daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Stadiums and Sport Arenas > Proposed



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old March 3rd, 2010, 02:21 PM   #21
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccfc-4-life View Post
Appologies, completely forgot Man City...

Newcastle has greater support than villa IMO, not too sure about everton because they also have a large fanbase. But as a club I think Newcastle are bigger than both, only just though. On my list Id say there isnt much difference in the size of the clubs from 4th to 10th
Yeah but neither of them have a bigger fan base than chelsea. You forget that London and the south east has a huge population and chelsea are huge in this region and always have been. They've just got a lot bigger around the country in the last decade.

Trophies is a bullshit measure so is overall history, if only big clubs won things then Arsenal would never have stopped dominating from the 1930s. And if there was no maximum wage London clubs would've taken up most of the trophies just like the big clubs in Italy and Spain. Arsenal were by far the biggest club until the munich disaster and Tottenham were second. It was that, man u winning the European cup at WEmbley and Liverpool's dominance of the 70s/80s which took them past in terms of fanbase. Afterall it is this era that fans stopped supporting local-ish clubs, let's face it if we took only fans from a certain radius of their grounds Arsenal would be number 1 and Tottenham number 2 because there are more people down south than up north!

imo it goes

National fan-base

1. Manchester united
2. Liverpool

big because they are from the south east (nearly 20 million people in London, South east and Southern part of Eastern England)

3. Arsenal
4. Spurs

big in their wider region

5. Leeds United
6. Chelsea
7. Newcastle
8. Everton
9. Villa
10. Man City
11. West Ham
12. Sunderland
12. Sheff Wed
13. Wolves
14. Forest
15. Norwich
16. West Brom
17. Derby
18. Ipswich

Second group in no particular order, upper middle sized clubs

Southampton, Portsmouth, Bristol city, Birmingham, Stoke, Leicester, Coventry, Palace, Charlton, Middlesboro, Cardiff, Sheffield United

Lower middle sized clubs

Watford, Luton, QPR, Millwall, Fulham, Plymouth, Brighton, Swindon, Swansea, Blackburn, Bolton, Burnley, Preston, Reading, Hull, Bradford City, Barnsley, Bristol Rovers

the rest are small clubs, although clubs like Gillingham etc have potential
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 3rd, 2010, 02:30 PM   #22
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Oh and on the chelsea pitchowners thing, they are their to protect Chelsea from being asset stripped (stamford bridge being their principle asset) are they not? I doubt they would stand in the way of a move of ground that would benefit the club, they aren't stupid!

I still see battersea as the way to go, they wouldn't move to Chiswick and I doubt Chiswick will welcome them it's not exactly a footbally area. I see a move south as chelsea are definately as much as south London club as a west London club, if not more...
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2010, 04:35 PM   #23
topalex
Registered User
 
topalex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 493
Likes (Received): 63

''Trophies is a bullshit measure so is overall history''
Not sure I agree with you there, particularly as you go on to mention big clubs but dont say what criteria you use.

'' let's face it if we took only fans from a certain radius of their grounds Arsenal would be number 1 and Tottenham number 2 because there are more people down south than up north!''
Again......why would Arsenal be number 1 and us number 2? Are you suggesting there are more people living in a particualr radius of the Emirates than WHL? Or that because of your success (more trophies) there are more?
topalex no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2010, 04:37 PM   #24
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by topalex View Post
''Trophies is a bullshit measure so is overall history''
Not sure I agree with you there, particularly as you go on to mention big clubs but dont say what criteria you use.
It is quite obvious I am basing it on fan base and only fan base... You even bloody quoted it in your reply

Success means nothing, Forest have won two European cups does that make them bigger than Arsenal or even West ham, of course not...

Quote:
'' let's face it if we took only fans from a certain radius of their grounds Arsenal would be number 1 and Tottenham number 2 because there are more people down south than up north!''

Again......why would Arsenal be number 1 and us number 2? Are you suggesting there are more people living in a particualr radius of the Emirates than WHL? Or that because of your success (more trophies) there are more?
No not because there are more people living in a particular radius of the emirates (I can't believe you even thought that), radius doesn't necessarily mean 1 mile, I am talking 40 miles/25 kms (where the population difference would be negligible) and it's this region (as well as everywhere except edmonton and enfield) where we have more fans than you, doy.

and let's get it straight we've always had more fans than you, all our success has done is made the gap wider than ever before...

