[Archived] Biggest Football Clubs In England

[cletus]

IF YOU HAD TO DO A LIST OF WHO THE BIGGEST CLUBS IN ENGLAND ARE, IN WHAT ORDER WOULD YOU PUT THEM?

There`s plenty of things to consider:- trophies, fan-base, tradition, stadia, current success, past success, catchment area, size of city/town etc....

In recent times the BIG four have been MAN UTD, LIVERPOOL, ARSENAL & CHELSEA,

but during the 80s the BIG five were seen as LIVERPOOL, MAN UTD, ARSENAL, SPURS & EVERTON.

MAN UNITED are way out in front when it comes to fan numbers. They`re only 2nd to Liverpool trophy-wise.

LIVERPOOL are tops in the silverware league, but Anfield only holds 45,000

CHELSEA are relative new-comers to the BIG club gang. They spent time in the old 2nd div back in the 80s.

NEWCASTLE are generally seen as a massive club, but have had little to show for it over the last 50yrs. Add their current position in the 1st div.

SUNDERLAND had 47,000 crowd today (bigger than Anfield or a White hart lane)

ARSENAL have only recently moved into a 60,000 seater stadium. Highbury was only a 36,000 ground. They have history in bucketfulls, but are they bigger than Spurs?

ASTON VILLA have a grand old ground, but sometimes struggle to fill it. They`ve won the league, FA & european cups.

SPURS always sell out their ground, but it holds less than 40,000. They have lots of history.

MAN CITY have new billionaire owners, a 50,000 seater stadium & what`s looking like a rosy future, but are they bigger than clubs like Spurs or Villa?

So, it`s up to you.

I think everybody would agree MAN UNITED would be No1 in a list of BIGGEST CLUBS IN ENGLAND

and LIVERPOOL would probably get most peoples No2,

but who`s the biggest in clubs like SPURS & VILLA? CHELSEA & ARSENAL? LEEDS & HULL? FOREST & BUMLEY? EVERTON & CITY?

Does tradition & trophies rank higher than recent success & billionaires?

Does history & fan-base rank higher than current league position.

Starting with the biggest, what`s your TOP 20 BIGGEST ENGLISH CLUBS???

discuss....

[jim mk2]

  On 17/10/2009 at 22:59, cletus said:

SPURS have lots of history.

No they don't.

They were successful in the 1960s and 1970s/80s under Nicholson and Burkenshaw but Blackburn, Bolton and each and every one of the Lancashire clubs have more history than johnny-come-lately clubs such as Tottenham.

If you go back to the 1960s clubs such as Manchester City, Sheffield Wednesday and Leeds United would be regarded as so-called "big" clubs.

And hard to believe as it may seem now, THE glamour team of the 1950s were Blackpool when Mortensen and Matthews were in their pomp.

Rovers are a big club albeit located in a medium-sized town with a limited fan base.

Clubs come and go but those that have been consistently successful in the modern era and could be considered the elite of English football are Man United, Liverpool and Arsenal. The rest are also-rans.

[American]

In terms of local fan base, Spurs are actually pretty high - I would say over 50% of Londoners I talk to about football support Spurs.

History wise, Jim, you are correct. Unfortunately, with money driving the game now, turnover is what makes a club big today.

[jim mk2]

edit

[cletus]

  On 17/10/2009 at 23:30, jim mk2 said:

No they don't.

They were successful in the 1960s and 1970s/80s under Nicholson and Burkenshaw but Blackburn, Bolton and each and every one of the Lancashire clubs have more history than johnny-come-lately clubs such as Tottenham.

If you go back to the 1960s clubs such as Manchester City, Sheffield Wednesday and Leeds United would be regarded as so-called "big" clubs.

And hard to believe as it may seem now, THE glamour team of the 1950s were Blackpool when Mortensen and Matthews were in their pomp.

Rovers are a big club albeit located in a medium-sized town with a limited fan base.

Clubs come and go but those that have been consistently successful in the modern era and could be considered the elite of English football are Man United, Liverpool and Arsenal. The rest are also-rans.

So your top 20 are?

[joey_big_nose]

  On 17/10/2009 at 23:35, American said:

In terms of local fan base, Spurs are actually pretty high - I would say over 50% of Londoners I talk to about football support Spurs.

History wise, Jim, you are correct. Unfortunately, with money driving the game now, turnover is what makes a club big today.

Interesting, but in my experience about 2 out of every 3 londoners I meet support Arsenal. I think it has a large amountto do witht hem being so successful in the sky/Champions League era where all their games are televised. Also huge amount of foreign born people live in London and virtually all of them I meet support Arsenal as it is seen as a "foreigner friendly" club. Personally I would say their supporter base has doubled or tripled in the last ten years,and they have gone from the posiition of being slightly larger than Spurs to dwarfing them.

It's funny, but if you look at the eighties/early nineties there were many more "big clubs". Liverpool were streets ahead ofeverybody, but Forest, Wednesday, Leeds, Man Utd, Villa, Everton, Arsenal all had their moments.

It's a shame how insular the league has got, but it looks like it maybe is opening up again a bit now.

[MeanGreenMachine]

Personally Forest would make any top 10 of mine, possibly 5. Back to back european titles says it all for me.

[Kremmin]

Where's Birmingham?

