Log in to stop seeing adverts

"Big club"

Blue Maniac

Alzheimers sufferer
"Big club" is a phrase we hear a lot. We've seen a lot of dick measuring this week; this and similar terms have been thrown around a lot.

So what makes a club a big one? Big stadium? Lots of trophies? Big bank balance? Is it even a phrase that has any meaning?
 

pork pie fox

Well-Known Member
Follow on question then - despite cynicism about the validity of the “big club” tag, who do you think are genuine “big clubs”?
 

SJN-Fox

Well-Known Member
According to Chris (twat) Sutton, it seems that a big club needs to be bigger than Celtic reserves.
 

Lako42

Well-Known Member
Celtic aren't a big club.

If they were a big club they would attract big players and keep big managers.

They are a club with lots of fans because they are better than all the other shit in their league.

I'd ****ing hate to support a nothing club like Celtic these days
 

Blue Maniac

Alzheimers sufferer
Follow on question then - despite cynicism about the validity of the “big club” tag, who do you think are genuine “big clubs”?
Compared to what? Celtic are a big club in the context of Scottish football, in the same way a chihuahua looks big when compared to a group of mice. In League One we and Leeds had the most significant recent histories, the biggest grounds, probably bigger playing budgets than most, but 2019 Leicester is many times bigger and more important in a world football context than 2009 Leicester.

Newcastle fans are constantly saying theirs is a massive club. By what measure? Certainly nothing that's happened on the pitch in the last 20 years.
 

TornadoShaunUK

Well-Known Member
Celtics trophy cabinet has one trophy in it and countless tin pots... Celtic are big off fan base alone and that's because no ****er else in Scotland quite satisfies the thirst of a Scottish glory boy so they get the lion's share of those fans.
 

Feriol

Well-Known Member
Years ago I think the crowd base defined the stature of a club. Gate receipts were the major source of income and determined what a club could spend and ultimately their odds of success, but this is now an old fashioned idea.

Gate receipts are largely negligible compared to TV income, and many clubs are broadly similar in income, spending power and chance of success is now largely down to the wealth and ambition of the owners. By that count I would say that at the moment Man City, Chelsea and Man United are the biggest clubs, with Arsenal and Liverpool in a second tier.

I personally don't see past successes as any indication, beyond the financial benefits of recent achievements. Also the ability to attract players is purely financial now, new signings might talk about the history of Man Utd and Liverpool when they join, but how many would dream of playing for Leeds, or Huddersfield?
 

jb5000

Well-Known Member
I agree that it used to be based on gate receipts in the past, this enabled clubs to more routinely field stronger sides and created a virtous circle where they were more likely to win trophies, attract more supporters, and increase gate receipts. This also created a sort of lag effect, so that clubs who have not won much for some time (Think Spurs, Leeds, Everton, Forest, Sunderland, Newcastle, even Liverpool) still take in gate receipts based on past glories. I don't agree that this is no longer the case though. While gate money may be a smaller part of EPL clubs' turnover, it is not completely insignificant (especially since gate sharing was done away with in the eighties) but more recently corporate hospitality, merchandise sales and sponsorship have become more important and move in the same way - there's a reason Manchester United, Chelsea, and so on sell so many shirts in the Far East and their shirt sponsorship deals are so much more valuable. This all means that clubs can spend more paying for talent, both in tranfer fees and salaries. So, while winning the title made Leicester a bigger club, and will have a positive effect on the club for at least a generation, I wouldn't say that we're a bigger club now than several clubs who haven't won the title in much longer. Unless, of course, we can parlay the embiggening of the club in to further success.
 

H T B

Well-Known Member
On Pointless the other day, the question was asked which teams have played in the English premier league since it started.
Ask that question a couple of years ago, we would have been a high Mark answer
Ask it a few years before that, man City wouldn't have been in the top 3.
Only 13 people out of 100 said us :(
Our bigness is dwaining.
Wolves had 14%!!!
If it is not on size of gate, does that mean Bournemouth (12,500ish capacity) are bigger than Celtic?
Iic, top 3 answers were man u, man c, & Liverpool, with Chelsea, Arsenal & Spurs behind them
 

jb5000

Well-Known Member
Nevermind the top answers, which were pointless? My guess would be Swindon, though lots of Lestonians would remember their stay...
 

