Can a small club ever become a big club?

[anant]

Organically, it's very very tough to do that. Consider the teams that have been staking a claim to become a 'big team' like Spurs, BVB, Atletico- they've become this big due to some great recruitment and/great hiring of managers. Despite that, they haven't had a dominant spell at the top. Considering these managerial reigns might be coming to an end and these clubs' scouting won't remain as good as it was forever, would they still be retaining the same pull? Don't think so.

Inorganically, clubs can stake a claim to become a top club, but we are yet to see a team become a top club and their sugardaddy owner leave them. While Chelsea can certainly put forward a case of them having become a top club, and City and PSG would be knocking on the door of this exclusive club, it is yet to be seen whether they will hold the same pull without the owner who has invested so heavily in the squad

 

[Jev]

It's just arrogance from United fans. You'd have to be either an idiot or in denial to argue that City (and Chelsea) are not a big club.

 

[JPRouve]

I honestly don't remember anything in between George Weah playing for them and the Qatar takeover.

And that's totally fair, outside of the Ronaldinho years you have no reason to remember the likes of Pancrate and Albert Baning. My point being that in football memories are relatively short, a football cycle is about 5 years.

 

[MsNuno]

"Small club" and "Big club" are statuses that can change over time, they are not necessarily permanent. A century ago the dominant clubs were different from now. Aston Villa may have won 20 trophies but it's ridiculous to suggest they are bigger than Man City right now. City and Chelsea took short cuts thru financial doping to rise to "Big club" status, but that's the current trend. Forest were once a massive club, but they have hit hard times.

Yes being famous or having history are not the same as being a big club, as perceived by the media

 

[Grande]

I see City being called a small club on here all the time, Chelsea used to get called that, too. I don't know whether Chelsea are now accepted as a giant, but it sure feels like they are.

If they are now a giant, I guess this thread is at an abrupt end, but if not, can the likes of City, Chelsea and whoever else who is deemed small ever be seen as big clubs?

If so, what is it that they need to do to become the so-called big club that it so often seems like they're not acknowledged as?

Is Crvena Zvezda from Beograd a giant?
Is Aston Villa a giant? What do you thin bigness is about? Is it like sleek muscles that are steadily strong over the long run, like explosive muscles strong for a short run, or pumped up muscles that make you look big but doesn’t make you particularly strong in any relevant way?

City is certainly pumped up, though with the ‘anaboles’ also used well in terms of building a structure that will likely be around the European top for at least a few years more if their suger daddys keeps up the interest. If you remove them? Well, they have a stadium, a big city location, facilities and human resources that should make them able to retain their ‘size’ or strength fairly well for a period of time after that, so who knows?

Based on the historical birds eye perspective, City is the smaller team from a semi-biggish European city who have had two and a half pretty successful spell in their long history. Chelsea is like West Ham with a small stadium but a decade of success and a European Cup to show for it.

 

[ASHWIT]

On the flipside, can a big club ever stop being a big club? Or once you're big, are you big forever?

Liverpool haven't won a title in nearly 30 years, but they're still a huge club and I don't think they ever stopped being even though they've had quite a few crap seasons. How long would a drought have to last for the club to be knocked down a tier or two?

For me that is the actual test. If Chelsea or City went through the same period Liverpool have they would not maintain their current status and would have to start the journey all over again. The scousers however, have done.

 

[P0GBA]

Sterling? Walker?

Sterling was very good signing but still a young player at the time. If they signed him a couple of years later then I would agree. Walker decent signing but I don't think either are the level of the Torres signing.

 

[padr81]

In fairness, Huddersfield won those almost 100 yeard ago and in consecutive seasons. Enough yo make them a great club? Don't think so.

Great club maybe not, but to dismiss them on the basis there history is older than team x's history is unfair. I understand Villa are the bigger club but I think lumping them with B'Mouth was unfair.

 

[DeGea]

Sustained periods of domination & the passage of time. Nothing else will suffice.

This sums it up pretty well. I don't think we need to discuss it anymore.

 

[OutlawGER]

Question should be can a small club become a big club without a sugar daddy.

Agree, this question came to mind first. Of course you can get a "big club" like Chelsea, PSG and City with a suggar daddy over time. But it takes more than 10 years.


I wonder what a club like Dortmund has to do, to become a "giant". Even if they had the money, they would be considered too small for world class players in their prime.

 

[shamans]

it's really difficult. There was that era where Media/TV was expanding and medium sized clubs gained a massive following and became huge. Arsenal for instance, due to early 2000's rise in football broadcasting around Africa and Asia are a massive club there.

