05 Oct 2017 01:02:56
Not sure how to phrase this but I'll try and get across what I mean. What is everyone's perceived set of PL teams. What I mean, is that when I saw Newcastle in a lower division, it felt weird. SMall clubs feel like fortunate visitors to the PL. If relegation was done away with any they chose a permanent 20 teams, or if you were building your ideal PL, who are the twenty teams you think of as PL teams (first division historically) . This will be heavily skewed by age I'd imagine, as being 33 I don't think Nottingham Forest would enter my list, but it might enter the list of someone in their 60s or 70s. Little fun exercise for international break.
Mine are:
1) Manchester United
2) Manchester City
3) Arsenal
4) Chelsea
5) Tottenham
6) Liverpool
7) Everton
8) Newcastle
9) West Ham
10) Stoke
11) Southampton
12) Sunderland
13) Aston Villa
14) Bolton Wanderers
15) Fulham
16) Birmingham City
17) MIddlesborough
18) Blackburn Rovers
19) Portsmouth
20) Wigan
Clearly this is based on subjective opinion, age, etc, and it was tough leaving out clubs that have had great runs in the top division, but this is my list. Again, its a weird question that can be interpreted different ways, but curious to hear what people think. (or if I left out an obvious one) . Thanks!
1.) 05 Oct 2017
05 Oct 2017 07:32:53
Wow. Not sure you meant it but this is incredibly patronising.
Firstly, Forest won the European Cup in '79 and '80 so I think people in their 40s will remember that.
"Small clubs feel like fortunate". No they're not, they earned the right to be there like the rest of us. And how are you defining small? History, trophies, attendances, potential? If you use these criteria then I don't see how Blackburn, Wigan and Portsmouth get in your League.
Using my criteria there are a number of "big" clubs who are not in the EPL - Villa, Birmingham, Leeds, Derby to name but a few. However, big or not, they have to earn the right to get into the EPL.
2.) 05 Oct 2017
05 Oct 2017 07:58:56
Not sure I agree with Birmingham city, Portsmouth or Wigan. Surprised you didn't have Leeds in there, Nottingham Forest as well as you mentioned, and you appear to have completely forgotten West Ham.
I'd probably sub those three into your list for Birmingham city, Portsmouth and Wigan.
3.) 05 Oct 2017
05 Oct 2017 08:14:51
You have forest in there but not Leicester? League champions two years ago!
4.) 05 Oct 2017
05 Oct 2017 08:28:04
KG,
I've discussed this with mates. I understand where you're coming from. it's something to occupy our minds in the international break too.
With a few exceptions I think it's interesting how closely it correlates with stadium capacities. I think I would take Brighton, Coventry, Cardiff out, and then two of Sheffield clubs and Wolves. Personally, I'd probably get rid of Sheff United.
That would leave me with something like this:
1 Wembley Stadium 90,000[1] Spurs N/ A
2 Old Trafford 76,100 Manchester United Premier League
3 London Stadium 66,000 West Ham United Premier League
4 Emirates Stadium 60,432 Arsenal Premier League
5 Etihad Stadium 55,097 Manchester City Premier League
6 Anfield 54,742 Liverpool Premier League
7 St James' Park 52,405 Newcastle United Premier League
8 Stadium of Light 49,000[2] Sunderland Championship
9 Villa Park 42,785 Aston Villa Championship
10 Stamford Bridge 41,623 Chelsea Premier League
11 Goodison Park 40,563 Everton Premier League
12 Hillsborough Stadium 34000 Sheffield Wednesday Championship
13 Elland Road 37,900 Leeds United Championship
14 Riverside Stadium 35,100 Middlesbrough Championship
15 Pride Park Stadium 33,597[3] Derby County Championship
16 St Mary's Stadium 32,689[5] Southampton Premier League
17 King Power Stadium 32,500[6] Leicester City Premier League
18 Molineux 31,700 Wolverhampton Wanderers Championship
19 Ewood Park 31,367 Blackburn Rovers Championship
20 City Ground 30,576 Nottingham Forest Championship
Obviously this is not a ranking of size of club, just of stadium.
Jack.
