Are we the biggest underachievers in British football?

[jj77]

Charlton, Portsmouth, Derby

[2015]

4 minutes ago, jj77 said:

Charlton, Portsmouth, Derby

All 3 bigger clubs than us

[Barry Sheene]

We are not even the biggest underachievers in our own city so how can we be the biggest underachievers in Britain?

[EstoniaTallinnRed]

2 hours ago, archie andrews said:

Raise you with bradford and oldham..... 

Have a look where Oldham are now!

[Simon bristol]

At a higher level you could argue that newcastle havent won anything in 50 years, and everton are always in the prem, spend a lot of money and never do anything….

we are a special case though, how we can repeatedly find a way to balls it up is quite remarkable!

Rovers, were made homeless, moved to bath, have never had much money, the mem is an embarrassment, current owner is some dodgy billionaire who doesnt have much money, they have no prospect of ever doing anything, but we laugh at them quoting their record transfer fee as a number of tillsons and how many times we routinely beat it, build the stadium, build the training ground, but no matter what we do, we are shite.

[Simon bristol]

6 minutes ago, Barry Sheene said:

We are not even the biggest underachievers in our own city so how can we be the biggest underachievers in Britain?

Compared to what they have spent and invested, we have massively underachieved compared to them.

[Unan]

2 hours ago, Olé said:

11th is a new one on me, I thought we were about 8th or 9th at worst, or I'm sure there is a version where we're sixth if certain other "cities" don't roll in their urban sprawl from other towns.

On the main point, I'm starting to feel the same way as you. If we regress yet again this season there's absolutely no basis for all the stadium, HPC soundbites around us being setup for success.

6th Metropolitan, 8-9th Greater Area.. that seemed the most accurate from what I’ve read, sounds about right to my untrained mind. Although there’s no denying we have a huge potential catchment area outside of the greater Bristol too.

Edited November 9, 2022 by Marcus Aurelius

[Red-Robbo]

Chelmsford City FC.  Town of 160,000. Nearish London. Never played in the league and currently Tier 6. 

[pillred]

2 hours ago, GrahamC said:

I’m not remotely arguing with the OP’s general point but the GJ playoff final season was a far greater achievement than anything before, back to AD, or since.

Forget third tier promotions, we were one game away from the Prem.

No point in going over what happened on the day again but that season stands out a mile in terms of achievement.

We achieved nothing in the end though did we,, heroic failures the game is littered with them.

Edited November 9, 2022 by pillred
Punctuation.

[Kid in the Riot]

32 minutes ago, 2015 said:

Ourselves and Plymouth Argyle are probably the biggest underachievers in English football by a long way in terms of fanbase, infrastructure, catchment area 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they made it to the Premier League before us. Well run, and flying at the moment.

3 minutes ago, Simon bristol said:

Compared to what they have spent and invested, we have massively underachieved compared to them.

I dunno. Rovers got relegated out of the football league despite having one of the highest wage bills in L2. I can't recall us ever failing that spectacularly.

They've spent a lot of time in the past 20 years in L2, which despite their shite facilities, is underachievement for a club with L1 support and investment.

[Supersonic Robin]

Agree with just about every comment in this thread. We are undoubtedly the most underachieving club in the country. The biggest team in one of the biggest cities in England, with no real competitors for miles around. The list of clubs our size and smaller to have outperformed us is embarrassing.

I actually think the magnitude of our underachievement is so great that it warps our own perceptions of the club.

IMO, we are a bigger club than many of our fans believe. On paper, there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be one of the "top end" Championship teams. In terms of "resource" we have everything we need - big city, big fanbase, geographical dominance etc etc. I recall being shot down a few months ago for saying that Watford are, in theory, no bigger than us. The same goes for a host of "bigger" teams at this level - Watford, Norwich, WBA, Fulham, Derby, Sheffield Utd, Burnley, Middlesbrough, Blackburn, Brighton etc etc. In what sense are these bigger clubs who we shouldn't expect to compete with? Are they based in bigger cities with bigger fanbases and more potential? No, they're not.

It's the case that they're "bigger clubs" BECAUSE of what they've achieved, it's not the case that they've achieved more BECAUSE they're bigger clubs.

This distinction is incredibly important IMO.