[Mr. E]

lmao. Newcastle? The only thing big about them is their delusion. They haven't won a trophy in forever and are currently in the Championship.

Chelsea are an average premiership club currently funded by a billionaire, experiencing temporary success.

Man City are an average Championship club currently funded by a billionaire, experiencing temporary success.

Sunderland are keeping themselves in the premiership due to constant financial investment.

On the other hand - Forest may be in the mire right now, but two Champions League trophies automatically puts them above most teams.

Everton may have been in the shadow of their rivals for a long time, but they are still a very succesful club and one of the founders of the league.

[doctorryan]

  On 18/10/2009 at 05:55, Mr. E said:

............but two Champions League trophies automatically puts them above most teams.

2 European Cups.....the name of the trophy is still the European Champion Clubs' Cup, not the Champions League trophy. Sorry E, a big pet peeve of mine.

[philipl]

  On 18/10/2009 at 01:24, cletus said:

So your top 20 are?

Rovers and 19 also rans.

[neekoy]

to play along, based on League, FA Cup, european competition and League Cup

1. Man Utd

2. Liverpool

3. Arsenal

4. Chelsea

5. Blackburn Rovers

6. Aston Villa

7. Tottenham

8. Everton

9. Nottingham Forest

10. PNE

11. Sheffield United

12. WBA

13. Newcastle

14. Sheffield Wednesday

15. Wolves

16. Derby

17. Leeds

18. Bolton

19. Manchester City

20. West Ham

[doctorryan]

Here, try this.

[neekoy]

  On 19/10/2009 at 08:07, doctorryan said:

Here, try this.

That is only total number of trophies, someoine could have won 15 straight from 1885 and that would put them in the top 20. I think consistency at the highest levels.

Couple of interesting things from your link though, 1990 Man Utd finished 13th and not one club has won every trophy at least once.

[philipl]

Thanks.

By virtually all domestic measures- total trophies, top level performance, Premier League performance, Fa Cup performance- Rovers are a top ten club.

We probably squeeze into top 20 on European appearances and attendances this season.

[FourLaneBlue]

  On 19/10/2009 at 00:49, neekoy said:

to play along, based on League, FA Cup, european competition and League Cup

1. Man Utd

2. Liverpool

3. Arsenal

4. Chelsea

5. Blackburn Rovers

6. Aston Villa

7. Tottenham

8. Everton

Based on your own named criteria there is no way we would be placed above Villa, Spurs or Everton. Villa have won more than us of all those competitions you have mentioned. Spurs...more FA Cups, more League Cups and have won 2 Uefa Cups + a Cup Winners Cup. As for Everton...they would be probably be 4th on a list. Consistently succesful...more top flight seasons than anyone else, large fanbase, a European trophy and 9 titles...three times as much as us.

[neekoy]

  On 20/10/2009 at 00:06, FourLaneBlue said:

Based on your own named criteria there is no way we would be placed above Villa, Spurs or Everton. Villa have won more than us of all those competitions you have mentioned. Spurs...more FA Cups, more League Cups and have won 2 Uefa Cups + a Cup Winners Cup. As for Everton...they would be probably be 4th on a list. Consistently succesful...more top flight seasons than anyone else, large fanbase, a European trophy and 9 titles...three times as much as us.

Yeah...but we are better looking

[FourLaneBlue]

  On 20/10/2009 at 00:21, neekoy said:

Yeah...but we are better looking

I agree. We also have one of the sexiest shirt designs in world football...the classic blue and white halves. Many a time I have had fans of other clubs say how much they like our kit.

Shame I had to go and let logic get in the way of us being above those teams really. However...they are all big city sides with far more fans to get their support from. We are easily the most successful town club in the country.

[Mr. E]

As for us, without being too biased, we should be in the top 7-8. We're one of the 12 founders of the league that is still successful today (I do think history is important), tied at 8th for most Top Flight titles won (and one of the only to have won the Premiership), tied at 6th for most FA cups. Our stadium may be small, but is I think still the highest attendance-to-area percentage in the country. Our only record that's not that good is our European competitions one.

[Steve Moss]

I could care less about Europe. The extra games would only increase our squads fatigue level and add to our injury woes.

I would like a few more cups, however.

[philipl]

There used to be a league table compiling all the results in the Premier League.

We were about 8th in that ahead of Everton despite having missed two seasons because of Kidd. Would be interesting to see it if there is a current version- I wonder if there is a chance of getting ahead of Newcastle this season?

[American]

  On 18/10/2009 at 01:31, joey_big_nose said:

Interesting, but in my experience about 2 out of every 3 londoners I meet support Arsenal. I think it has a large amountto do witht hem being so successful in the sky/Champions League era where all their games are televised. Also huge amount of foreign born people live in London and virtually all of them I meet support Arsenal as it is seen as a "foreigner friendly" club. Personally I would say their supporter base has doubled or tripled in the last ten years,and they have gone from the posiition of being slightly larger than Spurs to dwarfing them.

It's funny, but if you look at the eighties/early nineties there were many more "big clubs". Liverpool were streets ahead ofeverybody, but Forest, Wednesday, Leeds, Man Utd, Villa, Everton, Arsenal all had their moments.

It's a shame how insular the league has got, but it looks like it maybe is opening up again a bit now.

I'm talking about those born and raised here, not those that have moved in.

Arsenal and Chelsea are about even for foreign born, London residents (not Londoners).