Club Size In Order (Championship Edition)

[Madejski]

23 years back you had an average under 4k .... I'd hush

24 years back.

And I never claimed we were bigger, just similar sized. Probably one or two positions higher than us in "club size", not 12 places..

 

[AnkleBiter]

Depends what you base it on but pretty much every neutral would know more about Hull than Bristol City and most players would go to Hull at the moment too. In fact I'm really not sure why Bristol City would be seen as bigger in any respect?

 

[Madejski]

About the same level also, I don't think Bristol City at their worst were as bad as Hull at their worst.

Which is also how you should measure a club size. Often it is all about the best success they've had. The lowest points can tell you as much about a club size as the highs.

Though they're also too high up in the OP. I'd put Charlton, Cardiff, Burnley and QPR above Bristol City.

 

[91SPP]

I will never understand how trophies necessarily indicate the size of a club. I've always said long-term success will inevitably increase fanbase, therefore the size of the following, therefore the size of the club. I just don't see how trophies in the 60s or 70s have an impact on club size if you aren't getting people through the door.

Fanbase, for me, is the only true way of judging the size of the club. Fans are the lifeblood of the club.

I'm not saying this is completely on attendances, either. We average around 7,000 more fans per game than Wednesday and Leeds, yet I'd guess they have more supporters who don't go to games than us. We average roughly 10,000 more fans per game than Forest, who I'd guess have a similar size fan base to us.

 

[Veggie Legs]

This has been discussed many times.

I think you mean 'too many times'. You know it's the end of the season when people are desperate to argue about which team scores higher on some undefined measure.

 

[JJH]

Depends what you base it on but pretty much every neutral would know more about Hull than Bristol City and most players would go to Hull at the moment too. In fact I'm really not sure why Bristol City would be seen as bigger in any respect?

Only because they've recently had three years of Premier League exposure. Yes, players would join Hull over Bristol City currently - purely for financial reasons. They're still receiving parachute payments, they'd be able to put up far more than we can.

Hull may be more successful recently in terms of getting the top flight exposure (which could have been so, so different if we'd have beaten them in the PO final ) but when the chips were down for Hull, they didn't average above 10k for 30 years (1972-2002) and that was with spells in the second division as well.

We've had more years in the top flight than them, and Hull have never won anything substantial. Their highest ever league finish is 16th in the top flight, ours is second. Not to cockwave, but with all things taken into account I'd suggest that we're a bigger club than Hull.

 

[JJH]

About the same level also, I don't think Bristol City at their worst were as bad as Hull at their worst.

Which is also how you should measure a club size. Often it is all about the best success they've had. The lowest points can tell you as much about a club size as the highs.

Though they're also too high up in the OP. I'd put Charlton, Cardiff, Burnley and QPR above Bristol City.

Charlton definitely, Burnley yes, Cardiff and QPR debatably. They're another two clubs that have had recent PL exposure, but the history books tell you that when the chips are down their attendances haven't been impressive. Even with them both selling out most weeks in the PL, they've come back down and have shit attendances. Same for Burnley in that bracket, their attendances aren't great still but they've had many years in the top flight.

 

[Walkley_Owl]

You're not bigger than Hull JJH, soz

 

[blademan89]

Only because they've recently had three years of Premier League exposure. Yes, players would join Hull over Bristol City currently - purely for financial reasons. They're still receiving parachute payments, they'd be able to put up far more than we can.

Hull may be more successful recently in terms of getting the top flight exposure (which could have been so, so different if we'd have beaten them in the PO final ) but when the chips were down for Hull, they didn't average above 10k for 30 years (1972-2002) and that was with spells in the second division as well.

We've had more years in the top flight than them, and Hull have never won anything substantial. Their highest ever league finish is 16th in the top flight, ours is second. Not to cockwave, but with all things taken into account I'd suggest that we're a bigger club than Hull.

It's not even debatable it's a fact

 

[JJH]

You're not bigger than Hull JJH, soz

Opinions welcome, but based on what out of interest?

 

[blademan89]

You're not bigger than Hull JJH, soz

I think they are easily

 

[Walkley_Owl]

I will never understand how trophies necessarily indicate the size of a club. I've always said long-term success will inevitably increase fanbase, therefore the size of the following, therefore the size of the club. I just don't see how trophies in the 60s or 70s have an impact on club size if you aren't getting people through the door.

Fanbase, for me, is the only true way of judging the size of the club. Fans are the lifeblood of the club.