SilverFox

Well-Known Member
Value in millions vs debt as percentage of value and also revenue...

In the current Forbes list we are 19th biggest in the world. And erm... yep... I... erm... oh **** Celtic aren’t in the top 20. I expected to see their reserves at 18. Then again their best first team player is one of our reserves so I guess pricks like Sutton will have to take a reality pill

You just made the list!!!

 

pork pie fox

Well-Known Member
Compared to what? Celtic are a big club in the context of Scottish football, in the same way a chihuahua looks big when compared to a group of mice. In League One we and Leeds had the most significant recent histories, the biggest grounds, probably bigger playing budgets than most, but 2019 Leicester is many times bigger and more important in a world football context than 2009 Leicester.

Newcastle fans are constantly saying theirs is a massive club. By what measure? Certainly nothing that's happened on the pitch in the last 20 years.
That's the point, I guess. It's a ridiculous question, so I'm asking for an answer :023:
 

Fox Fan

Well-Known Member
I agree that it used to be based on gate receipts in the past, this enabled clubs to more routinely field stronger sides and created a virtous circle where they were more likely to win trophies, attract more supporters, and increase gate receipts. This also created a sort of lag effect, so that clubs who have not won much for some time (Think Spurs, Leeds, Everton, Forest, Sunderland, Newcastle, even Liverpool) still take in gate receipts based on past glories. I don't agree that this is no longer the case though. While gate money may be a smaller part of EPL clubs' turnover, it is not completely insignificant (especially since gate sharing was done away with in the eighties) but more recently corporate hospitality, merchandise sales and sponsorship have become more important and move in the same way - there's a reason Manchester United, Chelsea, and so on sell so many shirts in the Far East and their shirt sponsorship deals are so much more valuable. This all means that clubs can spend more paying for talent, both in tranfer fees and salaries. So, while winning the title made Leicester a bigger club, and will have a positive effect on the club for at least a generation, I wouldn't say that we're a bigger club now than several clubs who haven't won the title in much longer. Unless, of course, we can parlay the embiggening of the club in to further success.
You might be interested to read 'The Club' - which details how clubs like Man U have taken merchandise and sponsorship to a different stratosphere since '92. It basically says that gate receipts are a very minimal part of a clubs income in the Premier League era.


But on attendances and to further the points above, in the 80's there were several years when there wasn't even a highlights programme broadcast and live matches were the second half only. In those days, the crowd was virtually the only revenue there was.
 

Flabby Owl

New Member
Value in millions vs debt as percentage of value and also revenue...

In the current Forbes list we are 19th biggest in the world. And erm... yep... I... erm... oh **** Celtic aren’t in the top 20. I expected to see their reserves at 18. Then again their best first team player is one of our reserves so I guess pricks like Sutton will have to take a reality pill

You just made the list!!!

The last time Celtic were in that list was in 2009, at number 23, and the highest they've ever been is 20, so congratulations to them on having never achieved anything this millennium...
 
Log in to stop seeing adverts

LCFC Twitter

  1. Take a closer look at #lcfc's new away kits ⤵️

  2. Leicester City 5️⃣ QPR 1️⃣ #OnThisDay four years ago! https://t.co/W6Nk6GVnJX

  3. New away shirts ✔️ #FridayFeeling ✔️ https://t.co/Xa2RVRNe18

  4. RT @premierleague: Congratulations to @stonewalluk on their 30th anniversary We're proud to work closely with Stonewall to promote equali…

  5. Leicester City 2019/20 adidas grey away shirt. Pre-order now 👉https://t.co/mAm6iSkiZ4 https://t.co/HazeclAITj

Premier League

P Pld Pts
Manchester City 38  98
Liverpool 38  97
Chelsea 38  72
Tottenham  38  71
Arsenal 38  70
Manchester Utd 38  66
Wolves 38  57
Everton 38  54
Leicester 38  52
10 West Ham Utd 38  52
11 Watford 38  50
12 Palace 38  49
13 Newcastle Utd 38  45
14 Bournemouth 38  45
15 Burnley 38  40
16 Southampton 38  39
17 Brighton 38  36
18 Cardiff City 38  34
19 Fulham 38  26
20 Huddersfield 38  16
Top