Big club

Lubos left peg

Lubos left peg

Well-known member
What makes a big club??
In the past, before money corrupted the game, a big club was based on how many trophies you won, regarless of league, and how many fans you had....has that changed now?
I'm sitting watching MotD. Man City can't even fill their stadium yet they have arguably some of the best players in the world. Are they a big club now?
I've had countless arguments with my English friends, who try to belittle Celtic due to the league we play in.They claim Celtic arent a big club because of this.
My argument is, that it doesn't matter how many million you can spend. What matters is how many people know your name, how many people know your achievements and how many people know your history. That's what makes you a big club and that's what makes Celtic one of the biggest on the planet.
Not how much cash you can spend in a season trying to buy success.
 
Lubos left peg said:
What makes a big club??
In the past, before money corrupted the game, a big club was based on how many trophies you won, regarless of league, and how many fans you had....has that changed now?
I'm sitting watching MotD. Man City can't even fill their stadium yet they have arguably some of the best players in the world. Are they a big club now?
I've had countless arguments with my English friends, who try to belittle Celtic due to the league we play in.They claim Celtic arent a big club because of this.
My argument is, that it doesn't matter how many million you can spend. What matters is how many people know your name, how many people know your achievements and how many people know your history. That's what makes you a big club and that's what makes Celtic one of the biggest on the planet.
Not how much cash you can spend in a season trying to buy success.
Click to expand...
To me, Man City still isn''t a big club and is only bigged up because some sheik with more money than he knows what to do with was able to get round FFP rules and because of the excessive money spent on the EPL by Sky. I know a lot of people don't like Man U for whatever reasons but, to me, Man U is still a much bigger club than Man City.

Also, even if City were to win the 'Champions' League, they will have done it with mega-million pound players and not a team with one nationality from within 36 miles of the club.
 
Last edited:
Lubos left peg said:
What makes a big club??
In the past, before money corrupted the game, a big club was based on how many trophies you won, regarless of league, and how many fans you had....has that changed now?
I'm sitting watching MotD. Man City can't even fill their stadium yet they have arguably some of the best players in the world. Are they a big club now?
I've had countless arguments with my English friends, who try to belittle Celtic due to the league we play in.They claim Celtic arent a big club because of this.
My argument is, that it doesn't matter how many million you can spend. What matters is how many people know your name, how many people know your achievements and how many people know your history. That's what makes you a big club and that's what makes Celtic one of the biggest on the planet.
Not how much cash you can spend in a season trying to buy success.
Click to expand...
I think its based on few factors/ dimensions

currently the Income of club and its balance sheet dictate the classification of club size financially

The Income of the league a club plays in dictates the potential to become big club

The number of seats filled each match used to dictate the income of club so in past the biggest clubs in world were usually the team with the most fans

But with diversified markets on tv and the arbitrary payments to certain leagues some of the best supported on seats clubs are no longer classd as big clubs.

Also ive seen many games at CP where stadium was not quite full. Did that mean Celtic were a smaller clu that day?

official members of club through season book sales should be factor in distrubution of tv football imo

But that would allow big clubs in small leagues to compete with small clubs in big leagues and well the big leagues dont want that.

i think if sky are prepared to pay bottom club in epl x amount

the top clubs in smaller league should be commanding at least the same as worst tv income of the biggest leagues

And if the sky cant afford that then the payments to bigger leagues should be reduced until that bare minimum can be distributed across the whole of football

since tv football makes it less likely people will go support their local team in smaller leagues

which has double knock on effect across world football

too many good players on benches or reserves not getting the competitive football required to enhance overall standards of game, purely because they can get more money to not play for big league than play at smaller league.

tv is killing game through arbitrary payments to small clubs in big leagues while culling support of lesser leagues and diminishing their ability to add value to overall game
 
smaller clubs in the EPL are financially better paid by sky than bigger clubs in Scotland for one reason only, to prop up the top 6 in England to make the EPL appear competitive, when in fact there are only in the last seasons since 2016, 4 of those 6 that would have been secured the title.
The only club in the EPL to have won the titile since 2015/16 was liecester.


History of the EPL
Since the League began in 1992, there have been seven different winners: Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester City, Blackburn Rovers, Leicester City and Liverpool. Man Utd have had the most success with 13 titles in the 30 seasons so far.

this year the only team likely to win it will be between Man City and Arsenal with close runners been Spurs (unlikely) Chelsea are already to date 7 off the leaders Man City. The EPL is classed best in the world for marketing purposes only and top players are paid highest wages with even lower clubs with no European experience paid handsomely to participate in the sham.
 
boab1916 said:
smaller clubs in the EPL are financially better paid by sky than bigger clubs in Scotland for one reason only, to prop up the top 6 in England to make the EPL appear competitive, when in fact there are only in the last seasons since 2016, 4 of those 6 that would have been secured the title.
The only club in the EPL to have won the titile since 2015/16 was liecester.