I'm not saying this is completely on attendances, either. We average around 7,000 more fans per game than Wednesday and Leeds, yet I'd guess they have more supporters who don't go to games than us. We average roughly 10,000 more fans per game than Forest, who I'd guess have a similar size fan base to us.

3/4 seasons of better gates doesn't make you bigger than either us or Leeds

 

[Walkley_Owl]

Opinions welcome, but based on what out of interest?

Both clubs are a similar size but Hull are marginaly bigger based on playing top flight football in my lifetime.

 

[blademan89]

Both clubs are a similar size but Hull are marginaly bigger based on playing top flight football in my lifetime.

3 years in there entire history. Joke club 25k for an fa cup semi only the 2nd they'd ever been in

 

[JJH]

Both clubs are a similar size but Hull are marginaly bigger based on playing top flight football in my lifetime.

We've had three times the amount of years in the top flight than they have though, no matter how recent.

I just gave a whole host of reasons as to why I believe we're bigger than Hull which were historically (post WW2, not 100 years ago) but if a few years in the PL as of recent is an indicator in your opinion then fair enough.

 

[JJH]

3 years in there entire history. Joke club 25k for an fa cup semi only the 2nd they'd ever been in

What was their allocation? In contrast we had 43,000 for the piss pot final last year, which is bizarre given Bristol hasn't even got double the amount of people residing here in comparison with Hull.

 

[blademan89]

What was their allocation? In contrast we had 43,000 for the piss pot final last year, which is bizarre given Bristol hasn't even got double the amount of people residing here in comparison with Hull.

33k

 

[JJH]

33k

Wow, the fact an area populating 250,000 people couldn't muster together 33k for an FA Cup semi final at Wembley is telling. Surprising though, they sold their allocation for the PO final against us from what I can remember.

 

[91SPP]

3/4 seasons of better gates doesn't make you bigger than either us or Leeds

Which is what I said. Although, for what it's worth, Wednesday haven't had a bigger average attendance than us since we moved from the Baseball Ground in 97. Year on year since then, we've had the larger crowds.

It's much closer with Leeds, with us coming out on top more often than not since their relegation.

As I said, I wouldn't dispute both of you have larger fanbases than us. We just have a higher percentage of supporters that go to games than you.

 

[blademan89]

Wow, the fact an area populating 250,000 people couldn't muster together 33k for an FA Cup semi final at Wembley is telling. Surprising though, they sold their allocation for the PO final against us from what I can remember.

Only there 2nd ever fa cup semi too. 1st final ever when they beat us. Rugby far bigger though in Hull than football there football support is pathetic.

 

[JJH]

Only there 2nd ever fa cup semi too. 1st final ever when they beat us. Rugby far bigger though in Hull than football there football support is pathetic.

Yeah, I agree that really is pathetic. Another argument for us being bigger than them, but Walkley is more than entitled to his opinion.

 

[Walkley_Owl]

Which is what I said. Although, for what it's worth, Wednesday haven't had a bigger average attendance than us since we moved from the Baseball Ground in 97. Year on year since then, we've had the larger crowds.

It's much closer with Leeds, with us coming out on top more often than not since their relegation.

As I said, I wouldn't dispute both of you have larger fanbases than us. We just have a higher percentage of supporters that go to games than you.

Not disputing the move to Pride Dark has helped you buy in the 2005/06 we were the best supported FL team, and barring last 2 years it's been close too

 

[PNE Mynx]

You're not bigger than Hull JJH, soz

thank you walkley, there not at all are they? never in doubt mate

btw SF im not trolling mate, just an opinion really isn't it

 

[Gerry Gow]

just reading through the shoutbox and some belters (no names mentioned...) are claiming that bristol are a bigger club than hull

time for some discussion then, with it being the end of the season and not much happening in this league. your club order in terms of size in this league, and explain why if questioned. happy to give facts and answer any quires. we did this on the other forum, some got a bit carried away.

1) leeds
2) forest
3) wolves
4) wednesday
5) derby
6) birmingham
7) blackburn
8) hull
9) PNE
10) middlesbrough
11) ipswich
12) bolton
13) bristol city
14) charlton
15) huddersfield
16) cardiff
17) burnley
18) brighton
19) qpr
20) reading
21) fulham
22) brentford
23) rotherham
24) mk dongs

thoughts?

I'd say that's being generous to us!

