I'm sure that almost everyone would agree that there are things you can use to judge how big a football club is. Average historical position, average historical attendance, leagues and trophies won, stadium size, club infrastructure, youth academy, potential for growth. I think Sunderland would rank higher than Stoke on all of those things TBH. As would Boro. I'm not saying it's important or even really means anything, I'm just saying that if you're going to be chucking those sorts of terms around it'd be good or interesting to know what you're basing it on. But, as I say, it isn't really important.
Stoke can presumably offer Alex Neil a permanent contract and a more secure and stable working environment. Stoke may have more scope in the transfer market. But I'm not really sure how anyone could describe them as a bigger club than Sunderland. Presumably those people would be happy to accept that Bournemouth, Brentford and Brighton are bigger clubs than Boro?