 

[shamans]

Organically, it's very very tough to do that. Consider the teams that have been staking a claim to become a 'big team' like Spurs, BVB, Atletico- they've become this big due to some great recruitment and/great hiring of managers. Despite that, they haven't had a dominant spell at the top. Considering these managerial reigns might be coming to an end and these clubs' scouting won't remain as good as it was forever, would they still be retaining the same pull? Don't think so.

Inorganically, clubs can stake a claim to become a top club, but we are yet to see a team become a top club and their sugardaddy owner leave them. While Chelsea can certainly put forward a case of them having become a top club, and City and PSG would be knocking on the door of this exclusive club, it is yet to be seen whether they will hold the same pull without the owner who has invested so heavily in the squad

City has some world class facilities now and that's infrastructure that will help them long term, sugar daddy or not.

 

[el magico]

Top 6 clubs in England based on domestic success:

1st Man United, 42 trophies
2nd Liverpool 41 trophies
3rd Arsenal 30 trophies
4th Chelsea 22 trophies
5th Aston Villa 20 trophies
6th Everton 15 trophies

Aston Villa probably the one surprising here to the younger people, but they are a proper club and it's a tragedy that they play in the Championship, not good for the Premier League at all, we need clubs like that instead of the likes of Huddersfield and Bournemouth

Spurs and Man City still have alot of work to do in order to get inside this big name company. As of how to determine a big club? I would say, size of the city, fanbase, domestic success and training facilities, stadium size

I assume you are unaware that your list is out of date?

As of today, City are equal with Everton on 15 trophies. Fingers crossed City may win another trophy this year and, therefore go above Everton in your list. Yes, I am aware that Everton have nine titles but its your list not mine.

So, using your own criteria: City play in Manchester, part of the 2nd or 3rd biggest conurbation in the UK. Over the last ten seasons, their attendances have been between 3rd and 5th highest. Domestic success as above (although its worth pointing out that Villa won more than half their trophies over a 100 years ago). City's training facilities must be in the top three. The stadium is the 4th biggest, 5th when Spurs have an actual stadium (but City look set to expand again).

I'm slightly gobsmacked that you produce your own criteria, City clearly fall into about 4th or 5th place and then you come out with this gem: 'Man City still have a lot of work to do in order to get inside this big name company'.

 

[anant]

City has some world class facilities now and that's infrastructure that will help them long term, sugar daddy or not.

But, are they an attractive team to play for if they do not offer CL for a year or two?
We managed to sign AdM, Falcao, Pogba, Zlatan, Mkhi in seasons when we weren't in CL. Sure, we had to pay the players good money, but we earned the money by organic means. For City, once the Sheikhs leave, there is no guarantee that their new owner would be willing to spend as lavishly on the players and their wages.

 

[Fortitude]

But, are they an attractive team to play for if they do not offer CL for a year or two?
We managed to sign AdM, Falcao, Pogba, Zlatan, Mkhi in seasons when we weren't in CL. Sure, we had to pay the players good money, but we earned the money by organic means. For City, once the Sheikhs leave, there is no guarantee that their new owner would be willing to spend as lavishly on the players and their wages.

I think this line gets tossed around too much. We won a different kind of lottery to clubs being picked off the floor by a sugar daddy, but still, our biggest jump in fortunes was a very timely conflation of events. We were literally the right club at the right time and it catapulted us into a different stratosphere despite all our glory and fortune of the 50's and 60's.

Is it right to constantly do others down for not having that great fortune of being the right club at the right time to then have a means for astronomical organic growth?

If there were to be another boom in the marketplace that some club came along just at the inception of, they too could prosper from 'organic growth' that was a byproduct of seriously fortunate financial events, but outside of that, how are small clubs to grow in a game that is structured for giants to always remain giants by plundering others via these means they were fortunate to be a part of?

An interesting club in this respect is Everton - Liverpool and Heysel absolutely destroyed their organic growth and potential by removing Europe from a team that was on the rise. It has been a what if ever since as to where Everton would have been come the end of the 80's and just prior to the PL boom had their growth not being halted. Now, take it to 2019, would it be unfair if they had their rightful shot now under a sugar daddy that they did not get a chance to experience organically during their potential time to ascend in the 80's?

Organic growth is certainly in need of an asterisk for most giant clubs because how they got to where they are usually required great fortune and opportunism at some point that is lost in these discussions most of the time.