Last edited by bigbossman; March 3rd, 2010 at 04:49 PM.
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2010, 05:07 PM   #25
topalex
Registered User
 
topalex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 493
Likes (Received): 63

What is it with this gooner urge to jump in waving their todgers about?
Is your dad bigger than mine too lol
topalex no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2010, 05:10 PM   #26
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Yeah he probably is, hope your dad is scared now...

anyway you started it by getting your panties in a twist about me saying Arsenal were bigger than your rabble...
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2010, 05:32 PM   #27
topalex
Registered User
 
topalex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 493
Likes (Received): 63

PMSL....the old ' you started it' accusation.....what are you....13?
Anyway Id better let you have the last word as I know how important that is to you 'warriors of the net'....dont forget to throw in the odd swear word to add menace!
topalex no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2010, 07:41 PM   #28
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,157
Likes (Received): 3240

a) It's always just "one man's opinion," folks. No need to make it up as more than that.

b) I know Chelsea had some decent pedigree pre-Abromovich, but the idea that they could have a larger ground than Arsenal or s**** still feels like sacrilege. And would likely be yet another example of abusing the financial systems of football.

But that's just this man's opinion.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2010, 08:46 PM   #29
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 3,653
Likes (Received): 1629

Quote:
I still see battersea as the way to go, they wouldn't move to Chiswick and I doubt Chiswick will welcome them it's not exactly a footbally area. I see a move south as chelsea are definately as much as south London club as a west London club, if not more...

Battersea is a non-start as I said before. I use to live near there as recently as last September and 1) there isn't as much space as it first seems; 2) it is earmarked for other developmental purposes. Basically you can split the site into the two. One is around the power station which, even if the current proposals don't go through (although they have the Mayors backing), will definitely not host a stadium. They're trying to squeeze as many residential flats as they can which is why the proposals look so dense. The other site is Nine Elms next door and closer to Vauxhall. The US Embassy is going to start construction in a few years and Covent Garden Market has applied to expand and open up their site turning it into another Borough Market. The rest will be a mixture of Offices and flats, skyscraper style. Boris and Tfl are trying to squeeze a few hundred million of the developers for a Northern Line extension (not something I agree with. Needs to go SE!) as a condition for planning consent. It is noticeable how the club have gone quiet on the Battersea front since late last year as these proposals became clear

Basically there is no where in Inner West or Inner South West London for Chelsea to go. Unless they decide redevelop SB they're going to have to go quite a bit away from their current home. The Chiswick site was the nearest one I could think of and you're right, I don't think the council would necessarily want them (unless they are part of a much wider regeneration project. But Chiswick ain't Tottenham).

I agree that their core fan base is further out in West and SW london. Having you ever travelled on Edgware-Wimbledon District line branch when Chelsea have a game? Everyone it seems goes to Paddington!!
kerouac1848 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2010, 09:31 PM   #30
KingHumphrey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by topalex View Post
Perhaps I am living in the past and need to move with the times but I would be outraged if my beloved club 'Tottenham Hotspurs FC' were forced to change names. Its a major part of our identity that has been embraced by generations of fans...these things should not be toyed with by petty bureaucracy.
You are Ossie Ardiles, and I claim my 5 pounds.

------------------------------------------------------

The Chelsea Pitch Owners are meaningless IMO.

It was a ploy by Ken Bates to protect Stamford Bridge from property developers. When Batesy bought the club he made the massive mistake of not buying the land at the same time. Because of that, Chelsea were involved with huge struggles with developers over whether they'd be allowed to stay at SB.

From memory CPO was probably a complete and utter joke financially. The basic premise was to get supporters to spend 100 quid and get a certificate and somehow that would mean that the land would never be used as anything other than as CFC's stadium. I think very few suckers actually did fork over cash for the useless certificates.

