nta786 Posted 25 March, 2015 Share Posted 25 March, 2015 (edited) As Sportsmail exclusively reveal.... we are the 15th biggest club in England.... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3011776/Are-Manchester-United-Liverpool-Arsenal-Chelsea-biggest-club-Sportsmail-s-study-finally-settles-football-s-great-debate.html Leeds, Wolves are higher than us, and Portsmouth are 35th! I think I'll take this article with a pinch of salt for now. Here are the individual links: League Finishes: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3011614/Liverpool-finished-higher-league-average-club-England-Manchester-United-Arsenal-rest-rank.html Social Media/Money: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3011745/Manchester-United-popular-club-social-media.html Trophies: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3011860/Liverpool-biggest-club-trophies-won-edging-rivals-Manchester-United-silverware.html Crowds/Star Players: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3011664/Manchester-United-biggest-club-England-ahead-Liverpool-Manchester-City-based-crowds-star-players.html Edited 25 March, 2015 by nta786 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redslo Posted 25 March, 2015 Share Posted 25 March, 2015 As Sportsmail exclusively reveal.... we are the 15th biggest club in England.... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3011776/Are-Manchester-United-Liverpool-Arsenal-Chelsea-biggest-club-Sportsmail-s-study-finally-settles-football-s-great-debate.html Leeds, Wolves are higher than us, and Portsmouth are 35th! I think I'll take this article with a pinch of salt for now. Here are the individual links: League Finishes: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3011614/Liverpool-finished-higher-league-average-club-England-Manchester-United-Arsenal-rest-rank.html Social Media/Money: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3011745/Manchester-United-popular-club-social-media.html Trophies: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3011860/Liverpool-biggest-club-trophies-won-edging-rivals-Manchester-United-silverware.html Crowds/Star Players: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3011664/Manchester-United-biggest-club-England-ahead-Liverpool-Manchester-City-based-crowds-star-players.html I think their methodology is flawed but then bigness is a subjective concept. I would like to see a list that ranked the biggest clubs by weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 25 March, 2015 Share Posted 25 March, 2015 I think their methodology is flawed but then bigness is a subjective concept. I would like to see a list that ranked the biggest clubs by weight. Sign up my Mrs then, and champions league here we come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 25 March, 2015 Share Posted 25 March, 2015 I dont see a lot wrong with that tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 25 March, 2015 Share Posted 25 March, 2015 15th feels about right to me for us. On the list I'd say WBA and Blackburn are too high, with Forest and Wednesday under-called. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 25 March, 2015 Share Posted 25 March, 2015 Never been sure about what constitutes a big club? Trophy cabinet? Crowds? Turn over? Leeds to me used to be a massive club but what have they won in years? Wolves too. There are plenty of "big clubs" in the Championship and League 1. Does that mean they are still big? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Jim Posted 26 March, 2015 Share Posted 26 March, 2015 Never been sure about what constitutes a big club? Trophy cabinet? Crowds? Turn over? Leeds to me used to be a massive club but what have they won in years? Wolves too. There are plenty of "big clubs" in the Championship and League 1. Does that mean they are still big? not to mention the tinpottest and bestesttm are in League 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 26 March, 2015 Share Posted 26 March, 2015 Fair enough, they've set their criteria and judged it about right on that. Other people will disagree because they'll favour other criteria, but there is no real right or wrong is there? Viewing it from overseas, United and Liverpool are seen as far ahead of the others here. Leeds are also surprisingly popular, but you almost never meet a Norwegian saints fan, despite out Norwegian players of the past. Saints just don't really have any international profile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffo Posted 26 March, 2015 Share Posted 26 March, 2015 Saints just don't really have any international profile. Good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 26 March, 2015 Share Posted 26 March, 2015 Good. You wait until we have a green away kit to celebrate our partnership with MLS giants the Oregon Cowpokes. We'll be massive then, massive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richardc Posted 26 March, 2015 Share Posted 26 March, 2015 We are ranked 34 in crowds but 11 in global fanbase - that can only mean our stadium is not big enough to accommodate all our global fans and we need a stadium expansion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highfield Saint Posted 26 March, 2015 Share Posted 26 March, 2015 Not sure how attendance levels a century ago (or even thirty years ago) have any relevance to the size of a club today? Same with all the stats tbh. There should be some recent year weighting applied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alehouseboys Posted 26 March, 2015 Share Posted 26 March, 2015 Not sure how attendance levels a century ago (or even thirty years ago) have any relevance to the size of a club today? Same with all the stats tbh. There should be some recent year weighting applied. If it was compiled over the last 15 years we'd be in the top dozen for crowds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tajjuk Posted 26 March, 2015 Share Posted 26 March, 2015 Stuff that happened 20, 30 years ago is pretty meaningless. Footballers sign for clubs for potential of winning