[Football] London football clubs. Biggest and smallest

[The Truth]

So you live in London, and disagree with yourself?

Nope, I used to live in London too and I don't agree with you.

And I asked you what actually determines a bigger team?

 

[El Presidente]

Wasn't it their 1930's crowds which were making headlines?

During the 1930's their crowds averaged between 21-34,000.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Chelsea have a massive following themselves. They sell out their 42,000 seat stadium even for tin-pot league cup games against 4th division minnows.

While I won't have a good word said about Tottenscum Hotspunk, I'm sure Chelsea were pulling in 18k in the days of Kerry Dixon.

 

[The Truth]

Nothing 'actually' determines the bigger team. It's a heady mix of heritage, history, cultural position and trophies IMO though. There is no definitive answer.

Spurs 3 Chelsea 1.

 

[Simster]

While I won't have a good word said about Tottenscum Hotspunk, I'm sure Chelsea were pulling in 18k in the days of Kerry Dixon.

And in the 80s, Spurs had gates as low as 13,000 for one or two top flight games, and they were still the bigger club back then.

 

[The Truth]

During the 1930's their crowds averaged between 21-34,000.

Really!? Fair enough. I thought they were a top team in the 30's?

 

[Sheebo]

Neither is a thread on Manchester united so you really should not be contributing either. Just my opinion like

Haha oh dear - you still didn't get the joke was on you not getting the Man U thing. I told u to bore off & stop quoting me on another thread last week yet you've gone out of your way to come into a thread you should t be contributing to in the first place & stick your nose in quoting me. You're an annoying little rash now piss off & don't talk to me on here again. For a second time. And try get a life at some point soon

 

[El Presidente]

While I won't have a good word said about Tottenscum Hotspunk, I'm sure Chelsea were pulling in 18k in the days of Kerry Dixon.

They averaged 12,000 in 1982/3.

 

[El Presidente]

Really!? Fair enough. I thought they were a top team in the 30's?

There's not a huge difference between the teams in terms of divisional location

Chelsea 79 years in top division and 19 in the second
Spurs 79 years in top division and 16 in the second

 

[Sheebo]

Back on topic, Charlton are bigger than palace in what I consider 'big club'... Albion above both of course.

 

[The Truth]

AFC Wimbledon have technically won the FA cup and spent a fair few seasons in the Prem. (who actually get's the accolades for this?)

 

[EDS]

Haha oh dear - you still didn't get the joke was on you not getting the Man U thing. I told u to bore off & stop quoting me on another thread last week yet you've gone out of your way to come into a thread you should t be contributing to in the first place & stick your nose in quoting me. You're an annoying little rash now piss off & don't talk to me on here again. For a second time. And try get a life at some point soon

So precious, bless your little cotton socks.

 

[Simster]

They averaged 12,000 in 1982/3.

Division 2 though, and were nearly caught in a relegation battle there!

 

[Frampler]

That's your assumption.

I don't think Abramhovic's cash makes Chelsea bigger than spurs. You do.

Anyone's who's lived in London will tell you Spurs are bigger.

I've lived in London - still work there - and I totally disagree. I see far more Chelsea shirts than Spurs about the place (as I do overseas), and far more of the cab drivers are Chelsea fans.

Spurs have won half as many league titles (2) as Chelsea (4). Spurs have never won the biggest trophy in club football, and have played only one season in the Champions League. They have regularly sold their top players to Man Utd in recent years, whereas Chelsea sold Utd a player from their bench for a club record fee (Mata).

I'm no fan of Chelsea or Abramovich, but I just can't see how you could call Spurs bigger than Chelsea without ignoring the last 20 years.

 

[Sheebo]

So precious, bless your little cotton socks.

Haha take it however u want to in your small mind. I've asked you not to quote me as I don't want to waste another second talking to you. Now kindly go away & don't ever quote me as I've asked. On this BHA message board.

 

[sir albion]

Bar the influx of hideous money from the russian it would have been..
Arsenal
Spurs
Westham
Chelsea
Etc etc

 

[The Truth]

I've lived in London - still work there - and I totally disagree. I see far more Chelsea shirts than Spurs about the place (as I do overseas), and far more of the cab drivers are Chelsea fans.

Spurs have won half as many league titles (2) as Chelsea (4). Spurs have never won the biggest trophy in club football, and have played only one season in the Champions League. They have regularly sold their top players to Man Utd in recent years, whereas Chelsea sold Utd a player from their bench for a club record fee (Mata).

I'm no fan of Chelsea or Abramovich, but I just can't see how you could call Spurs bigger than Chelsea without ignoring the last 20 years.

Chelsea have definitely been the bigger of the 2 in the last 10 to 15 years but, for the majority of the 100 or so years before that, I'm sure most would of considered Spurs bigger.

I suppose you could say both are big in different aspects.

 

[sir albion]

I've lived in London - still work there - and I totally disagree. I see far more Chelsea shirts than Spurs about the place (as I do overseas), and far more of the cab drivers are Chelsea fans.

Spurs have won half as many league titles (2) as Chelsea (4). Spurs have never won the biggest trophy in club football, and have played only one season in the Champions League. They have regularly sold their top players to Man Utd in recent years, whereas Chelsea sold Utd a player from their bench for a club record fee (Mata).

I'm no fan of Chelsea or Abramovich, but I just can't see how you could call Spurs bigger than Chelsea without ignoring the last 20 years.

Because Chelsea's millions of plastics will fack off in hard times...where's spurs won't and they're bigger as are westham in my opinion.I just see chelsea as a cling on side with millions of plastic/armchair fans who have just jumped on the band wagon.

 

[The Truth]

Because Chelsea's millions of plastics will fack off in hard times...where's spurs won't and they're bigger as are westham in my opinion.I just see chelsea as a cling on side with millions of plastic/armchair fans who have just jumped on the band wagon.

Similar to Man City.

and don't forget, Chelsea were about to follow Leeds untied into financial ruin until Abramovic arrived.

 

[Bladders]

Because Chelsea's millions of plastics will fack off in hard times...where's spurs won't and they're bigger as are westham in my opinion.I just see chelsea as a cling on side with millions of plastic/armchair fans who have just jumped on the band wagon.

This about sums it up for me . Barely saw anyone in a Chelsea shirt years ago