Yep I agree... i think we are top of the all time league table of most point accumalated in the top division since the league started in 1888. We were second to Liverpool but overtook them last season. Everton were third united were 4th. chavs were no where near the top as they have largely spent a majority of their existence in the lower leagues.Theoperator wrote:As winners of 3 doubles over 3 different decades, and ever presents in the top flight since 1919 we should be top.
third biggest
Re: third biggest
Re: third biggest
How can we be top when we are 7 titles behind Utd and 5(maybe 6) behind Liverpool.Maybe you are counting the 4th place titles? We are 3rd no higher although Wenger would like to change it to 4thNos89 wrote:Yep I agree... i think we are top of the all time league table of most point accumalated in the top division since the league started in 1888. We were second to Liverpool but overtook them last season. Everton were third united were 4th. chavs were no where near the top as they have largely spent a majority of their existence in the lower leagues.Theoperator wrote:As winners of 3 doubles over 3 different decades, and ever presents in the top flight since 1919 we should be top.
5 English teams have won the European cup and we have reached just one final which is pathetic
Re: third biggest
Dont forget we won the calendar year trophy recently too.
Lets invent some more so we can be more like Spurs......
Lets invent some more so we can be more like Spurs......
-
Henry Norris 1913
- Posts: 8374
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:25 pm
Re: third biggest
we've had 12 kits in arsene wenger's reign. 12.
we are massive
we are massive
-
QuartzGooner
- Posts: 14474
- Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:49 pm
- Location: London
Re: third biggest
Liverpool are still a big club and well admired overseas, have a big fanbase.Supagoon wrote:
But there comes a time when as Liverpool found out in previous seasons, that history means little, that opponents don't care about you, you are no longer relevant and that hurts. I'm sure that's how we're viewed on the continent these days.
People can beat us and them with the stick that we have not won much lately, but trophies won do mean a lot.
Us, Man Utd and Liverpool are big clubs in a way that Chelsea and City would take years of success to get to.
We have all cemented our place in the culture of the sport and British society.
Chelsea and City have recent on pitch success, but to me there feels little in the way of depth behind either club.
It takes a bit more than a rendition of "Blue Moon" or a stolen Poznan dance to make a impact on the lore of the game.
Re: third biggest
Perceptions my arse ,we are the Arsenal and we are the best we are the Arsenal so fuck all the rest !
Re: third biggest
I think it's a mix of overall success, proximity in time of that success and fan base plus probably a bit of potential or capacity for success and growth. I would say consistency of trophy winning is an important factor as well.
When looking at trophies you probably need to factor in the change in perception of the importance of the various trophies once European competition started and evolved.
Proximity of trophy success, all other things being equal a league championship in the 30's doesn't factor as much as one in the last 10 years (why Huddersfield are just slightly smaller than Spurs
)
On a fan base reckoning we are still third behind Liverpool and Manyoo and Chelsea have a long way to go to catch up, (but their continued success and our relative lack of success means it will move in their favour). At the top end of the scale we are talking about global fan base, shirt sales and the sponsorship potential it brings. We aren't talking about whether you get 20k fans a week or 30k fans a week. That might settle the argument between Southampton and Reading but where we, Chelsea, Manyoo, Liverpool and Man City are it's fairly irrelevant. I live and work in South East Asia and in the cities you see the locals still wearing Manyoo, Liverpool and Arsenal jerseys much more than any other. And the support isn't as fickle as you'd think. I've met many Asians who have supported their teams for as long as I have supported Arsenal ('71). Once the loyalty is gained it sticks. There are more Chelsea supporters out here but still way behind the big three. A sprinkling of City shirts can be seen, and you do come across the occasional loony in a Spurs shirt. Why? I can only think they were born in the year of the rooster.
Capacity for growth/potential is one that favours the well founded, well run clubs, like us and Manyoo, over those that have bought their success based on a rich benefactor - City and Chelsea yes but their are plenty of other examples.