5.) 05 Oct 2017
05 Oct 2017 09:42:37
I would go off number of supporters globally:
1. Man Utd 561,987,756
2. Liverpool 301,984,881
3. Chelsea 267,678,011
4. Arsenal 255,175,998
5. Man City 231,776,439
6. Spurs 187,406,566
7. Everton 136,441,391
8. Newcastle 112,804,739
9. Leeds 90,886,839
10. Aston Villa 87,339,920
11. West Ham 81,663,108
12. Southampton 79,664,189
13. Leicester 67,000,728
14. Watford 54,391,046
15. Notts Forest 45,885,960
16. Sheff Weds 37,443,163
17. Middlesborough, 22,228,012
18. Sunderland 19,888,601
19. Wolves 16,970,618
20. Bolton 16,569,841
League positions should be according to the number of supporters. This removes the need for playing any football and of course removes all those pesky footballers from the wage bill.
6.) 05 Oct 2017
05 Oct 2017 10:53:40
Manc I think in view of the current discussion about the TV rights revenue affecting the money distribution, I would go with your model. It is obvious that would command the attraction from local and international viewership and ultimately money.
This could even be the start of a discussion for Super League for Europe. But that’s another matter.
However this could be dangerous and potentially kill the talents of and interests in football in UK. The weaker and smaller clubs will suffer from financial backing and football may eventually die in those cities. That’s not healthy. But if it were to remain as current I would support the top 6 current taking 40% of the TV rights revenue. Afterall they are the ones that really bring the attraction.
I think the current is fine and if necessary then I will agree with the Super League evolution.
{Ed002's Note - There are already plans for a European League and clubs have discussed it regularly and in great detail over the years. It of course doesn't consider anything like this.}
7.) 05 Oct 2017
05 Oct 2017 11:05:30
How about league titles won/ runners up places?
1 Man Utd 20/ 15
2 Liverpool 18/ 13
3 Arsenal 13/ 9
4 Everton 9/ 7
5 Aston Villa 7/ 10
6 Sunderland 6/ 5
7 Chelsea 6/ 4
8 Man City 4/ 5
9 Newcastle 4/ 2
10 Sheff Wed 4/ 1
=11 Leeds 3/ 5
=11 Wolves 3/ 5
13 Huddersfield 3/ 3
14 Blackburn 3/ 1
15 Preston North End 2/ 6
16 Tottenham Hotspurs 2/ 5
17 Derby County 2/ 3
18 Burnley 2/ 2
19 Portsmouth 2/ 0
plus one of Ipswich, Notts Forest, Sheff Utd, West Brom (all 1/ 2).
8.) 05 Oct 2017
05 Oct 2017 11:03:18
Middlesbrough, charlton, nottingham forest and leeds are the few clubs with immense history.
9.) 05 Oct 2017
05 Oct 2017 11:29:56
It's probably very age dependant on what people class as a big club that can fill stadiums and create interest, teams like Forrest, Leeds and Sheffield we'd would be to me but to someone younger they may see them as mid table 2nd tier teams . I'd probably think teams like that and add Newcastle Everton and villa and if a rich russian or an Arab sheikh poured money in by the hundreds of millions and they would replicate city or Chelsea easily in terms of fan base .
I think it's hard to deny football fans around the world like to hook onto teams that win things and yet some of the teams on that list have won little or nothing yet remain pretty well followed.
10.) 05 Oct 2017
05 Oct 2017 12:16:14
Or how about ranking teams in order of league titles won and ascribing that a value, then ranking them in terms of stadium capacity (we're assuming here that most teams - barring city - would sell out their ground in the top division) and ascribing that a value of equal weight. Finally, add the two together and you get:
1 Man Utd
2 Arsenal
3 Liverpool
4 Man City
=5 Sunderland
=5 Aston Villa
7 Everton
=8 Newcastle
=8 Chelsea
10 Spurs
11 Sheff Wed
12 Leeds
13 Derby
14 Wolves
15 Blackburn
16 West Ham
17 Sheff Utd
18 Leicester
19 Carfiff
20 Southampton
21 Notts Forest
22 Ipswich
23 Middlesbrough
24 Huddersfield
25 WBA
=26 Preston
=26 Charlton
=28 Coventry
=28 Bristol City
30 Burnley
I did the top 30 to show who narrowly misses out. Actually, what I did was slightly more complicated than what I described above but that's the gist. Anyway, no model's perfect for something like this, obviously.
PS. Yes, it's a slow workday.
11.) 05 Oct 2017
05 Oct 2017 12:48:15
It always amazes how Newcastle are considered a big club. Based on attendance. In a one club city.