Alas, after years of disappointing underachievement, many of our fans have understandably resigned to identifying us as a bottom end Championship (or perhaps even top end League 1) team, comparable to the likes of Rotherham, Wigan, and Blackpool (2 of which have played in the Premier League!).

Personally, I think we should raise expectations within the club & fanbase. We're not a club who should see Premier League football as a fanciful dream, nor are we a club who should consider promotion from League 1 a notable achievement. We should consider sporadic involvement in the Premier League to be a reasonable and realistic long term expectation, and Championship football to be a bare minimum.

 

[archie andrews]

26 minutes ago, EstoniaTallinnRed said:

Have a look where Oldham are now!

Have they been in the prem?.... 

[The Gasbuster]

13 minutes ago, archie andrews said:

Have they been in the prem?.... 

The first season of the P.L., therefore original members

[BTRFTG]

Yes.

Next.

 

[The Gasbuster]

50 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they made it to the Premier League before us. Well run, and flying at the moment.

Watch out for Bolton and Portsmouth as well.

From the edge of bankruptcy in both cases during the last 15 years; I expect both of them to RETURN to the P.L. before we get there for the first time (if we ever do !).

Edited November 9, 2022 by The Gasbuster

[glynriley]

2 hours ago, Numero Uno said:

You can't give Steve anything but credit for the personal wealth he pumps into the club BUT (and it's a massive BUT) his huge investment is generally papering over the cracks of his (as you say) horrendous mismanagement of football matters over the vast majority of a 20 plus year stretch.

This is spades.

My gas mates think I'm nuts when I criticise SL's ownership.

Yep, thanks for all the shiny things you can sell on Steve, but the on field stuff, and lurching from one financial crisis to another every 4 or 5 years...nah.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, Supersonic Robin said:

Agree with just about every comment in this thread. We are undoubtedly the most underachieving club in the country. The biggest team in one of the biggest cities in England, with no real competitors for miles around. The list of clubs our size and smaller to have outperformed us is embarrassing.

I actually think the magnitude of our underachievement is so great that it warps our own perceptions of the club.

IMO, we are a bigger club than many of our fans believe. On paper, there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be one of the "top end" Championship teams. In terms of "resource" we have everything we need - big city, big fanbase, geographical dominance etc etc. I recall being shot down a few months ago for saying that Watford are, in theory, no bigger than us. The same goes for a host of "bigger" teams at this level - Watford, Norwich, WBA, Fulham, Derby, Sheffield Utd, Burnley, Middlesbrough, Blackburn, Brighton etc etc. In what sense are these bigger clubs who we shouldn't expect to compete with? Are they based in bigger cities with bigger fanbases and more potential? No, they're not.

It's the case that they're "bigger clubs" BECAUSE of what they've achieved, it's not the case that they've achieved more BECAUSE they're bigger clubs.

This distinction is incredibly important IMO.

Alas, after years of disappointing underachievement, many of our fans have understandably resigned to identifying us as a bottom end Championship (or perhaps even top end League 1) team, comparable to the likes of Rotherham, Wigan, and Blackpool (2 of which have played in the Premier League!).

Personally, I think we should raise expectations within the club & fanbase. We're not a club who should see Premier League football as a fanciful dream, nor are we a club who should consider promotion from League 1 a notable achievement. We should consider sporadic involvement in the Premier League to be a reasonable and realistic long term expectation, and Championship football to be a bare minimum.

 

Middlesbrough and Sheffield United are historically bigger clubs than us so you can cross them off for a start. Talking more PL, far more time in the top two divisions etc.

Blackburn won some trophies in their early days and again have spent only six years in their history outside of the top 2 divisions, arguably a bigger club irrespective of Walker.

Derby, clearly a bigger club. West Brom likewise.

Others I have more sympathy on, ie Watford, Norwich and Fulham for example. Some of these pumped up by money, Parachute Payments or a combination of the two although I expect that even pre PL, Norwich have featured more heavily in the top 2 divisions.

Brighton are a curious case. They were turbocharged by a combination of promotion and their move to the Amex in 2011-12.

Went up in 2010-11, left the Withdean that same year.

Attendances rose by 12.5-13k in just one year and they have comfortably averaged 20k plus ever since, whereas we have only averaged 20k plus twice in my lifetime I believe.

