after, so you need to consider inflation etc. England certainly rate it since they use it as their training base too.
Bigger is better pretty much. What else matters, nice big seats?
600% inflation, doesn't sound too good! Nah they were both built in 99 with United's being 22m and Arsenal's 10m. Then later United's was expanded.
And come on England use it because it's in London.
Original post by manchesterunited15
Bigger is better pretty much. What else matters, nice big seats?
600% inflation, doesn't sound too good! Nah they were both built in 99 with United's being 22m and Arsenal's 10m. Then later United's was expanded.
And come on England use it because it's in London.
600% inflation, doesn't sound too good! Nah they were both built in 99 with United's being 22m and Arsenal's 10m. Then later United's was expanded.
And come on England use it because it's in London.
Even when OT was the defacto home venue for England?
St George's isn't exactly near London now is it.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by manchesterunited15
Err, have you seen the state of your pitch? How many times does it have to be dug up and relaid because of the lack of sunlight thanks to the height of the North Stand?
At least when they built the Emirates they made the pitch the priority.
I've said it numerous times, I don't think you need a ground above 50k, 60k at the most. More than that is a waste.
Original post by Wilfred Little
The Emirates is a decent copy of the Estadio da Luz in Lisbon.
Our's cost x4 as much though!
Got to be honest and say that whilst I'm proud of the Emirates, it could have been so much better designed. Bayern/Schalke have two grounds which were done to a far higher level of design.
Chelsea's bid for Battersea was rejected, but it would also have been spectacularly beautiful, even if they wouldnt have been able to fill 60,000
Original post by Wilfred Little
Err, have you seen the state of your pitch? How many times does it have to be dug up and relaid because of the lack of sunlight thanks to the height of the North Stand?
At least when they built the Emirates they made the pitch the priority.
I've said it numerous times, I don't think you need a ground above 50k, 60k at the most. More than that is a waste.
At least when they built the Emirates they made the pitch the priority.
I've said it numerous times, I don't think you need a ground above 50k, 60k at the most. More than that is a waste.
Not if you fill it.
A bad pitch is useful, brings everyone down to our level.
Original post by 419
Even when OT was the defacto home venue for England?
St George's isn't exactly near London now is it.
St George's isn't exactly near London now is it.
Carrington has been massively improved since OT was the England's venue
Original post by manchesterunited15
You don't fill it though.
Original post by Wilfred Little
You don't fill it though.
Average attendance: 75,207 out of 76,212 capacity. Pretty much filled. For some games completely filled. You're right though, might as well be 50k.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Can a Premier League team win all these in one season or is it impossible?
- Is Messi now the undisputed greatest of all time?
- FA Cup Replays Scrapped!
- Bundesliga
- Tottenham Hotspur Society II
- The Manchester United Thread XXIII
- The Liverpool FC Thread XVII
- Time for Erik Ten Hag to be sacked?
- The Arsenal Thread XXV
- The Arsenal Thread XXVI
- FIFA Women's World Cup 2023
- Interested In Playing Sport at University?
- How to understand football as a girl - help
- Chelsea F.C. Thread IX
- What team do you support and why?
- Football Career Mode
- Why is Man City hated so much?
- Will Everton get relegated in 2022/23?
- Miscellaneous Thread VII
- Zidane vs. Maradonna