 

[flappyjay]

Is Crvena Zvezda from Beograd a giant?
Is Aston Villa a giant? What do you thin bigness is about? Is it like sleek muscles that are steadily strong over the long run, like explosive muscles strong for a short run, or pumped up muscles that make you look big but doesn’t make you particularly strong in any relevant way?

City is certainly pumped up, though with the ‘anaboles’ also used well in terms of building a structure that will likely be around the European top for at least a few years more if their suger daddys keeps up the interest. If you remove them? Well, they have a stadium, a big city location, facilities and human resources that should make them able to retain their ‘size’ or strength fairly well for a period of time after that, so who knows?

Based on the historical birds eye perspective, City is the smaller team from a semi-biggish European city who have had two and a half pretty successful spell in their long history. Chelsea is like West Ham with a small stadium but a decade of success and a European Cup to show for it.

Surely Chelsea's global fan base makes them a big club.

 

[Moriarty]

I see City being called a small club on here all the time, Chelsea used to get called that, too. I don't know whether Chelsea are now accepted as a giant, but it sure feels like they are.

If they are now a giant, I guess this thread is at an abrupt end, but if not, can the likes of City, Chelsea and whoever else who is deemed small ever be seen as big clubs?

If so, what is it that they need to do to become the so-called big club that it so often seems like they're not acknowledged as?

To be fair, City have never been a small club. Chelsea in the 60s and 70s were usually at the top end of the table and they had some very good players. They fell off a bit after Sexton left but I wouldn't classify them as a small club.

 

[Schmeichel's Cartwheel]

PSG, City recently. So yeah, helps with a big fat cash injection like, but yeah.

 

[anant]

I think this line gets tossed around too much. We won a different kind of lottery to clubs being picked off the floor by a sugar daddy, but still, our biggest jump in fortunes was a very timely conflation of events. We were literally the right club at the right time and it catapulted us into a different stratosphere despite all our glory and fortune of the 50's and 60's.

Is it right to constantly do others down for not having that great fortune of being the right club at the right time to then have a means for astronomical organic growth?

If there were to be another boom in the marketplace that some club came along just at the inception of, they too could prosper from 'organic growth' that was a byproduct of seriously fortunate financial events, but outside of that, how are small clubs to grow in a game that is structured for giants to always remain giants by plundering others via these means they were fortunate to be a part of?

An interesting club in this respect is Everton - Liverpool and Heysel absolutely destroyed their organic growth and potential by removing Europe from a team that was on the rise. It has been a what if ever since as to where Everton would have been come the end of the 80's and just prior to the PL boom had their growth not being halted. Now, take it to 2019, would it be unfair if they had their rightful shot now under a sugar daddy that they did not get a chance to experience organically during their potential time to ascend in the 80's?

Organic growth is certainly in need of an asterisk for most giant clubs because how they got to where they are usually required great fortune and opportunism at some point that is lost in these discussions most of the time.

Sure, we were fortunate to have our successful period coinciding with the rise of PL, and then popularity of football in Asia and America. But the thing is that we have pretty much become a self sustaining brand, something Arsenal and Pool and to some extent Chelsea have become as well. Again, all of us were lucky in that aspect that the 4 clubs had something going for them in terms of luck.

But here's the thing, unless City have an era of dominance lasting 20 years or so, and their owner decides to leave, would they be attracting sponsors as big as ours or Arsenal's or Chelsea's? Would they become as famous or as big a name as we have managed to become?

And of course I am not denying luck. There are tons of teams that were hard done by not having their successful era in the late 90s or early 00s- Nottingham Forest and Aston Villa, Everton and all. But that's not the question. Look at City's case. Even though they are winning the league and have assembled among the finest sides ever in PL, there will always remain an * next to their name because of the financial muscle they have exercised. And teams like that don't easily get grouped into the same bucket as Utds, and the Barcelonas and the Bayerns and the Madrids of the world.

 

[Grande]

Surely Chelsea's global fan base makes them a big club.

That depends on how lasting that fanbase is. If Abramovich moved his cash to Spartak Moskva instead, ten years later, how big and broad will that fan base be? Twenty years later?

