• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

How do you rank English clubs in size

monkeybarry said:
Now that I'm interested in.
Surely Saudi Sportswashing Machine win that though? Just poor enough to consider Greggs a meal out, just rich enough to afford a steak bake, sausage roll and a can of coke. Add a donut if youre on a date.

Sunderland and Middlesbrough it's bake or sausage roll.

(Right, that's my southern ignorance box ticked for the day. I'm off for a nice craft ale to celebrate.)
Click to expand...
Boro's parmo (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmo) wins hands down. Absolutely double drop of a heartattack
 
Gutter Boy said:
Id maybe have Saudi Sportswashing Machine 11th.

But Leeds would be down 15th below Sunderland, Forest and Sheffield Wednesday. Although Leeds had 2 decent spells late 60s and early 90s, they've been crap for almost all the rest of their history
Click to expand...

What about Huddersfield and Preston if you are going way back?
 
3 criteria probably. Fans, trophies, revenue.

Then see which has the highest number for each. Utd probably still biggest (especially as citys stats for fans and revenue are blatant lies).
 
Lilbaz said:
3 criteria probably. Fans, trophies, revenue.

Then see which has the highest number for each. Utd probably still biggest (especially as citys stats for fans and revenue are blatant lies).
Click to expand...
Fans - are we talking volume? Or how clamy they are?
 
1. United
2. Liverpool
3. Arsenal
4. Emirates Marketing Project
5. Chelsea
6. Spurs
7. Villa
8. Everton
9. Saudi Sportswashing Machine
10. West Ham
 
Villa have won a european cup.

They are arguably above us and/or Everton. Not saying they are but there's an argument there.

They are way above West Ham
Gutter Boy said:
1) Liverpool
2) Man U
3) Arsenal
4) Everton
5) Spurs
6) Villa
7) City
8) Chelsea
9) Wolves
10) Blackburn
Click to expand...

How Wolves and Blackburn on that list but not Forrest with 2 European cups?
 
If I had to rank:

Over the course of history I'd say:

1) Liverpool
2) Man United
3) Arsenal
4) Chelsea
5) Emirates Marketing Project
6) Spurs
7) Villa
8) Everton
9) Forrest
10) Wolves

With the ranking of Spurs, Villa and Everton being the most debatable and interchangeable.

I'd place number and importance of honours as the most important factor. Followed by fan base.
 
Craig_J said:
Villa have won a european cup.

They are arguably above us and/or Everton. Not saying they are but there's an argument there.

They are way above West Ham


How Wolves and Blackburn on that list but not Forrest with 2 European cups?
Click to expand...

3 league titles a piece to Forest's 1 was the main logic. 4 and 6 FA cups to Forest's 2 too.
 
Without modern day financial doping:

Man U
Liverpool
Arsenal
Spurs
Everton
Aston Villa
- all clubs in the group above historically have had large, organically-generated domestic fan bases. Still strong today with broader int'l appeal.

Chelsea (before Abramovich they were Fulham with a bit more money but no taste or brains. With Boehly, same deal)
Emirates Marketing Project (The Maine Rd. Hillbillies until Jed Clampett struck oil. Feared but neither loved nor respected. Highly disposable item for plastic fans)
Saudi Sportswashing Machine (Huge locally, not so huge internationally)
West Ham (Millwall with a bit more money but no taste or brains)
Leeds (could be huge with proper ownership)
Nottingham Forest (yes, great Euro success at one time but not a huge club)

The. Rest.
 
Gutter Boy said:
3 league titles a piece to Forest's 1 was the main logic. 4 and 6 FA cups to Forest's 2 too.
Click to expand...


I can understand that. They have been more inconsistent There is a an argument as well that the old European cup format was much simpler than it is now too.

Personally I’d still say European success should count by a factor of 2.0 at least but it’s complicated to work out.
greatwhitenorf said:
Without modern day financial doping:

Man U
Liverpool
Arsenal
Spurs
Everton
Aston Villa
- all clubs in the group above historically have had large, organically-generated domestic fan bases. Still strong today with broader int'l appeal.

