Guest optimistic nit Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 This isn't about league positions it's about the size of the club. which is why giving titles such as "PL contenders" is completely missing the point. based on your titles manourpark, spurs should be one group higher, and we should be one group lower. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spurs_from_Africa Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 Slight variation, accounting for the over-rating of Spurs. 1. Title contenders: Manchester United, Chelsea. 2. Champions League Places contenders: Liverpool, Newcastle United, Arsenal. 3. UEFA Cup contenders with potential of Champions League placing Everton, Aston Villa. 4. Mid-table with potential to finish top 6 Manchester City, Blackburn, Spurs, Bolton, Portsmouth, West Ham 5. Relegation battle with potential to push for top 10 Middlesbrough, Sunderland, Reading 6. Relegation candidates Fulham, Wigan, Derby, Birmingham It's quite obvious that you absolutely hate spurs for whatever reason, but I will attempt to show you the light :lol:even if I'm wasting my time. I agree that only Chelsea and Man Utd are real title contenders. Some may say Liverpool but it is a myth they haven't spent big money before, they have been one of the biggest spenders the last few years. Mate, Newcastle finished 13th last season. What players exactly do you think you will sign that will magically move you up 9 places. It just isn't going to happen, especially as you basically need to buy a whole new defence. You will challenge, but in 2/3 seasons imo. Of course, Everton and Aston Villa are UEFA cup contenders but neither will push for the CL, as Everton don't have the finances and Villa don't have the team or Squad. Everyone talks about O'Neill as if he is some sort of God yet, up until the last few games, his points per game ratio were worse than O'leary's. Oh and comparing Spurs to the teams you have just shows your seemingly irrational hate. Let's just look at where all those teams finished the last 2 seasons. Spurs- 5th, 5th Man City- 15th, 14th Blackburn- 6th, 10th Bolton- 8th, 7th Portsmouth- 17th, 9th West Ham- 9th, 15th We are the only one of those teams that has got into UEFA cup twice in a row and the only ones outside of the top 4, including Newcastle, which can handle close to 60 games a season and still finish 5th. When was the last time a team qualified in 2 consecutive seasons for the UEFA cup? And according to you, we did it through luck. Yep, we must have had God himself playing for us seeing as we finished in the same position twice through luck. You couldn't be more wrong mate, in my years living in North London (in Hornsey and then Wood Green) I came to know a lot of Tottenham supporters, and developed a strong affection for the club, which I will always retain. The thing I do dislike (though 'hate' is far too strong a word) is that this particular club have suddenly become this years "universally over-rated" / "oft quoted as the next big thing" , football club. It is such a shame, as it is just ridiculous. It only usually happens to London clubs. A London club (could be any of them) only has to do 'reasonably well' and the NATIONAL media grab it and repeatedly EXAGERATE, until it (by repitition) it gets accepted as fact! The best example was in the 70s or 80s when a club called Crystal Palace won two or three games on the trot - and were classed (for YEARS) as the "club of the future" - nationally. You see, parochial idiocy does not just exist down in London, but the difference is that when it happens down there it does not get restricted to 'local media' (eg, Evening Standard, or whatever) it gets broadcast nationally (as that is where the national papers, etc, are based). So, I object to my favourite London club being so universally 'hyped' that it will look such a sad joke in about nine months time! As I have said before, the current Spurs team is nothing much. About two months before the end of last season, we moved ahead of them in the league and neither looked likely to pull away from the other. Now, that was in one of our most 'rubbish' seasons for years, and I know we then went on to lose ground, but really, I cannot believe the hype that has ensued and 'taken over' many peoples thinking about them. It is all just so exagerated. They are not a rubbish side, they are just not that good a side. In nine months time that will be very clear, as lightening does not strike three times!! Tbh, I do agree slightly with the over-rating part, although I do feel a lot of players are under-rated. King is never given the credit he deserves and neither is LYP but on the other hand, Berbatov has been made out to be some world superstar on a par with Kaka who will only be allowed to leave for 50 million. Berbatov is a very good player, maybe world class, but not as good as everyone makes out. i could understand your point if we for example finished 2nd one season, clearly above our abilities and then found the CL too hard, do an Everton and at some points look relatively close to relegation the next season. The fact is, we finished 5th twice in a row. The first time, we had 4th snatched from us on the last day while last season, we snatched it from Everton on the last day. We had many problems last season, the capture of one of our best players and the basis of a lot of attacks. Therefore, we lost a lot of attacking power as well as our defensive shield. Took us months to get over that. Then, we have to bed in about half the first team, as well as coping with long term injuries to kep players and you start to see our problems. Fixtures play a large part as well. Almost all of our 'hard' games were done by about February and that is why we were so low around Christmas and then shot up the table. Finally, we played more games than every single club in England except for the best two and yet we still managed to finish higher than you, Everton, Pompey, Bolton etc. None of you had to deal with 60 games a season. Surely that shows that we weren't just lucky to finish 5th twice in a row. Oh and where you are in the middle of the season means nothing. Weren't charlton second by Christmas at one point in the last few seasons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 This isn't about league positions