 

[GlastonSpur]

Top 6 clubs in England based on domestic success:

1st Man United, 42 trophies
2nd Liverpool 41 trophies
3rd Arsenal 30 trophies
4th Chelsea 22 trophies
5th Aston Villa 20 trophies
6th Everton 15 trophies

Aston Villa probably the one surprising here to the younger people, but they are a proper club and it's a tragedy that they play in the Championship, not good for the Premier League at all, we need clubs like that instead of the likes of Huddersfield and Bournemouth

Spurs and Man City still have alot of work to do in order to get inside this big name company. As of how to determine a big club? I would say, size of the city, fanbase, domestic success and training facilities, stadium size

Your figures are wrong.

For example, Spurs have the same number of domestic trophies as Everton .. and more than Everton's total trophy count if you add in European trophies.

You say that Spurs "still have a lot of work to do in order to get inside this big name company", yet we have more trophies in total than Everton, are based in a much bigger city, have a much bigger fanbase, a world-class training centre and soon a much bigger stadium … not to mention a larger, self-earned income.

 

[RochaRoja]

But, are they an attractive team to play for if they do not offer CL for a year or two?
We managed to sign AdM, Falcao, Pogba, Zlatan, Mkhi in seasons when we weren't in CL.

City signed Silva and Touré when they’d never played in the CL.

 

[Cristiano_RAFC]

I consider the following clubs giants of football: Man United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern, Juventus, Milan, Inter.

They all have these things in common in my opinion:
- They are considered household names in European competitions having enjoyed successes and having a long history in European competitions. If they do not compete in Europe for a season, then this big news.
- They have enjoyed a lot of domestic success in leagues with an international appeal.
- They have an enormous amount of fans from anywhere in the world.
- They have good amount of 'legends of the game' that play(ed) for them
- Any of these teams could face gigantic setbacks (bankrupcy, relegation,...), but you feel as though these clubs will always be able to overcome these setbacks because they are too big a brand not to overcome them.
- If one of these teams would go through an unsuccessful era on the field, you would consider them sleeping giants.

Milan and Inter may be going through a bad spell, but somehow I can see them getting it right again eventually which puts them right back in the mix.
Liverpool, even though they haven't won the league since 1990, have always been thereabouts at the top end of the league table.
Arsenal, despite not winning the league for 15 years are still winning cups and they are always sort of 'there' at the top end of the league table.

Can a club become a giant club in the way I define a giant club?
Yes. Chelsea may be close actually. They tick all of those boxes except for perhaps the 'what if they faced a gigantic setback'. Chelsea has grown internationally due to their success since the RA takeover. If he leaves, then it would be interesting to see what happens with Chelsea now. Have they grown their fanbase large enough? Is their brand so strong now that they will have rich billionaires or holdings in line to take over the club? The answer might be yes now and I would say that would put them in the mix. Another thing they would need to do to give themselves a better chance after RA is building a larger stadium.

City is not that at Chelsea's level yet as far as becoming a giant club is concerned because time has been shorter and I also think they are coming from further as far as fanbase is concerned. They often don't sell out their stadium and even though I'm sure they are gaining new fans rapidly due to their success, they are certainly not on the level of all of the above. But give it 10 years and they might be where Chelsea are now. If City's owners quit pouring unlimited resources in the club, then they probably haven't built themselves enough of a fanbase foundation globally to sustain themselves just yet.

PSG might never be considered a giant simply because the french league doesn't have the necessary appeal. They would need to build the brand of the Ligue 1 and not just their own brand to give themselves a chance of being considered a giant club. The City argument also works for them too.

Can a club fall away of being a giant club?
Yes. I think that a club like Ajax was once considered a giant club on the European stage. Historically they still are important, but the fact they play in a league that doesn't have international appeal which makes it impossible for them to compete financially with the other giants, has caused their downfall as giant on the international scene.

The Milan teams could risk losing their status as giant club over time, but this will probably have to go hand in hand with the Italian league losing their status. The Italian league has lost some of its status compared to the 90s and early 00s, but not enough yet for the Milan clubs to lose their status and appeal.

 

[SportingCP96]

It can happen organically though it is rare. Just look at Dortmund great academy and fantastic scouting and then selling on a profit made them grow a lot. Compare them and their stature now to circa 2008 or 2009.

As far as City and PSG as much as it sucks for their fans to hear they are small clubs. They are simply rich clubs. Clubs like Sporting, Porto, Benfica, Ajax, PSV, Feyenoord, Lyon, Celtic, Rangers among others are all much bigger clubs than City and and PSG. Simply put money cant buy history.

 

[SportingCP96]

I consider the following clubs giants of football: Man United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern, Juventus, Milan, Inter.

