8 of Everton’s trophies are actually league titles. Tottenham have only 2 titles. Therefore, you have to put Everton above Spurs in that regard. If it were the last 15 years, then Spurs are definitely ahead. But it’s not saying much!
Can a small club ever become a big club?
- Thread starter Fortitude
- Start date
Also, when you think of historically great clubs, you’re talking about Villa, Notts Forest, Sunderland type clubs. Tottenham are still a big club, but more like the tier below.
I’d say that now you are beginning to break into the bigger clubs. Though, you need a title or two more! Not an FA Cup or finishing 3rd.
I’d say that now you are beginning to break into the bigger clubs. Though, you need a title or two more! Not an FA Cup or finishing 3rd.
Dortmund won the european cup in 1996. They get 80k through the gate most home games.
I really don't understand the definition of a "small" club in here. To me it's a club that has spent most of its history in lower leagues and gets 10-20k regular attendance and has hardly any trophies.
Think some are confusing small club with small mentality perhaps.
Yep that's the point I'm making. Teams like Man. City and Chelsea had periods when they were right at the top of English football and winning FA cups, yes a long time ago but still relevant, Leeds in early 70s another example.
Bournemouth are currently having their best run in their history by a mile so I was tuning into this thread fully expecting to see those sort of clubs being discussed.
I didn’t mean to say small club in terms of Dortmund but rather was just saying that a club could build its way up (or back up) without being bought out. Dortmund are just an example of that . It for sure takes a much longer time over a decade but it’s more respectful then being bought and over night signing the best players.
Remember Anzi? They tried doing it in Russia and I was so happy it all went bad for them.
Yes QPR 5-6 years ago would also be example. Small club even in London terms/history and only get 15k gates and they went crazy with wages and transfers fees.
That squad that went down in 2013 had Julio Cesar, Bosingwa, Chris Samba, Park Ji Sung, Djbril Cisse, Zamora, Jenas, Loic Remy and probably five other journeymen I've forgotten.
I always use Portugal as an example because they are the league I follow most besides the EPL but anyways.
Tottenhams rise over the last near decade competing with the bigger teams and really “making a name” for themselves is exactly what Braga in Portugal have done. Over the last 10 years they have made some great moves and buys and have been able to somewhat compete with the Big 3 in Portugal and had some great seasons. This season they are fighting for the title for example. Much like spurs they have a beautiful stadium as well but where they lack is getting people to go to their games which is shocking because of there recent success.
Their biggest rivals Vitoria Guimarães have not made the strides they have made in terms of catching the big 3 but they are a club with more potential if they got a bit of investment and do things right. Their fan base is right up their with the big 3 in Portugal and their home games and away always bring in big crowds. When they host one of the big 3 the atimoshere is electric.
I'd say it's perhaps been easier for City and Chelsea in that while they weren't exactly immensely successful before being injected with riches, they were at least clubs with respectable histories who'd spent plenty of time in the top flight and who'd won a league title or two. They weren't 'plastic' in the sense that they weren't new entities that'd come up from nothing. Especially in the case of Chelsea, who'd regularly been in and around the top four for several years before Roman arrived.
For most clubs I'd say money is really the only way you can become one of the 'big' teams now if you weren't already, and it takes persistent, continual success until you're ranked alongside them.
Although discussing Chelsea and City, it's weird to think how my perspective on Chelsea has changed in recent years in lieu of City's rise. While there was undoubtedly a certain falseness to them at the time, a club suddenly transformed into the world's richest team simply because their ownership changed hands, you can at least look back on Abramovich - shady fecker though he may be - as someone who seemed to be invested in Chelsea, even if it was all essentially a vanity project to allow him to say he'd won the CL. Whereas City from the start have basically been a PR operation for the UAE.
For most clubs I'd say money is really the only way you can become one of the 'big' teams now if you weren't already, and it takes persistent, continual success until you're ranked alongside them.
Although discussing Chelsea and City, it's weird to think how my perspective on Chelsea has changed in recent years in lieu of City's rise. While there was undoubtedly a certain falseness to them at the time, a club suddenly transformed into the world's richest team simply because their ownership changed hands, you can at least look back on Abramovich - shady fecker though he may be - as someone who seemed to be invested in Chelsea, even if it was all essentially a vanity project to allow him to say he'd won the CL. Whereas City from the start have basically been a PR operation for the UAE.
