How do you define how “big” a club is?

[ChippenhamRed]

I made the claim on twitter earlier that we are the biggest club never to have played Premier League football.

To my mind, the size of a club is less about what it has won and more to do with the size of its fanbase and its whole infrastructure.

We regularly attract crowds of 20k+, we are capable of taking 45k to a JPT final against Walsall, we have a fantastic modern 27k stadium and first rate training facilities. All of which, I think, makes us the “biggest” club never to have played in the Premier League.

I’ve since had a debate with someone on twitter who thinks Preston, Notts County and Millwall are all bigger than us. Millwall is clearly a nonsense claim on any measure, but the argument for Preston and Notts County is on the basis of honours.

So, how do YOU define how “big” a club is? And do you agree with are the biggest not to play in the PL? And who are the contenders for that unwanted title?!

Twitter debate here:

 

[The Fat Controller]

Honestly my perception is mostly influenced by each clubs performance through my childhood. It's a weird metric for sure. 

It means sides like Crawley and Stevenage and Burton are absolute no marks in my head whereas the likes of Leeds and Villa and Norwich will always seem like relatively big clubs even when they've dropped down the divisions. 

Still can't wrap my head around Bournemouth being in the top division. 

[BCFCGav]

For me, honours is the first and foremost metric in the ‘club size’ debate. That’s what this is all about after all, winning things. But all the metrics you’ve mentioned do also play a role, just to a lesser extent imo.

Edited September 27, 2023 by BCFCGav

[Red-Robbo]

6 minutes ago, sinenomine said:

Honestly my perception is mostly influenced by each clubs performance through my childhood. It's a weird metric for sure. 

It means sides like Crawley and Stevenage and Burton are absolute no marks in my head whereas the likes of Leeds and Villa and Norwich will always seem like relatively big clubs even when they've dropped down the divisions. 

Still can't wrap my head around Bournemouth being in the top division. 

Yet Bournemouth is a bigger metropolitan area than Newcastle and certainly far bigger than Luton or Burnley. Cherries' fans argue that the club would be bigger historically, were it not for the unremitting hostility of the local authority there to them moving to a bigger stadium. 

TBH you're right and clubs' fortunes ebb and flow and our perception is based on the order we knew when we got interested in football. When the PL was formed it contained Wimbledon and Oldham. Some clubs we think of as big, say, Chelsea, our grandfathers wouldn't have.

I think the size of the club therefore is based on current fanbase - not who got 58,000 in an all-standing public safety nightmare in 1926 - combined with recent honours, say last 50 years. And "average" division played in during the club's lifetime. Our average is second tier, which does not make us a big club in my books or most others.  However, to argue that Notts County are bigger than us today because they won the FA Cup twice in Victorian times is clearly ridiculous. The County fan I know would never make that claim. 

[ChippenhamRed]

24 minutes ago, BCFCGav said:

For me, honours is the first and foremost metric in the ‘club size’ debate. That’s what this is all about after all, winning things. But all the metrics you’ve mentioned do also play a role, just to a lesser extent imo.

Fair enough and I do appreciate that argument. But using that metric, Wigan with one FA Cup are a bigger club than us. And I just can’t get on board with that!

[MC RISK77]

53 minutes ago, sinenomine said:

Honestly my perception is mostly influenced by each clubs performance through my childhood. It's a weird metric for sure. 

It means sides like Crawley and Stevenage and Burton are absolute no marks in my head whereas the likes of Leeds and Villa and Norwich will always seem like relatively big clubs even when they've dropped down the divisions. 

Still can't wrap my head around Bournemouth being in the top division. 

Yep same here and honours- I even look at clubs like QPR who won a league cup when I first started getting into football as a relatively big club

Just now, MC RISK77 said:

Yep same here and honours- I even look at clubs like QPR who won a league cup when I first started getting into football as a relatively big club

Edit were runners up to Oxford even 

[The turtle]

You'd certainly argue Preston are a club with a deeper history, but bigger?