They all have these things in common in my opinion:
- They are considered household names in European competitions having enjoyed successes and having a long history in European competitions. If they do not compete in Europe for a season, then this big news.
- They have enjoyed a lot of domestic success in leagues with an international appeal.
- They have an enormous amount of fans from anywhere in the world.
- They have good amount of 'legends of the game' that play(ed) for them
- Any of these teams could face gigantic setbacks (bankrupcy, relegation,...), but you feel as though these clubs will always be able to overcome these setbacks because they are too big a brand not to overcome them.
- If one of these teams would go through an unsuccessful era on the field, you would consider them sleeping giants.

Milan and Inter may be going through a bad spell, but somehow I can see them getting it right again eventually which puts them right back in the mix.
Liverpool, even though they haven't won the league since 1990, have always been thereabouts at the top end of the league table.
Arsenal, despite not winning the league for 15 years are still winning cups and they are always sort of 'there' at the top end of the league table.

Can a club become a giant club in the way I define a giant club?
Yes. Chelsea may be close actually. They tick all of those boxes except for perhaps the 'what if they faced a gigantic setback'. Chelsea has grown internationally due to their success since the RA takeover. If he leaves, then it would be interesting to see what happens with Chelsea now. Have they grown their fanbase large enough? Is their brand so strong now that they will have rich billionaires or holdings in line to take over the club? The answer might be yes now and I would say that would put them in the mix. Another thing they would need to do to give themselves a better chance after RA is building a larger stadium.

City is not that at Chelsea's level yet as far as becoming a giant club is concerned because time has been shorter and I also think they are coming from further as far as fanbase is concerned. They often don't sell out their stadium and even though I'm sure they are gaining new fans rapidly due to their success, they are certainly not on the level of all of the above. But give it 10 years and they might be where Chelsea are now. If City's owners quit pouring unlimited resources in the club, then they probably haven't built themselves enough of a fanbase foundation globally to sustain themselves just yet.

PSG might never be considered a giant simply because the french league doesn't have the necessary appeal. They would need to build the brand of the Ligue 1 and not just their own brand to give themselves a chance of being considered a giant club. The City argument also works for them too.

Can a club fall away of being a giant club?
Yes. I think that a club like Ajax was once considered a giant club on the European stage. Historically they still are important, but the fact they play in a league that doesn't have international appeal which makes it impossible for them to compete financially with the other giants, has caused their downfall as giant on the international scene.

The Milan teams could risk losing their status as giant club over time, but this will probably have to go hand in hand with the Italian league losing their status. The Italian league has lost some of its status compared to the 90s and early 00s, but not enough yet for the Milan clubs to lose their status and appeal.

I agree with some of what you put their but Arsenal are not a Giant club. They are a big club for sure but not a European Giant. Every other club on that list is though.

 

[Hound Dog]

It can happen organically though it is rare. Just look at Dortmund great academy and fantastic scouting and then selling on a profit made them grow a lot. Compare them and their stature now to circa 2008 or 2009.

As far as City and PSG as much as it sucks for their fans to hear they are small clubs. They are simply rich clubs. Clubs like Sporting, Porto, Benfica, Ajax, PSV, Feyenoord, Lyon, Celtic, Rangers among others are all much bigger clubs than City and and PSG. Simply put money cant buy history.

Yes, but Dortmund have actually grown back to their normal size. Look at them during the 90s. They had a horrible time in the early 00s and then went back to normal.

 

[SportingCP96]

Yes, but Dortmund have actually grown back to their normal size. Look at them during the 90s. They had a horrible time in the early 00s and then went back to normal.

I heard Bayern had a helping hand in them not being liquidated. Dont know if that is true though.

 

[el magico]

I consider the following clubs giants of football: Man United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern, Juventus, Milan, Inter.

They all have these things in common in my opinion:
- They are considered household names in European competitions having enjoyed successes and having a long history in European competitions. If they do not compete in Europe for a season, then this big news.
- They have enjoyed a lot of domestic success in leagues with an international appeal.
- They have an enormous amount of fans from anywhere in the world.
- They have good amount of 'legends of the game' that play(ed) for them
- Any of these teams could face gigantic setbacks (bankrupcy, relegation,...), but you feel as though these clubs will always be able to overcome these setbacks because they are too big a brand not to overcome them.
- If one of these teams would go through an unsuccessful era on the field, you would consider them sleeping giants.

Milan and Inter may be going through a bad spell, but somehow I can see them getting it right again eventually which puts them right back in the mix.
Liverpool, even though they haven't won the league since 1990, have always been thereabouts at the top end of the league table.
Arsenal, despite not winning the league for 15 years are still winning cups and they are always sort of 'there' at the top end of the league table.

