Jump to content

22nd biggest in England.


Animal is a Ram

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The lower the score the better?

I'm don't really give two hoots about fans, but I'd like to know how the calculated Brighton having better than Southampton and Hull, Palace, Charlton and Wigan having considerably better global fanbases than DCFC - in what universe?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The lower the score the better?

I'm don't really give two hoots about fans, but I'd like to know how the calculated Brighton having better than Southampton and Hull, Palace, Charlton and Wigan having considerably better global fanbases than DCFC - in what universe?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PistoldPete2

Looks rubbish to me.... Crowds for Derby for example less than Birmingham? I can't ever remember that being true. Income 33rd? Well mane the clubs receiving parachute money have more income than us.... Norwich maybe fulham, etc but can't think of 13 clubs in the championship,with bigger income than us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PistoldPete2

For all of the last 35 years or more our success on the pitch has lagged behind our support, fan base etc, so I am very surprised to see our rating for crowds, fan base etc ranked below,our average rating in the league , etc. looks like ******** to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's trying to quantify the unquantifiable. There is no way of actually measuring how big a club is because everyone states different reasons for being a big club. 

It's obvious in my mind - it should go purely on fanbase. 

The bigger the crowd in the ground, the bigger the club. I just don't see how you could argue with that. 

I don't get the argument over trophies. I understand the importance of winning trophies but does it really carry weight in terms of how big a club is?

Forest are bigger in the pub quiz industry than they are in the football industry for their European Championship wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The lower the score the better?

I'm don't really give two hoots about fans, but I'd like to know how the calculated Brighton having better than Southampton and Hull, Palace, Charlton and Wigan having considerably better global fanbases than DCFC - in what universe?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You only have to look at the criteria used for crowds to see this is nonsense.Take the Sheffield clubs for example.You might understand Wednesday's ranking on the basis of historical highest attendances,but United? (unless I'm missing something).Also,if you look at Charlton,I think that many moons ago they got something ridiculous like 70,000,but there's no way they could attract that many now.I'm also struggling to see how Norwich could outscore us on either current or historical attendances.

I think highest historical attendances should be adjusted to reflect the maximum possible contemporary attendance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my surprise,Sheffield United's record attendance was 68,000+ in 1936,but it shows what a nonsense the whole thing is.I've no doubt that Norwich also have a high record attendance,otherwise there's no way they could be above us.

Norwich's record attendance is just under 44,000 for a cup game (Sheffield United's was also a cup game),the significance of this being that both could have featured high opposition supports. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks rubbish to me.... Crowds for Derby for example less than Birmingham? I can't ever remember that being true. Income 33rd? Well mane the clubs receiving parachute money have more income than us.... Norwich maybe fulham, etc but can't think of 13 clubs in the championship,with bigger income than us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...