it's about the size of the club. People seem to be struggling with this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spurs_from_Africa Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 It's quite obvious that you absolutely hate spurs for whatever reason, but I will attempt to show you the light :lol:even if I'm wasting my time. I agree that only Chelsea and Man Utd are real title contenders. Some may say Liverpool but it is a myth they haven't spent big money before, they have been one of the biggest spenders the last few years. Mate, Newcastle finished 13th last season. What players exactly do you think you will sign that will magically move you up 9 places. It just isn't going to happen, especially as you basically need to buy a whole new defence. You will challenge, but in 2/3 seasons imo. Of course, Everton and Aston Villa are UEFA cup contenders but neither will push for the CL, as Everton don't have the finances and Villa don't have the team or Squad. Everyone talks about O'Neill as if he is some sort of God yet, up until the last few games, his points per game ratio were worse than O'leary's. Oh and comparing Spurs to the teams you have just shows your seemingly irrational hate. Let's just look at where all those teams finished the last 2 seasons. Spurs- 5th, 5th Man City- 15th, 14th Blackburn- 6th, 10th Bolton- 8th, 7th Portsmouth- 17th, 9th West Ham- 9th, 15th We are the only one of those teams that has got into UEFA cup twice in a row and the only ones outside of the top 4, including Newcastle, which can handle close to 60 games a season and still finish 5th. When was the last time a team qualified in 2 consecutive seasons for the UEFA cup? And according to you, we did it through luck. Yep, we must have had God himself playing for us seeing as we finished in the same position twice through luck. You have just "archived" top 7 twice consecutively for the first time in your Premiership history and will be playing Uefa Cup football for the 2nd time in 12 years and your on some wa*k session! The "Big Club" list category is of Premiership history (playing history) and (fixed assets) - Size of club Our (Playing history) top 5 positions archived in the Premiership is 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th. And yours? And our fixed assets are far greater then yours. Newcastle United have been/are a bigger Premiership club but your in around the same category of the list above. I'm sorry but where specifically in that do I state that Spurs are a bigger club than Newcastle or that Newcastle are bigger than Spurs. How am I having a wank fest? I wasn't even talking about size of the club, I was talking of the ability to challenge for 4th spot. Currently, I think we are the only ones who are capable with the current squad but other clubs may make additions to the squad that will change my mind. And where you have come in the relatively distant past ie 5 years ago doesn't paricularly affect anything now. Look at Leeds as an example, 4th and then 5th while reaching CL semis and now in league 1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 Slight variation, accounting for the over-rating of Spurs. 1. Title contenders: Manchester United, Chelsea. 2. Champions League Places contenders: Liverpool, Newcastle United, Arsenal. 3. UEFA Cup contenders with potential of Champions League placing Everton, Aston Villa. 4. Mid-table with potential to finish top 6 Manchester City, Blackburn, Spurs, Bolton, Portsmouth, West Ham 5. Relegation battle with potential to push for top 10 Middlesbrough, Sunderland, Reading 6. Relegation candidates Fulham, Wigan, Derby, Birmingham It's quite obvious that you absolutely hate spurs for whatever reason, but I will attempt to show you the light :lol:even if I'm wasting my time. I agree that only Chelsea and Man Utd are real title contenders. Some may say Liverpool but it is a myth they haven't spent big money before, they have been one of the biggest spenders the last few years. Mate, Newcastle finished 13th last season. What players exactly do you think you will sign that will magically move you up 9 places. It just isn't going to happen, especially as you basically need to buy a whole new defence. You will challenge, but in 2/3 seasons imo. Of course, Everton and Aston Villa are UEFA cup contenders but neither will push for the CL, as Everton don't have the finances and Villa don't have the team or Squad. Everyone talks about O'Neill as if he is some sort of God yet, up until the last few games, his points per game ratio were worse than O'leary's. Oh and comparing Spurs to the teams you have just shows your seemingly irrational hate. Let's just look at where all those teams finished the last 2 seasons. Spurs- 5th, 5th Man City- 15th, 14th Blackburn- 6th, 10th Bolton- 8th, 7th Portsmouth- 17th, 9th West Ham- 9th, 15th We are the only one of those teams that has got into UEFA cup twice in a row and the only ones outside of the top 4, including Newcastle, which can handle close to 60 games a season and still finish 5th. When was the last time a team qualified in 2 consecutive seasons for the UEFA cup? And according to you, we did it through luck. Yep, we must have had God himself playing for us seeing as we finished in the same position twice through luck. You couldn't be more wrong mate, in my years living in North London (in Hornsey and then Wood Green) I came to know a lot of Tottenham supporters, and developed a strong affection for the club, which I will always retain. The thing I do dislike (though 'hate' is far too strong a word) is that this particular club have suddenly become this years "universally over-rated" / "oft quoted as the next big thing" , football club. It is such a shame, as it is just ridiculous. It only usually happens to London clubs. A London club (could be any of them) only has to do 'reasonably well' and the NATIONAL media grab it and repeatedly EXAGERATE, until it (by repitition) it gets accepted as fact! The best example was in the 70s or 80s when a club called Crystal Palace won two or three games on the trot - and were classed (for YEARS) as the "club of the future" - nationally. You see, parochial idiocy does not just exist down in London, but the difference is that when it happens down there it does not get restricted to 'local media' (eg, Evening