trophies and money. The rest is just fluff for fans to argue about, but it means nothing. Liverpool scoring higher in this list won't stop their best players wanting to leave to Chelsea or Man City. Just like a player would obviously choose us over West Brom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 26 March, 2015 Share Posted 26 March, 2015 15th seems about right to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 26 March, 2015 Share Posted 26 March, 2015 Most of that pretty much makes sense - though how Hull rank 19 in crowds when they were churning out 4-5k crowds only 15 years ago and have never had a crowd over 24k in the Prem beats me. Were they massive in the 1950s or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted 26 March, 2015 Share Posted 26 March, 2015 15th seems about right to me. Only one I'd quibble with is West Brom, but hey ho, generally I agree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 26 March, 2015 Share Posted 26 March, 2015 (edited) Nope, Hull is DEFINITELY wrongly ranked in attendances. 20-30k for most of the 50s and over 20k for a few years in the 60s. Other than that, pretty much under 10k for the rest of their history. Compare to Saints, whose last sub 10k attendance average was 1935. Yet Saints are ranked in the 30s and Hull 19th on a scale where lower is better? That's just wrong. http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub/hulc.htm I suspect they should be ranked 49 not 19 for crowds, which would also put them on 207 total, and 37th instead of 32nd. Edited 26 March, 2015 by The9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lallana's Left Peg Posted 26 March, 2015 Share Posted 26 March, 2015 Come the summer there will probably only be 6 other clubs more attractive to players in this country than Saints. That's all that matters to me right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 26 March, 2015 Share Posted 26 March, 2015 Nope, Hull is DEFINITELY wrongly ranked in attendances. 20-30k for most of the 50s and over 20k for a few years in the 60s. Other than that, pretty much under 10k for the rest of their history. Compare to Saints, whose last sub 10k attendance average was 1935. Yet Saints are ranked in the 30s and Hull 19th on a scale where lower is better? That's just wrong. http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub/hulc.htm I suspect they should be ranked 49 not 19 for crowds, which would also put them on 207 total, and 37th instead of 32nd. I'm sure we'll not be losing any sleep over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 26 March, 2015 Share Posted 26 March, 2015 I'm sure we'll not be losing any sleep over it. Hey, those feckers are ranked higher than Saints in attendances when they've drawn worse than the rear end of a horse, plus some work experience at the Mail can't count, it matters to me - why would I put any stock in any of the other figures if they can't even spot an obvious outlier like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 26 March, 2015 Share Posted 26 March, 2015 Hey, those feckers are ranked higher than Saints in attendances when they've drawn worse than the rear end of a horse, plus some work experience at the Mail can't count, it matters to me - why would I put any stock in any of the other figures if they can't even spot an obvious outlier like that? You sad f**k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graffito Posted 26 March, 2015 Share Posted 26 March, 2015 Does size matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW5 SAINT Posted 26 March, 2015 Share Posted 26 March, 2015 Stuff that happened 20, 30 years ago is pretty meaningless. Footballers sign for clubs for potential of winning trophies and money. The rest is just fluff for fans to argue about, but it means nothing. Liverpool scoring higher in this list won't stop their best players wanting to leave to Chelsea or Man City. Just like a player would obviously choose us over West Brom. Not sure this list is about pulling power of a club to players. To me thats just who waves the most mega bucks about! Stuff that happened years ago is meaningful; it's those things that gives clubs their identity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalek2003 Posted 26 March, 2015 Share Posted 26 March, 2015 15th seems about right to me. 15th to 17th, about right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 26 March, 2015 Share Posted 26 March, 2015 Seems pretty reasonable for ordering. Let down by the league position and the trophies - there needs to be a way to weight that in, as we had a bit of a downward trend for a while. But tbh, I wouldn't put us that much higher. Our 'global fanbase' (whatever that means) being 11th sounds about right. Only teams above us which I think we could legitimately argue as 'bigger' than us (whatever that means) is definitely West Brom and Wolves and maybe West Ham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandwichsaint Posted 26 March, 2015 Share Posted 26 March, 2015 Seems pretty reasonable for ordering. Let down by the league position and the trophies - there needs to be a way to weight that in, as we had a bit of a downward trend for a while. But tbh, I wouldn't put us that much higher. Our 'global fanbase' (whatever that means) being 11th sounds about right. Only teams above us which I think we could legitimately argue as 'bigger' than us (whatever that means) is definitely West Brom and Wolves and maybe West Ham. Wrong on just about every level! 