Consistency of trophy winning is the factor that means Wigan, Portsmouth, Swansea, Birmingham City are smaller clubs that us despite the fact they have won trophies in recent times. It's also why clubs that do well in some areas like overall number of trophies and fan base (Villa, Tottenham, Everton) fall away from being the biggest because they just don't win enough trophies consistently.
As far as European trophies go, I would argue that a European Cup is worth less than a Champions League and a UEFA Cup pre CL, is worth more than one post CL. Cup Winners Cup probably the equivalent of a Europa League today. My argument regarding the European Cup is that whilst it was harder to get into it (you had to win the league) once in you only had one Italian, Spanish, German or Dutch team to contend with. It's why Forest garnered two European Cups from one league win. My perception is that English Clubs under-achieved in the European Cup era, possibly due to the large difference in style of play between England and the other big leagues in Europe. So Villa's win back in '82 pales in comparison to Chelsea's CL in 2012.
Whilst it is all about opinion you could establish a set of criteria that would allow you to calculate which club is biggest.
This might solve and argument between middling teams, like Villa and Tottenham (which one is the biggest?) but at the top end I think it's still clear that Manyoo are number 1, Liverpool number 2 and we are third. Chelsea are moving closer and I would say if their success continues and we keep on being unsuccessful, in another 5 to 10 years they will over-take us.
When looking at trophies you probably need to factor in the change in perception of the importance of the various trophies once European competition started and evolved.
Proximity of trophy success, all other things being equal a league championship in the 30's doesn't factor as much as one in the last 10 years (why Huddersfield are just slightly smaller than Spurs
)On a fan base reckoning we are still third behind Liverpool and Manyoo and Chelsea have a long way to go to catch up, (but their continued success and our relative lack of success means it will move in their favour). At the top end of the scale we are talking about global fan base, shirt sales and the sponsorship potential it brings. We aren't talking about whether you get 20k fans a week or 30k fans a week. That might settle the argument between Southampton and Reading but where we, Chelsea, Manyoo, Liverpool and Man City are it's fairly irrelevant. I live and work in South East Asia and in the cities you see the locals still wearing Manyoo, Liverpool and Arsenal jerseys much more than any other. And the support isn't as fickle as you'd think. I've met many Asians who have supported their teams for as long as I have supported Arsenal ('71). Once the loyalty is gained it sticks. There are more Chelsea supporters out here but still way behind the big three. A sprinkling of City shirts can be seen, and you do come across the occasional loony in a Spurs shirt. Why? I can only think they were born in the year of the rooster.
Capacity for growth/potential is one that favours the well founded, well run clubs, like us and Manyoo, over those that have bought their success based on a rich benefactor - City and Chelsea yes but their are plenty of other examples.
Consistency of trophy winning is the factor that means Wigan, Portsmouth, Swansea, Birmingham City are smaller clubs that us despite the fact they have won trophies in recent times. It's also why clubs that do well in some areas like overall number of trophies and fan base (Villa, Tottenham, Everton) fall away from being the biggest because they just don't win enough trophies consistently.
As far as European trophies go, I would argue that a European Cup is worth less than a Champions League and a UEFA Cup pre CL, is worth more than one post CL. Cup Winners Cup probably the equivalent of a Europa League today. My argument regarding the European Cup is that whilst it was harder to get into it (you had to win the league) once in you only had one Italian, Spanish, German or Dutch team to contend with. It's why Forest garnered two European Cups from one league win. My perception is that English Clubs under-achieved in the European Cup era, possibly due to the large difference in style of play between England and the other big leagues in Europe. So Villa's win back in '82 pales in comparison to Chelsea's CL in 2012.
Whilst it is all about opinion you could establish a set of criteria that would allow you to calculate which club is biggest.
This might solve and argument between middling teams, like Villa and Tottenham (which one is the biggest?) but at the top end I think it's still clear that Manyoo are number 1, Liverpool number 2 and we are third. Chelsea are moving closer and I would say if their success continues and we keep on being unsuccessful, in another 5 to 10 years they will over-take us.
