Punching above our weight. What do you think would elevate us above mid table next season?

[Caerphilly Ram]

42 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

We are a similar size club to Birmingham and Stoke.

A few trophies 50 years ago doesn’t change that. We all have the same potential so we’re all similar sized clubs.

Attendance figures, whether it’s 28k or 22k doesn’t matter. It’s extra income in the matchday revenue but it’s not that much difference.

We get higher attendances than Villarreal. We’re not a bigger club. 

Given we’re in a group of about 20-30 similar sized clubs, odds are we will spend more time at second tier level as opposed to the top tier.

How do you establish what a club’s size is then? It’s surely derived from more than “potential”.

So far you’ve discounted attendances, trophies and history, so what other tangible factors is it measured by? 
 

EDIT - for what it’s worth I agree we’re not a bigger club than Villarreal who have competed towards the top end of Spanish football for years and played in European competitions. Probably agree with West Ham being a bigger club than us also, they’re established in the premier league, recently won a European trophy and sold an England International for £100m. Just interested what the substance is behind your argument this time.

Edited May 26 by Caerphilly Ram

[RamInSweden]

Like most teams that come up, I think you need a favourable start in the fixture list. If you win a few games early, the momentum often carries through the season, and elevates you above your status. Confidence is a major player in any sport, if you can maintain that, you are halfway to success.

[Bris Vegas]

36 minutes ago, Caerphilly Ram said:

How do you establish what a club’s size is then? It’s surely derived from more than “potential”.

So far you’ve discounted attendances, trophies and history, so what other tangible factors is it measured by? 
 

EDIT - for what it’s worth I agree we’re not a bigger club than Villarreal who have competed towards the top end of Spanish football for years and played in European competitions. Probably agree with West Ham being a bigger club than us also, they’re established in the premier league, recently won a European trophy and sold an England International for £100m. Just interested what the substance is behind your argument this time.

Size of the club for me is on potential, global reputation and the probability of a player joining your club over another.

The latter comes down to finances and current position. Currently Bournemouth could buy our best player, we couldn’t attract theirs. That can change in 5 years.

But on the whole, the bigger clubs have bigger finances.

And when Derby and West Ham were both in the PL, our two better players left us for them in a move up the ladder.

Palace, Brighton, Derby, Forest, Leicester, Birmingham, Wolves, West Brom, Stoke, Sheff Wed, Sheff Utd, Hull, Coventry, Middlesbrough, Swansea, Cardiff, Blackburn, Bolton.

We are all clubs who will find our natural place between PL bottom 10 and Championship as that is where we are in terms of club size.

[LeedsCityRam]

1 hour ago, Bris Vegas said:

We are a similar size club to Birmingham and Stoke.

A few trophies 50 years ago doesn’t change that. We all have the same potential so we’re all similar sized clubs.

Attendance figures, whether it’s 28k or 22k doesn’t matter. It’s extra income in the matchday revenue but it’s not that much difference.

We get higher attendances than Villarreal. We’re not a bigger club. 

Given we’re in a group of about 20-30 similar sized clubs, odds are we will spend more time at second tier level as opposed to the top tier.

Completely disagree. Firstly matchday revenue is a massive part of finances at this level & size of crowds correlate to overall interest in club, perception of importance & likelihood of TV screening. In the divison above, global awareness is based on history & rivalry far more than you give credit for...its the mystique of Man Utd & Liverpool that entices fans more than simple success. Man City still dont come close to either global brand at present. Going back to DCFC, the average punter will take a far greater passing interest in Derby v Forest or Leeds than say Palace v Brighton and there's no coincidence Derby were one of the most screened Championship clubs on Sky year after year, irrespective of league placing.

Re crowds, Derby average roughly 33%-50% more home fans than Birmingham & Stoke when in same division and have done for a long time. Same with Coventry. Its perverse to therefore claim we are a similiar size. FWIW Stoke are only anywhere because of the largesee of the Bet365 family, pre-ownership they were regularly getting crowds around the 12k mark. In assessing Birmingham, people make the classic big city mistake when reality is Villa dominate that area & Small Heath come in a poor 4th behind West Brom & Wolves...fans of both would laugh at the suggestion Bluee are same size.

Your comparison with European clubs doesnt really work given the total contrast in supporter culture, inequitable TV money share & relative competition in each country. Villarreal are not a big club though & were unheard of pre-1995.