We're not bigger than Burnley and Charlton, even QPR is debatable. I reckon we're on par with PNE who shouldn't be in 9th place IMO!

Hull City at 8th is just laughable. They're fucking tinpot

 

[AnkleBiter]

Hull's recent history as a Premier League club, FA Cup finalists and even a little bit of Europe makes them bigger at the moment for me. It could well be the other way round in 10 years times and history wise neither stand out, 2nd/3rd division sides.
And in fairness, if I was a Hull fan I'd have been very tempted to skip the semi against the League One side and save for the final.

Not sure why this has just become Hull v Bristol City by the way

 

[Gerry Gow]

Hull's recent history as a Premier League club, FA Cup finalists and even a little bit of Europe makes them bigger at the moment for me. It could well be the other way round in 10 years times and history wise neither stand out, 2nd/3rd division sides.
And in fairness, if I was a Hull fan I'd have been very tempted to skip the semi against the League One side and save for the final.

Not sure why this has just become Hull v Bristol City by the way

Sorry that doesn't wash with me. We've tripled their time in the top division, also been FA Cup finalists. Just because it's ' recent ' doesn't mean it's far superior.

I think PNE and Burnley are bigger than both of us because of their pre war achievements, that's what you need to consider too if we're basing this on a whole clubs history. You could argue yourselves winning the triple in the 1920s? It's a long, long time ago but still part of your clubs history.

I know Hull have got a new stadium but up until 10 or so years ago, the other Bristol lot were bigger than that mob.

 

[JJH]

Hull's recent history as a Premier League club, FA Cup finalists and even a little bit of Europe makes them bigger at the moment for me. It could well be the other way round in 10 years times and history wise neither stand out, 2nd/3rd division sides.
And in fairness, if I was a Hull fan I'd have been very tempted to skip the semi against the League One side and save for the final.

Not sure why this has just become Hull v Bristol City by the way

It's how it started FWIW, read the OP.

Can only echo what GG has said, we got into a cup final against United as well, don't really understand how it being more recent makes it more of an achievement.

They're averaging 16k at home this season off the back of their third season in the top flight, and they've been in the top six all season. That's fucking dreadful.

 

[roversfan2001]

I've just spent over an hour trying to find a way to balance achievements throughout history with modern achievements to produce the ultimate 'Big Club League!'

Sheffield Wednesday are (officially?) the biggest club in this mighty fine league, with Wolves in 2nd. Blackburn, Leeds, Derby and Forest are left to contest the play-offs. Arguably, ours, Forest's, and Wolves' position is heavily pushed towards the top thanks to a large trophy haul. In the bottom three are Reading, Brentford and Rotherham. Reading's position there is largely thanks to a lack of trophies and a large amount of time in the bottom 2 divisions. Special notes to Brighton, MK Dons, Bristol City, Reading, Brentford and Rotherham who ended up with a minus number at the end.

(also, due to the 2015/16 stats able to change after every matchday, this table can be updated after every round and some changes could ensue)

(and again, no I did not manufacture it to make Rovers higher than what some would say normal, I entered all the figures with teams in alphabetical order and created a coefficient based off the stats inputted)

 

[DippyDon]

It all depends on if you're on about now or the last 150 years tbh, although the only constants are Leeds being the biggest club and us being the smallest.
Bristol City are historically bigger because hull used to be terrible, hull are now bigger because of their recent history, FA cup final and attempt at Europe etc

 

[DippyDon]

I've just spent over an hour trying to find a way to balance achievements throughout history with modern achievements to produce the ultimate 'Big Club League!'
View attachment 3172
Sheffield Wednesday are (officially?) the biggest club in this mighty fine league, with Wolves in 2nd. Blackburn, Leeds, Derby and Forest are left to contest the play-offs. Arguably, ours, Forest's, and Wolves' position is heavily pushed towards the top thanks to a large trophy haul. In the bottom three are Reading, Brentford and Rotherham. Reading's position there is largely thanks to a lack of trophies and a large amount of time in the bottom 2 divisions. Special notes to Brighton, MK Dons, Bristol City, Reading, Brentford and Rotherham who ended up with a minus number at the end.

(also, due to the 2015/16 stats able to change after every matchday, this table can be updated after every round and some changes could ensue)

(and again, no I did not manufacture it to make Rovers higher than what some would say normal, I entered all the figures with teams in alphabetical order and created a coefficient based off the stats inputted)

What a load of nonsense, I'm guessing you're classing a league cup win exactly the same as a European cup win?