How do you define how “big” a club is?

[ChippenhamRed]

I made the claim on twitter earlier that we are the biggest club never to have played Premier League football.

To my mind, the size of a club is less about what it has won and more to do with the size of its fanbase and its whole infrastructure.

We regularly attract crowds of 20k+, we are capable of taking 45k to a JPT final against Walsall, we have a fantastic modern 27k stadium and first rate training facilities. All of which, I think, makes us the “biggest” club never to have played in the Premier League.

I’ve since had a debate with someone on twitter who thinks Preston, Notts County and Millwall are all bigger than us. Millwall is clearly a nonsense claim on any measure, but the argument for Preston and Notts County is on the basis of honours.

So, how do YOU define how “big” a club is? And do you agree with are the biggest not to play in the PL? And who are the contenders for that unwanted title?!

Twitter debate here:

 

[The Fat Controller]

Honestly my perception is mostly influenced by each clubs performance through my childhood. It's a weird metric for sure. 

It means sides like Crawley and Stevenage and Burton are absolute no marks in my head whereas the likes of Leeds and Villa and Norwich will always seem like relatively big clubs even when they've dropped down the divisions. 

Still can't wrap my head around Bournemouth being in the top division. 

[BCFCGav]

For me, honours is the first and foremost metric in the ‘club size’ debate. That’s what this is all about after all, winning things. But all the metrics you’ve mentioned do also play a role, just to a lesser extent imo.

Edited September 27, 2023 by BCFCGav

[Red-Robbo]

6 minutes ago, sinenomine said:

Honestly my perception is mostly influenced by each clubs performance through my childhood. It's a weird metric for sure. 

It means sides like Crawley and Stevenage and Burton are absolute no marks in my head whereas the likes of Leeds and Villa and Norwich will always seem like relatively big clubs even when they've dropped down the divisions. 

Still can't wrap my head around Bournemouth being in the top division. 

Yet Bournemouth is a bigger metropolitan area than Newcastle and certainly far bigger than Luton or Burnley. Cherries' fans argue that the club would be bigger historically, were it not for the unremitting hostility of the local authority there to them moving to a bigger stadium. 

TBH you're right and clubs' fortunes ebb and flow and our perception is based on the order we knew when we got interested in football. When the PL was formed it contained Wimbledon and Oldham. Some clubs we think of as big, say, Chelsea, our grandfathers wouldn't have.

I think the size of the club therefore is based on current fanbase - not who got 58,000 in an all-standing public safety nightmare in 1926 - combined with recent honours, say last 50 years. And "average" division played in during the club's lifetime. Our average is second tier, which does not make us a big club in my books or most others.  However, to argue that Notts County are bigger than us today because they won the FA Cup twice in Victorian times is clearly ridiculous. The County fan I know would never make that claim. 

[ChippenhamRed]

24 minutes ago, BCFCGav said:

For me, honours is the first and foremost metric in the ‘club size’ debate. That’s what this is all about after all, winning things. But all the metrics you’ve mentioned do also play a role, just to a lesser extent imo.

Fair enough and I do appreciate that argument. But using that metric, Wigan with one FA Cup are a bigger club than us. And I just can’t get on board with that!

[MC RISK77]

53 minutes ago, sinenomine said:

Honestly my perception is mostly influenced by each clubs performance through my childhood. It's a weird metric for sure. 

It means sides like Crawley and Stevenage and Burton are absolute no marks in my head whereas the likes of Leeds and Villa and Norwich will always seem like relatively big clubs even when they've dropped down the divisions. 

Still can't wrap my head around Bournemouth being in the top division. 

Yep same here and honours- I even look at clubs like QPR who won a league cup when I first started getting into football as a relatively big club

Just now, MC RISK77 said:

Yep same here and honours- I even look at clubs like QPR who won a league cup when I first started getting into football as a relatively big club

Edit were runners up to Oxford even 

[The turtle]

You'd certainly argue Preston are a club with a deeper history, but bigger?

Fanbase, honours and when, stadium, tradition.

I think city are near the top, or top.

.......

Just as an extended point.