Have our turnovers ever risen by 12-13k in one season in modern times, or has our turnover ever pretty much trebled in a year?

[Super]

The only positive is just imagine how good it will be when we do achieve something.

[Bristol Oil Services]

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Middlesbrough and Sheffield United are historically bigger clubs than us so you can cross them off for a start. Talking more PL, far more time in the top two divisions etc.

Blackburn won some trophies in their early days and again have spent only six years in their history outside of the top 2 divisions, arguably a bigger club irrespective of Walker.

Derby, clearly a bigger club. West Brom likewise.

Others I have more sympathy on, ie Watford, Norwich and Fulham for example. Some of these pumped up by money, Parachute Payments or a combination of the two although I expect that even pre PL, Norwich have featured more heavily in the top 2 divisions.

Brighton are a curious case. They were turbocharged by a combination of promotion and their move to the Amex in 2011-12.

Went up in 2010-11, left the Withdean that same year.

Attendances rose by 12.5-13k in just one year and they have comfortably averaged 20k plus ever since, whereas we have only averaged 20k plus twice in my lifetime I believe.

Have our turnovers ever risen by 12-13k in one season in modern times, or has our turnover ever pretty much trebled in a year?

Brighton had larger crowds and turnover than us, but Brentford, Huddersfield and Luton all made the play-offs with less, or at least no more. Preston and Millwall have matched or out-performed us with less. Now we struggle to match Rotherham. 

It's not how much we do or don't have, it's what the people making the big calls here do or don't do with what we have here. We're just poor at making the most of what we actually have at our disposal.

If you put Steve Lansdown at Brighton, and Tony Bloom came here, I don't fancy Brighton much, and I don’t see them where they are now.

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 minutes ago, Bristol Oil Services said:

Brighton had larger crowds and turnover than us, but Brentford, Huddersfield and Luton all made the play-offs with less, or at least no more. Preston and Millwall have matched or out-performed us with less. Now we struggle to match Rotherham. 

It's not how much we do or don't have, it's what the people making the big calls here do or don't do with what we have here. We're just poor at making the most of what we actually have at our disposal.

If you put Steve Lansdown at Brighton, and Tony Bloom came here, I don't fancy Brighton much, and I don’t see them where they are now.

Some truth to that, agreed.

Brentford recruited very well to a system though to some extent, again made the most and reinvested very well.

Maupay cost for example, a fraction of the fee for Diedhiou. Younger, technically superior, more dynamic. £1.6m! Watkins is cited as the one who got away but Maupay would have been a very useful addition too...Watkins £1.8m reportedly.

Benrahma to Brentford, £2.8m.

All 3 were sold for significant profits.

You could have signed Benrahma, Maupay and Watkins fee wise, for not a huge amount more than our record signing at that time, Diedhiou. A million more tops, probably less.

Huddersfield under Wagner tapped the German market very well, Luton yes they have shot up to the playoffs and top 6 pushing again, they have really overachieved.

Edited November 9, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Bizyer]

19 minutes ago, Super said:

The only positive is just imagine how good it will be when we do achieve something.

That's the spirit!

[cidercity1987]

25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Middlesbrough and Sheffield United are historically bigger clubs than us so you can cross them off for a start. Talking more PL, far more time in the top two divisions etc.

Blackburn won some trophies in their early days and again have spent only six years in their history outside of the top 2 divisions, arguably a bigger club irrespective of Walker.

Derby, clearly a bigger club. West Brom likewise.

Others I have more sympathy on, ie Watford, Norwich and Fulham for example. Some of these pumped up by money, Parachute Payments or a combination of the two although I expect that even pre PL, Norwich have featured more heavily in the top 2 divisions.

Brighton are a curious case. They were turbocharged by a combination of promotion and their move to the Amex in 2011-12.

Went up in 2010-11, left the Withdean that same year.

Attendances rose by 12.5-13k in just one year and they have comfortably averaged 20k plus ever since, whereas we have only averaged 20k plus twice in my lifetime I believe.

Have our turnovers ever risen by 12-13k in one season in modern times, or has our turnover ever pretty much trebled in a year?

I don't think you're really understanding the point of this thread judging by your reactions.

Its a total arse about tit argument to say we aren't underachievers because our rivals are bigger clubs, when your definition of bigger club is historical success.