Re: third biggest
Arsenal have been setting standards on and off the pitch since the plans for Highbury were drawn up,Fuck Chelsea,they will never be bigger than Arsenal,two-bob club founded in 2005,so they won the Champions League,yes for us fans its a disaster but in the greater scheme of things it was just a trophy,albeit a major one,and they only won it due to its current format,they never got near it in its original form.Take the CL out of their history and their no bigger than the shit down the Seven Sisters.
-
StuartL
- Posts: 7878
- Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 8:22 pm
- Location: It’s a new dawn, a new day a new life, for me and I’m feeling good
Re: third biggest
robbo10 wrote:Arsenal have been setting standards on and off the pitch since the plans for Highbury were drawn up,Fuck Chelsea,they will never be bigger than Arsenal,two-bob club founded in 2005,so they won the Champions League,yes for us fans its a disaster but in the greater scheme of things it was just a trophy,albeit a major one,and they only won it due to its current format,they never got near it in its original form.Take the CL out of their history and their no bigger than the shit down the Seven Sisters.
But that's just the thing - you can't take out their CL win, and their recent prem wins, and fa cup victories, plus they look likely to carry on winning things frequently whilst the money props them up.
You could argue that prior to the 1930's we were a small club but then success (built on money, with Chapman in place) cemented us as England's no1 team and having established that foundation we went on to win things in the 50's, 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's too.
Re: third biggest
8 years of silverware bought with blood of dead Russians will never make the chavs a bigger club than us. They are a small club with no fans or history and a lot of money, and that is all they will ever be.
Re: third biggest
So I hope people don't think the banter in the chants is actually true? Maybe there are some people on here who do think they were formed sometime in the 1990's 
. We've been winning trophies for longer than them but "no history" isn't right. They are only 20 or so years younger than Woolwich Arsenal.
Just in in case you'd forgotten, here's a bit of what I remember about Chelsea history
Formed in eraly 1900's to be the users of a newly built stadium at Stamford Bridge. The enterpreneurs who built it wanted to get Fulham to move there from Craven Cottage but they refused. So they formed Chelsea FC. So if ever a club loses its soul by moving stadium it will be Chelsea as they were created to fill Stamford Bridge.
I think I am right in saying that they were the first London club to join the Northern dominated Football league. I think part of the reason was that Tottenham stopped them joining the Southern League. That started a long standing emnity between Chelsea and Tottenham which continues. So hating Spurs isn't an exclusive club. (we knew that)
Some of the biggest attendances for league matches have been us as in the old days of terracing the two big grounds where you coudl really pack-em in were Highbury and Stamford Bridge. Anyone remember the old Stamford bridge with the oval terracing stands and the do track? During the 50's there were 70k + corwds for some of our games
I just about remember them winning the FA Cup in 1970 against Leeds. They won the CWC the year after too.
Before the Abramovich era, I'd say they were at least as successful and historied as Spurs, and since then have massively outstripped them and are closing in on us.
So hate them, be jealous of them, wish them the worst, but no history? No, that's being delusional and I think we should that charateristic to the Spurs fans.
. We've been winning trophies for longer than them but "no history" isn't right. They are only 20 or so years younger than Woolwich Arsenal.Just in in case you'd forgotten, here's a bit of what I remember about Chelsea history
Formed in eraly 1900's to be the users of a newly built stadium at Stamford Bridge. The enterpreneurs who built it wanted to get Fulham to move there from Craven Cottage but they refused. So they formed Chelsea FC. So if ever a club loses its soul by moving stadium it will be Chelsea as they were created to fill Stamford Bridge.
I think I am right in saying that they were the first London club to join the Northern dominated Football league. I think part of the reason was that Tottenham stopped them joining the Southern League. That started a long standing emnity between Chelsea and Tottenham which continues. So hating Spurs isn't an exclusive club. (we knew that)
Some of the biggest attendances for league matches have been us as in the old days of terracing the two big grounds where you coudl really pack-em in were Highbury and Stamford Bridge. Anyone remember the old Stamford bridge with the oval terracing stands and the do track? During the 50's there were 70k + corwds for some of our games
I just about remember them winning the FA Cup in 1970 against Leeds. They won the CWC the year after too.