[Bris Vegas]

1 minute ago, LeedsCityRam said:

Completely disagree. Firstly matchday revenue is a massive part of finances at this level & size of crowds correlate to overall interest in club, perception of importance & likelihood of TV screening. In the divison above, global awareness is based on history & rivalry far more than you give credit for...its the mystique of Man Utd & Liverpool that entices fans more than simple success. Man City still dont come close to either global brand at present. Going back to DCFC, the average punter will take a far greater passing interest in Derby v Forest or Leeds than say Palace v Brighton and there's no coincidence Derby were one of the most screened Championship clubs on Sky year after year, irrespective of league placing.

Re crowds, Derby average roughly 33%-50% more home fans than Birmingham & Stoke when in same division and have done for a long time. Same with Coventry. Its perverse to therefore claim we are a similiar size. FWIW Stoke are only anywhere because of the largesee of the Bet365 family, pre-ownership they were regularly getting crowds around the 12k mark. In assessing Birmingham, people make the classic big city mistake when reality is Villa dominate that area & Small Heath come in a poor 4th behind West Brom & Wolves...fans of both would laugh at the suggestion Bluee are same size.

Your comparison with European clubs doesnt really work given the total contrast in supporter culture, inequitable TV money share & relative competition in each country. Villarreal are not a big club though & were unheard of pre-1995.

I respect your opinion, and the size of clubs is subjective to how one perceives it.

Matchday revenue only takes you so far. I’d agree if we are talking a difference of 45k to 20k, but we are talking a matter or 5k here or there which for our level doesn’t impact our potential.

I don’t deny Derby vs Forest would attract a bigger audience than Palace vs Brighton if in the same league.

I just don’t think that really matters. A player isn’t going to choose Derby over Brighton because we get an extra 5k through the door, nor would it make much of a difference in terms of budgets at the top table when the overall PL commercial deal is ultimately the biggest revenue stream.

In 25 years if following Derby I’ve seen us compete in the PL for about 20% of that. I’ve seen how getting an extra 5k through the door has accounted for diddly squat when teams like Palace, Fulham, Brighton, Brentford, Leicester etc. have outperformed us during that time.

I’ve seen Derby lose their manager to Stoke, their better players to Palace and teams with lesser attendances and trophyless cabinets go on to play in Europe. 

We may have been a bigger club once. Not anymore.

[Foreveram]

19 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

I respect your opinion, and the size of clubs is subjective to how one perceives it.

Matchday revenue only takes you so far. I’d agree if we are talking a difference of 45k to 20k, but we are talking a matter or 5k here or there which for our level doesn’t impact our potential.

I don’t deny Derby vs Forest would attract a bigger audience than Palace vs Brighton if in the same league.

I just don’t think that really matters. A player isn’t going to choose Derby over Brighton because we get an extra 5k through the door, nor would it make much of a difference in terms of budgets at the top table when the overall PL commercial deal is ultimately the biggest revenue stream.

In 25 years if following Derby I’ve seen us compete in the PL for about 20% of that. I’ve seen how getting an extra 5k through the door has accounted for diddly squat when teams like Palace, Fulham, Brighton, Brentford, Leicester etc. have outperformed us during that time.

I’ve seen Derby lose their manager to Stoke, their better players to Palace and teams with lesser attendances and trophyless cabinets go on to play in Europe. 

We may have been a bigger club once. Not anymore.

It’s the league that the club is in that makes the difference, would you really consider Bournemouth a bigger club than Derby if they switched divisions.

[plymouthram]

On 22/05/2024 at 09:51, MadAmster said:

PW with Rotherham in the SBC.

1st time, relegated playing crap football

2nd time, same again

3rd time he had put together a better side playing decent football (source Rotherham forums at the time we poached him). He had them 8th after 9 games. All the sides above then had played 10. Win that game in hand and they would have gone 5th. He came to us and Rotherham ended up 19th. Just maybe, the 1st 2 seasons were more down to RUFC's inability to attract the right players? Both the results and the style were better 3rd time around...

IMO, forget anything he did at Rotherham. Derby is a totally different kettle of fish. Let's see what he can put together over the summer.

Agree, a talented youngster or a seasoned pro looking for a new club and the choice is Swansea/Plymouth or Derby it's a no brainer. Rotherham are never going to attract the better quality player when competing against better equipped/bigger clubs in the same league.

[Caerphilly Ram]

43 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

I respect your opinion, and the size of clubs is subjective to how one perceives it.