Fanbase, honours and when, stadium, tradition.

I think city are near the top, or top.

.......

Just as an extended point.

City, Coventry, sheffield weds, watford , Portsmouth, Burnley, Derby, Blackpool, Reading.

how would you put those 9 in order?

 

[ChippenhamRed]

Just now, The turtle said:

You'd certainly argue Preston are a club with a deeper history, but bigger?

Fanbase, honours and when, stadium, tradition.

I think city are near the top, or top.

.......

Just as an extended point.

City, Coventry, sheffield weds, watford , Portsmouth, Burnley, Derby, Blackpool, Reading.

how would you put those 9 in order?

 

Someone needs to come up with a scoring system that gives points for honours, stadium size, infrastructure, average attendance and average league position. Problem is we’d all argue over the weighting of those points!

[Porto Red]

1 hour ago, ChippenhamRed said:

I made the claim on twitter earlier that we are the biggest club never to have played Premier League football.

To my mind, the size of a club is less about what it has won and more to do with the size of its fanbase and its whole infrastructure.

We regularly attract crowds of 20k+, we are capable of taking 45k to a JPT final against Walsall, we have a fantastic modern 27k stadium and first rate training facilities. All of which, I think, makes us the “biggest” club never to have played in the Premier League.

I’ve since had a debate with someone on twitter who thinks Preston, Notts County and Millwall are all bigger than us. Millwall is clearly a nonsense claim on any measure, but the argument for Preston and Notts County is on the basis of honours.

So, how do YOU define how “big” a club is? And do you agree with are the biggest not to play in the PL? And who are the contenders for that unwanted title?!

Twitter debate here:

 

Agree with your reasoning. Historical honours were often gained so far back in time that the teams concerned hadn't even established their place in what would develop into a pecking order over the subsequent decades. Fanbase has to be the most logical definition, and by that measure, it's us, hands down. 

[archie andrews]

29 minutes ago, MC RISK77 said:

Yep same here and honours- I even look at clubs like QPR who won a league cup when I first started getting into football as a relatively big club

Edit were runners up to Oxford even 

Runners up 86 but won it in 67 even swindon won it in 69 more honours than us too.... 

[Clevedon Red]

27 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

Someone needs to come up with a scoring system that gives points for honours, stadium size, infrastructure, average attendance and average league position. Problem is we’d all argue over the weighting of those points!

That sounds like a job for @Davefevs 

[Midred]

What's not been mentioned so far is how the media "rate" clubs. Leeds for example were big in the 70's and whether they're in the PL or league one they will still be the "chosen clubs". Also how many televised matches they get.

[ExiledAjax]

It's all about language. The word "big" is just too vague, too nebulous, and is used to cover too many variables. People fight over what that word means rather than which club is actually the most noteworthy club to have not played in the PL.

IMO clubs like Notts County, Oldham, Preston North End etc are historic clubs, notable clubs, perhaps even venerable clubs. But that is different to being a "big" club, which is more determined by more modern metrics such as those discussed above. 

At its most simple the word "big" quantifies the size of something. So stadium capacity, away fan numbers, ST holders, maybe social media followers in the modern age, etc are the most natural measures by which to judge it.

On that basis yes we probably are the "biggest" club not to have played in the top flight since the PL was established. 

 

[redkev]

1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

Yet Bournemouth is a bigger metropolitan area than Newcastle and certainly far bigger than Luton or Burnley. Cherries' fans argue that the club would be bigger historically, were it not for the unremitting hostility of the local authority there to them moving to a bigger stadium. 

TBH you're right and clubs' fortunes ebb and flow and our perception is based on the order we knew when we got interested in football. When the PL was formed it contained Wimbledon and Oldham. Some clubs we think of as big, say, Chelsea, our grandfathers wouldn't have.