City, Coventry, sheffield weds, watford , Portsmouth, Burnley, Derby, Blackpool, Reading.

how would you put those 9 in order?

 

[ChippenhamRed]

Just now, The turtle said:

You'd certainly argue Preston are a club with a deeper history, but bigger?

Fanbase, honours and when, stadium, tradition.

I think city are near the top, or top.

.......

Just as an extended point.

City, Coventry, sheffield weds, watford , Portsmouth, Burnley, Derby, Blackpool, Reading.

how would you put those 9 in order?

 

Someone needs to come up with a scoring system that gives points for honours, stadium size, infrastructure, average attendance and average league position. Problem is we’d all argue over the weighting of those points!

[Porto Red]

1 hour ago, ChippenhamRed said:

I made the claim on twitter earlier that we are the biggest club never to have played Premier League football.

To my mind, the size of a club is less about what it has won and more to do with the size of its fanbase and its whole infrastructure.

We regularly attract crowds of 20k+, we are capable of taking 45k to a JPT final against Walsall, we have a fantastic modern 27k stadium and first rate training facilities. All of which, I think, makes us the “biggest” club never to have played in the Premier League.

I’ve since had a debate with someone on twitter who thinks Preston, Notts County and Millwall are all bigger than us. Millwall is clearly a nonsense claim on any measure, but the argument for Preston and Notts County is on the basis of honours.

So, how do YOU define how “big” a club is? And do you agree with are the biggest not to play in the PL? And who are the contenders for that unwanted title?!

Twitter debate here:

 

Agree with your reasoning. Historical honours were often gained so far back in time that the teams concerned hadn't even established their place in what would develop into a pecking order over the subsequent decades. Fanbase has to be the most logical definition, and by that measure, it's us, hands down. 

[archie andrews]

29 minutes ago, MC RISK77 said:

Yep same here and honours- I even look at clubs like QPR who won a league cup when I first started getting into football as a relatively big club

Edit were runners up to Oxford even 

Runners up 86 but won it in 67 even swindon won it in 69 more honours than us too.... 

[Clevedon Red]

27 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

Someone needs to come up with a scoring system that gives points for honours, stadium size, infrastructure, average attendance and average league position. Problem is we’d all argue over the weighting of those points!

That sounds like a job for @Davefevs 

[Midred]

What's not been mentioned so far is how the media "rate" clubs. Leeds for example were big in the 70's and whether they're in the PL or league one they will still be the "chosen clubs". Also how many televised matches they get.

[ExiledAjax]

It's all about language. The word "big" is just too vague, too nebulous, and is used to cover too many variables. People fight over what that word means rather than which club is actually the most noteworthy club to have not played in the PL.

IMO clubs like Notts County, Oldham, Preston North End etc are historic clubs, notable clubs, perhaps even venerable clubs. But that is different to being a "big" club, which is more determined by more modern metrics such as those discussed above. 

At its most simple the word "big" quantifies the size of something. So stadium capacity, away fan numbers, ST holders, maybe social media followers in the modern age, etc are the most natural measures by which to judge it.

On that basis yes we probably are the "biggest" club not to have played in the top flight since the PL was established. 

 

[redkev]

1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

Yet Bournemouth is a bigger metropolitan area than Newcastle and certainly far bigger than Luton or Burnley. Cherries' fans argue that the club would be bigger historically, were it not for the unremitting hostility of the local authority there to them moving to a bigger stadium. 

TBH you're right and clubs' fortunes ebb and flow and our perception is based on the order we knew when we got interested in football. When the PL was formed it contained Wimbledon and Oldham. Some clubs we think of as big, say, Chelsea, our grandfathers wouldn't have.

I think the size of the club therefore is based on current fanbase - not who got 58,000 in an all-standing public safety nightmare in 1926 - combined with recent honours, say last 50 years. And "average" division played in during the club's lifetime. Our average is second tier, which does not make us a big club in my books or most others.  However, to argue that Notts County are bigger than us today because they won the FA Cup twice in Victorian times is clearly ridiculous. The County fan I know would never make that claim. 

