Scientifically - we are 5th biggest club

Adam456

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
3,997
Thought worthy of a new thread as many won't revisit the other...

Well it seems that we all have our own criteria to decide what means a club is big so I thought I'd look at this scientifically (well more scientifically anyway). Here's something I knocked up over lunch. If we give marks out of ten for each criteria I reckon we come back with about the right results.

(I haven't modified any of the ratings so that the total agrees with my overall opinion - I tried to do each objectively and let the results be. I also haven't weighted any of the categories - they all count equally. Plus not included any take on the new financial regulations.

See what you think and enjoy :)

Club.....Si....TL....St....LD....Fi....Fa...To
MANU...10....9....10....10....9....10....58
ARSE....8.....10...10....8.....9.....8.....53
LIV.......9.....9.....7.....8.....8....10....51
CHEL....9......7.....7....9.....10....6.....48
SPUR....7.....9.....6.....6.....7.....8.....43
CITEH...4.....6.....9.....4.....10....6....39
VILLA....6.....9....7.....4......5.....7....38
EVE.......6....10...6.....5......4.....6....37
NEWC....3....6.....8.....4.....4.....7.....32
LEEDS....6....3....5.....3......1.....5....23
FRST.....6.....5....5....1......1.....4.....22

Si = Silverware
TL = Top flight longevity
St = Stadium/Facilities
LD = Last decade performance
Fi = Current financial muscle
Fa = Fan base
To = Total
 

sloth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,999
That seems pretty fair to me. Not sure about your silverware grades though, as I'm sure Villa and Everton have won the league far more recently than we have. Did you weight it depending on what was won (e.g. Title weighs more than the League Cup)?

Also I'd give us a mark less on the fan base thing to bring us more in line with Toon and Villa and a notch behind Arsenal (current, not historic).
 

roosh

aka tottenham_til_i_die
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
4,626
Interesting!

I'd question our marks for silverware and financial muscle though, purely on the basis of comparison to the likes of United and Liverpool. I don't think we've had seven thenths the success that either has had; plus, I'd probably be inclined to give Liverpool 10 in terms of silverware, because they've won more European Cups than United. I'm not entirely sure what City's silverware score would with respect to United, Liverpool, Arsenal & ourselves.

With respect to financial muscle: if City are 10, then I'd say that Chelsea are probably 9 or 8, with United being 6/7, and so on down; we'd probably be about 4/5.

If both silverware and financial muscle were to be adjusted for us and City, it might put us closer to being level with City
 

Adam456

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
3,997
That seems pretty fair to me. Not sure about your silverware grades though, as I'm sure Villa and Everton have won the league far more recently than we have. Did you weight it depending on what was won (e.g. Title weighs more than the League Cup)?

Also I'd give us a mark less on the fan base thing to bring us more in line with Toon and Villa and a notch behind Arsenal (current, not historic).
Cheers

Well on the silverware it was basically CL > Prem > FAC/Europa/UEFA > LC and broadly speaking taking all of that into account I thought we were a fraction above Villa and Everton (modern-era - post WWII) but I might have a little of the rose-tinted there

Fair points on the fan base. I expect we are a more globally supported club than Toon and Villa but less than Arse. But within the British Isles maybe same as toon and Villa. I'm guessing that a lot more 5-10 year olds support Arse now but at work and playing football I always seem to bump into more Spurs (perhaps we're happier to admit it :) )
 

brett.spurs

Banned
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
7,388
Interesting!

I'd question our marks for silverware and financial muscle though, purely on the basis of comparison to the likes of United and Liverpool. I don't think we've had seven thenths the success that either has had; plus, I'd probably be inclined to give Liverpool 10 in terms of silverware, because they've won more European Cups than United. I'm not entirely sure what City's silverware score would with respect to United, Liverpool, Arsenal & ourselves.

With respect to financial muscle: if City are 10, then I'd say that Chelsea are probably 9 or 8, with United being 6/7, and so on down; we'd probably be about 4/5.


If both silverware and financial muscle were to be adjusted for us and City, it might put us closer to being level with City
That's relative to eachother though which isn't really fair, you need to list out say the top 30 clubs or so and Spurs would be towards the top. If it was measuring money on percentages then if City are a 10 then we're more like a 1, but on the whole Spurs are somewhere near the top.

I've just read that back and I've explained it terribly, I'm sure someone will see what I'm getting at. It's a rubbish indicator too because some rich oil barons could take over from Barnet and they'd be +10 on that alone.
 

C0YS

Just another member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
9,107
Not sure I agree on you're criteria.

Si = the most important
TL = Top flight longevity - league preformance would probably be better
St = Stadium/Facilities - Doesn't matter. means little.
LD = Last decade performance - means nothing in 20 years, otherwise known as meaning mothing
Fi = Current financial muscle - means nothing
Fa = Fan base -important
To = Total

Silverwhere is difficult because one would need to apply value to each compotition won, and its value at the time. For example when Villa won the League when it had only one division and some big clubs of the time regected joining it, its not like it matters that much, and the FA cup held more value at the time. Now the FA cup holds less value but still means quite a lot. UEFA cup is probably the won to have lost most value. But I think only liverpool have won it since its loss in value.
 

roosh

aka tottenham_til_i_die
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
4,626
That's relative to eachother though which isn't really fair, you need to list out say the top 30 clubs or so and Spurs would be towards the top. If it was measuring money on percentages then if City are a 10 then we're more like a 1, but on the whole Spurs are somewhere near the top.