Matchday revenue only takes you so far. I’d agree if we are talking a difference of 45k to 20k, but we are talking a matter or 5k here or there which for our level doesn’t impact our potential.

I don’t deny Derby vs Forest would attract a bigger audience than Palace vs Brighton if in the same league.

I just don’t think that really matters. A player isn’t going to choose Derby over Brighton because we get an extra 5k through the door, nor would it make much of a difference in terms of budgets at the top table when the overall PL commercial deal is ultimately the biggest revenue stream.

In 25 years if following Derby I’ve seen us compete in the PL for about 20% of that. I’ve seen how getting an extra 5k through the door has accounted for diddly squat when teams like Palace, Fulham, Brighton, Brentford, Leicester etc. have outperformed us during that time.

I’ve seen Derby lose their manager to Stoke, their better players to Palace and teams with lesser attendances and trophyless cabinets go on to play in Europe. 

We may have been a bigger club once. Not anymore.

It’s all relative/circumstantial surely? The clubs you listed as “outperforming” us have done so because of the money they have through being in the premier league at varying points and external investment, with Brentford and maybe Brighton being the exceptions initially due to their recruitment models.

IF we were in the PL then we’d be on a level playing field, so your example of someone choosing Brighton over Derby is a moot point until such a stage as we’re in the same league. It would be then that other factors come into it, realistically we can’t currently compete with any PL side for signings as the relative wealth and status offered by being a PL side gives them an advantage. That’s when other factors come into consideration (for me) as to what constitutes being a “big club”. As an example Bournemouth are not a bigger club than Derby, they are currently in a more advantageous position than Derby due to spending a number of years in the PL, BUT, hypothetically, if they were relegated without parachute money and competing “fairly” with us then our larger stadium, revenue from attendances, history, facilities, academy etc suddenly make us an appealing option to players. 

I never understand these binary arguments you offer without consideration of context and variable contributing factors. It often comes across as though you are intentionally being contrary.

In my opinion simply being in the PL does not automatically qualify one club as being larger than another.
Leeds failed to win promotion today, and as much as it pains me to say it they are a bigger club than Brentford, Brighton, Burnley, Palace, Bournemouth, Fulham etc despite only spending something like 3 of the last 20 years in the PL. That’s due to things like fan base, attendances, history etc. I believe there’s more to it than just where that club is currently in the pyramid when determining what qualifies club’s size. 
We are a big club at this level, we were a big club in league one, we’re never going to trouble the “big 6” but it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that we could one day be established back in the PL competing as one of the also rans, or should that be also Rams 🤔 

Edited May 26 by Caerphilly Ram

[Bris Vegas]

4 minutes ago, Caerphilly Ram said:

It’s all relative/circumstantial surely? The clubs you listed as “outperforming” us have done so because of the money they have through being in the premier league at varying points and external investment, with Brentford and maybe Brighton being the exceptions initially due to their recruitment models.

IF we were in the PL then we’d be on a level playing field, so your example of someone choosing Brighton over Derby is a moot point until such a stage as we’re in the same league. It would be then that other factors come into it, realistically we can’t currently compete with any PL side for signings as the relative wealth and status offered by being a PL side gives them an advantage. That’s when other factors come into consideration (for me) as to what constitutes being a “big club”. As an example Bournemouth are not a bigger club than Derby, they are currently in a more advantageous position than Derby due to spending a number of years in the PL, BUT, hypothetically, if they were relegated without parachute money and competing “fairly” with us then our larger stadium, revenue from attendances, history, facilities, academy etc suddenly make us an appealing option to players. 

I never understand these binary arguments you offer without consideration of context and variable contributing factors. It often comes across as though you are intentionally being contrary.

In my opinion simply being in the PL does not automatically qualify one club as being larger than another.
Leeds failed to win promotion today, and as much as it pains me to say it they are a bigger club than Brentford, Brighton, Burnley, Palace, Bournemouth, Fulham etc despite only spending something like 3 of the last 20 years in the PL. That’s due to things like fan base, attendances, history etc. I believe there’s more to it than just where that club is currently in the pyramid when determining what qualifies club’s size. 
We are a big club at this level, we were a big club in league one, we’re never going to trouble the “big 6” but it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that we could one day be established back in the PL competing as one of the also rans, or should that be also Rams 🤔 

I agree that current league status can dictate where a player goes. I’m not saying Bournemouth are a bigger club than Derby.

