-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Surprised to see West Ham so far down the list, them having won the World Cup and all...
Group hug
that's because you're an idiot. fuck a truce.Cheers Joe, that's the kind of table I was thinking of. Do you have a source for this.
(PS, Yes I know I usually have you on 'ignore', but I'm happy to have a 'truce' in exchange for good info like this. Admittedly, I can't see it lasting long, as doubtless you'll be insulting me pretty soon again
Cheers Joe, that's the kind of table I was thinking of. Do you have a source for this.Saw this
(PS, Yes I know I usually have you on 'ignore', but I'm happy to have a 'truce' in exchange for good info like this. Admittedly, I can't see it lasting long, as doubtless you'll be insulting me pretty soon again
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-finally-settles-football-s-great-debate.html
Seems about right. Though I would put Liverpool above Woolwich.
Of course each individual factor can easily be argued. Everton get a higher ranking for crowds than us, for example. But for me that's simply a by-product of our respective capacities. I've no doubt that when we get a bigger stadium we'll beat their average attendances. It's true that historic crowd figures are taken into account too, but I thought we edged Everton on that.
There was a table that showed we ranked only below Man Utd at one stage (IIRC), but I don't know where that is these days, can't find it through Google.
This site though (you have to click on the England flag far left)
http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm
shows that post-war we have topped average attendances more times than Everton, but it's a close run thing. They did considerably better in the 19th century, but figures were low then all round.
Seems about right. Though I would put Liverpool above Woolwich.
Of course each individual factor can easily be argued. Everton get a higher ranking for crowds than us, for example. But for me that's simply a by-product of our respective capacities. I've no doubt that when we get a bigger stadium we'll beat their average attendances. It's true that historic crowd figures are taken into account too, but I thought we edged Everton on that.
There was a table that showed we ranked only below Man Utd at one stage (IIRC), but I don't know where that is these days, can't find it through Google.
This site though (you have to click on the England flag far left)
http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm
shows that post-war we have topped average attendances more times than Everton, but it's a close run thing. They did considerably better in the 19th century, but figures were low then all round.
Last edited:
Like the Bin Dippers, the media loves Newcastle. For middle class men that run the sporting media in the UK, Newcastle are a marketing wet dream, all those working class lads, living for the football, die hard fans etc etc....Look at that Shearer advert on TV, nothing could be further from the truth about Newcastle and their supposed loyal support.
I went to some games up there a few years ago and they were not even pulling 20,000 and the gallowgate end was mute. Again Sky led media bullshit that started in the 90's is still ongoing, yes they pull 50,000 for big games, but so what, so would we with our stadium.
I went to some games up there a few years ago and they were not even pulling 20,000 and the gallowgate end was mute. Again Sky led media bullshit that started in the 90's is still ongoing, yes they pull 50,000 for big games, but so what, so would we with our stadium.
Cheers Joe. I'll do my best
THIS. Such a nothing ranking - I'd go as far to say that it was weighted with the purpose of putting Woolwich in second place.
Sorry Greavsie it was a screenshot I took a while back, and I can't remember what site is was. I saw this table on a Wednesday site, and it's the same numbers - can't find the original. Sorry - truce over :lennonlol:Cheers Joe. I'll do my best
Last edited:
Not so much science behind that list. Everyone could make up criterias to fit their purpose.
Lists like these are quite silly really, but for the fun of it, what does it tell? You cannot argue about United and Liverpool being in the top 3, I probably would have switched 2 and 3. As for 4 and 5, they are very much in a unnatural position as 'Income' is what dictates the rest of columns; in no particular order 'Trophies', 'Av. League pos.', then 'Crowds' to a certain extent and especially 'Global Fanbase'. If you added 'History', as in what has happened before a certain injection of unexpected cash 5 or 10 years ago, as a 7th category, you'd find Everton and Spurs on 4th and the formerly mentioned teams at 11th/12th, just ahead of West Ham...
Lists like these are quite silly really, but for the fun of it, what does it tell? You cannot argue about United and Liverpool being in the top 3, I probably would have switched 2 and 3. As for 4 and 5, they are very much in a unnatural position as 'Income' is what dictates the rest of columns; in no particular order 'Trophies', 'Av. League pos.', then 'Crowds' to a certain extent and especially 'Global Fanbase'. If you added 'History', as in what has happened before a certain injection of unexpected cash 5 or 10 years ago, as a 7th category, you'd find Everton and Spurs on 4th and the formerly mentioned teams at 11th/12th, just ahead of West Ham...
Those lists are always rubbish, it's impossible to quantify criteria to sort the "size of a club". It's more of a general vibe.
The traditional top 5 (Man U, pool, Everton, us, south london cunts) are still bigger as a club historically, the Chavs and city still have a long way to go on that account. Plus, how can you take this list seriously when small time west ham are ahead of leeds?
The traditional top 5 (Man U, pool, Everton, us, south london cunts) are still bigger as a club historically, the Chavs and city still have a long way to go on that account. Plus, how can you take this list seriously when small time west ham are ahead of leeds?
if was the % of the stadium capacity we would be even higher on the table.
We would probably edge above Everton, but the other factors would ensure we wouldn't go higher than 6th overall. To me the new 'big 5' are also the 'historic big 5' as well now, as I weight recent achievements higher than what say, Everton and Villa achieved in the 19th century, for example.
"Supporters of Chelsea, Woolwich and Manchester City might reasonably scoff at that, as they will play at the highest European level next season" . Is Woolwich in top four such a foregone conclusion?? Yes they probably will, but that's a piss take.
Do you mean 20th century? sorry to be a pedantic twit, but if we are looking at 19th century then surely ' Old Etonians' would be right up there!!