Can a club become a giant club in the way I define a giant club?
Yes. Chelsea may be close actually. They tick all of those boxes except for perhaps the 'what if they faced a gigantic setback'. Chelsea has grown internationally due to their success since the RA takeover. If he leaves, then it would be interesting to see what happens with Chelsea now. Have they grown their fanbase large enough? Is their brand so strong now that they will have rich billionaires or holdings in line to take over the club? The answer might be yes now and I would say that would put them in the mix. Another thing they would need to do to give themselves a better chance after RA is building a larger stadium.

City is not that at Chelsea's level yet as far as becoming a giant club is concerned because time has been shorter and I also think they are coming from further as far as fanbase is concerned. They often don't sell out their stadium and even though I'm sure they are gaining new fans rapidly due to their success, they are certainly not on the level of all of the above. But give it 10 years and they might be where Chelsea are now. If City's owners quit pouring unlimited resources in the club, then they probably haven't built themselves enough of a fanbase foundation globally to sustain themselves just yet.

PSG might never be considered a giant simply because the french league doesn't have the necessary appeal. They would need to build the brand of the Ligue 1 and not just their own brand to give themselves a chance of being considered a giant club. The City argument also works for them too.

Can a club fall away of being a giant club?
Yes. I think that a club like Ajax was once considered a giant club on the European stage. Historically they still are important, but the fact they play in a league that doesn't have international appeal which makes it impossible for them to compete financially with the other giants, has caused their downfall as giant on the international scene.

The Milan teams could risk losing their status as giant club over time, but this will probably have to go hand in hand with the Italian league losing their status. The Italian league has lost some of its status compared to the 90s and early 00s, but not enough yet for the Milan clubs to lose their status and appeal.

What a pile of absolute shite. Barcelona and Real Madrid rarely sell out their stadium. Have a look at Barcelona's average attendance in a stadium holding 90k. Chelsea's ground holds 41k, City's is 55k. Are you seriously saying because Chelsea fill a 41k stadium and City have 54k in a 55k stadium that Chelsea's support is bigger?

 

[SportingCP96]

What a pile of absolute shite. Barcelona and Real Madrid rarely sell out their stadium. Have a look at Barcelona's average attendance in a stadium holding 90k. Chelsea's ground holds 41k, City's is 55k. Are you seriously saying because Chelsea fill a 41k stadium and City have 54k in a 55k stadium that Chelsea's support is bigger?

I mean to be fair Both of there support is trash and both are equally small clubs as a whole. Their infrastructures are great though and then of course the money helps them out immensely and is why their name is known in the sport.

 

[Livewire1974]

Shitty are still a small club. Always will be.

 

[el magico]

I mean to be fair Both of there support is trash and both are equally small clubs as a whole. Their infrastructures are great though and then of course the money helps them out immensely and is why their name is known in the sport.

I assume you are talking about Barcelona and Madrid as City's smallest league crowd last season was considerably higher than your club's highest crowd. I won't mention the Sporting cup games where the attendance were similar to City's women's team. Trash?

 

[FootballHQ]

Define "small" here.

Chelsea in the 90s were regularly finishing top 5, won FA and league cup a couple of times, played many seasons in europe (won cup winners cup in 1998) and had regular 40k gates once they extended the ground in I think 2000.

This idea they were some plucky bottom half team until Roman came in is wrong. Yes in 80s but not in the 90s.

Man. City little different. Lack of trophies of course but still a club regularly in the top division and even when lower getting 30k through the gate.

In terms of the OP question, small to me at top level means a team like AFC Bournemouth. No history at all at the top and due to small ground they only draw just over 10k so that would be example if they got massive takeover and started finishing in the top 4 with smart signings.

Probably Leicester aswell if they'd continued the momentum from 2016 and played in CL every year although much bigger support and history than Bournemouth.

Chelsea and Man.City sort of clubs that already had the support and were stable premier league clubs, Chelsea finished in top half pretty much every season so in that situation you just need a little push to elevate them up to top 4 status.

 

[SportingCP96]

I assume you are talking about Barcelona and Madrid as City's smallest league crowd last season was considerably higher than your club's highest crowd. I won't mention the Sporting cup games where the attendance were similar to City's women's team. Trash?