When ever I go to Bournemouth wether it be football / work / social visit ( on the piss ) it just doesn’t have the feel of a football town / area 

[Lew-T]

34 minutes ago, The turtle said:

You'd certainly argue Preston are a club with a deeper history, but bigger?

Fanbase, honours and when, stadium, tradition.

I think city are near the top, or top.

.......

Just as an extended point.

City, Coventry, sheffield weds, watford , Portsmouth, Burnley, Derby, Blackpool, Reading.

how would you put those 9 in order?

 

Random one… but I’ll try.

Sheffield Wednesday

Derby

Burnley

Pompey

Coventry

Watford

City

Reading

Blackpool

[Zookeeper WSM]

1 hour ago, BCFCGav said:

For me, honours is the first and foremost metric in the ‘club size’ debate. That’s what this is all about after all, winning things. But all the metrics you’ve mentioned do also play a role, just to a lesser extent imo.

For me the only metric to define a big club is attendances (consistently over several years whilst taking into account success / lack of). I actually think that honours and recent years in the top flight reduce how big the club is relative to their attendances. Ie, a club that averages 21/22k consistently over years like us despite no honours or recent top flight exposure is bigger than one that gets the same crowds but has had some success (eg, Burnley, Cardiff, Watford). There's definitely a spreadsheet asking to be created to measure this!

[One Team]

1 hour ago, BCFCGav said:

For me, honours is the first and foremost metric in the ‘club size’ debate. That’s what this is all about after all, winning things. But all the metrics you’ve mentioned do also play a role, just to a lesser extent imo.

Completely agree. The other aspects do play a part but first and foremost its honours achieved, and of those prioritised based on level they were achieved at (league cup win trumping league trophy win, Championship title trumping league one title etc.). 

[The turtle]

23 minutes ago, Lew-T said:

Random one… but I’ll try.

Sheffield Wednesday

Derby

Burnley

Pompey

Coventry

Watford

City

Reading

Blackpool

I think it's a decent stab. Only team which seems out of place is Burnley.

Sheffield Wednesday

Derby

Pompey

Coventry

Watford

Burnley 

City

Reading

Blackpool

.....

I'm not even that happy with Burnley above city. I mean they are a well run club sure, but look at their success and still only 15-20k attendance. (Granted it's half the town)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lew-T]

1 minute ago, The turtle said:

I think it's a decent stab. Only team which seems out of place is Burnley.

Sheffield Wednesday

Derby

Pompey

Coventry

Watford

Burnley 

City

Reading

Blackpool

.....

I'm not even that happy with Burnley above city. I mean they are a well run club sure, but look at their success and still only 15-20k attendance. (Granted it's half the town)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah I’m not sure why I’ve put Burnley that high. Mistake on my part!

I agree with yours.

[ChippenhamRed]

37 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

It's all about language. The word "big" is just too vague, too nebulous, and is used to cover too many variables. People fight over what that word means rather than which club is actually the most noteworthy club to have not played in the PL.

IMO clubs like Notts County, Oldham, Preston North End etc are historic clubs, notable clubs, perhaps even venerable clubs. But that is different to being a "big" club, which is more determined by more modern metrics such as those discussed above. 

At its most simple the word "big" quantifies the size of something. So stadium capacity, away fan numbers, ST holders, maybe social media followers in the modern age, etc are the most natural measures by which to judge it.

On that basis yes we probably are the "biggest" club not to have played in the top flight since the PL was established. 

 

Great post! You’re right, “big” is far too vague really and it can be defined so many different ways. But equally, how often do we hear teams described as “a big club”! It’s a very common turn of phrase within football, without any agreement on what that actually means.

[ChippenhamRed]

4 minutes ago, The turtle said:

I think it's a decent stab. Only team which seems out of place is Burnley.

Sheffield Wednesday

Derby

Pompey

Coventry

Watford

Burnley 

City

Reading

Blackpool

.....

I'm not even that happy with Burnley above city. I mean they are a well run club sure, but look at their success and still only 15-20k attendance. (Granted it's half the town)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think the “half the town” thing is to a lot of club’s credit - Burnley being one of them. But I don’t think it’s part of the criteria for being a big club. That surely has to be measured in absolute terms; one club against another.