Standard, or whatever) it gets broadcast nationally (as that is where the national papers, etc, are based). So, I object to my favourite London club being so universally 'hyped' that it will look such a sad joke in about nine months time! As I have said before, the current Spurs team is nothing much. About two months before the end of last season, we moved ahead of them in the league and neither looked likely to pull away from the other. Now, that was in one of our most 'rubbish' seasons for years, and I know we then went on to lose ground, but really, I cannot believe the hype that has ensued and 'taken over' many peoples thinking about them. It is all just so exagerated. They are not a rubbish side, they are just not that good a side. In nine months time that will be very clear, as lightening does not strike three times!! Tbh, I do agree slightly with the over-rating part, although I do feel a lot of players are under-rated. King is never given the credit he deserves and neither is LYP but on the other hand, Berbatov has been made out to be some world superstar on a par with Kaka who will only be allowed to leave for 50 million. Berbatov is a very good player, maybe world class, but not as good as everyone makes out. i could understand your point if we for example finished 2nd one season, clearly above our abilities and then found the CL too hard, do an Everton and at some points look relatively close to relegation the next season. The fact is, we finished 5th twice in a row. The first time, we had 4th snatched from us on the last day while last season, we snatched it from Everton on the last day. We had many problems last season, the capture of one of our best players and the basis of a lot of attacks. Therefore, we lost a lot of attacking power as well as our defensive shield. Took us months to get over that. Then, we have to bed in about half the first team, as well as coping with long term injuries to kep players and you start to see our problems. Fixtures play a large part as well. Almost all of our 'hard' games were done by about February and that is why we were so low around Christmas and then shot up the table. Finally, we played more games than every single club in England except for the best two and yet we still managed to finish higher than you, Everton, Pompey, Bolton etc. None of you had to deal with 60 games a season. Surely that shows that we weren't just lucky to finish 5th twice in a row. Oh and where you are in the middle of the season means nothing. Weren't charlton second by Christmas at one point in the last few seasons. King is an excellent player! It was about two and a half months before the end of the season, not mid-season. Anyway, I think we may have 'discussed this to death' and I appreciate you concur that there is an element of 'over-rating'. I personally feel that I have probably also been 'over-harsh' in my comments, as I have attemped to try to combat this oft-spoken over-rating and to try to get others to see the same! So, all the best to you for next season and (while I have NO real idea where WE will finish, as Mr Ashley has not even started anything yet) I hope you finish about one place below us!! (That could make you 'runners up' . . . . er, no, perhaps not!!) Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nappy Rash Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 1. Fixed Assests - Essentially your ground size and core fanbase that will always turn up. Fan base has nowt to do with Fixed Assets whatsoever 2. Finances - The Money and Capital the club has. The ability to invest in new players and facilities. Arsenal and Manchester United have Mountanous debt, although Man Ure have splashed the cash, Arsenal appear to be struggling on that particular matter, David Dein knew they needed Kroenke's investment. 3. Ability to attract players - It's fine having money or doing well on the pitch, but it needs to put it to use in buying new players. 4. Playing history - Important for the prestige of the club and bragging rights, but very limited in terms of what modern use it has. 5. Future potential - Can a club continue to improve or have they gone as far as they can, are there no new fans to attract or no better players they can attract. This is always going to be great debate as to who should be above one another, but I hope to get the tiers as accurate as possible. The clubs position within these tiers is where you can start a real debate. I welcome any thoughts or opinions on how to improve the criteria and list. 1. ============ Man Utd Liverpool Arsenal Chelsea 2. ============ Tottenham Newcastle Aston Villa 3. ============ West Ham Everton 4. ============ Manchester City Middlesbrough 5. ============ Blackburn Portsmouth Bolton 6. ============ Sheffield Utd Reading Charlton 7. ============ Fulham Wigan Watford For me its a combination of Balance Sheet, Finances, Potential, Recent History and Pulling Power. The top 5 are the best performing teams since the PL's inception for me: 1) Man Ure 2) Chelsea 3) Arsenal 4) Liverpool 5) Newcastle The rest are pretty much of a muchness, clubs like Blackburn tick a lot of boxes but their potential, balance sheet and pulling power let them down. Then you've got the Tonka Toy brigade, the clubs who were big when you were little, like Everton.......apparently Spuds think they were aswell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 This isn't about league positions it's about the size of the club. People seem to be struggling with this. and the size of the club is down to their fan base. Half of the teams people have posted are way off. Man Utd Liverpool Newcastle Arsenal Chelsea West Ham Spurs Everton Villa Man City Sunderland Blackburn Fulham Boro Bolton Portsmouth Birmingham Derby Reading Wigan That's a complete guess of the clubs fan bases. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 It's quite obvious that you absolutely hate spurs for whatever reason, but I will attempt to show you the light :lol:even if I'm wasting my time. I agree that only Chelsea and Man Utd are real title contenders. Some may say Liverpool but it is a myth they haven't spent big money before, they have been one of the biggest spenders the last few years. Mate, Newcastle finished 13th last season. What players exactly do you think you will sign that will magically move you up 9 places. It just isn't going to happen, especially as you basically need to buy a whole new defence. You will challenge, but in 2/3 seasons imo. Of course, Everton and Aston Villa are UEFA cup contenders but neither will push for the CL, as Everton don't have the finances and Villa don't have the team or Squad. Everyone talks about O'Neill as if he is some sort of God yet, up until the last few games, his points per game ratio were worse than O'leary's. Oh and comparing Spurs to the teams you have just shows your seemingly irrational hate. Let's just look at where all those teams finished the last 2 seasons. Spurs- 5th, 5th Man City- 15th, 14th Blackburn- 6th, 10th Bolton- 8th, 7th Portsmouth- 17th, 9th West Ham- 9th, 15th We are the only one of those teams that has got into UEFA cup twice in a row and the only ones outside of the top 4, including Newcastle, which can handle close to 60 games a season and still finish 5th. When was the last time a team qualified in 2 consecutive seasons for the UEFA cup? And according to you, we did it through luck. Yep, we must have had God himself playing for us seeing as we finished in the same position twice through luck. You have just "archived" top 7 twice consecutively for the first time in your Premiership history and will be playing Uefa Cup football for the 2nd time in 12 years and your on some wa*k session! The "Big Club" list category is of Premiership history (playing history) and (fixed assets) - Size of club Our (Playing history) top 5 positions archived in the Premiership is 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th. And yours? And our fixed assets are far greater then yours. Newcastle United have been/are a bigger Premiership club but your in around the same category of the list above. I'm sorry but where specifically in that do I state that Spurs are a bigger club than Newcastle or that Newcastle are bigger than Spurs. How am I having a w*** fest? I wasn't even talking about size of the club, I was talking of the ability to challenge for 4th spot. Currently, I think we are the only ones who are capable with the current squad but other clubs may make additions to the squad that will change my mind. And where you have come in the relatively distant past ie 5 years ago doesn't paricularly affect anything now. Look at Leeds as an example, 4th and then 5th while reaching CL semis and now in league 1. Why are you talking about Spurs having the best chance of breaking the top 4? Firstly not many people will dispute that and secondly this thread isn't even about that, it's about how people determine how they rank a club in terms of size. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spurs_from_Africa Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 Slight variation, accounting for the over-rating of Spurs. 1. Title contenders: Manchester United, Chelsea. 2. Champions League Places contenders: Liverpool, Newcastle United, Arsenal. 3. UEFA Cup contenders with potential of Champions League placing Everton, Aston Villa. 4. Mid-table with potential to finish top 6 Manchester City, Blackburn, Spurs, Bolton, Portsmouth, West Ham 5. Relegation battle with potential to push for top 10 Middlesbrough, Sunderland, Reading 6. Relegation candidates Fulham, Wigan, Derby, Birmingham It's quite obvious that you absolutely hate spurs for whatever reason, but I will attempt to show you the light :lol:even if I'm wasting my time. I agree that only Chelsea and Man Utd are real title contenders. Some may say Liverpool but it is a myth they haven't spent big money before, they have been one of the biggest spenders the last few years. Mate, Newcastle finished 13th last season. What players exactly do you think you will sign that will magically move you up 9 places. It just isn't going to happen, especially as you basically need to buy a whole new defence. You will challenge, but in 2/3 seasons imo. Of course, Everton and Aston Villa are UEFA cup contenders but neither will push for the CL, as Everton don't have the finances and Villa don't have the team or Squad. Everyone talks about O'Neill as if he is some sort of God yet, up until the last few games, his points per game ratio were worse than O'leary's. Oh and comparing Spurs to the teams you have just shows your seemingly irrational hate. Let's just look at where all those teams finished the last 2 seasons. Spurs- 5th, 5th Man City- 15th, 14th Blackburn- 6th, 10th Bolton- 8th, 7th Portsmouth- 17th, 9th West Ham- 9th, 15th We are the only one of those teams that has got into UEFA cup twice in a row and the only ones outside of the top 4, including Newcastle, which can handle close to 60 games a season and still finish 5th. When was the last time a team qualified in 2 consecutive seasons for the UEFA cup? And according to you, we did it through luck. Yep, we must have had God himself playing for us seeing as we finished in the same position twice through luck. You couldn't be more wrong mate, in my years living in North London (in Hornsey and then Wood Green) I came to know a lot of Tottenham supporters, and developed a strong affection for the club, which I will always retain. The thing I do dislike (though 'hate' is far too strong a word) is that this particular club have suddenly become this years "universally over-rated" / "oft quoted as the next big thing" , football club. It is such a shame, as it is just ridiculous. It only usually happens to London clubs. A London club (could be any of them) only has to do 'reasonably well' and the NATIONAL media grab it and repeatedly EXAGERATE, until it (by repitition) it gets accepted as fact! The best example was in the 70s or 80s when a club called Crystal Palace won two or three games on the trot - and were classed (for YEARS) as the "club of the future" - nationally. You see, parochial idiocy does not just exist down in London, but the difference is that when it happens down there it does not get restricted to 'local media' (eg, Evening Standard, or whatever) it gets broadcast nationally (as that is where the national papers, etc, are based). So, I object to my favourite London club being so universally 'hyped' that it will look such a sad joke in about nine months time! As I have said before, the current Spurs team is nothing much. About two months before the end of last