I’m saying West Ham are, and in my lifetime, always have been.

I’m also saying Derby aren’t a bigger club than Palace, Leicester, Forest, Stoke, West Brom, Birmingham etc. We are similar sized clubs with a few differences such as a few K in attendance, some trophies 50+ years ago. 

We all have the same ceiling therefore we are more or less equal.

West Ham have a higher ceiling. 

[Ghost of Clough]

2 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

Palace, Brighton, Derby, Forest, Leicester, Birmingham, Wolves, West Brom, Stoke, Sheff Wed, Sheff Utd, Hull, Coventry, Middlesbrough, Swansea, Cardiff, Blackburn, Bolton.

We are all clubs who will find our natural place between PL bottom 10 and Championship as that is where we are in terms of club size.

I don't think that's quite true. If you had ran a poll 20 years ago on Palace's natural place, then you'd struggle to find many people even saying top half Championship. Their first appearance in the top division was only in 1969, woth only 13 top flight appearances prior to 2013. Even if they got relegated in the near future, it's hard to see them not finishing in the playoffs.

Similar for Brighton who got there for the first time in 1979, and only there for 4 season prior to 2017. 20 years ago, they'd have been considered just a lower Championship or upper L1 side.

Fulham (who you didnt list) had barely been in the top division until the days of Tigana/Coleman. However, they've been there 75% of the time this millennium. It's seems unlikely they'll finish in the bottom half of the Championship any time soon.

How long do Bournemouth and Brentford have to be in the PL before you consider their natural level to be the same as the teams you've listed?

How many more seasons do the likes of Coventry and Sheff Weds have to stay outside of the PL for them to drop out of the list?

[S8TY]

1 hour ago, Bris Vegas said:

I agree that current league status can dictate where a player goes. I’m not saying Bournemouth are a bigger club than Derby.

I’m saying West Ham are, and in my lifetime, always have been.

I’m also saying Derby aren’t a bigger club than Palace, Leicester, Forest, Stoke, West Brom, Birmingham etc. We are similar sized clubs with a few differences such as a few K in attendance, some trophies 50+ years ago. 

We all have the same ceiling therefore we are more or less equal.

West Ham have a higher ceiling. 

Derby are bigger club than all the clubs you mention , Birmingham Palace and Stoke more so...no way are Palace a bigger club than us 

Leeds are a big club as are Sheff Weds,Sunderland, and West Ham and bigger than us I'd say but Middlesbrough aren't for example

What makes you think Palace are bigger club than us , we average bigger crowds, larger fan base, won the league more times and a sign of a big club is what the home attendances are .....how can you be a big club with 21000 at home when we get 27000 in L1

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

10 minutes ago, S8TY said:

Derby are bigger club than all the clubs you mention , Birmingham Palace and Stoke more so...no way are Palace a bigger club than us 

Leeds are a big club as are Sheff Weds,Sunderland, and West Ham and bigger than us I'd say but Middlesbrough aren't for example

What makes you think Palace are bigger club than us , we average bigger crowds, larger fan base, won the league more times and a sign of a big club is what the home attendances are .....how can you be a big club with 21000 at home when we get 27000 in L1

I'd give you these as big clubs.  West Ham never and Leeds had  a good ten years but were a nothing side till the 60's and had 4 or 5 good years in the last 50.  

[europia]

It's probably fair to say that there are 'smaller' clubs in the PL than Derby County, but many of those mentioned are better performing clubs on and off the field, and that's what counts if we are measuring levels of success. 

Just an observation also, regarding the geographical aspect, considering the likes of Bournemouth, Brighton, Palace, Fulham, Brentford. Perhaps considered more attractive for investment, player recruitment etc, due to southern location? 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

1 minute ago, europia said:

It's probably fair to say that there are 'smaller' clubs in the PL than Derby County, but many of those mentioned are better performing clubs on and off the field, and that's what counts if we are measuring levels of success. 

Just an observation also, regarding the geographical aspect, considering the likes of Bournemouth, Brighton, Palace, Fulham, Brentford. Perhaps considered more attractive for investment, player recruitment etc, due to southern location? 

Todays results from Canon League Division 3, 26 May 1983,  Football insanity.

