Is there any reason we couldn't do a Brighton?

Bruce said:
I think probably, if you factor out the broadcast rights by assuming everyone is in the Premier league, we are in group where we would be slightly richer than Wolves but poorer than, say, Sunderland. If you look at clubs like Leicester, we would have a slightly higher income potential than them. At any time, some teams are over-performing and some under-performing. We are definitely a club that would need to over-perform just to stay mid-table and we would be at risk of relegation from a single bad season.

We have under-performed for most seasons since we got relegated under Southgate and that is definitely a marker of a poorly run club. Hopefully that's changing. If we were performing to our average we would probably be spending 2 years in the Prem for every one in the Champ.
Click to expand...
How can you factor out tv revenues? That's what makes some clubs exceedingly wealthy, and some clubs poor. And income determines size, to an overwhelming degree.

Brighton, Brentford, and Fulham are bigger than Sunderland and Bolton, although the latter two have won much more historically.
 
It makes me laugh that the Football world was up in arms when Brighton parted company with Chris Hughton a few years back, who had kept them up for a couple of years etc.

But they had a plan and those running Brighton have absolutely nailed it, even with Chelsea trying to knock them off track by pinching Potter, if anything that has only helped, as De Zerbi looks magic (as well as actually looking like a Vegas magician!)
 
How would we be bigger than Leicester?

Even ignoring the fact that they've won more than we ever will, Leicestershire alone has more people than Teesside.

They have bigger attendances than us, they're a bigger club, and they're more globally relevant.
 
AMEX are a Brighton sponsor and while they may or may not actually provide cash, it’s nice to have such an influential organisation backing the club. Also, geographically the club is situated close to the metropolis for attracting players.
 
TeaCider said:
How would we be bigger than Leicester?

Even ignoring the fact that they've won more than we ever will, Leicestershire alone has more people than Teesside.

They have bigger attendances than us, they're a bigger club, and they're more globally relevant.
Click to expand...
Glover_elbow said:
Some rose tinted views on here bigger than and more spending power than wolves. Absolutely delusional
Click to expand...
Leicester and Wolves have similar attendances to us in the prem, despite the advantage of larger catchment areas, and the benefit of being in the south (being able to attract better players easier, attracts fans).

Leicester are bigger though, I was wrong to say otherwise, but I mean they're probably bigger as a result of those things (money and location). I suppose I meant more like maybe we would be seen as bigger and maybe would have won more if we hadn't been based where we were, and if we had more cash. All 100% hypothetical though, and probably doesn't even make much sense to think of it like that, as we're not moving, and neither are they.

I probably look at it more like what have clubs done since I've been alive, assuming most other fans do the same for themselves. Most would look at Leicester as bigger, but probably not Wolves.

I don't think Wolves are as big as they were in the 40's and 50's as nobody alive remembers that, and they have done basically zero since then, other than a few years in the prem as a passenger which will likely come to an end in the next few years.
 
I honestly don't think there is much more to it than clubs getting lucky with a crop of lucky signings all coming off at the same time.

All this talk of culture and stuff that the media like to twaddle on about is a load of rubbish.

Obviously the clubs with nation state wealth fling more s*** at the wall so of course more tends to stick.

For the likes of us and the vast majority of other clubs like Brighton, it's just dumb luck.

The one caveat I would add is that having an incredibly talented manager can make a difference.
 
TeaCider said:
How would we be bigger than Leicester?

Even ignoring the fact that they've won more than we ever will, Leicestershire alone has more people than Teesside.

They have bigger attendances than us, they're a bigger club, and they're more globally relevant.
Click to expand...
Historically they haven't.
Glover_elbow said:
Some rose tinted views on here bigger than and more spending power than wolves. Absolutely delusional
Click to expand...
In the PL we would be at least a match for them.

We are in a group of clubs of similar size and potential to Leicester and Wolves.
We are not permanently bigger and better, or smaller and insignificant.

See also Sunderland, Sheff U, Forest, Derby, Wednesday, West Brom, Coventry, Birmingham, Stoke, Southampton, Brighton, Palace, Norwich, Ipswich.
I'm sure others would add more clubs depending on their subjective criteria.
These clubs have no divine right to be PL, or obligation to flounder in the Championship. How well they are run - and luck - will determine where they sit.