'Let down by league position and trophies' ? but the training ground's good! How would 'weighting it in' help our ranking? We won our only major trophy 38 years ago and have been more down than up over the last 8 years - weighting to the modern era would depress our rankings not improve them! (tho Wolves and West brom would be pushed even further back, maybe that was your point?) Global fanbase, if you scan down to the bottom, relates to twitter and facebook followers abroad, so an arbitrary-but-measurable 'fact' (keep up the good work Dubai). You 'definitely' think we are bigger than West Brom and Wolves? West Brom have won 5 FA cups, 2 League championships and have a record home attendance of near on 65,000, Wolves have won the First Division 3 times, runners up 5 times and have won 4 of their 8 FA Cup finals, they were pioneers in European football and were unofficially regarded as 'world champions' in the mid-50s after a series of high-profile friendlies, the pre-cursor to modern European football as we know it now. In addition Wolves have played in a European final and have a record ground attendance of 60,500. We're not in the same ball park historically, not even close, and we're not bigger than West Ham either. I'd say come back in another 10 years and see where we are then, if we continue what we've started we will be somewhere above 15th by then,; at the moment I'd say 15th feels just about right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 26 March, 2015 Share Posted 26 March, 2015 Wrong on just about every level! 'Let down by league position and trophies' ? but the training ground's good! How would 'weighting it in' help our ranking? We won our only major trophy 38 years ago and have been more down than up over the last 8 years - weighting to the modern era would depress our rankings not improve them! (tho Wolves and West brom would be pushed even further back, maybe that was your point?) Global fanbase, if you scan down to the bottom, relates to twitter and facebook followers abroad, so an arbitrary-but-measurable 'fact' (keep up the good work Dubai). You 'definitely' think we are bigger than West Brom and Wolves? West Brom have won 5 FA cups, 2 League championships and have a record home attendance of near on 65,000, Wolves have won the First Division 3 times, runners up 5 times and have won 4 of their 8 FA Cup finals, they were pioneers in European football and were unofficially regarded as 'world champions' in the mid-50s after a series of high-profile friendlies, the pre-cursor to modern European football as we know it now. In addition Wolves have played in a European final and have a record ground attendance of 60,500. We're not in the same ball park historically, not even close, and we're not bigger than West Ham either. I'd say come back in another 10 years and see where we are then, if we continue what we've started we will be somewhere above 15th by then,; at the moment I'd say 15th feels just about right! I was referring to current and recent 'size', which I admit is hard to measure, but what happened 50 years ago isn't as relevant as the current situation. When I said 'let down' - I was just saying those scores are lower, which they are. As I said, I broadly agree with the positioning, even if some of the methodology seems suspect - but it's only meant to be a bit of fun I know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyinthesky Posted 27 March, 2015 Share Posted 27 March, 2015 I was referring to current and recent 'size', which I admit is hard to measure, but what happened 50 years ago isn't as relevant as the current situation. When I said 'let down' - I was just saying those scores are lower, which they are. As I said, I broadly agree with the positioning, even if some of the methodology seems suspect - but it's only meant to be a bit of fun I know! Couple of things here Re Hull City attendances. Can't comment on their overall figures but when they were in Third Division North, season 1950/1, they had a higher average home attendance than Pompey who were Division 1 Champs that year. As I recollect it Pompey only averaged 37,000 that year in a stadium that could hold 51,000 and this was during a period when most stadiums were full just after WW2 and Pompey had thousands of sailors in town (and a fair few from this area who used to go along and swell the crowds at Fratton) With regard to comparative league positions (presumably going back to the time when both Saints and Pompey joined the League in 1920/1,) Saints have been in a higher league position for 52 of the 88 seasons Since 1960 when both clubs met again in the same League (Div 2 in 1960/1) the gap has got wider. In the intervening 55 seasons, Saints have been higher placed one 48 occasions, compared to Pompey's 7 and this gap is likely to continue (we would hope) for a few more years!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrian lord Posted 27 March, 2015 Share Posted 27 March, 2015 (edited) I am surprised our global fanbase is quite so established. The Yoshida effect? The Gaston effect? I am surprised the sleeping giants of Leeds are so low, even taking into account their fall from grace in the last decade or so. Edited 27 March, 2015 by adrian lord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Wolf Posted 27 March, 2015 Share Posted 27 March, 2015 Bolton aren't bigger than Forest and West Brom aren't bigger than Leeds or West Ham. IMO of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redslo Posted 27 March, 2015 Share Posted 27 March, 2015 In the intervening 55 seasons, Saints have been higher placed one 48 occasions, compared to Pompey's 7 and this gap is likely to continue (we would hope) for a few more years!!! Certainly, for two more years. I am surprised our global fanbase is quite so established. The Yoshida effect? The Gaston effect? I am surprised the sleeping giants of Leeds are so low, even taking into account their fall from grace in the last decade or so. In the USA, NBC has done a much better job of publicizing Premier League games than FOX did before them. Our good performances during the past two years has undoubtedly made a significant difference in making new fans here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nta786 Posted 27 March, 2015 Author Share Posted 27 March, 2015 I am surprised our global fanbase is quite so established. The Yoshida effect? The Gaston effect? I am surprised the sleeping giants of Leeds are so low, even taking into account their fall from grace in the last decade or so. The Taider Effect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now