[alram]

my worry is less now but for the future. i do worry about the younger generation as with leicester and forest having good runs in the premier league we have the potential to be left behind by that generation. my grandson goes to school in the borderlands and there are fewer and fewer derby fans and forest seem keen on a new stadium on the border

Edited May 26 by alram

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

 

4 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

Size of the club for me is on potential, global reputation and the probability of a player joining your club over another.

The latter comes down to finances and current position. Currently Bournemouth could buy our best player, we couldn’t attract theirs. That can change in 5 years.

But on the whole, the bigger clubs have bigger finances.

And when Derby and West Ham were both in the PL, our two better players left us for them in a move up the ladder.

Palace, Brighton, Derby, Forest, Leicester, Birmingham, Wolves, West Brom, Stoke, Sheff Wed, Sheff Utd, Hull, Coventry, Middlesbrough, Swansea, Cardiff, Blackburn, Bolton.

We are all clubs who will find our natural place between PL bottom 10 and Championship as that is where we are in terms of club size.

As I mentioned.  It was Derby looking to move them on , not West Ham making an offer and them demanding to go. 

[S8TY]

25 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

I'd give you these as big clubs.  West Ham never and Leeds had  a good ten years but were a nothing side till the 60's and had 4 or 5 good years in the last 50.  

Nothing to do with how you've faired over the years or how successful you've been...Leeds would get 30K plus in any division I'd say and so would Sheff Weds because they are big clubs big fan base and lots of tradition

WestHam are now getting big attendances but you can put any team in a 60K stadium and the crowd would be a gauge for how big that club is...MK Dons can only get a few thousand in there stadium so ground size is irrelevant,unless you need a bigger stadium Leeds will always have a big following , Bournemouth won't even if they stayed in the prem for another ten years , the size of the club is measured by how many people will follow you through the turnstiles....This is why Forest can win as many European Cups as they like but they are NOT as big a club as us Forest would not get 27000 in L1 like we just did ...Villa would still get 30K plus 

Bournemouth would not waste there money on a new 50,000 stadium as they wouldn't fill it and if came down to championship or L1 would probably only get 10K through the door , Sheff Weds and Leeds would get 30-40K in the premier 

Size of club is surely measured on the interest from the public how can you be defined as a so called big club yet only get 20k to actually want to watch it at a home game 

[Crewton]

4 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

And when Derby and West Ham were both in the PL, our two better players left us for them in a move up the ladder.

They weren't moving to play Infront of bigger crowds because we averaged 4,000 per game than them for 4 consecutive seasons, despite them having 4 big London derbys each season. They were simply financially doping more than we were and offering bigger wages. So far ahead of us in the "ladder" were they that they were relegated one year later than we were.

[Bris Vegas]

It seems most people are just using attendances as the main factor in club size.

That’s your opinion. But I think it doesn’t make much sense.

Derby aren’t a bigger club than Villarreal.

West Ham aren’t a bigger club than Liverpool.

The 5k difference in stadium attendances between clubs means so little in the grand scheme of things.

I think Derby are a well supported club, top 15 in England in terms of numbers through the door. But that doesn’t make us a big club.

Edited May 27 by Bris Vegas

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

1 hour ago, S8TY said:

Nothing to do with how you've faired over the years or how successful you've been...Leeds would get 30K plus in any division I'd say and so would Sheff Weds because they are big clubs big fan base and lots of tradition

WestHam are now getting big attendances but you can put any team in a 60K stadium and the crowd would be a gauge for how big that club is...MK Dons can only get a few thousand in there stadium so ground size is irrelevant,unless you need a bigger stadium Leeds will always have a big following , Bournemouth won't even if they stayed in the prem for another ten years , the size of the club is measured by how many people will follow you through the turnstiles....This is why Forest can win as many European Cups as they like but they are NOT as big a club as us Forest would not get 27000 in L1 like we just did ...Villa would still get 30K plus 

Bournemouth would not waste there money on a new 50,000 stadium as they wouldn't fill it and if came down to championship or L1 would probably only get 10K through the door , Sheff Weds and Leeds would get 30-40K in the premier 

Size of club is surely measured on the interest from the public how can you be defined as a so called big club yet only get 20k to actually want to watch it at a home game 

Fair enough if attendance is a barometer  It is, but I tend to look at years in the top flight,  quality of signings over years, top half finishes etc as well.  Re Leeds, they averaged about 3k lower than us in League 1 and that was boosted by a 38k crowd against someone in the last game of the season, so probably  about 23k in reality.  Id imagine Sheff Wed probably same as us.  Sunderland got bigger crowds.