[Lew-T]

5 minutes ago, The turtle said:

I think it's a decent stab. Only team which seems out of place is Burnley.

Sheffield Wednesday

Derby

Pompey

Coventry

Watford

Burnley 

City

Reading

Blackpool

.....

I'm not even that happy with Burnley above city. I mean they are a well run club sure, but look at their success and still only 15-20k attendance. (Granted it's half the town)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gotta give it to Burnley though. Decent history, and always there or there abouts.

Considering the size of the town.

[ChippenhamRed]

13 minutes ago, One Team said:

Completely agree. The other aspects do play a part but first and foremost its honours achieved, and of those prioritised based on level they were achieved at (league cup win trumping league trophy win, Championship title trumping league one title etc.). 

But are you really comfortable saying Wigan are a bigger club than us on the basis of their one FA Cup win?

That just doesn’t sit right. Surely it’s about more than purely honours.

 

[Lew-T]

1 minute ago, ChippenhamRed said:

But are you really comfortable saying Wigan are a bigger club than us on the basis of their one FA Cup win?

That just doesn’t sit right. Surely it’s about more than purely honours.

 

Blackpool have won the FA Cup once, but I’ve got them bottom of my list.

I don’t think anybody can define what makes a big club. It’s all down to opinions isn’t it? I know that’s stating the obvious.

[Aberdeen Pete's Dad]

Sheffield Wed

Derby

Coventry

Burnley 

City

Portsmouth

Watford

Blackpool

Reading

 

Burnley have played a great number of seasons in the top division. You could argue Portsmouth are bigger than City but they have not done much since 1949. I know they won the cup but they have played a lot of season in league 1 and 2. 

Watford are basically a third tier club and will probably return there again soon

 

 

 

[redkev]

As per title 

How many tents ( stands it has ) 

[Gazred]

We have unfulfilled potential. That's how I'd class us.

[BarnzFM]

Commercial Revenue 

 

that’s tongue in cheek before anyone gets their knickers in a twist 

[cidercity1987]

1 hour ago, The turtle said:

You'd certainly argue Preston are a club with a deeper history, but bigger?

Fanbase, honours and when, stadium, tradition.

I think city are near the top, or top.

.......

Just as an extended point.

City, Coventry, sheffield weds, watford , Portsmouth, Burnley, Derby, Blackpool, Reading.

how would you put those 9 in order?

 

Based on size of fanbase in similar league position

Big clubs  Sheff Wed Derby

Medium City Coventry Pompey

Small Burnley Reading Watford

Tiny Blackpool

[Red-Robbo]

1 hour ago, redkev said:

When ever I go to Bournemouth wether it be football / work / social visit ( on the piss ) it just doesn’t have the feel of a football town / area 

Do Clifton, Hotwells, Stokes Croft or Bristol City Centre have that feel? Probably not either.

There are lots of working-class areas of Bournemouth/Poole/Christchurch - and despite its rep, it actually has a lower-than-UK average age of population. Thing is, with the local club kept artificially small by the Hyacinth Bucket's on the council, lots of the population are glory hunters, particularly of the big London clubs.  

My friends who live there say since promotion it's been virtually impossible to get home tickets unless you're a regular ST holder. 

 

[Lew-T]

22 minutes ago, Aberdeen Pete's Dad said:

Sheffield Wed

Derby

Coventry

Burnley 

City

Portsmouth

Watford

Blackpool

Reading

 

Burnley have played a great number of seasons in the top division. You could argue Portsmouth are bigger than City but they have not done much since 1949. I know they won the cup but they have played a lot of season in league 1 and 2. 

Watford are basically a third tier club and will probably return there again soon

 

 

 

Sorry, we are not bigger than Pompey.

[redkev]

8 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Do Clifton, Hotwells, Stokes Croft or Bristol City Centre have that feel? Probably not either.

There are lots of working-class areas of Bournemouth/Poole/Christchurch - and despite its rep, it actually has a lower-than-UK average age of population. Thing is, with the local club kept artificially small by the Hyacinth Bucket's on the council, lots of the population are glory hunters, particularly of the big London clubs.  

