The Student Room Group
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Premier league table in terms of 'size' (biggest club)

Scroll to see replies

Also sr90 can you find out why the Chelsea racism thread in the chat forum has gone?
Original post by Wilfred Little
All clubs before Sky had a **** period and decline. MU won't have one now because of the money. If they wouldn't have regressed during 2002 or the years when Chelsea came about then they definitely would have by now, but as it is they throw £200m at players and if it fails, they will do it again. Being well known across the globe as you put it gives you that money. Fair enough it was all self generated but it doesn't really prove me wrong.

Also, MU have poached many players from clubs who, had they kept their sides together, may have gone on to win the title and start their own periods of dominance. The season we sold Yorke, we were top at Christmas. With him, we may well have won the league that year.


You're right it doesn't, but you were implying that the money solely came from Sky. Not true. I do sometimes wonder if the game would be better off if the Premier League hadn't of came to be, the top 6 is effectively a closed shop now which is a bit **** for everyone else. It's a breath of fresh air seeing Southampton challenge but you just know that team will be picked apart in the summer.

Using the same logic Villa poached George Boateng & Dion Dublin from Coventry City. Coventry were relegated soon after, they may well have stayed up if they kept them two and who knows where they'd be today. It's clutching at straws a bit to blame transfers, it's not like we're hoarding players Chelsea style. Besides, with the Yorke money you signed several players who were integral to the team that year. Dublin being one of them.
(edited 9 years ago)
Newcastle fifth you must be having an absolute jest! Also villa should be above Chelsea as I know the op said the phrase big club is up for debate but come on, what have they been known for ( except for racist fans....) in the period before 2004......
Original post by neal95
Newcastle fifth you must be having an absolute jest! Also villa should be above Chelsea as I know the op said the phrase big club is up for debate but come on, what have they been known for ( except for racist fans....) in the period before 2004......


In Terms of success maybe but fanbase Chelsea are bigger NOW. But not back in the day
Original post by DarrenBCFC
In Terms of success maybe but fanbase Chelsea are bigger NOW. But not back in the day


Yeah but it shouldn't just be based on fan base it should be success, history, impact on the game, in addition to considering the fanbase
Original post by neal95
Yeah but it shouldn't just be based on fan base it should be success, history, impact on the game, in addition to considering the fanbase


Even in terms of fanbase Villa are up there. And if we get promoted we would be about 12/13th in terms of support. Both clubs have thousands of fans who go missing 3pm on a saturday
Reply 46
Avatar for GymLad78
GymLad78
OP
12
Villa are still a big club, yes but WERE so much bigger. Have you been to Villa Park in the past 5 years? One of the quietest grounds i've been to in the prem and more empty seats than City... As for Baggies - they USED to be a big club, no way near as big as they once WERE. A club's size does change, saying Wolves are a huge club because of success in the 50s is ludicrous, they are big yes but not the size they once were. Villa seriously overhyped by their owns fans aswell...
Original post by GymLad78
Villa are still a big club, yes but WERE so much bigger. Have you been to Villa Park in the past 5 years? One of the quietest grounds i've been to in the prem and more empty seats than City... As for Baggies - they USED to be a big club, no way near as big as they once WERE. A club's size does change, saying Wolves are a huge club because of success in the 50s is ludicrous, they are big yes but not the size they once were. Villa seriously overhyped by their owns fans aswell...

when we where in the top flight that aint to bad because in the past there has been 29,505 in stans and that means 500 empty seets theoretically you could have 501 empty seets and still have more than that. And you may echo these sentiments Big Eck bored thousands away
for what we have won i think we are fairly well supported though its just that carson has raped us
Everton, 4th most league titles. Placed 8-10th in some lists.
Original post by GymLad78
Villa are still a big club, yes but WERE so much bigger. Have you been to Villa Park in the past 5 years? One of the quietest grounds i've been to in the prem and more empty seats than City... As for Baggies - they USED to be a big club, no way near as big as they once WERE. A club's size does change, saying Wolves are a huge club because of success in the 50s is ludicrous, they are big yes but not the size they once were. Villa seriously overhyped by their owns fans aswell...


