Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

The Forum - What makes a 'big' club? (Patreon)

Published:
2023-05-30 06:00:02
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Downloads

  • The Forum - What makes a Big club.mp3

Missing 1 full-res photo, 1 file, as this post has not yet been imported.

Content

Martyn welcomes back Adam this week as the boys tackle one of the most common footballing debates over the last two decades: what exactly makes a big club 'big'? Collection of trophies? Transfer spend? Size of crowds? Does history lock in that tag? Can a newly-rich club ever take it? Does any of it matter in the here and now or is it a romantic argument against modern football? 

Files

Previews only

Comments

Greg

Bayern don't really have a rival as such, just whatever team looks to challenge, Dortmund for the last decade but before the klassiker started getting marketed heavily they had a bit of a north south thing with bremen.

Scott Christian

Great topic Martyn and Adam and great discussion. I think the chat around Brighton highlighted to me that a clear criteria to be big is being based in a big city. I can’t think of any club from provincial big towns or smaller cities that I would class as big (Forest the outlier, but they are a strange case insofar as they are deemed big due to a very short period of success followed by a few cup final losers medals). I’d never previously thought of framing “big” around my year of birth but it does match up with the current thoughts. What I do find interesting is that those clubs who are considered supersized all had European Cup success in an era where you probably only had to face 1 or 2 other big teams on your run to glory. Runners-up prior to the tournament becoming the UCL include Reims (x2), Panathinikos, Malmo, Brugge, Steau Bucharest, Partizan Belgrade, Borussia Monchengladbach, St Etienne, Hamburg and Sampdoria. Real Madrid, Liverpool & Man Utd have all clearly reinforced their status with further wins in the more difficult UCL, which I think will always give them the edge over the likes of Man City and Chelsea. Barcelona are an interesting case too. Clearly one of the biggest in the game, probably between them, Real and Utd to argue who is the biggest, but their pre-UCL history was fairly mediocre in the scheme of things. Utd, too, weren’t much to write home about in the biggest competition, but their rise was clearly a different path via the Busby Babes and Munich (prior to that you could easily point to City being equal and if not even the more popular Manchester club) and being in right place at right time during the turbo-charged early EPL era. Another good point about what will today’s youth class as big clubs 20/30 years from now. Take my English team, Man City; right now are they “big”? Yes, of course, but they aren’t anywhere near as “big” as that next echelon. But as time goes on they are creeping up. You now see City shirts everywhere you go in the UK, even when you go abroad and flights are starting to fill from around Europe with match day attending fans. The stadium extension will tip them over 60,000 and they might still struggle to fill it for some domestic cup games or group UCL matches, but you get the feeling if the success is sustained then they will get there. And fans of Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal will all still have a valid argument that City will never be big as it’s manufactured and not organic or they do not have the same footballing history!

Eric Stewart
>>109592360

Let’s not forget that united & Liverpool the great purveyors of history didn’t have that great a history until they had a great massive financial investment to lift them out of the doldrums to success - a success they feel they now have a divine right to always have. Prior to the Matt Busby successes united had a run of 41 years without a trophy and that included going into financial ruin until they were rescued by a rich benefactor. Their history is not one full of success and glory as they’d have you believe and nor is their financial muscle ‘organic’ and virtuous - Louis Edwards, the man who funded the Ferguson era of massive spending, sold rotten meat to Manchester schools. Manchester United twice owe their existence to the benevolence of Manchester City, again something you won’t hear about from the media. Liverpool’s record attendance would barely squeeze into Manchester City’s top thirty all time attendances.