season, we moved ahead of them in the league and neither looked likely to pull away from the other. Now, that was in one of our most 'rubbish' seasons for years, and I know we then went on to lose ground, but really, I cannot believe the hype that has ensued and 'taken over' many peoples thinking about them. It is all just so exagerated. They are not a rubbish side, they are just not that good a side. In nine months time that will be very clear, as lightening does not strike three times!! Tbh, I do agree slightly with the over-rating part, although I do feel a lot of players are under-rated. King is never given the credit he deserves and neither is LYP but on the other hand, Berbatov has been made out to be some world superstar on a par with Kaka who will only be allowed to leave for 50 million. Berbatov is a very good player, maybe world class, but not as good as everyone makes out. i could understand your point if we for example finished 2nd one season, clearly above our abilities and then found the CL too hard, do an Everton and at some points look relatively close to relegation the next season. The fact is, we finished 5th twice in a row. The first time, we had 4th snatched from us on the last day while last season, we snatched it from Everton on the last day. We had many problems last season, the capture of one of our best players and the basis of a lot of attacks. Therefore, we lost a lot of attacking power as well as our defensive shield. Took us months to get over that. Then, we have to bed in about half the first team, as well as coping with long term injuries to kep players and you start to see our problems. Fixtures play a large part as well. Almost all of our 'hard' games were done by about February and that is why we were so low around Christmas and then shot up the table. Finally, we played more games than every single club in England except for the best two and yet we still managed to finish higher than you, Everton, Pompey, Bolton etc. None of you had to deal with 60 games a season. Surely that shows that we weren't just lucky to finish 5th twice in a row. Oh and where you are in the middle of the season means nothing. Weren't charlton second by Christmas at one point in the last few seasons. King is an excellent player! It was about two and a half months before the end of the season, not mid-season. Anyway, I think we may have 'discussed this to death' and I appreciate you concur that there is an element of 'over-rating'. I personally feel that I have probably also been 'over-harsh' in my comments, as I have attemped to try to combat this oft-spoken over-rating and to try to get others to see the same! So, all the best to you for next season and (while I have NO real idea where WE will finish, as Mr Ashley has not even started anything yet) I hope you finish about one place below us!! (That could make you 'runners up' . . . . er, no, perhaps not!!) Cheers. Fair enough, you do make some good points and I guess we will have to agree to disagree on other points. Tbh, I actually quite like Newcastle and similarly to you, hope newcastle finish quite high although of course i want us to finish higher And just to be clear, I don't think that Spurs are some sort of world superpower in football or anything like that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gallowgate End Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 It's quite obvious that you absolutely hate spurs for whatever reason, but I will attempt to show you the light :lol:even if I'm wasting my time. I agree that only Chelsea and Man Utd are real title contenders. Some may say Liverpool but it is a myth they haven't spent big money before, they have been one of the biggest spenders the last few years. Mate, Newcastle finished 13th last season. What players exactly do you think you will sign that will magically move you up 9 places. It just isn't going to happen, especially as you basically need to buy a whole new defence. You will challenge, but in 2/3 seasons imo. Of course, Everton and Aston Villa are UEFA cup contenders but neither will push for the CL, as Everton don't have the finances and Villa don't have the team or Squad. Everyone talks about O'Neill as if he is some sort of God yet, up until the last few games, his points per game ratio were worse than O'leary's. Oh and comparing Spurs to the teams you have just shows your seemingly irrational hate. Let's just look at where all those teams finished the last 2 seasons. Spurs- 5th, 5th Man City- 15th, 14th Blackburn- 6th, 10th Bolton- 8th, 7th Portsmouth- 17th, 9th West Ham- 9th, 15th We are the only one of those teams that has got into UEFA cup twice in a row and the only ones outside of the top 4, including Newcastle, which can handle close to 60 games a season and still finish 5th. When was the last time a team qualified in 2 consecutive seasons for the UEFA cup? And according to you, we did it through luck. Yep, we must have had God himself playing for us seeing as we finished in the same position twice through luck. You have just "archived" top 7 twice consecutively for the first time in your Premiership history and will be playing Uefa Cup football for the 2nd time in 12 years and your on some wa*k session! The "Big Club" list category is of Premiership history (playing history) and (fixed assets) - Size of club Our (Playing history) top 5 positions archived in the Premiership is 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th. And yours? And our fixed assets are far greater then yours. Newcastle United have been/are a bigger Premiership club but your in around the same category of the list above. I'm sorry but where specifically in that do I state that Spurs are a bigger club than Newcastle or that Newcastle are bigger than Spurs. How am I having a w*** fest? I wasn't even talking about size of the club, I was talking of the ability to challenge for 4th spot. Currently, I think we are the only ones who are capable with the current squad but other clubs may make additions to the squad that will change my mind. And where you have come in the relatively distant past ie 5 years ago doesn't paricularly affect anything now. Look at Leeds as an example, 4th and then 5th while reaching CL semis and now in league 1. Why are you talking about Spurs having the best chance of breaking the top 4? Firstly not many people will dispute that and secondly this thread isn't even about that, it's about how people determine how they rank a club in terms of size. Exactly. Where I come in (about 5 years ago) clearly does effect size of club (the actually Topic) you donut. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1878 Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 This isn't about league positions it's about the size of the club. People seem to be struggling with this. and the size of the club is down to their fan base. Half of the teams people have posted are way off. Man Utd Liverpool Newcastle Arsenal Chelsea West Ham Spurs Everton Villa Man City Sunderland Blackburn Fulham Boro Bolton Portsmouth Birmingham Derby Reading Wigan That's a complete guess of the clubs fan bases. So Everton get bigger home crowds and have WAY more away numbers than West Ham because...? West Ham should be below Sunderland on your list Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spurs_from_Africa Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 It's quite obvious that you absolutely hate spurs for whatever reason, but I will attempt to show you the light :lol:even if I'm wasting my time. I agree that only Chelsea and Man Utd are real title contenders. Some may say Liverpool but it is a myth they haven't spent big money before, they have been one of the biggest spenders the last few years. Mate, Newcastle finished 13th last season. What players exactly do you think you will sign that will magically move you up 9 places. It just isn't going to happen, especially as you basically need to buy a whole new defence. You will challenge, but in 2/3 seasons imo. Of course, Everton and Aston Villa are UEFA cup contenders but neither will push for the CL, as Everton don't have the finances and Villa don't have the team or Squad. Everyone talks about O'Neill as if he is some sort of God yet, up until the last few games, his points per game ratio were worse than O'leary's. Oh and comparing Spurs to the teams you have just shows your seemingly irrational hate. Let's just look at where all those teams finished the last 2 seasons. Spurs- 5th, 5th Man City- 15th, 14th Blackburn- 6th, 10th Bolton- 8th, 7th Portsmouth- 17th, 9th West Ham- 9th, 15th We are the only one of those teams that has got into UEFA cup twice in a row and the only ones outside of the top 4, including Newcastle, which can handle close to 60 games a season and still finish 5th. When was the last time a team qualified in 2 consecutive seasons for the UEFA cup? And according to you, we did it through luck. Yep, we must have had God himself playing for us seeing as we finished in the same position twice through luck. You have just "archived" top 7 twice consecutively for the first time in your Premiership history and will be playing Uefa Cup football for the 2nd time in 12 years and your on some wa*k session! The "Big Club" list category is of Premiership history (playing history) and (fixed assets) - Size of club Our (Playing history) top 5 positions archived in the Premiership is 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th. And yours? And our fixed assets are far greater then yours. Newcastle United have been/are a bigger Premiership club but your in around the same category of the list above. I'm sorry but where specifically in that do I state that Spurs are a bigger club than Newcastle or that Newcastle are bigger than Spurs. How am I having a w*** fest? I wasn't even talking about size of the club, I was talking of the ability to challenge for 4th spot. Currently, I think we are the only ones who are capable with the current squad but other clubs may make additions to the squad that will change my mind. And where you have come in the relatively distant past ie 5 years ago doesn't paricularly affect anything now. Look at Leeds as an example, 4th and then 5th while reaching CL semis and now in league 1. Why are you talking about Spurs having the best chance of breaking the top 4? Firstly not many people will dispute that and secondly this thread isn't even about that, it's about how people determine how they rank a club in terms of size. Sorry, I was just going off on a little tangent with manorpark. But anyway, I pretty much agree with the first post, spot on tiers imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Spectrum Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 Chelsea are way too high too. Clingers on or no, they hardly sell a ticket for Champions League group games and they didn't sell their allocation for the FA Cup semi final. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 It's quite obvious that you absolutely hate spurs for whatever reason, but I will attempt to show you the light :lol:even if I'm wasting my time. I agree that only Chelsea and Man Utd are real title contenders. Some may say Liverpool but it is a myth they haven't spent big money before, they have been one of the biggest spenders the last few years. Mate, Newcastle finished 13th last season. What players exactly do you think you will sign that will magically move you up 9 places. It just isn't going to happen, especially as you basically need to buy a whole new defence. You will challenge, but in 2/3 seasons imo. Of course, Everton and Aston Villa are UEFA cup contenders but neither will push for the CL, as Everton don't have the finances and Villa don't have the team or Squad. Everyone talks about O'Neill as if he is some sort of God yet, up until the last few games, his points per game ratio were worse than O'leary's. Oh and comparing Spurs to the teams you have just shows your seemingly irrational hate. Let's just look at where all those teams finished the last 2 seasons. Spurs- 5th, 5th Man City- 15th, 14th Blackburn- 6th, 10th Bolton- 8th, 7th Portsmouth- 17th, 9th West Ham- 9th, 15th We are the only one of those teams that has got into UEFA cup twice in a row and the only ones outside of the top 4, including Newcastle, which can handle close to 60 games a season and still finish 5th. When was the last time a team qualified in 2 consecutive seasons for the UEFA cup? And according to you, we did it through luck. Yep, we must have had God himself playing for us seeing as we finished in the same position twice through luck. You have just "archived" top 7 twice