My friends who live there say since promotion it's been virtually impossible to get home tickets unless you're a regular ST holder. 

 

I’m sorry for having an opinion  just jesting it’s just how I feel when I’m down that neck of the woods which isn’t that often tbf . Bournemouth doesn’t do it for me I’m afraid 

[Major Isewater]

We are just massive. 

[archie andrews]

1 hour ago, Lew-T said:

Random one… but I’ll try.

Sheffield Wednesday

Derby

Burnley

Pompey

Coventry

Watford

City

Reading

Blackpool

Id put derby top of that pile easy.... 

[southside]

The definitive word here is "is",  not "was"

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Clevedon Red said:

That sounds like a job for @Davefevs 

CBA

[Bristol Oil Services]

The big clubs take thousands away, midweek, the other end of the country - yer Arsenals, Spurs, Chelseas, West Hams, Liverpools, Evertons; Man City & Utd; Leeds; Newcastle, Sunderlands; Sheffield Wednesdays; Bristol Rovers - week after week, year after year. To the same grounds they've already been to, many, many times.

[Bristol Oil Services]

Aston Villers, don't forget them.

[Bris Red]

This topic must get brought up at least 3 or 4 times a year i would say.

Never going to be a right or wrong answer, its a debate that will forever just go around in circles..

[One Team]

1 hour ago, ChippenhamRed said:

But are you really comfortable saying Wigan are a bigger club than us on the basis of their one FA Cup win?

That just doesn’t sit right. Surely it’s about more than purely honours.

 

No I’m not, as I mentioned in my post honours is the top one for me but the others play a part too. 

[BCFCGav]

1 hour ago, Zookeeper WSM said:

For me the only metric to define a big club is attendances (consistently over several years whilst taking into account success / lack of). I actually think that honours and recent years in the top flight reduce how big the club is relative to their attendances. Ie, a club that averages 21/22k consistently over years like us despite no honours or recent top flight exposure is bigger than one that gets the same crowds but has had some success (eg, Burnley, Cardiff, Watford). There's definitely a spreadsheet asking to be created to measure this!

For me that’s a measure of support rather than club size. But club size is so open ended as a term, it’s very open to individual interpretation so there’s no real right or wrong. One thing we can all agree on is we are a well supported club, which beggars belief based on some recent seasons

[BS13 Robin]

The biggest club never to have played in the Premier League has to be Rovers,they sell out every game home and away,have a new stadium every 10 years,40000 locked out every week a top manager need i go on ....................................................

[stephenkibby.]

Plymouth must be the bigest club never to play in the top flight.

Always had crowds on a par with us when were at the same level. Superb away following,at least matches ours.

Don't care to much for the Premier league debate it's like football never existed before.

[pillred]

30 minutes ago, stephenkibby. said:

Plymouth must be the bigest club never to play in the top flight.

Always had crowds on a par with us when were at the same level. Superb away following,at least matches ours.

Don't care to much for the Premier league debate it's like football never existed before.

Our average is around 6000 more than theirs this season though.

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

Hilarious thread.  We are the most underachieving club in Western Europe, and people want to rate us as a ‘bigger club’ than the likes of Burnley and Portsmouth.  Is there a prize for bigness in football?  No, it’s all about success on the field and in my lifetime we’ve had four seasons in the top division, three of them struggling, and one FA Cup quarter final.  Be real.

Edited September 27, 2023 by The Dolman Pragmatist

[stephenkibby.]

4 minutes ago, pillred said:

Our average is around 6000 more than theirs this season though.

Pretty difficult for them to match us with a capacity of under 17.000 . 

 

[MattWSM]

3 hours ago, Lew-T said:

Sorry, we are not bigger than Pompey.

or Rovers, they are massive

[sglosbcfc]

3 hours ago, Bristol Oil Services said:

The big clubs take thousands away, midweek, the other end of the country - yer Arsenals, Spurs, Chelseas, West Hams, Liverpools, Evertons; Man City & Utd; Leeds; Newcastle, Sunderlands; Sheffield Wednesdays; Bristol Rovers - week after week, year after year. To the same grounds they've already been to, many, many times.