Leipzig rise in Germany is another example though to their somewhat credit there philosophy is buying the best young talent around and growing granted you need money for that and they have bags of it.
Bundesliga has a fair few last 10-15 years. Hoffenheim had a similar path and played a few seasons in champions league. Wolfsburg of course aswell won title in 2009 and then spent big but simply haven't got the fanbase or history ever to truly rival a Dortmund or Munich.
They've done well, but whether they're a 'big' club or not yet would depend on how we're defining that criteria. Not sure if they can be classed as one, or if they're just a mid-sized club who've started to do better. Which is something plenty of sides do before fading away again.
They for sure are NOT a big club. They has a long and I mean long way to even be considered one.
Leipzig actually does have potential to be big club I think, Leipzig football city that had a stadium in 2006 world cup (think it might've been only one without a Bundesliga club at the time but could be wrong) but obviously eastern Germany has struggled to produce good teams, see issues with Dresden. Hertha Berlin are established but up and down in terms of consistancy.
Anyway their average attendence is 40k so far more support and further potential than Hoffenheim or Wolfsburg which have limited support.
St Pauli also have fantastic support in Germany.
Anzhi was money from local Suleyman Kerimov. It wasn't "organic" but I don't really understand being against something like that given how utterly ruthlessly capitalistic football is and with it's history of regional benefactors investing in clubs. Would you become enraged if a Lisbon billionaire did the same for Sporting?.
Personally i think a bigger issue is how uefa and the current biggest clubs seem so keen on pulling the ladder up and ensuring a status quo, rather than big money being put into random clubs.
I personally don't. But the majority of the people I know would. Its cultural.
Slippery slope because on one hand at least we already were a club with big history and then got bought but at the same time I feel “hypocritical” as well because it is more satisfying to win titles and achieve things the organic way.
To each their own I guess in regards to that. I for sure agree with everything you said though.
Comparing city and PSG's fan is a joke, please don't insult us.
Until 2010, our ultras were reputated to be top level in Europe, just watch how famous was the kop of boulogne for example.
Then all ultras were banned and we lost our atmosphere until last year when ultras from Auteuil were finally allowed to come back.
Our stadium is always full, even in small games the atmosphere is better than Old Trafford or Anfield in CL games.
Regarding the history, please note that our club was created in 1970, we're a young club, and still, we are the most titled club in Ligue 1 and we were one of the best european club in the late 90's winning the C2 then.
Finally, i want to make a point about L1, which will never be able to overcome structural injustice compared to other european clubs:
1) The DNCG, French club can't go to far in debt. Compare that with Clubs like RM or Barcelona who used to be deeply in debt to sustain their growth.
2) Taxes. "In France, taxes for a player whose gross annual salary is 600,000 euros are five times higher than those paid in the United Kingdom, 15 times higher than in Germany and 66 times higher than in Spain"
That's why i always laugh when some foreigners talk about FFP, there is no Fairplay when PSG pays more taxes(170m€ p.a) than RM, Barcelona and Bayern alltogether.
I am not saying that our club is a european giant, or that we're close to being one, but we don't come from nowere, we always have been one of the top clubs in France.
Until 2010, our ultras were reputated to be top level in Europe, just watch how famous was the kop of boulogne for example.
Then all ultras were banned and we lost our atmosphere until last year when ultras from Auteuil were finally allowed to come back.
Our stadium is always full, even in small games the atmosphere is better than Old Trafford or Anfield in CL games.
Regarding the history, please note that our club was created in 1970, we're a young club, and still, we are the most titled club in Ligue 1 and we were one of the best european club in the late 90's winning the C2 then.
Finally, i want to make a point about L1, which will never be able to overcome structural injustice compared to other european clubs:
1) The DNCG, French club can't go to far in debt. Compare that with Clubs like RM or Barcelona who used to be deeply in debt to sustain their growth.
2) Taxes. "In France, taxes for a player whose gross annual salary is 600,000 euros are five times higher than those paid in the United Kingdom, 15 times higher than in Germany and 66 times higher than in Spain"
That's why i always laugh when some foreigners talk about FFP, there is no Fairplay when PSG pays more taxes(170m€ p.a) than RM, Barcelona and Bayern alltogether.
I am not saying that our club is a european giant, or that we're close to being one, but we don't come from nowere, we always have been one of the top clubs in France.
Still not sure what City has to do with everything you've posted though? Where is the joke then?
Still not sure what City has to do with everything you've posted though? Where is the joke then?
Wasn't he comparing fans ?
If not the case, my bad, it's not relevant with the rest of my message.
Depends how you define ‘big’ imo. Seems to me that, nowadays, it is less to do with history and titles but more about off the pitch matters - such as financial performance, size of the global fan base, ability to attract global sponsors, size of the global tv audience etc. There is a group of elite European clubs that are consistently near the top of the charts in these regards, and I think it’s a difficult group to break into no matter the wealth of the current owner(s). United and Liverpool are right up there. Not sure that City, Chelsea or Spurs have quite made it yet. A case could be made for Arsenal being bigger than the 3 of them.
Ah so it was a response to a post from before, didn't know about that, sorry. Well, in any case, looking at the average attendances, City are doing better, which of course doesn't apply to the atmosphere itself. Anyway, both clubs are doing just fine attendance wise I'd say...
I don’t doubt the quality of your fans you guys have good fans for sure. When you say “ we are the most titles club in ligue 1” the only reason that is is because you got bought by Qatar. Before that PSG had 2 league titles to their name. So being the richest club in the league and essentially in a 1 team league helps. Saint Ettiene, Lyon , and OM are the real French giants in my opinion.
Before Qatar, we had 2 league titles that's true, but 2nd in term of number of cup won : 8 French cup(1st was l'OM with 10), and 3 League cup(2nd as well behind Marseille).
We also won the C2 making us one of the only club in France who's won a european cup and we are the only french club to have ever been 1st at UEFA ranking for a year.
I know that's nothing compared to mythic clubs like MU, RM and so on. However in France we weren't an unknown random team before Qatar takeover.
Again i am not saying that we were the biggest club in France, but one the biggest, for sure. Keeping in mind that our club was created more than 60 years after the likes of Marseille and Sainté.
Regarding St-Etienne they've done nothing since the 70's they are pretty much like Nottingham Forest.
Aren't Saint Etienne still have the record of league titles with 10? or PSG already passed them. Still I wish another club could compete with them Ligue is too easy for them.
PSG were massive underachievers in French league before the takeover, bit like Marseille are now actually.
They did have a very good team in mid 90s, Bernard Lama, Rai, George Weah, Ginola and all these guys and then a good team in early 00s of Okocha, Ali Bernabia, Pauleta that was in CL regularly but couldn't win the league as Lyon were totally dominanting at that point.
1)Marseille and Sainté are first with 10 leagues, we have 7, four years before passing them.
2)Same here I wish so, Lyon is too unpredictable, they are very good against big teams but loose against Amiens the very next week. Monaco could have been one but fecked up. Anyways, as long as our country will not change the taxation, it will be hard to attract big investors, but that's another debate.
while spurs was not a small club, still is one of the best examples.
You can reverse this question in that if you were once a big club in the sense of winning things, but have gone decades without anything do you still keep your title as a big club? As a United fan there are some interesting parallels to be made.
Manchester United went 26 years without a league title and in that time went down to the second division at one point but were always regarded a big club because of other factors during that time not related to the past glory days - match-day attendance and fan-base, transfers and expectations of winning the league again. Even when languishing in mid-table United were a big draw, headline makers and therefore a big club.
However what applied to United has not always transpired to other so-called other sleeping giants.
By the time the first Premier League campaign was underway United had seven league titles and one European Cup in the cabinet. Aston Villa had the same amount however six of their seven championships were won between 1893-1909. They won the seventh title in 1981 (so after a seven decade wait). They won their European Cup in 1982. These two trophies were more recent than United's but Villa as a club were not seen in the same standing as United. Villa players were not household names and Ron Saunders was certainly not a household manager.
By the time the first Premier League campaign was underway Everton had two more league titles in the cabinet than United. They had won three since United won their last, and two of Everton's titles were in the mid-80s when Liverpool were the top dogs. Everton achieved what United wanted to do which was beat that Liverpool team to the championship. They were across the city of course so their success were all the more sweeter, and historically there was a rivalry of real steel between Everton and United because of the Manchester-Liverpool geographic background. Everton now are irrelevant to the top end of English football and treated as such. They've still got more league titles than Chelsea and Manchester City and of course Spurs. Preston North End have as many titles as Spurs which were won in the 19th century. They were also the first invincibles by the way. But no one puts Everton in the conversations of big clubs even though historically they're the 4th most successful English club.
But size of a club isn't just based on trophies. A club like Newcastle which hasn't won anything since 1969 has a massive and loyal fanbase but that is in part due to the fact they're a one club city. Leeds United are considered the biggest club in Yorkshire despite winning as many titles as Huddersfield and fewer than Sheffield Wednesday. Leeds period of being at the top is actually only a small period and came during a time they spent big to get out of the second division and climb up the leagues. They lost a European Cup final (the year after Clough was sacked) and became a yo-yo club through the 80s before once again financially being very ambitious in the 90s almost to the point of ruins in the 2000s. But Leeds also has a tremendous history and rivalry with United which transcends football and one of the reasons why they are seen in such a light. Imagine if Man City suddenly regressed to their old self. Footballing wise they'll go back to being a punching bag but the rivalry is still the same. The United-Leeds rivalry is certainly far more bitter than United-Arsenal which was purely footballing and mainly played up by one side (the side from London).
And to end lets talk about Arsenal. It'll be 16 years before they can next get their hands on the league title. 16 years or more. Never won a European Cup. Chelsea have. They have less European trophies than Spurs. Still historically the biggest club in London. But they are slipping down and down and they're probably the best example of the question I posed right at the start - for all their history they are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Players would rather go to Chelsea and perhaps the day is here where players rather go to Spurs. History and size of a club may never change but the current holders of the shirt decided how you are perceived right here and now.
Manchester United went 26 years without a league title and in that time went down to the second division at one point but were always regarded a big club because of other factors during that time not related to the past glory days - match-day attendance and fan-base, transfers and expectations of winning the league again. Even when languishing in mid-table United were a big draw, headline makers and therefore a big club.
However what applied to United has not always transpired to other so-called other sleeping giants.
By the time the first Premier League campaign was underway United had seven league titles and one European Cup in the cabinet. Aston Villa had the same amount however six of their seven championships were won between 1893-1909. They won the seventh title in 1981 (so after a seven decade wait). They won their European Cup in 1982. These two trophies were more recent than United's but Villa as a club were not seen in the same standing as United. Villa players were not household names and Ron Saunders was certainly not a household manager.
By the time the first Premier League campaign was underway Everton had two more league titles in the cabinet than United. They had won three since United won their last, and two of Everton's titles were in the mid-80s when Liverpool were the top dogs. Everton achieved what United wanted to do which was beat that Liverpool team to the championship. They were across the city of course so their success were all the more sweeter, and historically there was a rivalry of real steel between Everton and United because of the Manchester-Liverpool geographic background. Everton now are irrelevant to the top end of English football and treated as such. They've still got more league titles than Chelsea and Manchester City and of course Spurs. Preston North End have as many titles as Spurs which were won in the 19th century. They were also the first invincibles by the way. But no one puts Everton in the conversations of big clubs even though historically they're the 4th most successful English club.
But size of a club isn't just based on trophies. A club like Newcastle which hasn't won anything since 1969 has a massive and loyal fanbase but that is in part due to the fact they're a one club city. Leeds United are considered the biggest club in Yorkshire despite winning as many titles as Huddersfield and fewer than Sheffield Wednesday. Leeds period of being at the top is actually only a small period and came during a time they spent big to get out of the second division and climb up the leagues. They lost a European Cup final (the year after Clough was sacked) and became a yo-yo club through the 80s before once again financially being very ambitious in the 90s almost to the point of ruins in the 2000s. But Leeds also has a tremendous history and rivalry with United which transcends football and one of the reasons why they are seen in such a light. Imagine if Man City suddenly regressed to their old self. Footballing wise they'll go back to being a punching bag but the rivalry is still the same. The United-Leeds rivalry is certainly far more bitter than United-Arsenal which was purely footballing and mainly played up by one side (the side from London).
And to end lets talk about Arsenal. It'll be 16 years before they can next get their hands on the league title. 16 years or more. Never won a European Cup. Chelsea have. They have less European trophies than Spurs. Still historically the biggest club in London. But they are slipping down and down and they're probably the best example of the question I posed right at the start - for all their history they are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Players would rather go to Chelsea and perhaps the day is here where players rather go to Spurs. History and size of a club may never change but the current holders of the shirt decided how you are perceived right here and now.
Last edited:
Anything is possible with oil money (or presumably in 10 years time, tech money)