Clubs threatening to sue EFL over Derby's FFP situation

[ramsbottom]

1 minute ago, Anag Ram said:

You are Dominic Cummings and I claim my £5! ?

I think that's the single most insulting thing anyone has ever said to me...

[Curtains]

12 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

Well if Barnsley say we’re guilty I guess we must be.

What I don’t get is, the deadline for any punishment this season has surely long gone. Isn’t there a precedent whereby points deductions are delayed until the following season? In which case, whether the season is completed or abandoned is irrelevant with regard to any punishment.

I think you are right mate.  Opportunism by Barnsley who are rock bottom. 

[Anag Ram]

30 minutes ago, ramsbottom said:

I think that's the single most insulting thing anyone has ever said to me...

.... and that from someone called ramsbottom! 

[jono]

On 21/05/2020 at 23:16, Andicis said:

Who do you consider a big club? We're an above average sized club, not a huge one, but I just find the whole big club thing inane and vague. 

Thing is we are a big club ...... in the second tier.
We’d be average if we were in the top tier and small fry at International level. 

But as that prayer says, If you compare yourself with others you may become vain and bitter, there are always greater and lesser persons than yourself. ?

[Rab a dab doo]

Have signed two new players  'vain and bitter'.

Sound Dutch, what are they like and who do they play for ?

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

On 21/05/2020 at 23:33, G STAR RAM said:

Man United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Man City, Chelsea.

Level below them Tottenham, Everton.

Would put Villa up there, Newcastle and Leeds too if we are talking about any club in this country. Generally think big club refers to fan base size, could be to do with trophies too but you could separate that as a success category if you really want to define it.

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

On 21/05/2020 at 23:35, Andicis said:

Personally wouldn't consider Chelsea or City as big as Leeds to be quite honest. They're rich, but they're not big clubs. 

Think they are now. Their fan bases are big internationally. 

[Andicis]

2 minutes ago, Theres’s Only Wan Chope said:

Think they are now. Their fan bases are big internationally. 

International fan bases will support whoever is currently at the top, and drop you the minute you fall off the top. 

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

4 minutes ago, Andicis said:

International fan bases will support whoever is currently at the top, and drop you the minute you fall off the top. 

But Man City and Chelsea are constantly at the top now and they get big attendances. They seem to be permanent fixtures at the top for the last decade or more. I would not class Leeds as bigger than either now. 

[Andicis]

Just now, Theres’s Only Wan Chope said:

But Man City and Chelsea are constantly at the top now and they get big attendances. They seem to be permanent fixtures at the top for the last decade or more. I would not class Leeds as bigger than either now. 

But they didn't get there organically. I can respect the clubs that earned their spot at the top, neither of those two are that. They get large attendances because they're successful in big cities, if they were to lose their money and revert to position, would the fans stay? Would they hell.

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

Just now, Andicis said:

But they didn't get there organically. I can respect the clubs that earned their spot at the top, neither of those two are that. They get large attendances because they're successful in big cities, if they were to lose their money and revert to position, would the fans stay? Would they hell.

But I don't think it matters how they got there. I still think if miraculously they got relegated they would achieve big crowds still. They've always been well supported clubs even before the massive injections of cash.

[nottingram]

3 minutes ago, Andicis said:

But they didn't get there organically. I can respect the clubs that earned their spot at the top, neither of those two are that. They get large attendances because they're successful in big cities, if they were to lose their money and revert to position, would the fans stay? Would they hell.

[Andicis]

4 minutes ago, Theres’s Only Wan Chope said:

But I don't think it matters how they got there. I still think if miraculously they got relegated they would achieve big crowds still. They've always been well supported clubs even before the massive injections of cash.

Chelsea, for example in 1995 (year taken at random before Roman Abramovich) used to average 25,000, is that a big club's attendance? What about Man City? In 2006, (again, taken at random) they averaged 40,000 which is less than Newcastle get. Chelsea certainly was not always ''well supported'' by the current benchmark, and City found significantly more fans when they got better too. Without the dirty money they found, they're not big clubs.

[nottingram]

3 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Chelsea, for example in 1995 (year taken at random before Roman Abramovich) used to average 25,000, is that a big club's attendance? What about Man City? In 2006, (again, taken at random) they averaged 40,000 which is less than Newcastle get. Chelsea certainly was not always ''well supported'' by the current benchmark, and City found significantly more fans when they got better too. Without the dirty money they found, they're not big clubs.

