Chelsea were certainly a tier below spurs as a club before Abramovich arrived. Have a look at their comparative trophies won before 1997. Chelsea have become a tier one club purely down to Roman A. Spurs were a far bigger club for the 80 years before that.
How big of a club is Tottenham Hotspur?
- Thread starter Paxi
- Start date
Basically this
I quite like Spurs. Not exactly sure “how big” they are, but i do like the way they’re run, without the backing of rich owners. I’m not also sure “how big a club is” is too relevant to how well they’re performing or to how well they’re expected to perform. I do understand wage structure and income though. Winning trophies & holding on to your best players etc.
From my experience, they’re probably the 6th/7th most popular EPL side here in South Africa (after United, Pool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Newcastle). Obviously they need success to propel them and gain a lot more support.
They are as big as you can get, from my point of view. When I started following PL in the 90ies, I always regarded them as a top team and a potentially tricky fixture. So from an outside (non-british) perspective I would say that most people would consider them a top, a big club in the PL. I also do think that they even had some good teams that did not quite fulfil their potential. I viewed them as underperformers for quite a long time, that could have actually done better. The current success is a better reflection of their status as a club, I would say.
Spurs were 1 of the traditional big 5 when i was younger along with United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Everton.
The rise of 1st Chelsea and now City and their own lack of trophies have seems to have lowered their standing somewhat but for me it's not just about trophies, it's history and tradition which shapes a club, so for me, Spurs will always be bigger than Chelsea and City although i appreciate it really is down to when you started following football which shapes your views somewhat.
The rise of 1st Chelsea and now City and their own lack of trophies have seems to have lowered their standing somewhat but for me it's not just about trophies, it's history and tradition which shapes a club, so for me, Spurs will always be bigger than Chelsea and City although i appreciate it really is down to when you started following football which shapes your views somewhat.
Of course Red Star, Marseille, Steaua, Feyenoord and others are much bigger clubs historically than Spurs (not sure about Hamburg) and it's not really close if you don't have blinders about what's happening outside of England.
However past glory has little significance and the current position is the most important, let's see if Tottenham can write other significant pages to their history and build the foundations of an elite club with this current generation.
how do you define history and tradition without trophies?
Sorry mate, if you are basing a club's size on history then you are deluding yourself if you really believe what you have written above.
Before 1950 City had won more trophies than Spurs. Its really only the 60s when Spurs were consistently more successful and even then City won as many league titles as Spurs did in that decade. Prior to Abramovich and Mansour, Spurs had won two titles, City two and Chelsea one. Not really much of a difference?
Seasons in the top tier? City have had more than Spurs, Chelsea the same.
With regards to attendances, prior to 1950, both City and Chelsea had higher crowds than Spurs. From the 50s till the 80s your crowds were a little bigger than City and very slightly bigger than Chelsea. Its now 20 years since you had an average attendance higher than Chelsea and 15 years compared to City. If we compare crowds when the clubs were mediocre we can look at the season City got relegated to the third tier their average attendance (28k) was virtually the same as Spurs (29k) who finished mid-table in the 1st division.
And you state that City cannot sell out their ground. Well, on Saturday City play Burnley in an FA Cup tie, the match sold out several days ago. So how about Spurs now they have moved out of the tiny WHL? 23k v Barnsley, 36k v West Ham and 42k v Apoel in the cup competitions. In the league you had a mere 46k v Brighton and on boxing day, you managed just 55k v Southampton. You had 60k more for the Madrid and Liverpool matches than the Barnsley one, there's a real stench of glory hunting fans about those attendances I think. Ironically, City will get a bigger crowd against Burnley than they did v Napoli.
I'm not too bothered about this size thing but I would say Spurs were bigger for about a decade around the 60s and for a period in the 80s when both City and Chelsea were abject, however, for most of the last 130 years both City and Chelsea have been either bigger or comparable.
Its a shame you don't know more about the history of your own club.
Do you know that Wembley is not our actual "home" ground and it is a hassle to get to and out of?
Yes, I do.
Because Spurs are high on the list of trophies, 5th (ahead of City) and would probably be comfortably 4th if not for Abramovich.
So villa are a bigger club than spurs, yeah right (and yeah I'm not including the start of season friendly as a MT)
I am watching them getting frustrated by a really poor west ham side who are trying to park a train in front of goal. but how poor are west ham! can't string a few passes together, they have one of the laziest and most brainless leftbacks I have ever seen and to think their manager was once here is really bewildering
No, because we are above Villa in trophies. Not that i'm saying that trophies won is the only way to measure the size of a football club. But there seems to be comments on this thread suggesting Spurs don't have much of a history when it comes to winning things which is incorrect.
You've picked out some Wikipidea/internet stats to suit your agenda - I'll fire back with some stuff that's more based on my own intrinsic knowledge of THFC and the British game.
I made a rod for my own back there with the 130 year declaration. There are only a handful of nationally significant and lasting achievements before the modern era of football - broadly defined as pre television, pre English clubs in Europe – mainly the goal scoring feats of Dixie Dean and the genius of Herbert Chapman. Nothing Chelsea, City or THFC did in their first 60 years had any lasting resonance apart from helping to build their own clubs and fanbases. It’s why despite their multiple league wins pre the 2nd world war, we’re not involving Sunderland, Preston or Huddersfield in any of these conversations.
The crux of my post was that pre Premiership, THFC were consistently a very high profile club on these shores (what is “big” if it isn’t profile?), certainly exceeding that of Chelsea and City over the most important decades prior. If we were having this conversation in 1992, I’d have thrown the following at you (remember I’m talking as if in 1992):
· We’ve had some of the best and most famous players to grace this league. Blanchflower, Greaves, Mackay, Gilzean, Peters, Jennings, Hoddle, Waddle, Ardiles, Gascoigne and Lineker.
Who have City had who gets spoken about in the same breath by sports journalists? - Rodney Marsh?? Big Mal as a manager was a great personality I’ll definitely give you that.
· We’ve won the most FA cups in history, which is currently the most prestigious domestic cup competition in the world.
· We’ve won 3 European trophies, currently only behind Liverpool.
· We were the first British side to win a European trophy in 1963.
· Since City and THFC both got promoted in 1950, both City and Chelsea have yoyo’d all over the place – we’ve had 1 year outside the top flight.
· I acknowledge City’s strong home support but Chelsea’s in recent years has been pathetic with crowds below 10k at times – doesn’t say much for the history they’ve made for themselves.
· We took your prized asset Paul Stewart from you in a British record transfer fee. We took Chelsea’s prized asset Gordon Durie from them.
Neither of you have or will ever take a Spurs marquee player unless you get hold of some ridiculous oil money or something (sic).
· 4 years after City’s league win in 1968, the first ground breaking book about the inside workings of a football club was released to critical acclaim. Hunter Davies’s book, The Glory Game, was of course not about MCFC but THFC.
· MOTD, which will largely choose it’s highlights packages based on a club’s stature and popularity, has put us on the 3rd most amount of times, only behind Utd and Lpool
I've already acknowledged that our league win amount is poor but the above more than compensated for it.
Then the premiership came along and Lord Fecking Sugar messed our club at the most crucial time of evolution in football history and we’ve been playing catch up ever since.
So mate, that’s very much how see it. Just to also point out, we fecking hate Wembley with a passion, it’s a soulless arena. Best not compare our current crowds (which are still fine) with yours, after a decade of a billion being pumped into your club and on your way to your 3rd league title in 6 years. And our “tiny WHL” had more atmosphere than Wembley and the Etihad put together.
only if you include the Charity Shield which everyone knows isn't even a proper trophy, and yeah I'd put Spurs above Villa in clubs stature tbf I'm not one of those that believe's that trophies = history, my original response was in relation to history and tradition, I'm not sure what anyone means by tradition when it comes to a football club, it's like the 'what are British values' question. Most clubs bar MK Don's have a rich history, it can be the times that they beat a top team in the FA Cup, the time they were relegated after being top of the league a Christmas etc etc, these are the things that make a clubs history, it's not all down to trophies.
Well said - England is a fantastic place for football with hundreds of historic clubs throughout all the many leagues played there - most of these clubs have never won anything of note (or haven't won anything in many decades) yet they have loyal supporters who follow them regardless because they love the club. It really grinds my gears when I read posts from fans of the 'big' clubs in England dismissing other clubs as being 'nothing/worthless/etc.' because they havent won anything in years. It comes accross as either arrogance or ignorance (or both). You should try supporting a club in the third tier - or (as I'm from Northern Ireland) a local club like Carrick Rangers (my home club) - they have won feck all but the club has history and is loved by it's fans. Most of these posters who stay stuff like this havent got a fecking clue.
Yes I would say Villa are a bigger club won more leagues won the European Cup. Spurs have only won the league twice.
Last edited by a moderator:
6 of those titles came before 1910. Sunderland have won the league 6 times before 1936. Damn it, Sheffield Wednesday are bigger than us as well, they won 4 before 1930
Lets be clear here. At no point did I state that Spurs were not a 'big' or 'high profile' club.
However, your two assertions: that 'it's pretty galling......you've been bigger than one club for 110 years out of your 130 year history and another for 120 years out of your 130 year history' and 'City can't sell out their ground even now' are both factually incorrect. I provided facts around attendances and trophies to support that argument and also acknowledged that Spurs were a bigger club during the 60s and the 80s, which is also were virtually all your highly subjective evidence comes from. I maintain that throughout the history of English football there have been periods when all of the three clubs mentioned have been 'bigger'.
I absolutely understand your dislike of Wembley but found it quite funny you were using City's attendances as an argument in your favour when Spurs' attendances at Wembley are absolutely nothing to brag about. Perhaps you could research some internet stats around City's attendances?
Two other points: are you really surprised that events that happen in living memory are better remembered? Secondly, are you really sure Spurs are second in European trophies won?
For what its worth I would say that United, Liverpool and Arsenal are the three biggest clubs in the country in a tier of their own. Broadly similar in a second tier would be Spurs, Chelsea, City, Villa, Everton, Newcastle, maybe also include Wednesday, West Ham, Leeds and Sunderland. However, none of that really matters. As the Spurs fan from NI said, its about supporting your club, no matter who they are.
I've no axe to grind with Spurs, I think you have a great manager and your team has evolved into a wonderful side. I can see the cranes above WHL from just a few minutes from my house and when I drive down the High Road in N17 the new ground looks spectacular.
I hope on your behalf that City don't sign Harry in the summer....
Is there some hidden pattern to determine which era to win titles in is worth the most?
We've seen people pointing out that Chelsea's and City's success is just recent and apparently too old ain't good either. The 60s seem fine though.
This is the best footballing forum on the web for me. I browse on here loads because I often find it more interesting to read about what other teams think of my club (and other clubs), rather than reading fellow Spurs fans - who broadly share my own opinions anyway.
But some of this thread brought out the schoolboy in me - arguing about who was "bigger" was very much a feature of my mid 80's/early 90's school years - and some of the dismissive posts of people who think football only existed post 1992 got me riled, so I finally stopped browsing, joined RedCafe and got stuck in!
We'll agree to disagree on City vs Chelsea vs Spurs more historically but that's just fine and I have to accept however objective I try and keep it, I of course have a bias hat on.
Games like last night, we weren't able to put on general sale so that affected sales but yes I was still disappointed with 55k. Overall I think our Wembley crowds have been decent enough - 65k ish average league attendance- although I agree with you that they've been too variable which is the kind of thing I would have pointed out to others in the playground and beyond!
If top 4 falls further away, our Wembley crowds will not look good. We'll of of course fill out the new ground to start with but we'll need a good team to maintain that longer term.
For the record, I've always respected City's support (a lot more than Chelsea's) and Maine Road with The Kippax was different gear and pretty much the most intimidating ground I went to as well - as you're soaring into the horizon, you should all remember where you came from.
Last edited by a moderator:
What makes a big club is the sum of these main factors:
What kind of players, managers they fetch today.
How big is the revenue
How much they won in the last decade(not century)
How long they manage to keep their star players
What kind of wages the club pays
Do they play in the CL and get past the group stages on a regular basis
The last least important factors would be how big is the stadium, current team power, and how much they won 20-30-50-100 years ago.
Everton used to be a big club, but not anymore. Chelsea per Abramovich we're not a big club, they are now.
Pool are difficult, I would say they are close to be elite as of today, but need to step up on a consistent level.
I would say Spurs are on the right path to become a big club but is very hard. They need trophies, a CL win would help a lot.
City are not a big club yet, need more time to become like Chelsea and bring high revenue. Playing in the high stages of the CL year after year will get them there.
Inter and Milan, still need a bit more time to loose the big club status, but they will get there if they don't do something. Get investors.
What kind of players, managers they fetch today.
How big is the revenue
How much they won in the last decade(not century)
How long they manage to keep their star players
What kind of wages the club pays
Do they play in the CL and get past the group stages on a regular basis
The last least important factors would be how big is the stadium, current team power, and how much they won 20-30-50-100 years ago.
Everton used to be a big club, but not anymore. Chelsea per Abramovich we're not a big club, they are now.
Pool are difficult, I would say they are close to be elite as of today, but need to step up on a consistent level.
I would say Spurs are on the right path to become a big club but is very hard. They need trophies, a CL win would help a lot.
City are not a big club yet, need more time to become like Chelsea and bring high revenue. Playing in the high stages of the CL year after year will get them there.
Inter and Milan, still need a bit more time to loose the big club status, but they will get there if they don't do something. Get investors.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well I explained that - in my opinion of course - that there were only a handful of achievements pre modern era that still had relevance many decades later.
The Busby Babes and our double winners were the first great teams of the "modern" era, with teams that were revered many many years after (Of course the Busby Babes have gained immortality in the most tragic of circumstances and our double winners are only relevant now to a small amount of people who revere history). We cemented that in the years to follow with high quality players, audacious transfers (Villa and Ardiles for one) and enough trophies to keep our profile high.
The Premiership changed a helluva lot. People are always going to have a problem with Chelsea and City because they just don't feel they have "earned" their success and have found the equivalent of a cheat in a computer game. I guess Chelsea would argue they were building something pre Roman (even if he did stop them from going under) and City look to be building something too big and good to disrespect and we'll just have to doff our hats.
There have been several good posts here about how any club is huge and means everything to their real fans. I'm sure many agree with that but in daily football chat you can't help but revert back to (patronising) hierarchical status at times. It wreaks of it on Red Cafe in places but then opposing fans are inviting themselves onto a site of the biggest football club in the country over many decades - we have to suck it up.
So, you think Chelsea are the biggest club in England?
Oops. Was going to ask this question in a different way. I could make a new thread if needed, but it's a very relevant question still.
New top 6 in the making? Excluding Spurs for a few years or do they bounce back next year.
I think as long as Jose is their, nope. Maybe 5 or 6 but by a scrape.
New top 6 in the making? Excluding Spurs for a few years or do they bounce back next year.
I think as long as Jose is their, nope. Maybe 5 or 6 but by a scrape.
This is probably the wrong thread for that.
True.
There's no shortage of Spursy threads tonight. See if you can rouse Glaston in one of them
Someone needs to bump the stadium thread for thatThere's no shortage of Spursy threads tonight. See if you can rouse Glaston in one of them
It's still funny that despite Arsenal being awful for the last 6 years they have 3 FA Cups to their name, while Spurs have feck all to show for their golden generation.
Spurs will probably go back down to being nobody's. I suppose lucking their way to a one-time CL final will be just as relevant as Olympique Marseille once reaching it in I believe 2004. People will forget all about it and it will be irrelevant.
They're horrific this year and a true embarrassment to the PL in Europe. Got absolutely wrecked and humiliated twice by a Bayern managed by Kovac. that Bayern was 7th or so in their league. Later Leipzig who have been terrible in Bundesliga since winter did the same to them.
This is their golden generation and it will end up being pretty much irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I suspect them to be a midtable team soon and for them to stay there for a long time.
They're horrific this year and a true embarrassment to the PL in Europe. Got absolutely wrecked and humiliated twice by a Bayern managed by Kovac. that Bayern was 7th or so in their league. Later Leipzig who have been terrible in Bundesliga since winter did the same to them.
This is their golden generation and it will end up being pretty much irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I suspect them to be a midtable team soon and for them to stay there for a long time.