I think you'll find Rovers take tens of thousands away with them every week, not just thousands. And when they get to Wembley, ignore the official crowd of 50,000, because you can be assured there will be at least 55,000 Gasheads in the ground before you even count the other team's supporters.

[pillred]

1 hour ago, stephenkibby. said:

Pretty difficult for them to match us with a capacity of under 17.000 . 

 

It's actually 18,600, but I get your point, not sure if that is before segregation etc.

Edited September 27, 2023 by pillred

[weepywall]

8 hours ago, stephenkibby. said:

Plymouth must be the bigest club never to play in the top flight.

Always had crowds on a par with us when were at the same level. Superb away following,at least matches ours.

Don't care to much for the Premier league debate it's like football never existed before.

Don't like Plymouth but their away support is far better than ours considering the distances they have to travel.

[LondonRobin]

Biggest club imo is Inverness Caledonian Thistle. While Bury one of the smallest - We are somewhere in between 

[ExiledAjax]

12 hours ago, ChippenhamRed said:

Great post! You’re right, “big” is far too vague really and it can be defined so many different ways. But equally, how often do we hear teams described as “a big club”! It’s a very common turn of phrase within football, without any agreement on what that actually means.

Personally, and this is just my opinion, I think that often when someone described a club as a "big" club what they mean is "a club that's important at a national level". The criteria you use to define that is then important. 

There's also the point that we can be the biggest club to have never been in the PL, and simultaneously not be a Big Club. 

All I know is the "look" you get when someone asks "who's your team then" at a party or in the pub or on your first day in the office. You say "Bristol City". And they miss a beat. Their face glazes over. They are wracking their brain for something, anything, ANYTHING, to say about us. Eventually you might get an "oh yeh we bought [player] from you didn't we". And then the conversation moves back to their team.

Just my anecdotal evidence that we are not a Big Club. We're medium sized. 

But we can still be the biggest club to have never played PL football.

12 hours ago, BarnzFM said:

Commercial Revenue

The elephant in the room of miserable metrics by which to measure size of a club. Not an enjoyable one to use, but to be honest probably the one that gets you closest to the truth.

[Tinmans Love Child]

What is the list of clubs to have never played in the Prem?  That would be a better list to look at and compare us against, rather than comparing to clubs who have been in the prem.

Looking at championship teams this season it's only Us, Preston, Plymouth, Millwall, Rotherham who havnt played in the Prem.  You could argue between us, Plymouth and Preston but we defo sit above the other two on most measures I can think of.

From the other leagues I don't think there is any other club of note to get in this list who HASNT played in the Prem yet.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Tinmans Love Child

[myol'man]

13 hours ago, ChippenhamRed said:

Someone needs to come up with a scoring system that gives points for honours, stadium size, infrastructure, average attendance and average league position. Problem is we’d all argue over the weighting of those points!

Duckworth Lewis?

[fisherrich]

15 hours ago, ChippenhamRed said:

I made the claim on twitter earlier that we are the biggest club never to have played Premier League football.

To my mind, the size of a club is less about what it has won and more to do with the size of its fanbase and its whole infrastructure.

We regularly attract crowds of 20k+, we are capable of taking 45k to a JPT final against Walsall, we have a fantastic modern 27k stadium and first rate training facilities. All of which, I think, makes us the “biggest” club never to have played in the Premier League.

I’ve since had a debate with someone on twitter who thinks Preston, Notts County and Millwall are all bigger than us. Millwall is clearly a nonsense claim on any measure, but the argument for Preston and Notts County is on the basis of honours.

So, how do YOU define how “big” a club is? And do you agree with are the biggest not to play in the PL? And who are the contenders for that unwanted title?!

Twitter debate here:

 

To go from small club to BIG club, you do have to have played against the best in he Premiership. Bristol City haven’t, so small club still IMO.

[WWred]

The big clubs are just the "big clubs" now.. I can't see what will change that

 

You've got players leaving clubs like Brighton - a club in the absolute form of their life looking to break into the top 4/6 still leaving to play for the likes of Chelsea or Liverpool rather than staying where they are trying to build something

 

When Leicester won the league players still left for these "big clubs".. 