Getting larger crowds is not what I mean by support I mean if you have a billion doller team feck ya I wanna see that live and those players. Now in your stadium ? Sounds like a library I remember when Sporting played their in 2012 our fans put your “fans” to shame because I mean They started to support circa 2010.

Now as for the Sporting mention we averaged 42k last season in a 50K stadium. In a league that is quite frankly levels down below the premier league. So can’t compare their. Want to know where else we want compare ? Club size Sporting is 2x the size of a club like city and that’s not to mention Benfica or Porto as well. We also knocked city out of the Europa league because I mean ...it’s city. Can Sporting compete with city now ? Hell no you guys have to much money billion dollar squads are no joke and that is out of Sportings reality. Historical size this is a laughable conversation.

City is not even bigger then a Leeds , Nottingham forest , or a Newcastle United let alone the big 3 in Portugal.

 

[SportingCP96]

Define "small" here.

Chelsea in the 90s were regularly finishing top 5, won FA and league cup a couple of times, played many seasons in europe (won cup winners cup in 1998) and had regular 40k gates once they extended the ground in I think 2000.

This idea they were some plucky bottom half team until Roman came in is wrong. Yes in 80s but not in the 90s.

Man. City little different. Lack of trophies of course but still a club regularly in the top division and even when lower getting 30k through the gate.

In terms of the OP question, small to me at top level means a team like AFC Bournemouth. No history at all at the top and due to small ground they only draw just over 10k so that would be example if they got massive takeover and started finishing in the top 4 with smart signings.

Probably Leicester aswell if they'd continued the momentum from 2016 and played in CL every year although much bigger support and history than Bournemouth.

Chelsea and Man.City sort of clubs that already had the support and were stable premier league clubs, Chelsea finished in top half pretty much every season so in that situation you just need a little push to elevate them up to top 4 status.

Didn’t city lost 8-1 in 2007? Or 2007? They were a mid table club for the most part for a very long time.

 

[FootballHQ]

They are many biggish clubs who are mid table or lower (Everton, Newcastle) and all us guys in the championship.

Atletico Madrid were mid table for years and years until Simeone turned up. Looking at La Liga atm and Valencia 10th, Bilbao 15th etc.

Think the issue here is from super club's POV pretty much every club below the elite top level top 4-5 is small whereas I look more at attendance, overall history and where this club has been last 10-20 years.

Edit: When Wigan were in prem and saving relegation by skin of their teeth every year, they'd fit my criteria more if they had massive takeover and started finishing regularly in top 6.

 

[el magico]

Getting larger crowds is not what I mean by support I mean if you have a billion doller team feck ya I wanna see that live and those players. Now in your stadium ? Sounds like a library I remember when Sporting played their in 2012 our fans put your “fans” to shame because I mean They started to support circa 2010.

Now as for the Sporting mention we averaged 42k last season in a 50K stadium. In a league that is quite frankly levels down below the premier league. So can’t compare their. Want to know where else we want compare ? Club size Sporting is 2x the size of a club like city and that’s not to mention Benfica or Porto as well. We also knocked city out of the Europa league because I mean ...it’s city. Can Sporting compete with city now ? Hell no you guys have to much money billion dollar squads are no joke and that is out of Sportings reality. Historical size this is a laughable conversation.

City is not even bigger then a Leeds , Nottingham forest , or a Newcastle United let alone the big 3 in Portugal.

English crowds are generally quiet at home except for the biggest occasions. With all due respect a Europa League match against Sporting is not one of the biggest occasions. Even last night 3000 PSG fans completely outsung 70k Man United fans. The fans could be noisier of course but crowd volume seems a strange way to establish how big a club is. The best fans at the Etihad have been Aris, are they the biggest? And, I'm afraid Sporting don't even get mentioned in that conversation.

Your second jibe is also incorrect. Man City have the longest standing season-ticket holders in the Premier League, therein lies a problem, the average age is probably too high to create the incessant fervent atmosphere you get at some grounds. Criticising City fans for lack of loyalty is so wide of the mark its laughable.

With regards to club size it does seem to be something that schoolboys are particularly obsessed with but to reply to your point. City are essentially a local club so I have no problem with accepting that the three big clubs in Portugal are larger based on the horrible imbalance that exists in Portugese football between local clubs and the big three. However, for a more nuanced and neutral viewpoint have a look at the thread here on the French survey. Where does each club feature on that?

As for Leeds, Newcastle and Forest. Forest have won two European Cups, so if that is the only criteria then, yes, they are larger. Ironically, part of the romance of Forest's victories is that they were actually quite a small club punching above their weight. Funny isn't it? Aside from that I can think of very few criteria that would make those three clubs bigger than City at the moment. I bought my ticket for Wembley yesterday, I won't be sat in my seat watching the cup final pondering how big my club is.

 

[SportingCP96]

English crowds are generally quiet at home except for the biggest occasions. With all due respect a Europa League match against Sporting is not one of the biggest occasions. Even last night 3000 PSG fans completely outsung 70k Man United fans. The fans could be noisier of course but crowd volume seems a strange way to establish how big a club is. The best fans at the Etihad have been Aris, are they the biggest? And, I'm afraid Sporting don't even get mentioned in that conversation.

Your second jibe is also incorrect. Man City have the longest standing season-ticket holders in the Premier League, therein lies a problem, the average age is probably too high to create the incessant fervent atmosphere you get at some grounds. Criticising City fans for lack of loyalty is so wide of the mark its laughable.

With regards to club size it does seem to be something that schoolboys are particularly obsessed with but to reply to your point. City are essentially a local club so I have no problem with accepting that the three big clubs in Portugal are larger based on the horrible imbalance that exists in Portugese football between local clubs and the big three. However, for a more nuanced and neutral viewpoint have a look at the thread here on the French survey. Where does each club feature on that?

As for Leeds, Newcastle and Forest. Forest have won two European Cups, so if that is the only criteria then, yes, they are larger. Ironically, part of the romance of Forest's victories is that they were actually quite a small club punching above their weight. Funny isn't it? Aside from that I can think of very few criteria that would make those three clubs bigger than City at the moment. I bought my ticket for Wembley yesterday, I won't be sat in my seat watching the cup final pondering how big my club is.

Don't let how good city are now blind you to the fact that the only reason they are relevant now is because of arab money had it not been for that you lot would still be battling it out with the Evertans' of the world. Also about the 3 English clubs being bigger you said you cant see how they are bigger at the moment but you have it confused. City are not bigger then them at the moment....they are better which is very different and we all know why that is . City fans now ( not you though this could apply to you but I don't know you) think that there club is this huge club and they get offended when called a small club because they think they have been good all their lives but it is the complete opposite.

Also I know you won't be at Wembley thinking about that and I mean I dont blame you but when someone says City are a small club its not to offend its just calling a spade a spade.

 

[el magico]

Don't let how good city are now blind you to the fact that the only reason they are relevant now is because of arab money had it not been for that you lot would still be battling it out with the Evertans' of the world. Also about the 3 English clubs being bigger you said you cant see how they are bigger at the moment but you have it confused. City are not bigger then them at the moment....they are better which is very different and we all know why that is . City fans now ( not you though this could apply to you but I don't know you) think that there club is this huge club and they get offended when called a small club because they think they have been good all their lives but it is the complete opposite.

Also I know you won't be at Wembley thinking about that and I mean I dont blame you but when someone says City are a small club its not to offend its just calling a spade a spade.

I honestly don't need you to tell me how I, as a long-standing City fan who attends games, should feel about my club.

Otherwise, your post is noticeable for the lack of facts to support your assertions and your inability to respond to the points I made previously.

 

[Le Red]

I'm sorry but that's one of the worst questions I've ever seen regarding football matters.
If the thread title didn't have the world "ever" the question would be simply "can a small club become a big club" and the answer would still be yes.
But when you add the word "ever" to the equation it becomes even more preposterous. How much can the world change in, say, a thousand years? As sad as it sounds, Manchester United and other big clubs might as well be non-entities by then. I hope not though. In any case, I think football will still be played.

 

[SportingCP96]

I honestly don't need you to tell me how I, as a long-standing City fan who attends games, should feel about my club.

Otherwise, your post is noticeable for the lack of facts to support your assertions and your inability to respond to the points I made previously.

Correction I am not telling you how to feel about your club I am stating club stature and size and what is or is not a big club city are obviously not a big club.

Secondly you state my ”lack of facts to state my assertions” well the facts are quite obvious Everton 9x league champions 4x FA cup winners and 1x European cup winners and Newcastle 4x champions and 4x FA cup are enough facts to prove my point and that is without even having to bring in the big 3 of Portugal or Netherlands. Also if your going to compare trophies with the clubs I mentioned make sure you X out the ones post 2010 because that is what this whole discussion is about. I have responded to all your points previously and furthermore now. I am not knocking you for being a city supporter power to you but let’s not pretend they are something they are not this whole topic was started because I pointed out City and Chelsea are both similar.