I think the size of the club therefore is based on current fanbase - not who got 58,000 in an all-standing public safety nightmare in 1926 - combined with recent honours, say last 50 years. And "average" division played in during the club's lifetime. Our average is second tier, which does not make us a big club in my books or most others.  However, to argue that Notts County are bigger than us today because they won the FA Cup twice in Victorian times is clearly ridiculous. The County fan I know would never make that claim. 

When ever I go to Bournemouth wether it be football / work / social visit ( on the piss ) it just doesn’t have the feel of a football town / area 

[Lew-T]

34 minutes ago, The turtle said:

You'd certainly argue Preston are a club with a deeper history, but bigger?

Fanbase, honours and when, stadium, tradition.

I think city are near the top, or top.

.......

Just as an extended point.

City, Coventry, sheffield weds, watford , Portsmouth, Burnley, Derby, Blackpool, Reading.

how would you put those 9 in order?

 

Random one… but I’ll try.

Sheffield Wednesday

Derby

Burnley

Pompey

Coventry

Watford

City

Reading

Blackpool

[Zookeeper WSM]

1 hour ago, BCFCGav said:

For me, honours is the first and foremost metric in the ‘club size’ debate. That’s what this is all about after all, winning things. But all the metrics you’ve mentioned do also play a role, just to a lesser extent imo.

For me the only metric to define a big club is attendances (consistently over several years whilst taking into account success / lack of). I actually think that honours and recent years in the top flight reduce how big the club is relative to their attendances. Ie, a club that averages 21/22k consistently over years like us despite no honours or recent top flight exposure is bigger than one that gets the same crowds but has had some success (eg, Burnley, Cardiff, Watford). There's definitely a spreadsheet asking to be created to measure this!

[One Team]

1 hour ago, BCFCGav said:

For me, honours is the first and foremost metric in the ‘club size’ debate. That’s what this is all about after all, winning things. But all the metrics you’ve mentioned do also play a role, just to a lesser extent imo.

Completely agree. The other aspects do play a part but first and foremost its honours achieved, and of those prioritised based on level they were achieved at (league cup win trumping league trophy win, Championship title trumping league one title etc.). 

[The turtle]

23 minutes ago, Lew-T said:

Random one… but I’ll try.

Sheffield Wednesday

Derby

Burnley

Pompey

Coventry

Watford

City

Reading

Blackpool

I think it's a decent stab. Only team which seems out of place is Burnley.

Sheffield Wednesday

Derby

Pompey

Coventry

Watford

Burnley 

City

Reading

Blackpool

.....

I'm not even that happy with Burnley above city. I mean they are a well run club sure, but look at their success and still only 15-20k attendance. (Granted it's half the town)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lew-T]

1 minute ago, The turtle said:

I think it's a decent stab. Only team which seems out of place is Burnley.

Sheffield Wednesday

Derby

Pompey

Coventry

Watford

Burnley 

City

Reading

Blackpool

.....

I'm not even that happy with Burnley above city. I mean they are a well run club sure, but look at their success and still only 15-20k attendance. (Granted it's half the town)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah I’m not sure why I’ve put Burnley that high. Mistake on my part!

I agree with yours.

[ChippenhamRed]

37 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

It's all about language. The word "big" is just too vague, too nebulous, and is used to cover too many variables. People fight over what that word means rather than which club is actually the most noteworthy club to have not played in the PL.

IMO clubs like Notts County, Oldham, Preston North End etc are historic clubs, notable clubs, perhaps even venerable clubs. But that is different to being a "big" club, which is more determined by more modern metrics such as those discussed above. 

At its most simple the word "big" quantifies the size of something. So stadium capacity, away fan numbers, ST holders, maybe social media followers in the modern age, etc are the most natural measures by which to judge it.

On that basis yes we probably are the "biggest" club not to have played in the top flight since the PL was established. 