 

It is what it is now we're too late to become a big club 

[Davefevs]

38 minutes ago, fisherrich said:

To go from small club to BIG club, you do have to have played against the best in he Premiership. Bristol City haven’t, so small club still IMO.

So, it’s all 1992 onwards then?

[Tinmans Love Child]

15 minutes ago, WWred said:

The big clubs are just the "big clubs" now.. I can't see what will change that

 

You've got players leaving clubs like Brighton - a club in the absolute form of their life looking to break into the top 4/6 still leaving to play for the likes of Chelsea or Liverpool rather than staying where they are trying to build something

 

When Leicester won the league players still left for these "big clubs".. 

 

It is what it is now we're too late to become a big club 

Agreed, look at Newcastle, nearly 60k stadium, loads of prem experience, champions league, all the rest of it, but still won't ever be one of the big clubs.  I guess Chelsea and Man City are the ones who have broken into that group due to the money, but they had some form of provenance, I can't see even if we had that level of financial input and we win things that we would ever be considered one of the big clubs 

[2015]

Depends on when you were growing up really.

We're not a 'big' club. We're a club from a big City, but that's where the 'big' ends. 

We have a very average history, i'm sorry to say it.

I also don't think you can measure a big club on major honours nowadays because if you are not Man City, Man Utd, Liverpool, Newcastle, Spurs, Arsenal or Chelsea the chances are it is very unlikely you'd win a major trophy. Leicester are the exception to that rule, I know, but Football was different 30+ years ago and you would have the likes of Wimbledon and Coventry winning the FA Cup and Oxford, Swindon, Norwich winning the League Cup.

Edited September 28, 2023 by 2015

[fisherrich]

1 hour ago, 2015 said:

Depends on when you were growing up really.

We're not a 'big' club. We're a club from a big City, but that's where the 'big' ends. 

We have a very average history, i'm sorry to say it.

I also don't think you can measure a big club on major honours nowadays because if you are not Man City, Man Utd, Liverpool, Newcastle, Spurs, Arsenal or Chelsea the chances are it is very unlikely you'd win a major trophy. Leicester are the exception to that rule, I know, but Football was different 30+ years ago and you would have the likes of Wimbledon and Coventry winning the FA Cup and Oxford, Swindon, Norwich winning the League Cup.

Agreed - Which is precisely what Bristol City is - average at best.

[Red-Robbo]

15 hours ago, redkev said:

I’m sorry for having an opinion  just jesting it’s just how I feel when I’m down that neck of the woods which isn’t that often tbf . Bournemouth doesn’t do it for me I’m afraid 

 

No worries.

I lived there once. Liked the sunny microclimate and beach vibe - and I met some fantastic women there, which means it'll always hold fond memories for me... 

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

It's defined by history for me, although winning a European trophy helps as it puts a club on the global stage (but it's not essential). It's certainly not about money. Johnny come lately's like Manchester City will never be a bigger club than Manchester United and Chelsea will never be bigger than the Arsenal. As for Bristol City we pray for high spits to come but we'll never be bigger than the likes of Southampton, Leeds, Burnley or Forest. 

[Supersonic Robin]

 As others have said, it's hard to define a "big club" because the word "big" is so vague.

The following would be relevant considerations IMO:

1. Current standard / recent achievements (Realistically, the most important thing - how good are you right now? How good have you been in the last decade?)
2. Historical achievements (Useful, but probably the most overrated measure. No one cares if you won the FA Cup in 1904. It has no modern day relevance)
3. Fanbase / Attendances (A good measure. Note that social media followers is an awful way to assess this)
4. Facilities (How big, shiny, modern, and high tech is your stadium and training ground?)
5. Revenue generation / Spending Power (Maybe a bit boring, but realistically a great measure of a business' size)
6. Geographical Significance (Are you the biggest club in your city/county? How big is the area your club dominates? After all, clubs represent places and people)

19 hours ago, ChippenhamRed said:

I made the claim on twitter earlier that we are the biggest club never to have played Premier League football.

