44th biggest club in the country?

P

Postman Pat

Well-known member

Jul 24, 2007

6,971

Coldean

• Mar 26, 2015

• #1

Daily Mail have tried to resolve the issue of club size in England and have us 44th.

What do you think?



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-finally-settles-football-s-great-debate.html

 

Simster

"the man's an arse"

Jul 7, 2003

54,198

Surrey

• Mar 26, 2015

• #2

[MENTION=15922]Working class pride[/MENTION] is going to shìt the bed when he sees this.

 

Icy Gull

Back on the rollercoaster

Jul 5, 2003

72,015

• Mar 26, 2015

• #3

Historically, that would be hard to argue with but over the last 4 years we should have jumped right up that list with the opening of the Amex which does make us a bigger club than 44th now.

 

H

Hastings gull

Well-known member

Nov 23, 2013

4,635

• Mar 26, 2015

• #4

Postman Pat said:

Daily Mail have tried to resolve the issue of club size in England and have us 44th.

What do you think?

View attachment 64191

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-finally-settles-football-s-great-debate.html

Click to expand...

Thanks for this and it makes for a fascinating read. Of course we can make with stats what we like, and one should always treat the figures with caution. I am not surprised at the rating of player quality, certainly after the first half of the season, but the income is baffling. If it is from football alone, ie season tickets and on the day purchase, then we should be higher, I would have thought, as we are generally regarded as one of the most expensive in the championship. If, TV money is taken into account, which I assume it is, then that of course tells a different story.

 

Return of the Rev

Well-known member

Nov 26, 2008

21,045

Flitting between the county league and mates rates

• Mar 26, 2015

• #5

Smaller club than Reading

 

P

Postman Pat

Well-known member

Jul 24, 2007

6,971

Coldean

• Mar 26, 2015

• Thread starter
• #6

I think our player quality score is too high compared to the likes of Millwall and Coventry who score lower.

I imagine Leeds fans are going mental over their global fanbase score compared to Stoke, Fulham and Charlton!

 

8ace

Banned

Jul 21, 2003

23,811

Brighton

• Mar 26, 2015

• #7

Those global fanbase rankings look a bit dodgy to me - Dirty L**ds 23rd only two ahead of Reading and Scumhampton 11th!!!

 

Publius Ovidius

Well-known member

Jul 5, 2003

46,036

at home

• Mar 26, 2015

• #8

Taking those criteria into consideration, that is about right really.

I still think the fact that in the our history we have only been in the top flight for 4 of those years does have an effect on people's thinking, and we have only missed out twice on going up I seem to recall.

 

skipper734

Registered ruffian

Aug 9, 2008

9,189

Curdridge

• Mar 26, 2015

• #9

Doesn't have time parameters, so is nonsense.

 

Hillian1

( . ) ( . )

Jul 15, 2010

15,364

Struggling for breath at the top of the stairs

• Mar 26, 2015

• #10

Can I go on record as quite frankly not giving a shit.

 

El Presidente

The ONLY Gay in Brighton

Helpful Moderator

Jul 5, 2003

39,709

Pattknull med Haksprut

• Mar 26, 2015

• #11

skipper734 said:

Doesn't have time parameters, so is nonsense.

Click to expand...

Are we back to talking about [MENTION=15922]Working class pride[/MENTION] again?

 

El Presidente

The ONLY Gay in Brighton

Helpful Moderator

Jul 5, 2003

39,709

Pattknull med Haksprut

• Mar 26, 2015

• #12

8ace said:

Those global fanbase rankings look a bit dodgy to me - Dirty L**ds 23rd only two ahead of Reading and Scumhampton 11th!!!

Click to expand...

I suspect WACCOE will be going into meltdown, although 13th does seem about fair to me.

 

8ace

Banned

Jul 21, 2003

23,811

Brighton

• Mar 26, 2015

• #13

El Presidente said:

I suspect WACCOE will be going into meltdown, although 13th does seem about fair to me.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing they've failed to include the European Cup in the trophy score as well

 

G

Gwylan

Well-known member

Jul 5, 2003

31,339

Uffern

• Mar 26, 2015

• #14

That looks a bizarre ranking. How on earth can the Mail say Bury, Notts Co and Blackpool have better players than us? How can a side with the second highest gates in the second tier be only the 33rd best supported team? Are they using figures from six years ago for this?

 

Bozza

You can change this

Helpful Moderator

Jul 4, 2003

55,738

Back in Sussex

• Mar 26, 2015

• #15

Gwylan said:

That looks a bizarre ranking. How on earth can the Mail say Bury, Notts Co and Blackpool have better players than us? How can a side with the second highest gates in the second tier be only the 33rd best supported team? Are they using figures from six years ago for this?

Click to expand...

Player quality

We counted the number of players from each club who have played for England, all-time, ranking the clubs by total. This reflects historic ‘bigness’. We then ranked the clubs by the number of players provided to the 2014 World Cup — a measure of modern ‘bigness’. The overall ranking is an aggregate of these two.

Crowds

We ranked all clubs on the size of their average gates during this season to reflect contemporary pull. Then we ranked each club by the size of their biggest historic gates. Their overall crowd rank is an aggregate of current pull and also potential based on past highs.

 

Bozza

You can change this

Helpful Moderator

Jul 4, 2003

55,738

Back in Sussex

• Mar 26, 2015

• #16

Under their contentious questions section:

Aren’t Leeds too low?

Leeds fans will point to the dominance of the Revie era and a Champions League semi-final in the not too distant past, to the size of Elland Road and their potential to be mighty whites again.

But there are 14 other teams with a better haul of major trophies. There are 11 others who have a higher all-time average league finish and 14 with bigger crowds when the current season and historic highs are both considered. Leeds rank only 25th of the 58 clubs in the study for the calibre of the players measured by all-time England players plus current global stars, and 23rd for global popularity, and 26th by income. They were giants for a time, some decades ago. But they are much diminished, for now.

 

Notters

Well-known member

Oct 20, 2003

24,869

Guiseley

• Mar 26, 2015

• #17

Bozza said:

Crowds

We ranked all clubs on the size of their average gates during this season to reflect contemporary pull. Then we ranked each club by the size of their biggest historic gates. Their overall crowd rank is an aggregate of current pull and also potential based on past highs.

Click to expand...

But on ours they've done it on past lows, which surely doesn't make sense?

 

N

n1 gull

Well-known member

Jul 25, 2003

4,638

Hurstpierpoint

• Mar 26, 2015

• #18

Notts County

 

El Presidente

The ONLY Gay in Brighton

Helpful Moderator

Jul 5, 2003

39,709

Pattknull med Haksprut

• Mar 26, 2015

• #19

Notters said:

But on ours they've done it on past lows, which surely doesn't make sense?

Click to expand...

Past lows can turn into future lows!

 

G

Gwylan

Well-known member

Jul 5, 2003

31,339

Uffern

• Mar 26, 2015

• #20

Bozza said:

Player quality

We counted the number of players from each club who have played for England, all-time, ranking the clubs by total. This reflects historic ‘bigness’. We then ranked the clubs by the number of players provided to the 2014 World Cup — a measure of modern ‘bigness’. The overall ranking is an aggregate of these two.

Crowds

We ranked all clubs on the size of their average gates during this season to reflect contemporary pull. Then we ranked each club by the size of their biggest historic gates. Their overall crowd rank is an aggregate of current pull and also potential based on past highs.

Click to expand...

Well, those are nonsensical criteria: it's fair enough to include some measure of the past but it needs to be weighted more heavily to the present. Using those criteria I'm surprised Wanderers with their five FA Cup wins aren't somewhere near there