 

Great post! You’re right, “big” is far too vague really and it can be defined so many different ways. But equally, how often do we hear teams described as “a big club”! It’s a very common turn of phrase within football, without any agreement on what that actually means.

[ChippenhamRed]

4 minutes ago, The turtle said:

I think it's a decent stab. Only team which seems out of place is Burnley.

Sheffield Wednesday

Derby

Pompey

Coventry

Watford

Burnley 

City

Reading

Blackpool

.....

I'm not even that happy with Burnley above city. I mean they are a well run club sure, but look at their success and still only 15-20k attendance. (Granted it's half the town)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think the “half the town” thing is to a lot of club’s credit - Burnley being one of them. But I don’t think it’s part of the criteria for being a big club. That surely has to be measured in absolute terms; one club against another.

[Lew-T]

5 minutes ago, The turtle said:

I think it's a decent stab. Only team which seems out of place is Burnley.

Sheffield Wednesday

Derby

Pompey

Coventry

Watford

Burnley 

City

Reading

Blackpool

.....

I'm not even that happy with Burnley above city. I mean they are a well run club sure, but look at their success and still only 15-20k attendance. (Granted it's half the town)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gotta give it to Burnley though. Decent history, and always there or there abouts.

Considering the size of the town.

[ChippenhamRed]

13 minutes ago, One Team said:

Completely agree. The other aspects do play a part but first and foremost its honours achieved, and of those prioritised based on level they were achieved at (league cup win trumping league trophy win, Championship title trumping league one title etc.). 

But are you really comfortable saying Wigan are a bigger club than us on the basis of their one FA Cup win?

That just doesn’t sit right. Surely it’s about more than purely honours.

 

[Lew-T]

1 minute ago, ChippenhamRed said:

But are you really comfortable saying Wigan are a bigger club than us on the basis of their one FA Cup win?

That just doesn’t sit right. Surely it’s about more than purely honours.

 

Blackpool have won the FA Cup once, but I’ve got them bottom of my list.

I don’t think anybody can define what makes a big club. It’s all down to opinions isn’t it? I know that’s stating the obvious.

[Aberdeen Pete's Dad]

Sheffield Wed

Derby

Coventry

Burnley 

City

Portsmouth

Watford

Blackpool

Reading

 

Burnley have played a great number of seasons in the top division. You could argue Portsmouth are bigger than City but they have not done much since 1949. I know they won the cup but they have played a lot of season in league 1 and 2. 

Watford are basically a third tier club and will probably return there again soon

 

 

 

[redkev]

As per title 

How many tents ( stands it has ) 

[Gazred]

We have unfulfilled potential. That's how I'd class us.

[BarnzFM]

Commercial Revenue 

 

that’s tongue in cheek before anyone gets their knickers in a twist 

[cidercity1987]

1 hour ago, The turtle said:

You'd certainly argue Preston are a club with a deeper history, but bigger?

Fanbase, honours and when, stadium, tradition.

I think city are near the top, or top.

.......

Just as an extended point.

City, Coventry, sheffield weds, watford , Portsmouth, Burnley, Derby, Blackpool, Reading.

how would you put those 9 in order?

 

Based on size of fanbase in similar league position

Big clubs  Sheff Wed Derby

Medium City Coventry Pompey

Small Burnley Reading Watford

Tiny Blackpool

[Red-Robbo]

1 hour ago, redkev said:

When ever I go to Bournemouth wether it be football / work / social visit ( on the piss ) it just doesn’t have the feel of a football town / area 

Do Clifton, Hotwells, Stokes Croft or Bristol City Centre have that feel? Probably not either.

There are lots of working-class areas of Bournemouth/Poole/Christchurch - and despite its rep, it actually has a lower-than-UK average age of population. Thing is, with the local club kept artificially small by the Hyacinth Bucket's on the council, lots of the population are glory hunters, particularly of the big London clubs.  

My friends who live there say since promotion it's been virtually impossible to get home tickets unless you're a regular ST holder.