So that's your only argument? That Villa Park isn't as full at St. James's?

When was the last time Newcastle won something?
Original post by Wilfred Little
So that's your only argument? That Villa Park isn't as full at St. James's?

When was the last time Newcastle won something?


Geordies always pull the attendance card in these types of discussions. Even though it's a one club city so get high attendances by default.
Original post by Stylo92
Geordies always pull the attendance card in these types of discussions. Even though it's a one club city so get high attendances by default.


Southampton get 30,000? Leeds get less than 20k often?

Newcastle getting 50k is actually impressive but it doesnt mean much in terms of club size. Arsenal could comfortably sell more tickets than Utd by virtue of being London but it doesnt mean alot either.
Original post by YesAllMen
Garbage list. Spurs are 3rd behind only United and Pool. On par with Woolwich

Man City ahead as well. Just what lad


''To dare is to do, we've won 13 and you've only won 2''

Spurs are the biggest club in Middlesex though no doubt
Original post by GymLad78
Seen a few threads which discuss clubs being 'bigger' than one another, but who is the 'biggest' and 'smallest' in the prem? What the term 'biggest' actually means is up for debate, but in your opinions, what would the table look like? For me biggest would be history/attendance/fan base and current quality. IMO the table would be:

1. Manchester United
2. Liverpool
3. Arsenal
4. Chelsea
5. Newcastle United
6. Manchester City
7. Tottenham Hotspur
8. Everton
9. Aston Villa
10. Sunderland
11. West Ham United
12. Southampton
13. Crystal Palace
14. Stoke City
15. West Bromwich Albion
16. Leicester City
17. QPR
18. Hull City
19. Swansea City
20. Burnley


Don't know if Newcastle are really that big. I live near there and although they're the most popular club in the north east a clubs aspirations also determine their size. Whether their fans like to admit it or not they can feel pleased with a finish in the top half. Until they are regularly finishing in the europa league places I'd put Manchester City above them and probably Tottenham too.
Original post by Zürich
Southampton get 30,000? Leeds get less than 20k often?

Newcastle getting 50k is actually impressive but it doesnt mean much in terms of club size. Arsenal could comfortably sell more tickets than Utd by virtue of being London but it doesnt mean alot either.


leeds are a huge club they have to pay disgusting ticket prices though. In the premier days they had around 40k every match and back in the 70s they had gates over 50000 regulary
1 Manchester Utd
2 Arsenal
3 Newcastle Utd
4 Manchester City
5 Liverpool
6 Sunderland
7 Chelsea
8 Everton
9 Tottenham
10 West Ham Utd
11 Aston Villa
12 Leicester City
13 Southampton
14 Stoke City
15 West Bromwich
16 Crystal Palace
17 Hull City
18 Swansea City
19 Burnley
20 QP Rangers
Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
1 Manchester Utd
2 Arsenal
3 Newcastle Utd
4 Manchester City
5 Liverpool
6 Sunderland
7 Chelsea
8 Everton
9 Tottenham
10 West Ham Utd
11 Aston Villa
12 Leicester City
13 Southampton
14 Stoke City
15 West Bromwich
16 Crystal Palace
17 Hull City
18 Swansea City
19 Burnley
20 QP Rangers


Soton above Leicester C,Palace should maybe be 15th?
Original post by scrawlx101
Soton above Leicester C,Palace should maybe be 15th?


Palace ain't that great, in the championship the year they went up they was only hitting between 11-13,000
Original post by Zürich
Arsenal could comfortably sell more tickets than Utd by virtue of being London but it doesnt mean alot either.


:laugh: No you couldn't. People from all over the British Isles commute to Old Trafford whilst the locals all sit in the pub or at home.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you