Scott Christian
>>109592360

Oh yes, I agree wholeheartedly Eric. I think the majority of clubs have to have that injection of capital, and organic is possibly the wrong terminology here for those two other clubs, but it’s definitely how their fans would describe their journey to becoming the huge clubs they are today in comparison with the current nouveau riche. Liverpool perhaps the first club to embrace multiple players from afar and they must have had good backing to bring so many on board. I am of course aware of the most successful English side across the first 100 years of league football always having at least one Scot but none to the extent of Liverpool in the 70s/80s. All of what you state feeds nicely into that question of what will kids of today think in the future. Will they care about how it started? It’s only recently (through this network no less) that I’ve started to realise how AC Milan were bankrolled, but I had one of their kits as a kid and I still have some affection for them as a big club, so perhaps it will be City that are above Utd in the big club pecking order by then!

Jay

Great show as always, thanks....not sure about Adam's assertion that Arsenal v Spurs is a huge rivalry though!

Jordan

Ten years younger than yourself, I would never see Chelsea or especially City as a big club. The simple reason is that my footballing elders would have laughed at the notion. Historical memory is a hell of a drug. Although, I suspect the answers you would get from young people here would not be representive since we could be coined as 'legacy' fans who are a bit more keen in football history. I think football prior to 1990s has a prestiges to a lot of people since it is seen as the pure form of the sport before the whole champions league and premier league. Porto and PSV European cup win in 80s will be seen as greater achievement than city despite the fact the European cup was significantly easier to win back then in comparison to now.

Steve23

Very interesting discussion guys, enjoyed that. What’s the greater achievement, all things considered and in the current context - Man City reaching a CL final or Rangers reaching the Europa cup final? Also, on the ‘big clubs spend big money’ statement. I think that’s just a geographical lottery, Burnley, Brighton etc, happen to be in England, the market they operate in more than anything else dictates their respective spending power, nothing at all to do with fan base, stadium capacity, trophy’s won. For me, more than anything else, things like brand recognition and global fanbase play a large part in what defines a big club. Taking those things into account in the context of the market we operate in, makes our club a rather remarkable phenomenon. We have to be considered a big club to carry that off.

Eric Stewart
>>109637620

Manchester City have always been a big club from the very early days, may not have had the silverware to reflect it but still had a respectable haul nonetheless. And City hold the English attendance records(Chelsea were second BTW) - Liverpool’s record attendance would barely male City’s top thirty, and uniteds record crowds were achieved whilst ground sharing at Maine Road and the old Trafford record crowd is for Wolves v Grimsby in the FA Cup. Can you explain why you think it’s okay for United & Liverpool to spend their way out of the doldrums & obscurity but it’s not okay for City & Chelsea who were both already established PL clubs prior to recent ownership investment? (FYI the year prior to the takeover City qualified for the UEFA Cup and did the double over united. )

Eric Stewart

Curious comment from Martyn that Manchester City weren’t successful in the 1960’s & 70’s, you might want to check the record books again 😬 They just had a bad run in the mid 80’s & late 90’s is all 🤷🏻‍♂️

Jordan
>>109637620

With this logic yes but then we would be discussing about how much a big club Wolves and Sunderland which clearly is a nonsense statement? For most people, they remember City being constantly relegated and a bit of irrelevance and that is how the story is usually told. Not the team of the cup winners cup or the record attendance as you pointed out. Well I could point out that Utd and Liverpool are viewed as legitimate business who have millions of customers which has allowed them to grow. Not some excerise in sportwashing for a dodgy Russian Oligarch or the UAE.

Scott Christian
>>109618321

It really is, they despise each other harking back to when Arsenal moved north of the river. Sol Campbell would probably attest to it being quite a bitter rivalry too!

Eric Stewart
>>109637620

Well, the Ferguson era of massive spending at united was funded by Louis Edwards who made money selling rotten meat to schools in Manchester. Liverpools rise out of the lower leagues was funded by money from the pools. How is this deemed more legitimate than somebody making money from a natural resource of their homeland? And FYI City aren’t owned by a state or any government, they are owned privately by three separate groups from three very different countries.

