Spurs joint 6th biggest club - Sportsmail Study

  • 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...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

eanN17

Supporter
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...
 
Would be interested to see how the table relates based on the modern era (post war).

e.g. Newcastle listed higher than Leeds and Forest for trophies despite winning nothing since 1955?
 

AaronLenin

Leader of Spurs Peoples Republic
Would be interested to see how the table relates based on the modern era (post war).

e.g. Newcastle listed higher than Leeds and Forest for trophies despite winning nothing since 1955?
Newcastle were featured prominently in the film Goal: Living the dream. What have Forest done recently that compares with this public relations coup?
 
According to that 100% scientific chart, our "player quality" is better than Chelsea's or City's!
:adethumbup:
Of course most/all of the criteria are open to debate. But the player quality involves a historical element, and as such I think it's not unreasonable to judge that in our history we've had better players than Chelsea or City. Though IIRC, a lot/all of the weighting is derived from English players, which is obviously totally skewed if true.

But forgetting that, whether you look at English players that have played for the three teams, or all players, it may well be the case ours has been the best. And tonight we added another proud Englishman to our very own Quality Street :kaneear:
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
You can always argue about these lists for sure. For example, to me we are not bigger than Chelsea historically now. That changed without doubt IMO when they became the first London club, indeed the first Southern club to win the CL/EC. Coupled with the the facts that they have won more trophies than us, including more of the 'big 2' trophies, means they are now bigger than us both in terms of the present and overall history.

City is a more difficult matter, but the fact that they have won three titles since we last won the title (including one in 68) means they now just edge it for me. I look at all of history, but give more weighting to the present and recent past than the remote football past in making my judgement calls on this issue. So, for me, City are now part of the 'historical big 5' as well as the current big 5, but I can easily see that people can validly argue against that. Chelsea I don't see how people can, but they probably will, such is the nature of these lists.:love:

Also I don't agree we are part of a 'traditional big 5'. Professional football has been going for about 125 years in this country, for the majority of that time we haven't been part of the top 5 clubs. I would say maximum we've been part of a top 5/'big 5' for 40% of that time and more realistically only about 35%.

Post-war (since 1945) we were part of the top 5 for most of the time, but there was an awful lot of football history in this country prior to then.

I think this list is more accurate than one that most fans would come up with. Indeed if you put Villa joint 6th along with us and Everton it's remarkably accurate regarding the biggest 7 clubs in England, with the obvious anomaly that Pool should be 2nd and Woolwich 3rd. Though it is funny to see a bit of media bias against Liverpool for once :)
 
Last edited:

n17troops

Big Erics troops
that's because you're an idiot. fuck a truce.
v
hitting-on-hollywood-best-pickups-of-joker-a70f7bff-6283-4f42-8c1f-f2e913433bd0.gif
 
You can always argue about these lists for sure. For example, to me we are not bigger than Chelsea historically now. That changed without doubt IMO when they became the first London club, indeed the first Southern club to win the CL/EC. Coupled with the the facts that they have won more trophies than us, including more of the 'big 2' trophies, means they are now bigger than us both in terms of the present and overall history.

City is a more difficult matter, but the fact that they have won three titles since we last won the title (including one in 68) means they now just edge it for me. I look at all of history, but give more weighting to the present and recent past than the remote football past in making my judgement calls on this issue. So, for me, City are now part of the 'historical big 5' as well as the current big 5, but I can easily see that people can validly argue against that. Chelsea I don't see how people can, but they probably will, such is the nature of these lists.:love:

Also I don't agree we are part of a 'traditional big 5'. Professional football has been going for about 125 years in this country, for the majority of that time we haven't been part of the top 5 clubs. I would say maximum we've been part of a top 5/'big 5' for 40% of that time and more realistically only about 35%.

Post-war (since 1945) we were part of the top 5 for most of the time, but there was an awful lot of football history in this country prior to then.

I think this list is more accurate than one that most fans would come up with. Indeed if you put Villa joint 6th along with us and Everton it's remarkably accurate regarding the biggest 7 clubs in England, with the obvious anomaly that Pool should be 2nd and Woolwich 3rd. Though it is funny to see a bit of media bias against Liverpool for once :)
Chelsea who used to have 11K attendances back in the days are a big 5 club by your mark because of a 10 years spell but by your method we judge a club based on 125 years and that's why we're not? Dementia struck a bit early with you because your logic fails .

Basically: pre WWI history means shite, interwar period is decorative but not very significant, we judge clubs by their size after WWII when football became more professional.
 
Chelsea who used to have 11K attendances back in the days are a big 5 club by your mark because of a 10 years spell but by your method we judge a club based on 125 years and that's why we're not? Dementia struck a bit early with you because your logic fails .

Basically: pre WWI history means shite, interwar period is decorative but not very significant, we judge clubs by their size after WWII when football became more professional.
Normally when people are rude to me, I just put them straight on ignore but as you are wrong about Chelsea and I am right, I can't resist replying before I do so :thumbup:

You say we judge clubs by their size after WWII, well since during that time period Chelsea have won 20 trophies to our 15, how wrong are you, very :thumbup: (Shortly to be 21 when Chelsea win yet another Prem to our 15)

http://www.krysstal.com/trophies.html

Furthermore of the 'big 2' trophies (Champions and CL/EC) Chelsea have won 5 (shortly to be 6) we have won 2, so how wrong are you now??? Very! :thumbup::thumbup:

I won't comment on our respective faculties, just who understands more about post-WWII football. Clearly, from this exchange, it's me. :)

Oh, and as Jim Royle would say, 'Dementia, my arse!!' :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
 
Last edited:
Greaves357_bestever Greaves357_bestever
You would fail any introduction to logic course and what you did is a straw man reply. In what way did I state that I measure the post-war magnitude by the number of trophies won? It's easier as a wealthy club to win trophy nowadays than it was for a big club (even a dominating one) to win as many back in the days.
I also pointed to the time span, you said you judge size by how the club fared for 125 years but than went on raving about Chelsea when most of their trophies came in a short term of 10 dirty money years. Can't you see the inner contradiction here? suppose club X won a quadruple 5 years running and than went into oblivion since 1905, by you weird spectra they're massive.

I'm just not gonna reply to you now, I went over your latest replies and you seem a chav\gooner
 

Yorkshire_Spurs

@daveyglee
Normally when people are rude to me, I just put them straight on ignore but as you are wrong about Chelsea and I am right, I can't resist replying before I do so :thumbup:

You say we judge clubs by their size after WWII, well since during that time period Chelsea have won 20 trophies to our 15, how wrong are you, very :thumbup: (Shortly to be 21 when Chelsea win yet another Prem to our 15)

http://www.krysstal.com/trophies.html

Furthermore of the 'big 2' trophies (Champions and CL/EC) Chelsea have won 5 (shortly to be 6) we have won 2, so how wrong are you now??? Very! :thumbup::thumbup:

I won't comment on our respective faculties, just who understands more about post-WWII football. Clearly, from this exchange, it's me. :)

Oh, and as Jim Royle would say, 'Dementia, my arse!!' :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Your life must be a barrel of laughs.
 
Top Bottom