For what its worth , Boro, Sheff Utd, West Brom, especially Derby are obviously bigger than us as they have a better fanbase. Blackburn no fcking way, if we are biggest underachievers they are biggest overachievers. Their fanbase is tiny, had 9,000 or less in some Champ games last season and now look good for promotion - unbelievable.

Look forward to your standard  reaction....

[Grey Fox]

6 hours ago, ChippenhamRed said:

I mentioned this on the Lincoln match thread but thought it deserved its own topic.

I’m 40 next year. In FOUR DECADES of supporting City, the high points amount to nothing more than a few third tier promotions and Cup wins against Liverpool and United. City fans of my generation have never seen us play in the top division, and we’re not even that young any more. It’s increasingly conceivable we never will. That’s about half the fanbase now.

This despite supporting a club in the 11th biggest city in the country. A football city, not a rugby city (check the attendances). A club with a (now) great stadium and first class training facilities. A club capable of taking 45,000 fans to a game two hours away against Walsall. A club with no bigger clubs within 100 miles.

Meanwhile in my lifetime I’ve witnessed Wigan, Barnsley, Huddersfield, Blackpool, Swansea, Swindon, Bournemouth, Luton and Reading all play in top division. Blackburn even won the bloody thing!

I increasingly hate the fact that I was born into supporting this club.

Pound for pound, are we the unluckiest fans in the country? Are we the biggest underachievers in British football?

The way I look at it is, I’ve supported City since 1966, my health is good, I’m happily married to the woman I love, and have two great kids and now two wonderful grandsons. Financial side of life is OK, and we live in a nice house in a nice area. No one gets it all, and I much prefer City regularly f@#k things up for me than any of the other parts of my life listed above.

I’m sure we will make the PL one day, just as they bring in the European Super League, knowing our luck, but I will be there

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said:

I don't think you're really understanding the point of this thread judging by your reactions.

Its a total arse about tit argument to say we aren't underachievers because our rivals are bigger clubs, when your definition of bigger club is historical success.

For what its worth , Boro, Sheff Utd, West Brom, especially Derby are obviously bigger than us as they have a better fanbase. Blackburn no fcking way, if we are biggest underachievers they are biggest overachievers. Their fanbase is tiny, had 9,000 or less in some Champ games last season and now look good for promotion - unbelievable.

Look forward to your standard  reaction....

How far back do you want to go...

What defines size of a Club? Relatively recent history? Size of fanbase? Totality of history, status of a Club ie years spent in the top two divisions?

Or some combination of it all. 

Historically, we are not bigger than Blackburn..we have bigger gates than them and have for a number of seasons, but does that make us a bigger club? Matter of debate tbh! Perhaps they overachieved greatly and Walker took them up again but size of club is subjective I believe, metrics help with that too.

[Peter Coles]

6 hours ago, Bris Red said:

Didn’t build on it though did we and thats the frustration. All before FFP was a thing we could have really built on that 07/08 season but Lansdown true to form dithered and dithered and all momentum was lost.

Poor football decision after poor football decision was made (appointing Keith ******* Millen in the process) and we slowly declined back to League 1 over the following 5 years.

For all the good he has done for the infrastructure of the club in recent years the buck stops with Steve Lansdown and his horrendous mis-management of the footballing side of the club. 
 

It’s been done to death on this forum over the years anyway, I’m tired of taking about it to be honest. The usual lot will pipe up about being ‘careful what you wish for’ but I couldn’t give a toss now I’m happy to take a gamble on new ownership. Just sell the club Steve, please.

Biggest problem is getting someone to buy Bristol sports .

[Supersonic Robin]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Middlesbrough and Sheffield United are historically bigger clubs than us so you can cross them off for a start. Talking more PL, far more time in the top two divisions etc.

Blackburn won some trophies in their early days and again have spent only six years in their history outside of the top 2 divisions, arguably a bigger club irrespective of Walker.

Derby, clearly a bigger club. West Brom likewise.

Others I have more sympathy on, ie Watford, Norwich and Fulham for example. Some of these pumped up by money, Parachute Payments or a combination of the two although I expect that even pre PL, Norwich have featured more heavily in the top 2 divisions.

Brighton are a curious case. They were turbocharged by a combination of promotion and their move to the Amex in 2011-12.

Went up in 2010-11, left the Withdean that same year.