consecutively for the first time in your Premiership history and will be playing Uefa Cup football for the 2nd time in 12 years and your on some wa*k session! The "Big Club" list category is of Premiership history (playing history) and (fixed assets) - Size of club Our (Playing history) top 5 positions archived in the Premiership is 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th. And yours? And our fixed assets are far greater then yours. Newcastle United have been/are a bigger Premiership club but your in around the same category of the list above. I'm sorry but where specifically in that do I state that Spurs are a bigger club than Newcastle or that Newcastle are bigger than Spurs. How am I having a w*** fest? I wasn't even talking about size of the club, I was talking of the ability to challenge for 4th spot. Currently, I think we are the only ones who are capable with the current squad but other clubs may make additions to the squad that will change my mind. And where you have come in the relatively distant past ie 5 years ago doesn't paricularly affect anything now. Look at Leeds as an example, 4th and then 5th while reaching CL semis and now in league 1. Why are you talking about Spurs having the best chance of breaking the top 4? Firstly not many people will dispute that and secondly this thread isn't even about that, it's about how people determine how they rank a club in terms of size. Sorry, I was just going off on a little tangent with manorpark. But anyway, I pretty much agree with the first post, spot on tiers imo. Sorry (me too)!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 This isn't about league positions it's about the size of the club. I know, and my list was where the clubs should be rather than where I think their teams should be. I reckon Blackburn have a better team than us at present, but they're in the next group down clubwise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 It's quite obvious that you absolutely hate spurs for whatever reason, but I will attempt to show you the light :lol:even if I'm wasting my time. I agree that only Chelsea and Man Utd are real title contenders. Some may say Liverpool but it is a myth they haven't spent big money before, they have been one of the biggest spenders the last few years. Mate, Newcastle finished 13th last season. What players exactly do you think you will sign that will magically move you up 9 places. It just isn't going to happen, especially as you basically need to buy a whole new defence. You will challenge, but in 2/3 seasons imo. Of course, Everton and Aston Villa are UEFA cup contenders but neither will push for the CL, as Everton don't have the finances and Villa don't have the team or Squad. Everyone talks about O'Neill as if he is some sort of God yet, up until the last few games, his points per game ratio were worse than O'leary's. Oh and comparing Spurs to the teams you have just shows your seemingly irrational hate. Let's just look at where all those teams finished the last 2 seasons. Spurs- 5th, 5th Man City- 15th, 14th Blackburn- 6th, 10th Bolton- 8th, 7th Portsmouth- 17th, 9th West Ham- 9th, 15th We are the only one of those teams that has got into UEFA cup twice in a row and the only ones outside of the top 4, including Newcastle, which can handle close to 60 games a season and still finish 5th. When was the last time a team qualified in 2 consecutive seasons for the UEFA cup? And according to you, we did it through luck. Yep, we must have had God himself playing for us seeing as we finished in the same position twice through luck. You have just "archived" top 7 twice consecutively for the first time in your Premiership history and will be playing Uefa Cup football for the 2nd time in 12 years and your on some wa*k session! The "Big Club" list category is of Premiership history (playing history) and (fixed assets) - Size of club Our (Playing history) top 5 positions archived in the Premiership is 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th. And yours? And our fixed assets are far greater then yours. Newcastle United have been/are a bigger Premiership club but your in around the same category of the list above. I'm sorry but where specifically in that do I state that Spurs are a bigger club than Newcastle or that Newcastle are bigger than Spurs. How am I having a w*** fest? I wasn't even talking about size of the club, I was talking of the ability to challenge for 4th spot. Currently, I think we are the only ones who are capable with the current squad but other clubs may make additions to the squad that will change my mind. And where you have come in the relatively distant past ie 5 years ago doesn't paricularly affect anything now. Look at Leeds as an example, 4th and then 5th while reaching CL semis and now in league 1. Why are you talking about Spurs having the best chance of breaking the top 4? Firstly not many people will dispute that and secondly this thread isn't even about that, it's about how people determine how they rank a club in terms of size. Sorry, I was just going off on a little tangent with manorpark. But anyway, I pretty much agree with the first post, spot on tiers imo. No worries, I didn't mean to come across as aggressive or anything. Welcome to the board btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 This isn't about league positions it's about the size of the club. People seem to be struggling with this. and the size of the club is down to their fan base. Half of the teams people have posted are way off. Man Utd Liverpool Newcastle Arsenal Chelsea West Ham Spurs Everton Villa Man City Sunderland Blackburn Fulham Boro Bolton Portsmouth Birmingham Derby Reading Wigan That's a complete guess of the clubs fan bases. So Everton get bigger home crowds and have WAY more away numbers than West Ham because...? West Ham should be below Sunderland on your list Huge difference between fan base and crowds. I believe West Ham have quite a following. My table isn't on stats though. I guessed at it. For me Leeds and forest are far bigger clubs than that of wigan and bolton. Not because of history but because of how many fans they have and that is in relation to past success. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 These dick-comparing arguments always descend into bitter recrimination, so I shall be staying relatively clear of this one. However, I agree entirely with Optimistic Nut's post on the previous page. My only other contribution will be to say that truly big clubs win things on a regular basis, and I'd rather see my club start doing that some time soon than get some temporary satisfaction over lording it over West Ham or Man City fans (or whoever). I guess the other critera about whether clubs are "big" or not is about expectations, really. If your club has won stuff in the past, or if they have an expectation of winning things in the near future (whether that expectation comes from their history, financial investment, crowds, whatever), then I guess that makes a big club. Personally, I think my club has been one of the most evocative and important in the history of football, and I hope it will be again some time soon. Do I expect other clubs fans to agree with me? Maybe, maybe not. Do I care? No. Am I interested in some kind of artificial ranking? No. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kingdawson Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 This isn't about league positions it's about the size of the club. People seem to be struggling with this. and the size of the club is down to their fan base. Half of the teams people have posted are way off. Man Utd Liverpool Newcastle Arsenal Chelsea West Ham Spurs Everton Villa Man City Sunderland Blackburn Fulham Boro Bolton Portsmouth Birmingham Derby Reading Wigan That's a complete guess of the clubs fan bases. No way have West Ham got a bigger fanbase then us. Actually there was some sort of survey done on clubs fan base earlier this season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 This isn't about league positions it's about the size of the club. People seem to be struggling with this. and the size of the club is down to their fan base. Half of the teams people have posted are way off. Man Utd Liverpool Newcastle Arsenal Chelsea West Ham Spurs Everton Villa Man City Sunderland Blackburn Fulham Boro Bolton Portsmouth Birmingham Derby Reading Wigan That's a complete guess of the clubs fan bases. No way have West Ham got a bigger fanbase then us. Actually there was some sort of survey done on clubs fan base earlier this season. Which I'd take with a pinch of salt, it said Boro have a bigger fan base than Sunderland ffs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 Well at least this has created some debate. Villa's high position is also down to the fact they are the biggest team in Birmingham, Everton are lower because they are almost always going to be in Liverpool's shadow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kingdawson Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 This isn't about league positions it's about the size of the club. People seem to be struggling with this. and the size of the club is down to their fan base. Half of the teams people have posted are way off. Man Utd Liverpool Newcastle Arsenal Chelsea West Ham Spurs Everton Villa Man City Sunderland Blackburn Fulham Boro Bolton Portsmouth Birmingham Derby Reading Wigan That's a complete guess of the clubs fan bases. No way have West Ham got a bigger fanbase then us. Actually there was some sort of survey done on clubs fan base earlier this season. Which I'd take with a pinch of salt, it said Boro have a bigger fan base than Sunderland ffs. maybe so but there is absolutly no way West ham have a bigger fanbase then spurs. Even hammers fans would conceide that imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 This "fanbase" thing is interesting. Arsenal and Chelsea both have bigger fanbases than Newcastle do now, imho, and I'll tell you why. Because if you go to Asia, or wherever you choose the other side of the world, you'll see kids wearing Arsenal and Chelsea shirts all over the place. You won't see them wearing Newcastle shirts, Villa shirts, Everton shirts, Spurs shirts etc etc. Success for Chelsea over the last few years has had a massive, massive effect globally on their support. You could also walk around - randomly selected town - Tunbridge Wells, and you'll see plenty of people wearing Arsenal and Chelsea shirts, but again, you won't see anyone wearing shirts of the other clubs, not unless you bump into transplanted Geordies, Scousers or Brummies. In these cases, they may consist almost entirely of gloryhunting 12 year olds who will go nowhere near the ground, but now football is a globally marketed commodity, number of people in the ground every other week doesn't have the impact on global fanbase it once did. Sad but true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spurs_from_Africa Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 But the thing with fan-base is how on earth is it counted? For example, I'm a spurs fan and the only way that someone could possibly know that I'm a spurs fan is because I regularly go to whl. However, I have mates who support Newcastle, Arsenal, Man Utd. etc. who never or very rarely go to games. How would the statistics find out about what club these people supported? Also, is it fair to count support from places like the far East? Most 'fans' over there don't follow a team because they like them, they follow them because of a certain player. So all those Far Eastern fans who basically support Becham. When he was playing for Utd. they followed United. When he moved to Real, they supported Real. How can these be counted and are they counted? I probably sound like an idiot but I tried to get my point across. Oh and cheers for the welcome Baggio . I have to say, this is completely different to what I expected. I was told that all Newcastle fans absolutely hate spurs and have no good things to say. Turns out that was very false. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nappy Rash Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 Trophy signings like Owen can keep the merchandising selling in the Far East and the likes :parky: I do believe Shearer Newcastle shirts, Beckham shirts and Owen England shirts are amongst the best sellers over there Succesful clubs win trophies, not big clubs, only a handful of clubs have won more trophies than Blackburn, but they'll never be considered a big club for obvious reasons. Link to post 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