12.) 05 Oct 2017
05 Oct 2017 12:50:29
Jeff I think just you and Brian Cox can follow that list.
13.) 05 Oct 2017
05 Oct 2017 13:10:23
Interesting post KG,
My own subjectively biased list will be as follows:
Quite similar to yours.
1) Manchester United
2) Liverpool
3) Arsenal
4) Chelsea
5) Tottenham
6) Man City
7) Everton
8) Newcastle
9) West Ham
10) Stoke
11) Southampton
12) Sunderland
13) Aston Villa
14) Bolton Wanderers
15) Leeds
16) Birmingham City
17) MIddlesborough
18) Blackburn Rovers
19) Fulham
20) Leicester
Since you said PL I wouldn't bother about omitting Forest.
14.) 05 Oct 2017
05 Oct 2017 13:12:09
Depends on your criteria Mort trophies won recently then they aren't but their 20th most valuable team on earth, they have won 4 titles 6 cups and a European trophy, there ground is one of the largest and fan base huge if we discount some of their titles as to long ago do u discount some of utds aswell .
I'd class them as a big club but not a successful club but I see yr point if trophies defines what is a big club then they aren't .
15.) 05 Oct 2017
05 Oct 2017 14:59:25
They're classed as big based on filling a 50k stadium. But there next nearest club is Sunderland so its fairly easy to attract fans. What grates is just how they and others think that their big. Clubs like Leeds, Forest and Villa are bigger clubs.
16.) 05 Oct 2017
05 Oct 2017 15:25:03
Well it's a one club city Mort but just 250000 live there, there are nearly 9 million in London and 2 and a half million in Manchester area .
If we class modern football as the start of the prem league which suits us, Newcastle have the 8 th most points way ahead of city . They have finished 2nd twice which is as high and often more or less as spurs and Liverpool and higher than Everton have managed, they have been in the champions league a similar amount as spurs, been in two cup finals and broke the world transfer record, consistently had high crowds and have the 20th highest value in the world, to me it does make them a big club just not a successful one.
17.) 05 Oct 2017
05 Oct 2017 14:18:19
Noted with thanks Ed002 ðŸ™.
18.) 05 Oct 2017
05 Oct 2017 22:02:32
How abput ranking them in alphabetical order?
19.) 05 Oct 2017
05 Oct 2017 23:18:40
City has had a very high attendance in the league for many years now.
20.) 05 Oct 2017
05 Oct 2017 23:42:40
Man city's attendance at home has been poor last few years.
21.) 06 Oct 2017
06 Oct 2017 01:10:00
Last season Man City had average attendance of over 54000, their stadium capacity is 55100, that is over 98% attendance. But yeah i guess that's really really bad.
{Ed001's Note - that's is how many tickets they sold, not the actual attendance, which is much lower. Many season ticket holders only go if and when, the same problem as many clubs to be fair, but are counted as attending.}
22.) 06 Oct 2017
06 Oct 2017 07:12:39
Apologies yes that's what i meant.
The amount of seats actually filled.
23.) 06 Oct 2017
06 Oct 2017 08:24:59
yeah i know that, but like you say that is nothin special for City. I know they have some trouble with selling out early cup games and had a really bad one against some German team (munchengladbach? ) were they only sold a little over 30k tickets, but it sounds like people actually think there are 20000 empty seats every match. There are other teams in England with more empty seats than City. It was not my intention to argue and be a douche, i just found the "most teams -barring city- would sell out there stadium" abit funny when they avg tickets sold are 98% +, but it was stoupid of me calling it attendance.
24.) 06 Oct 2017
06 Oct 2017 12:23:38
Come on Stoupid, play the game. Next you'll be saying they don't live in a council house and their supporters don't all come from Stockport.
25.) 06 Oct 2017
06 Oct 2017 23:07:36
Stoupid. The City game you were referring to where 20,000 seats were empty was against some unknown German minnows by the name of Bayern Munich. Emptihad is empty.
26.) 08 Oct 2017
08 Oct 2017 07:15:06
Really wasn't trying to be patronizing, or get mocking results. I thought it was a legitimate, albeit vague, question. I learned a lot, for instance Sheff Wednesday had a lot of support, and i discounted Leicester despite their title because of their short time within my lifetime, but others were adamant they belonged.
Leeds was the one I struggled with. I was just coming up when they were dropping down, so besides a historical rivalry with United, Leeds have never figured much in my first division thinking.
Like the debate, keep it up.