I've just read that back and I've explained it terribly, I'm sure someone will see what I'm getting at. It's a rubbish indicator too because some rich oil barons could take over from Barnet and they'd be +10 on that alone.
that's a fair point, the only problem is that you would need a strict sliding scale of 10..9...8 and so on, which wouldn't really be representative of the financial muscle that City actually have, particularly seeing as it is the scale of their financial muscle which has catapulted them into the realms of being a big club.
 

gregga

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
2,219
Thought worthy of a new thread as many won't revisit the other...

Well it seems that we all have our own criteria to decide what means a club is big so I thought I'd look at this scientifically (well more scientifically anyway). Here's something I knocked up over lunch. If we give marks out of ten for each criteria I reckon we come back with about the right results.

(I haven't modified any of the ratings so that the total agrees with my overall opinion - I tried to do each objectively and let the results be. I also haven't weighted any of the categories - they all count equally. Plus not included any take on the new financial regulations.

See what you think and enjoy :)


Club.....Si....TL....St....LD....Fi....Fa...To
MANU...10....9....10....10....9....10....58
ARSE....8.....10...10....8.....9.....8.....53
LIV.......9.....9.....7.....8.....8....10....51
CHEL....9......7.....7....9.....10....6.....48
SPUR....7.....9.....6.....6.....7.....8.....43
CITEH...4.....6.....9.....4.....10....6....39
VILLA....6.....9....7.....4......5.....7....38
EVE.......6....10...6.....5......4.....6....37
NEWC....3....6.....8.....4.....4.....7.....32
LEEDS....6....3....5.....3......1.....5....23
FRST.....6.....5....5....1......1.....4.....22

Si = Silverware
TL = Top flight longevity
St = Stadium/Facilities
LD = Last decade performance
Fi = Current financial muscle
Fa = Fan base
To = Total
Nice try but a lot of these figures are wrong.

Everton and Villa are both more successful than Chelsea in terms of silverware, as we are as well probably. And City's trophy haul isn't that much worse than ours to be honest. Overall, Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal are far more successful than any other English teams and the numbers should reflect that.

No way should Forest be in there at all, despite their two European cups.
 

Adam456

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
3,997
that's a fair point, the only problem is that you would need a strict sliding scale of 10..9...8 and so on, which wouldn't really be representative of the financial muscle that City actually have, particularly seeing as it is the scale of their financial muscle which has catapulted them into the realms of being a big club.
These are fair points but remember that finances are only relevant based on their effect on the team's current and future success. Citeh's owners have thrown £300m at it and just about scraped into CL. They might spend another billion and not win the CL (Chelsea haven't). Clearly it's diminishing returns - 10x money <> 10x success
 

SNAFU_Clarke

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
564
although every club that has won the CL in the past few seasons, as an example, spends huge amounts of money. barcelona, inter, united as far back to porto perhaps. all these clubs spend vast sums annually on players wages and fees. whetehr that comes from their own ability to generate revenue or a wealthy owner is of little importance when viewing the nature of the club as a 'snapshot' at a point in time.

the fact is that a big club is one that competes regularly for the biggest trophies. the rest of the criteria are simply elements of that basic definition of a big club.
 

beats1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
27,154
Thought worthy of a new thread as many won't revisit the other...

Well it seems that we all have our own criteria to decide what means a club is big so I thought I'd look at this scientifically (well more scientifically anyway). Here's something I knocked up over lunch. If we give marks out of ten for each criteria I reckon we come back with about the right results.

(I haven't modified any of the ratings so that the total agrees with my overall opinion - I tried to do each objectively and let the results be. I also haven't weighted any of the categories - they all count equally. Plus not included any take on the new financial regulations.

See what you think and enjoy :)

Club.....Si....TL....St....LD....Fi....Fa...To
MANU...10....9....10....10....9....10....58
ARSE....8.....10...10....8.....9.....8.....53
LIV.......9.....9.....7.....8.....8....10....51
CHEL....9......7.....7....9.....10....6.....48
SPUR....7.....9.....6.....6.....7.....8.....43
CITEH...4.....6.....9.....4.....10....6....39
VILLA....6.....9....7.....4......5.....7....38
EVE.......6....10...6.....5......4.....6....37
NEWC....3....6.....8.....4.....4.....7.....32
LEEDS....6....3....5.....3......1.....5....23
FRST.....6.....5....5....1......1.....4.....22

Si = Silverware
TL = Top flight longevity
St = Stadium/Facilities
LD = Last decade performance
Fi = Current financial muscle
Fa = Fan base
To = Total
Leeds and Everton both have bigger stadiums and our training ground atm is shit
 
Top