There are at best a dozen very big clubs (United, City, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea, Newcastle) They have PL revenue, obscenely rich owners and massive fanbases
There is another small group who dream to break in (Villa, Leeds, West Ham). They have PL revenues and very large fanbases.
Then there are one or two others like Everton who will never get back to what they imagine themselves as.
Then there are the few defying gravity like Burnley, Brentford, Fulham
 
indeedido said:
Historically they haven't.

In the PL we would be at least a match for them.

We are in a group of clubs of similar size and potential to Leicester and Wolves.
We are not permanently bigger and better, or smaller and insignificant.

See also Sunderland, Sheff U, Forest, Derby, Wednesday, West Brom, Coventry, Birmingham, Stoke, Southampton, Brighton, Palace, Norwich, Ipswich.
I'm sure others would add more clubs depending on their subjective criteria.
These clubs have no divine right to be PL, or obligation to flounder in the Championship. How well they are run - and luck - will determine where they sit.

There are at best a dozen very big clubs (United, City, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea, Newcastle) They have PL revenue, obscenely rich owners and massive fanbases
There is another small group who dream to break in (Villa, Leeds, West Ham). They have PL revenues and very large fanbases.
Then there are one or two others like Everton who will never get back to what they imagine themselves as.
Then there are the few defying gravity like Burnley, Brentford, Fulham
Click to expand...
Fan base means jack shît fulham have an owner worth 11billion they are not defying anything.
 
Glover_elbow said:
Fan base means jack shît fulham have an owner worth 11billion they are not defying anything.
Click to expand...
Fan base does matter. It is not everything, but it does matter.
Fulham is a weird little club. Lots of tourist and transient “fans”, very small real base.
They have mega wealthy owners who have pumped incredible equity in, but the value is in the location of their real estate and current PL status. There is nothing else.
If their owner walked, it is not like Chelsea, there would be no queue to buy Fulham.
Same at Brentford, Bournemouth, Burnley.
 
Colgates_shaving_foam said:
I honestly don't think there is much more to it than clubs getting lucky with a crop of lucky signings all coming off at the same time.

All this talk of culture and stuff that the media like to twaddle on about is a load of rubbish.

Obviously the clubs with nation state wealth fling more s*** at the wall so of course more tends to stick.

For the likes of us and the vast majority of other clubs like Brighton, it's just dumb luck.

The one caveat I would add is that having an incredibly talented manager can make a difference.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's any proof that there is more than that; there's always going to be someone doing well, but that certainly doesn't mean they've found a successful formula.

Whatever Southampton and Swansea did for a while didn't last. Newcastle had success for a while with French signings scouted by Graham Carr, but wrongly assumed that would continue.

It's the same with nations developing young players. At the start of last decade, there was a trend for saying we should follow the Spanish model, then the German model, then the Belgian model. Since then, Belgium and Germany have fallen away considerably. Yes, you need a good method of training young players, but the final product is always going to vary based on the talent coming in to the system.

However, we be fools if we assumed there was nothing we could learn from others: we should always look, but we shouldn't always adapt what we do (on either level) just to ape the flavour of the month.
 
NorthumberlandBoro said:
We'll see how big Leicester are when they've spent a couple of seasons in the championship.
Click to expand...

They spent a decade in the Championship between 2004 and 2014, with a quick trip to League One during that spell.

They averaged 22-24,000 in those 9 Championship seasons.
They averaged 20,000 in the League One season.

We overlapped for 5 seasons during that, and we were averaging 15-19,000.
 
It has taken Brighton over 120 years to achieve this level of success - very similar to us. They may well build upon it and time will tell. We could follow suit - so could any number of clubs. But I have a feeling that Brighton will fall prey to the "big clubs".
 
TeaCider said:
They spent a decade in the Championship between 2004 and 2014, with a quick trip to League One during that spell.

They averaged 22-24,000 in those 9 Championship seasons.
They averaged 20,000 in the League One season.

We overlapped for 5 seasons during that, and we were averaging 15-19,000.
Click to expand...
We are not a big club and neither are Leicester.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top