The CPO issue may need to be sorted out, but I don't think for a second that it has any issue over whether CFC stay at SB or move. It might just end up that the suckers who bought the useless certificates get lucky and get a grand each to give the certificates up.
KingHumphrey no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2010, 08:47 PM   #31
plasticterminator
Registered User
 
plasticterminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 467
Likes (Received): 16

Trophies are the only thing that you can base success on in football! Winning is everything all else is opinion so Liverpool are top dog and 'thats a fact'

Thats why i posted the statistic list, my opinion is different but its wrong I admit it. The thing about history is we are writing it all the time and it becomes fact but most important of all is the past can be changed by the future but the past cannot change the future
plasticterminator no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2010, 09:38 PM   #32
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,157
Likes (Received): 3240

Quote:
Originally Posted by plasticterminator View Post
Trophies are the only thing that you can base success on in football! Winning is everything all else is opinion so Liverpool are top dog and 'thats a fact'
So if Liverpool finish trophyless for the next two decades, routinely behind Money United and Chelski, does this mean they're no longer a successful club?

Maybe this is how I should teach my kids about the game?

<rickybobby>"If you ain't first, you're last!"</rickybobby>
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2010, 12:46 AM   #33
plasticterminator
Registered User
 
plasticterminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 467
Likes (Received): 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
So if Liverpool finish trophyless for the next two decades, routinely behind Money United and Chelski, does this mean they're no longer a successful club?

Maybe this is how I should teach my kids about the game?

<rickybobby>"If you ain't first, you're last!"</rickybobby>
No, it means they are no longer the 'most' succesful club
plasticterminator no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2010, 12:51 AM   #34
Ecological
BANNED
 
Ecological's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,518
Likes (Received): 23

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
No seriously, only Arsenal, Spurs, Man U and Liverpool are bigger than Chelsea, maybe Everton were...

Chelsea got ruined by trying to rebuild their stadium in the 1970s, they built the east stand then they ran out of money and got relegated, it took them until the 1990s to recover...
Deluded. They had a big fan base. but they are in London other then that they've offered nothing much to English football and I can state there are quite a few teams bigger then them throughout history including my own.
Ecological no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2010, 12:57 AM   #35
Ecological
BANNED
 
Ecological's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,518
Likes (Received): 23

Quote:
Originally Posted by kerouac1848 View Post
Wolves and West Brom before Man City? Don't think Newcastle are bigger than Everton or Villa in terms of both history and support tbh.
Think Wolves history is actually one of the most decorated with up's and downs then almost any other club in the country if im honest. Not trophies ... but the story itself. CCFC's list in my oppinion is Kinda blinkered by teams current standings.

And yes BigBossMan. When it comes to football threads you have an oppinion that what you say cannot ever EVER be questioned. you talk shite half the time.
Ecological no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2010, 01:54 AM   #36
Mr. Fitz
Get Your Walk On Son!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dublin
Posts: 256
Likes (Received): 4

God this thread has turned awful with who's bigger than who.
Mr. Fitz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2010, 03:21 AM   #37
KingHumphrey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecological View Post
Deluded. They had a big fan base. but they are in London other then that they've offered nothing much to English football and I can state there are quite a few teams bigger then them throughout history including my own.
Which team is that?

Up to 2008, Chelsea had the fifth highest average gate in England.

Up to 1997, they had probably the worst record for silverware among the "top" clubs. They improved upon their record between '97 and 2000 and then in 2003 Abramovich bought, the club, which resulted in the last 7 years being overwhelmingly the most successful period in the club's history.
KingHumphrey no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2010, 03:29 AM   #38
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

he's a wolves fan
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2010, 02:27 AM   #39
citizensmith
Registered User
 
citizensmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 25
Likes (Received): 0

I watched the Chelsea v Inter game on TV tonight and noticed the last 5 or 6 rows at the back of the Matthew Harding Upper tier appeared to be empty. Could someone tell me why this was?
citizensmith no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2010, 05:21 AM   #40
Bigcat
Registered User
 
Bigcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
Posts: 480
Likes (Received): 81

For European matches there are more press and tv lorrys present. These park behind the Matthew Harding Stand as there is little space else where. Therefore they have to reduce the stands capacity as fewer fans can fit outside in case of an emergency or just general UEFA health and safety rubbish.

This didn't use to be a problem until they built a Sports Centre behind the stand a few years back which took up a fair bit of space.
Bigcat no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
london, stadiums

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium