Should it be the “big 7” now?

[Hulksmash]

The big six is determined by Revenue and Fans world wide. People laugh at Arsenal and Tottenham but their fan base is huge outside of England. Arsenal have more fans world wide then Bayern Munich. Tottenham is big in Asia.

 

[Handsome Devil]

There’s nothing big about Spurs.

<insert cheese room joke here>

They have a big trophy room, with big spider webs in it and big tumbleweeds blowing across it!

 

[B20]

In reality it is a top four now. The clubs you can rely on to compete for cl qualification every year and from which you can say with near certainty that the league winners will be found.

If Leicester had actually managed to finish top four after winning the title they might be in it. Looks to be yet another season of being top 3 all season and then hitting the handbrake to snatch 5th at the end. Still, winning the title and league makes them the joint third most successful English team from 2016 onwards.

Spurs and arsenal have spent years in the wilderness at this stage. They are more akin to Everton than a "top six" by now.

 

[Bebestation]

But but the premier league is not as competitive as the la liga..

 

[Iron]

I never did understand why Spurs were considered part of the big six. They don’t win anything, or used to win anything in the past. They don’t have a massive global fanbase. The only thing they had were their league finishes, but even that is no longer guaranteed.

As far as I can see, Leicester have more of a claim to being one of the top six clubs in England than Spurs.

Spurs has finished in top 6 in the premier league for the last decade or more, so they are part of the big 6. Its pretty straight forward. Getting champions league 2th place is better then all other cups. Post SAF, I think they have a better league finish then us on average as well.

 

[WeePat]

Spurs has finished in top 6 in the premier league for the last decade or more, so they are part of the big 6. Its pretty straight forward. Getting champions league 2th place is better then all other cups. Post SAF, I think they have a better league finish then us on average as well.

It literally isn't. If Chelsea and Leicester both finish in the top 4 but Chelsea lose the CL final, Leicester will have had the better season.

 

[MU655]

I'm pretty sure top six were denote the teams finishing in the top six positions.

Tottenham and City became new constants in the top four. It was a bit stupid to keep calling Arsenal, Manutd, Chelsea, and Liverpool the top four when they weren't even getting into the CL positions.

 

[1950]

I always thought the big 4 at the time was coined for those clubs consistently qualifying for the Champions League after the Premier League receiving 4 spots. It was more or less over by 2010 anyway.

 

[jakko]

Yes i would say so, considering Leicester recruitment is one of the best in the league.

 

[Stacks]

it's a little bit about the size of the club too

it's a kind of merge between size and current team, but mostly current team

otherwise Leicester would be considered in it already, which they are not (until maybe today)

That's because Leicester has only actually qualified for CL place once

 

[Stacks]

I'm pretty sure top six were denote the teams finishing in the top six positions.

Tottenham and City became new constants in the top four. It was a bit stupid to keep calling Arsenal, Manutd, Chelsea, and Liverpool the top four when they weren't even getting into the CL positions.

Yeah sort of. It was about CL places and the 6 who realistically and frequently qualify and challange for them who would eventually then occupy the top 6 places. Fans always spin shit though

 

[Stacks]

Yes but it's outdated. Arsenal can only challenge for Lego head affections and Spurs are neither here nor there. Neither are perennial top 4 sides now. Leicester have nearly made it now 2 years now. Much more pedigree

I don't deny that. Just more correcting what the Bix 6 relates to. Arsenal are more mid table now although Spurs can still realistically challenge for a place with many predicting them to make it at the start

 

[Sunny Jim]

Big 5.

More apt id say.

If anything Arsenal are not a big team any more.

 

[One Night Only]

Just make it the big 20.

 

[TheScriptwriter]

No it shouldn't. The big 5 are Liverpool, United, Chelsea, Arsenal and now City, because they have won too much recently not to be. Teams like Tottenham and Leicaster have great teams, but they are not big clubs. They don't have the historical achievments the others have.
Tottenham and Leicaster can't become bigger than Arsenal or Milan for example, just because they have good squads for a few years and even win a trophy or two. The including of Tottenham in the super league was just because of their owner, not because they are a big club.

 

[MU655]

No it shouldn't. The big 5 are Liverpool, United, Chelsea, Arsenal and now City, because they have won too much recently not to be. Teams like Tottenham and Leicaster have great teams, but they are not big clubs. They don't have the historical achievments the others have.
Tottenham and Leicaster can't become bigger than Arsenal or Milan for example, just because they have good squads for a few years and even win a trophy or two. The including of Tottenham in the super league was just because of their owner, not because they are a big club.

How long does that go on for, though? Arsenal have only won one more league title than Leicester in the last 20 years. And their last was 17 years ago.

For me, Leicester are far more relevant than Arsenal to that list now.

 

[Zehner]

Always thought this had more to do with the financial muscle of the club. Until 2019, United, City, Liverpool Chelsea, Tottenham and Arsenal were among the 10 football clubs with the highest revenue worldwide. As of 2020, Arsenal only narrowly missed out on top 10. Leicester isn't even in the top 20.

 

[JJ12]

if it’s just form on the pitch (last few years) then it’s a big 5 that includes Leicester.

Spurs and Arsenal are ‘bigger’ though.

 

[Schmeichel's Cartwheel]

if it’s just form on the pitch (last few years) then it’s a big 5 that includes Leicester.

Spurs and Arsenal are ‘bigger’ though.

Arsenal are bigger for sure.

How exactly are Spurs bigger though? Neither club has much history, and Leicester have arguably the best sporting story of the century to their name. They have also won more trophies this century than Spurs.

 

[JJ12]

Arsenal are bigger for sure.

How exactly are Spurs bigger though? Neither club has much history, and Leicester have arguably the best sporting story of the century to their name. They have also won more trophies this century than Spurs.

Depends what you go off as ‘bigger’? Trophies, fan base size, revenue, stadium size, recent form (last 3-5 years).

 

[Forevergiggs1]

It should also be remembered that you do have billionaire backers.
Not quite as plucky an underdog as some are painting the narrative.

The difference with Leicester is that they're a very well run club more than the money they've spent. To put it into perspective, in the last 5 years Leicester have a net spend of less than £100m while our net spend is sitting at around £500m. Where's our PL?

Their record signing is worth £40m, their second £30m. They might have paid their way out of the championship but in the PL they've more or less sustained themselves on a shoe string budget compared to the so called bigger clubs around them. I'd like to see any of the top 6 teams stay successful with a net spend of around £20m for the last 5 years like Leicester have done so fair play to them.

 

[Sandikan]

The difference with Leicester is that they're a very well run club more than the money they've spent. To put it into perspective, in the last 5 years Leicester have a net spend of less than £100m while our net spend is sitting at around £500m. Where's our PL?

Their record signing is worth £40m, their second £30m. They might have paid their way out of the championship but in the PL they've more or less sustained themselves on a shoe string budget compared to the so called bigger clubs around them. I'd like to see any of the top 6 teams stay successful with a net spend of around £20m for the last 5 years like Leicester have done so fair play to them.

Yes, I can see that they're very tidily run.
There will always be one anomaly, and always "Big" clubs who have dreadful seasons.

 

[Forevergiggs1]

Yes, I can see that they're very tidily run.
There will always be one anomaly, and always "Big" clubs who have dreadful seasons.

Leicester winning the PL was an anomaly. Them quietly consolidating themselves among the big 6 the last few seasons is anything but and at least half of the big 6 haven't just had dreadful seasons but have been dreadful for many of them, us included going by the very high standards set by SAF and the money we've spent.

Any team that breaks up a (unexpected) title winning team with so little net money spent revamping themselves as a top 6 team deserves in my opinion total respect which is why for me it's slight annoying when I hear people say it's because of all the money they've spent instead of giving them praise on how they've set the club up.

I wonder how much it would cost to get their scouting team in because I'd be willing to take the hit and pay at least £50 out of my own pocket. Feck it. Get their coaching staff in as well and I'll up it to a ton.

 

[KingPower]

As a Leicester fan, I don't care or have any desire to be part of the so called "big 6". I don't want my club to be seen as entitled, which is what this title brings. We are already one of the BEST 6, and nobody can realistically deny that fact.

 

[TMDaines]

I'd imagine the average fan of one of "The Other 13" or a team from another league would still see beating Spurs or Arsenal as a bigger deal.

 

[Lynty]

There's no big six anymore.

Six Traitors should be the new label for the next few years at least.