Attendances rose by 12.5-13k in just one year and they have comfortably averaged 20k plus ever since, whereas we have only averaged 20k plus twice in my lifetime I believe.

Have our turnovers ever risen by 12-13k in one season in modern times, or has our turnover ever pretty much trebled in a year?

Respectfully, it seems you've misunderstood my post. If anything, you've proving my point:

• "Middlesbrough and Sheffield United are bigger clubs than us as they've spent more time in the PL"
• "Blackburn are bigger than us as they won some trophies a while ago"
• "Derby and WBA are clearly bigger (because, errr, they're West Brom and Derby?)
   

As you've illustrated, these teams are not achieving more BECAUSE they're bigger than us, rather, they're considered bigger than us BECAUSE they've achieved more.

It's not that they are bigger cities, with larger catchment areas, larger fanbases, less competition around them, and more potential for growth and expansion (relative to us). It's simply that they've generated success out of the resources available to them so are now considered bigger. That, in turn, further aids things like their fan base, meaning they may edge ahead of us slightly in that respect (Was is GJ who said "success breeds support"?)

IMO, there's no reason why we should be achieving less than those teams, as well as the others I've mentioned. As a City and a football club, we have sufficient 'natural resources' in our area to do so.

However, decades of underachievement now means that many in our fanbase don't expect to compete with said teams in the longer term, despite us being similar to them in terms of fundamental resource. Though this is understandable, it's also incorrect (IMHO).

 

Edited November 9, 2022 by Supersonic Robin

[tts_city]

1 hour ago, Super said:

The only positive is just imagine how good it will be when we do achieve something.

[Mr Popodopolous]

14 minutes ago, Supersonic Robin said:

Respectfully, it seems you've misunderstood my post. If anything, you've proving my point:

• "Middlesbrough and Sheffield United are bigger clubs than us as they've spent more time in the PL"
• "Blackburn are bigger than us as they won some trophies a while ago"
• "Derby and WBA are clearly bigger (because, errr, they're West Brom and Derby?)
   

As you've illustrated, these teams are not achieving more BECAUSE they're bigger than us, rather, they're considered bigger than us BECAUSE they've achieved more.

It's not that they are bigger cities, with larger catchment areas, larger fanbases, less competition around them, and more potential for growth and expansion (relative to us). It's simply that they've generated success out of the resources available to them so are now considered bigger. That, in turn, further aids things like their fan base, meaning they may edge ahead of us slightly in that respect (Was is GJ who said "success breeds support"?)

IMO, there's no reason why we should be achieving less than those teams, as well as the others I've mentioned. As a City and a football club, we have sufficient 'natural resources' in our area to do so.

However, decades of underachievement now means that many in our fanbase don't expect to compete with said teams in the longer term, despite us being similar to them in terms of fundamental resource. Though this is understandable, it's also incorrect (IMHO).

 

Possibly have misunderstood your point yes.

I am going back well before the PL with my assessment periods, basing it on among other things, criteria such as years spent in the top 2 divisions, possibly attendances.  Trophies although until 2004, Middlesbrough had won zero major trophies- same as us!

North East is historically or has been a bit of a hotbed of football, although otoh we have a huge catchment area to tap into.

Derby and West Brom...basing it on top 2 divisions, trophies won etc. Am guessing that both habe a bigger supporter base or have done over time but again success helps to out this in place.

Otoh I do think having looked again that we are or have been a historically bigger club than Brighton!

Edited November 9, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Kingswood Robin]

1 hour ago, Bristol Oil Services said:

Brighton had larger crowds and turnover than us, but Brentford, Huddersfield and Luton all made the play-offs with less, or at least no more. Preston and Millwall have matched or out-performed us with less. Now we struggle to match Rotherham. 

It's not how much we do or don't have, it's what the people making the big calls here do or don't do with what we have here. We're just poor at making the most of what we actually have at our disposal.

If you put Steve Lansdown at Brighton, and Tony Bloom came here, I don't fancy Brighton much, and I don’t see them where they are now.

Indeed. I do wonder if Steve even knew we played last night.

[Robin101]

We have at least been consistently average for the last 40 years. Plenty of clubs who have overachieved relative to us for a small period, and plenty who have underachieved relative to us for a while too. 

We, though, are steadily, reliably, average to poor.