Chelsea (before Abramovich they were Fulham with a bit more money but no taste or brains. With Boehly, same deal)
Emirates Marketing Project (The Maine Rd. Hillbillies until Jed Clampett struck oil. Feared but neither loved nor respected. Highly disposable item for plastic fans)
Saudi Sportswashing Machine (Huge locally, not so huge internationally)
West Ham (Millwall with a bit more money but no taste or brains)
Leeds (could be huge with proper ownership)
Nottingham Forest (yes, great Euro success at one time but not a huge club)

The. Rest.
Click to expand...

Things get even more interesting if we consider what clubs were doped. Like any argument to have Blackburn there would have to take into account their financial doping.

As an outside suggestion could be Wanderers FC as well. Extinct for 137 years but 5 FA Cups in the 27 years they were active for
 
Don’t wanna derail the thread but in interested to know if any older/ more educated posters know whether there have been clubs before the PL era bankrolled by rich owners?

Or is it just a modern day phenomenon?
 
Sunderland were known as the Bank of England club after WWII (not that it bought them titles).

But it seems they were not the first so labelled. It was used for Arsenal, Everton, Aston Villa and Blackpool in the 1930s.

Bank of England club - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Man United
Liverpool
Arsenal
Chelsea
Everton
Aston Villa
Emirates Marketing Project (undoped)
Saudi Sportswashing Machine
West Ham

I'm not going to place Spurs (too biased) or the doped Emirates Marketing Project (too soon to evaluate, cf. 115 charges).

I think the top three is clear. Chelsea (before Abramovich) were having a good decade under some progressive managers, albeit they may have gone bust. Everton and Villa had won more but more distantly. Sunderland, Leeds and Forest perhaps have claims depending on how heavily you rank the PL era.
 
jts1882 said:
Man United
Liverpool
Arsenal
Chelsea
Everton
Aston Villa
Emirates Marketing Project (undoped)
Saudi Sportswashing Machine
West Ham

I'm not going to place Spurs (too biased) or the doped Emirates Marketing Project (too soon to evaluate, cf. 115 charges).

I think the top three is clear. Chelsea (before Abramovich) were having a good decade under some progressive managers, albeit they may have gone bust. Everton and Villa had won more but more distantly. Sunderland, Leeds and Forest perhaps have claims depending on how heavily you rank the PL era.
Click to expand...
You can’t just casually say “albeit likely to go bust”! They were a day away from going in to administration, the whole decade you are acclaiming is based on the very reason you are excluding City. Take the spending away and they’d have continued to be a yo-yo club.

Sorry but if you are excluding City then you have to exclude Chelsea in afraid.
 
Gazza Dazzla said:
You can’t just casually say “albeit likely to go bust”! They were a day away from going in to administration, the whole decade you are acclaiming is based on the very reason you are excluding City. Take the spending away and they’d have continued to be a yo-yo club.

Sorry but if you are excluding City then you have to exclude Chelsea in afraid.
Click to expand...

We almost went bust under scholar. Liverpool got seized by the banks and sold on.
 
Lilbaz said:
We almost went bust under scholar. Liverpool got seized by the banks and sold on.
Click to expand...
So why not just include City then?

Think our financial issue was slightly different to paying out way beyond our means on transfers and wages for a decade wasn’t it? (Edit: that’s a genuine question, I don’t remember the reasons, was a bit too young)
 
Gazza Dazzla said:
So why not just include City then?

Think our financial issue was slightly different to paying out way beyond our means on transfers and wages for a decade wasn’t it? (Edit: that’s a genuine question, I don’t remember the reasons, was a bit too young)
Click to expand...

There was loads of dodgy stuff going on. The east stand, scholars other businesses. Paying players offshore to get around tax...
 
Lilbaz said:
There was loads of dodgy stuff going on. The east stand, scholars other businesses. Paying players offshore to get around tax...
Click to expand...
Yes financial irregularities / tax dodges etc is what I had in my mind.

So a bit different to being bank rolled in order to win stuff like Chelsea or City have been. Although I get the offshore payments to players could be put in that category. On such a ridiculously smaller scale though.
 
Gazza Dazzla said:
Yes financial irregularities / tax dodges etc is what I had in my mind.

So a bit different to being bank rolled in order to win stuff like Chelsea or City have been. Although I get the offshore payments to players could be put in that category. On such a ridiculously smaller scale though.
Click to expand...

We were talking abou chelsea under bates i thought? That's when they almost went into administration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back