To my mind, the size of a club is less about what it has won and more to do with the size of its fanbase and its whole infrastructure.

We regularly attract crowds of 20k+, we are capable of taking 45k to a JPT final against Walsall, we have a fantastic modern 27k stadium and first rate training facilities. All of which, I think, makes us the “biggest” club never to have played in the Premier League.

I’ve since had a debate with someone on twitter who thinks Preston, Notts County and Millwall are all bigger than us. Millwall is clearly a nonsense claim on any measure, but the argument for Preston and Notts County is on the basis of honours.

FWIW, I think we're comfortably the biggest club to have never played in the Premier League.

Naturally I'll sound biased on this, but the idea that Millwall, PNE, or Notts f****** County are bigger than us is absolutely laughable.

• In Millwall, you're looking at a club who have achieved a similar amount to us historically, but who are clearly inferior to us in terms of facilities, fanbase, revenues, etc.
   
• PNE are again inferior to us by almost every measure, with the exception of trophies won over 100 years ago. Respectfully, trophies won in the 1800s cannot form part of any serious debate about which club is bigger in 2023.
   
• I'm not even going to bother discussing Notts County, who were playing in the Conference last season. You might as well compare us to Bath City.

 

18 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

IMO clubs like Notts County, Oldham, Preston North End etc are historic clubs, notable clubs, perhaps even venerable clubs. But that is different to being a "big" club, which is more determined by more modern metrics such as those discussed above. 

5 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

All I know is the "look" you get when someone asks "who's your team then" at a party or in the pub or on your first day in the office. You say "Bristol City". And they miss a beat. Their face glazes over. They are wracking their brain for something, anything, ANYTHING, to say about us. Eventually you might get an "oh yeh we bought [player] from you didn't we". And then the conversation moves back to their team.

A couple of very good points here from @ExiledAjax. 

Essentially, there is a difference between being a "big club" and an "interesting club".

Many of the clubs mentioned in this thread are objectively smaller than us, but many of them are also more interesting than we are. They have a 'thing' - an interesting fact or a moment in history. They appear, if only briefly, at some point in the story of English football history, whereas we don't.

Even as a Bristol City fan, I have to acknowledge that, historically speaking, we're one of the least interesting clubs in the top 2-3 divisions of English football.

[Lew-T]

10 hours ago, 2015 said:

Depends on when you were growing up really.

We're not a 'big' club. We're a club from a big City, but that's where the 'big' ends. 

We have a very average history, i'm sorry to say it.

I also don't think you can measure a big club on major honours nowadays because if you are not Man City, Man Utd, Liverpool, Newcastle, Spurs, Arsenal or Chelsea the chances are it is very unlikely you'd win a major trophy. Leicester are the exception to that rule, I know, but Football was different 30+ years ago and you would have the likes of Wimbledon and Coventry winning the FA Cup and Oxford, Swindon, Norwich winning the League Cup.

It is a depressing thought.
 

Because like you mention, the football years ago was more fairly balanced of teams winning trophies. With the money in the Premier League now though, it’s more or less the same 6 teams winning domestic trophies.

We unfortunately missed the boat in the 50s/60s/70s when all sort of teams were picking up trophies. 
 

We won’t get that chance again.

[Supersonic Robin]

2 hours ago, Lew-T said:

It is a depressing thought.
 

Because like you mention, the football years ago was more fairly balanced of teams winning trophies. With the money in the Premier League now though, it’s more or less the same 6 teams winning domestic trophies.

We unfortunately missed the boat in the 50s/60s/70s when all sort of teams were picking up trophies. 
 

We won’t get that chance again.

Agree - I think that's part of the reason we've lagged behind many other teams who, in theory, should be no bigger than us. They had a period of success, and in doing so, grew their brand and fanbase. We didn't have that. 

There is still a chance to win trophies though. Swansea, Birmingham, and Wigan have all won major domestic trophies in the last couple of decades. I wouldn't be surprised to see Brighton or Brentford do the same in the near future. I genuinely believe that winning a domestic trophy isn't completely out of our reach (obviously not anytime soon).