History of the EPL
Since the League began in 1992, there have been seven different winners: Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester City, Blackburn Rovers, Leicester City and Liverpool. Man Utd have had the most success with 13 titles in the 30 seasons so far.

this year the only team likely to win it will be between Man City and Arsenal with close runners been Spurs (unlikely) Chelsea are already to date 7 off the leaders Man City. The EPL is classed best in the world for marketing purposes only and top players are paid highest wages with even lower clubs with no European experience paid handsomely to participate in the sham.
Click to expand...
i agree

if sky can divert funds to their leagues then teams not in the cartel cannot hold onto their best players since the tv deal lower fanbase teams can pay better wages not based on any footballing metric or fan base but purely arbitrary

this imbalance creates hyper inflation as bigger clubs outside cartel over extend their finance in hope can compete and they hope to get access to the tv money for the very few who reach group stages of europe with these financially doped clubs.

not every club outside cartel can get the big money of europe due to bias in selection forautomatic spaces

But every club in the cartel gets access to massive biased big money deals.

which further creates financial havoc in leagues outside the tv cartel

that instability in leagues outside cartel creates huge risk of collapse of clubs who should be massive due to fans in seats but are deemed not worthy by tv deals despite huge viewer figures when these cut off clubs do apear on tv. therefore imo that means sky rake in money from big clubs outside their chosen beneficiaries but give it to smaller clubs in their favoured leagues. which should be dealt with by eufa and fifa but they get bungs to keep the game skewed rather than sporting based on actual value added.

the winner is the big leagues who get the arbitrary payment who create the inflation in wages and player prices but can afford to since they get the arbitrary tv payments

conclusion

clubs not in cartel will diminish in quality while their bills get higher and decline

therefore tv money distribution will kill game outside cartel which will diminish overall quality, quality of players declines as wages increase in this arbitrary system

short term its cool

long term it will collapse but by that time too many clubs will be busted
 
Last edited:
Me a canny wait furra Big Bang ti hit the EPL when it does there will be survivors
The rest will fold
Take away the cash and they will die
All the above posters have all given the reason a Club is big. Like the song
If you know our history itā€™s enough to

Money made a 3rd tier team the best in
Engerland
Yet they still wait for Big Ears.

Mon the History
Mon the Hoops

HH šŸ€
 
Lubos left peg said:
My argument is, that it doesn't matter how many million you can spend. What matters is how many people know your name, how many people know your achievements and how many people know your history. That's what makes you a big club and that's what makes Celtic one of the biggest on the planet.
Click to expand...
This pretty much nails it, Lubo. There is much more to a club than dollars and cents -- sorry, pounds and pence.
_Neil_ said:
To me, Man City still isn''t a big club and is only bigged up because some sheik with more money than he knows what to do with was able to get round FFP rules and because of the excessive money spent on the EPL by Sky. I know a lot of people don't like Man U for whatever reasons but, to me, Man U is still a much bigger club than Man City.
Click to expand...
Clubs like Manchester United and Liverpool are much bigger clubs than Manchester City, regardless of the size of the latter's "checkbook." And that has to do more with their history and their reach in the worldwide consciousness than how many players a club can buy. Man City has purchased great players, no doubt, and has put together a good team, but the club is now pretty much "soulless," for lack of a better term, no matter how many verses of "Blue Moon" they sing. But they lack the history and the reach that makes clubs great.

Same with Newcastle United, which went from the frying pan of Mike Ashley to the fire of "sportswashing" thanks to a fund headed by Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman. There's a lot of history there that's cancelled out by the recent fund and, I can't find it, but there was a fake "third" kit going around for NUFC with murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi's picture on it (I can't find it, otherwise I'd post it). You're known by the company you keep, or by the ownership that pulls the pursestrings of your club.

So, yeah, technically you can be a "big club" if you pump billions of dollars/pounds/euros into it, but it takes more than that to be a big club in the wider sense. And to Celtic's credit, they are a big club -- even at the paltry 108 million euros of market value -- by virtue of its history and its reach that covers the globe; arguably bigger than Man City with its 1.06 billion euros valuation.

[As an aside, for the benefit of lurking Huns, let's take a look at the issue of "reach" outside Scotland. When you say "Ranger" to an American sports fan, Sevco doesn't even rank -- first they'll think of New York Rangers in the National Hockey League, then they'll think Texas Rangers, the Dallas area's Major League Baseball franchise. Going further, next they'll think Ford Ranger, a popular pick-up truck.]
 
lcafiero said:
This pretty much nails it, Lubo. There is much more to a club than dollars and cents -- sorry, pounds and pence.

Clubs like Manchester United and Liverpool are much bigger clubs than Manchester City, regardless of the size of the latter's "checkbook." And that has to do more with their history and their reach in the worldwide consciousness than how many players a club can buy. Man City has purchased great players, no doubt, and has put together a good team, but the club is now pretty much "soulless," for lack of a better term, no matter how many verses of "Blue Moon" they sing. But they lack the history and the reach that makes clubs great.

Same with Newcastle United, which went from the frying pan of Mike Ashley to the fire of "sportswashing" thanks to a fund headed by Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman. There's a lot of history there that's cancelled out by the recent fund and, I can't find it, but there was a fake "third" kit going around for NUFC with murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi's picture on it (I can't find it, otherwise I'd post it). You're known by the company you keep, or by the ownership that pulls the pursestrings of your club.

So, yeah, technically you can be a "big club" if you pump billions of dollars/pounds/euros into it, but it takes more than that to be a big club in the wider sense. And to Celtic's credit, they are a big club -- even at the paltry 108 million euros of market value -- by virtue of its history and its reach that covers the globe; arguably bigger than Man City with its 1.06 billion euros valuation.

[As an aside, for the benefit of lurking Huns, let's take a look at the issue of "reach" outside Scotland. When you say "Ranger" to an American sports fan, Sevco doesn't even rank -- first they'll think of New York Rangers in the National Hockey League, then they'll think Texas Rangers, the Dallas area's Major League Baseball franchise. Going further, next they'll think Ford Ranger, a popular pick-up truck.]
Click to expand...
Not forgetting the Lone Ranger
Or as in the case of DeadCo FC...the Loan Arranger
HH
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 405 (members: 2, guests: 403)

Latest posts

Share this page

Back
Top