Before the Abramovich era, I'd say they were at least as successful and historied as Spurs, and since then have massively outstripped them and are closing in on us.
So hate them, be jealous of them, wish them the worst, but no history? No, that's being delusional and I think we should that charateristic to the Spurs fans.
-
DB10GOONER
- Posts: 62224
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:06 pm
- Location: Dublin, Ireland.
- Contact:
Re: third biggest
This ^.MK Gould wrote:Would Atletico be a bigger club than Real or Barca if they won the CL and La Liga this season...? No. What if they did it again next season? The answer is still no...
Trophies count, but not just those gained over the last few years. Arsenal are a bigger club than Chelsea despite them winning the CL, because of what we have done since as far back as the 1930's... We have a bigger trophy cabinet than them (albeit some of it a little dusty!), far more fans, a bigger/better stadium and are better known world wide. Likewise Man United over Man City, Real over Atletico etc.
Methinks that Arsenal are still the 3rd biggest club in England...and that doesn't change just because of 9 years without a trophy or a little bit of Russian/Arab money giving a short term boost to some of our lesser rivals.
Even when we've had trophy droughts before in the 60's and 70's we were still the third biggest club after the Victims and the Filth. JCL's might view the chavs as bigger because all they know (or care about) is the PL, but proper fans that understand history and sustained impact on football know the chavs are JCL's themselves. We've had huge regular success spread out over 90 years. The chavs have had 10 years of pimped success. No comparison.
Re: third biggest
Liverpool started the 60's in the second division and won the league once and fa cup once !
They rose up in the early 70's and became the force !
MUFC rose to superstardom only in 1968 but had become the darling club since the busby babes team that crashed in munich in Feb 1958 !
Arsenal have been a giant since the 30's !
They rose up in the early 70's and became the force !
MUFC rose to superstardom only in 1968 but had become the darling club since the busby babes team that crashed in munich in Feb 1958 !
Arsenal have been a giant since the 30's !
Re: third biggest
We need to rejoin the elite clubs and I don't mean top 4, one season of that won't suddenly make Everton more than the small club on Merseyside.
The proper elite, winning the league, the FAcup and properly challenging in Europe and we need to do it soon.
At the moment we are relying on our historical granted very large fanbase but 10-20yr olds who grow up knowing only chav and shi**ty success will swell their numbers and the more fans they have the more money they will make and be able to pay for more success.
We are sleepwalking into becoming 4th and if not careful 5th supported club. The mousers probably never imagined manure beating their league titles total back in 1990, now look where they are.
The proper elite, winning the league, the FAcup and properly challenging in Europe and we need to do it soon.
At the moment we are relying on our historical granted very large fanbase but 10-20yr olds who grow up knowing only chav and shi**ty success will swell their numbers and the more fans they have the more money they will make and be able to pay for more success.
We are sleepwalking into becoming 4th and if not careful 5th supported club. The mousers probably never imagined manure beating their league titles total back in 1990, now look where they are.
-
olgitgooner
- Posts: 7431
- Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:39 am
- Location: Brexitland
Re: third biggest
Chelsea are living on dirty Russian money.
They were shite before the dirty money arrived. They nearly went into bankruptcy because they had overspent chasing the dream of being a big, successful club.
Their average gates had dropped to about 20,000.
They are a shit club. No history.
Oh, and they won the Champions League by having a lot of luck. And by "parking the bus" in the final against Barca,(something which Maureen complained about when it happened to his team the season before).
Fuck 'em.
They were shite before the dirty money arrived. They nearly went into bankruptcy because they had overspent chasing the dream of being a big, successful club.
Their average gates had dropped to about 20,000.
They are a shit club. No history.
Oh, and they won the Champions League by having a lot of luck. And by "parking the bus" in the final against Barca,(something which Maureen complained about when it happened to his team the season before).
Fuck 'em.
