Six biggest Championship clubs

We don’t exist

It wasn’t that long ago the British legion forgot to include us in the poppy badges.
 
These articles are written exactly for this purpose. To get people riled up. The concept of "Big club" is utterly meaningless and is something that should be reserved for the likes of Newcastle and Everton. It is something for their fans to cling to because they have won nothing for so long. It is a way to hark back to former glories instead of living in the present. Silverware and league positions are the only things that really matter and those things are very easy to measure.

Who's the biggest club? Who cares?
 
Genuinely not understanding the backlash.

It's a simple list of the 6 teams in each division that have won the most trophies.

Like it or not, those 6 teams have been more successful than Middlesbrough because they've won more.

Arguing about recency doesn't really help either.
Birmingham and Swansea have both won something more recently than we have and would be on that list before us.

We're not Mackems, there's no need to try and use attendances and mid-table top flight finishes as proof that we're actually massive.
 
Capybara said:
@Nano and @TeaCider absolutely. Arguments about 'bigness' are utterly pointless and childish.
Click to expand...
Well surely Capybara the publication of such tables are utterly pointless and childish, together with the defence of their suppositions?

If they are published and defended, then challenging them is equally valid.
Personally speaking, swap Middlesbrough and Derby County for Preston and Huddersfield and it makes sense based on more criteria than winning trophies since the 19th century. But that is my opinion.
 
Btw how the hell are Preston on there??

If it’s for their illustrious history then fine so why aren’t Blackpool added then.
 
Obviously using the term "biggest clubs" is designed to provoke. For those who care, historical trophies won is just one factor you can use to argue what determines the size of a club. Using it as the only factor is a bit silly.

If it's a list of "most successful" then that's up for debate too. Not every trophy has equal stature. Sounds like in their criteria the charity shield is worth the same as a European Cup.

So it's essentially a list of most major trophies won. With the bizarre inclusion of a pre-season friendly as a "major trophy".
 
TeaCider said:
Genuinely not understanding the backlash.

It's a simple list of the 6 teams in each division that have won the most trophies.

Like it or not, those 6 teams have been more successful than Middlesbrough because they've won more.

Arguing about recency doesn't really help either.
Birmingham and Swansea have both won something more recently than we have and would be on that list before us.

We're not Mackems, there's no need to try and use attendances and mid-table top flight finishes as proof that we're actually massive.
Click to expand...
Preston last won the league in 1890 and last won the FA Cup in 1938 - before any of us were even born

But their history marks them out as a bigger club that Stoke, Derby, us?

Absolute tosh!
 
Ironops said:
Preston last won the league in 1890 and last won the FA Cup in 1938 - before any of us were even born

But their history marks them out as a bigger club that Stoke, Derby, us?

Absolute tosh!
Click to expand...

Why is it?

Without listing attendances or mid-table finishes, why is that tosh?
Success is measured in trophies, they are more successful than us.

If the list is based on success, they are rightly above us on it.
 
TeaCider said:
Why is it?

Without listing attendances or mid-table finishes, why is that tosh?
Success is measured in trophies, they are more successful than us.

If the list is based on success, they are rightly above us on it.
Click to expand...
The key words there are "if" and "success".
I think others have put forward other criteria and have suggested timeframes are important too.
Historical attendances, Historical league standings are no more 'tosh" than who won the FA Cup in the 19th century.

I have lots of respect for Preston, they have a proud history, but it is ancient. They actually had to seek re-election to the Football League in 1986. They were already two divisions below our low point. They've spent over half of the last 50 years in the bottom two leagues.
I doubt anybody outside Preston would seriously include them on this strange list.

Preston and Huddersfield were important clubs when we had an empire, but not at all since then.
 
TeaCider said:
Why is it?

Without listing attendances or mid-table finishes, why is that tosh?
Success is measured in trophies, they are more successful than us.

If the list is based on success, they are rightly above us on it.
Click to expand...
Its the same as saying the Italian Army is more successful than the Americans coz the Romans conquered more territory! :ROFLMAO:

Trophies won before people were alive are not an indicator of how big a club is today
 
indeedido said:
The key words there are "if" and "success".
I think others have put forward other criteria and have suggested timeframes are important too.
Historical attendances, Historical league standings are no more 'tosh" than who won the FA Cup in the 19th century.

I have lots of respect for Preston, they have a proud history, but it is ancient. They actually had to seek re-election to the Football League in 1986. They were already two divisions below our low point. They've spent over half of the last 50 years in the bottom two leagues.
I doubt anybody outside Preston would seriously include them on this strange list.

Preston and Huddersfield were important clubs when we had an empire, but not at all since then.
Click to expand...

It's not a strange list.
It's a very simple and accurate list with a clear criteria.

The thing people are taking issue with is the use of the word "Biggest", which is an arbitrary term without a clear definition.

If we were to use all time average attendances, we are 2nd biggest in the Championship.
If we were to use an all time top flight points total, we're the 5th biggest in the Championship and there are 3 teams in League One that are bigger than us.

But both of those data points are also relying on "ancient history" to keep us afloat on those tallies.

We've spent 61 seasons in the top flight, 46 of them were before I was born, so clearly they don't count by the logic used by some on here.

Only 4 teams currently in the Championship have won a trophy since I was born.
Nottingham Forest haven't achieved a single thing since I was born in 1992, I doubt any person would argue that Swansea are a bigger club because they've won something whilst I was alive, they're not, but that's largely because the middle aged and older posters on here won't see something that happened 42 years ago as ancient history, despite it being just as irrelevant to today's standings.

I'm sure many will be the same posters that will rightly argue that football started before the Premier League.
History is history, recent or not.
 
Last edited:
TeaCider said:
It's not a strange list.
It's a very simple and accurate list with a clear criteria.

The thing people are taking issue with is the use of the word "Biggest", which is an arbitrary term without a clear definition.

If we were to use all time average attendances, we are 2nd biggest in the Championship.
If we were to use an all time top flight points total, we're the 5th biggest in the Championship and there are 3 teams in League One that are bigger than us.

But both of those data points are also relying on "ancient history" to keep us afloat on those tallies.

We've spent 61 seasons in the top flight, 46 of them were before I was born, so clearly they don't count by the logic used by some on here.

Only 4 teams currently in the Championship have won a trophy since I was born.
Nottingham Forest haven't achieved a single thing since I was born in 1992, I doubt any person would argue that Swansea are a bigger club because they've won something whilst I was alive, they're not, but that's largely because the middle aged and older posters on here won't see something that happened 42 years ago as ancient history, despite it being just as irrelevant to today's standings.

I'm sure many will be the same posters that will rightly argue that football started before the Premier League.
History is history, recent or not.
Click to expand...
There is no way Preston are bigger better more illustrious or whatever you want to call it than us.

Non
 
Jedi boro said:
Btw how the hell are Preston on there??

If it’s for their illustrious history then fine so why aren’t Blackpool added then.
Click to expand...

Because Blackpool have won less.

2 titles and 2 FA Cups is better than 1 title and 1 FA Cup.

There's no conspiracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top