But in the above screenshot (sorry I should have clarified what I meant by posting it) Man City averaged in League 1 more than Leeds, Forest et al ever did. 

28,000 odd in League One. Of course more have turned up since their recent success but you’d do very well to find many clubs in the country who would average 28,000 in League One, especially in a city like Manchester and surrounding areas where there are probably a dozen professional clubs.

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

3 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Chelsea, for example in 1995 (year taken at random before Roman Abramovich) used to average 25,000, is that a big club's attendance? What about Man City? In 2006, (again, taken at random) they averaged 40,000 which is less than Newcastle get. Chelsea certainly was not always ''well supported'' by the current benchmark, and City found significantly more fans when they got better too. Without the dirty money they found, they're not big clubs.

Pretty sure they had a whole stand closed at that time, wasn't it being renovated? What I would say is that all attendances in the 1990s were lower on average than now. I am sure Chelsea more often than not had similar average attendances than Leeds over the years.

Also, I would say 40,000 is still a big attendance as an average, Newcastle are also a big club in my opinion.

[Andicis]

28 minutes ago, nottingram said:

But in the above screenshot (sorry I should have clarified what I meant by posting it) Man City averaged in League 1 more than Leeds, Forest et al ever did. 

28,000 odd in League One. Of course more have turned up since their recent success but you’d do very well to find many clubs in the country who would average 28,000 in League One, especially in a city like Manchester and surrounding areas where there are probably a dozen professional clubs.

The screenshot says Sunderland averaged more than that in League One. 

[nottingram]

Just now, Andicis said:

The screenshot says Sunderland averaged more than that in League One. 

First team in 20 years to do so. You said Man City’s fans would abandon them if they weren’t successful, but until this year they have had the highest average attendance in the third tier, more than Leeds or Forest or Sheffield Wednesday ever got down there, and they’re in a very densely populated area of football clubs. 

Of course they have more match goers now, but I reckon you’d struggle to find a football club anywhere who wouldn’t in their situation.

In truth I think the whole big club debate is ultimately fruitless because there’s so many different factors. Some care about history, some care about attendances, some care about worldwide fan base, but I would say that Man City are up there with the very biggest in this country in all of those criteria

[Andicis]

1 minute ago, nottingram said:

First team in 20 years to do so. You said Man City’s fans would abandon them if they weren’t successful, but until this year they have had the highest average attendance in the third tier, more than Leeds or Forest or Sheffield Wednesday ever got down there, and they’re in a very densely populated area of football clubs. 

Of course they have more match goers now, but I reckon you’d struggle to find a football club anywhere who wouldn’t in their situation.

In truth I think the whole big club debate is ultimately fruitless because there’s so many different factors. Some care about history, some care about attendances, some care about worldwide fan base, but I would say that Man City are up there with the very biggest in this country in all of those criteria

But you'd have never put them in the very top bracket if you looked at them before 2008. You just wouldn't. That's my point. Same about Chelsea, before the money neither were ''huge clubs'', City was bigger than Chelsea, but even then you'd compare them with Newcastle and Sunderland. 

[nottingram]

6 minutes ago, Andicis said:

But you'd have never put them in the very top bracket if you looked at them before 2008. You just wouldn't. That's my point. Same about Chelsea, before the money neither were ''huge clubs'', City was bigger than Chelsea, but even then you'd compare them with Newcastle and Sunderland. 

As big as United or Liverpool, no. Maybe Arsenal as well. Probably the only two or three teams ahead of them in that sort of time frame and certainly not Leeds by any sort of measure.

But we’re now 12 years past that which is 8.6% of their entire existence! Can’t just discount the most successful club in England over that period regardless of how they got their money.

Anyway we’re probably just going to go round in circles because as I said there is no hard and fast measure of whether or not a club is big. 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

26 minutes ago, Andicis said:

But you'd have never put them in the very top bracket if you looked at them before 2008. You just wouldn't. That's my point. Same about Chelsea, before the money neither were ''huge clubs'', City was bigger than Chelsea, but even then you'd compare them with Newcastle and Sunderland. 

This geordies are the best supporters is absolute bobbins .  I went there in 1991 when they were struggling in Division 2 .I could count the people in the ground .  There average attendance that year was about 14,000.  You'll never meet a more fickle bunch of fans- maybe West Ham .  Sunderland and Man City are much better supported clubs in real money .