Scott Christian
>>109637620

Not so sure the 80s wins for Porto & PSV will stand the test of time insofar as there were no English clubs in the competition (and the finals themselves were absolutely dire!) Porto’s 2004 victory more impressive. Also worth noting City as a club prior to the EPL had 2 league titles (2nd a further 3 times), 4 FA Cups (+4 runners up), 2 League Cups and won the European Cup Winners Cup in 1970 (as did Chelsea in 1971), so whilst they weren’t the biggest about they certainly were high up the pecking order; and in terms of fanbase the only thing that has traditionally set Liverpool and Man Utd aside from City is the fan from afar. Of course it’s a trope that no Utd fan comes from Manchester but living across the south of the city for many years in late 90s/2000s when they were absolute dugmeat there were still far more City fans in Manchester than Utd (Cheshire & Salford being more red than blue).

Scott Christian
>>109653704

Even with blue-tinted specs, I think Rangers reaching the Europa League Final is a far greater achievement! I’d agree about the global fanbase metric, but I think I am guilty of a bit of snobbery here around Rangers and the global fanbase being largely made up of the Scots & Ulster-Scots diaspora, i.e. they’re traditional fans against those “new fans” from outside the country. But that’s based on me assuming they’ve no emotional ties to their team other than good marketing from whoever they follow.

John Walker
>>109637620

Well said Eric city were always the bigger club in Manchester up until busby. Even lent them strip's and let them play at Maine road.

Jordan
>>109637620

Can I ask what the three common thread thread is about these three groups who own city? It might have to do with a certain oil state within the gulf state. I think comparing selling rotten meat and using pools to the numerous abuses commited in the UAE is a bit of a stretch.

Eric Stewart
>>109637620

One group is Sheikh Mansours own private company, the other two are private investors from USA & China. None of them are a ‘state’, the club are not state owned. So the common thread between them is they are all private companies.

Steve23
>>109653704

I agree Scott, ours was a truly remarkable achievement, off the scale really. Man City not making a UCL final can almost seem like a bit of a failure for them in a perverse sort of way. I don’t really have a feel for what makes up our foreign based support. I always assumed there was at least some tenuous connection through family and past generations. I do wonder how many totally non Scots & Ulster Scots abroad support our club based on our international profile, hard earned through reaching the likes of a major European final. Signing high profile players from foreign shores is another way in, Nigeria, Zambia etc. Then there is the international marketing strategies Bisgrove was in charge of, there will be a set of KPI’s somewhere demonstrating the return for our international marketing budget (assuming there is such a thing) NASRA and all of the other expat clubs across the globe do a very good job of spreading the word outwith our traditional demographic as well.

Martin Davies

Hi Martyn After watching the EL final, a show on play-acting, diving, simulation, etc would be interesting. Why is it now considered acceptable even here in the UK, why don't FIFA/UEFA clamp down on it, why do elite sportsmen feel the need to cheat (and without any sense of shame)? Really enjoying the format and your guests. Martin

Callum Dinnen

When going through the criteria, the 'years spent in the Premier League' measure of a big club is clearly a dig aimed at Man City who have been as low as League One in living memory for anyone who's older than 30. On the Nottingham Forest thing, I think the fact they retained the European Cup is a big factor in why they're viewed as a big club despite only winning 1 league title. Compare them to Aston Villa, who also won the European Cup in the late 70s/early 80s English glory days, and Villa come out far less favourably IMO (despite being at the upper end of the Premier League throughout the 1990s while Forest were relegated twice) probably because of the one-off nature of that success while Liverpool won it 4 times and Forest went back to back. The mythology around Clough helps as well.

Scott Christian
>>109756391

As far as I’m aware prior to Clough Forest were just another small provincial team? I don’t actually think of them as a particularly big team now. Certainly feel Villa are a far bigger side, massive support, tradition, iconic stadium, etc.

Dougie Jones

Just my tuppenceworth - I lived in Manchester for several years in the 90's and saw that the myth of 'true Mancunians support City' was just that - a myth. I found that support for either club was based on the same familial and regional (and to a very mild extent, religious or 'cultural') rationale as any other city.