There's no bigger club in Premier League than Liverpool

Originally Posted by My Name is Keith

That's the version to get the fans onside. He can hardly come out with the real version:

Liverpool's Daniel Sturridge says there isn't a more average club than Liverpool in the Premier League, ahead of Sunday's game against Manchester United.
The 23-year-old striker signed for the Reds on 2 January from Chelsea and has also played for current champions Manchester City.

"It's easily the most average side I have ever played for and I include City in that," Sturridge told Liverpool's official website.

Liverpool and United are the two most decorated clubs in the top flight but the Merseyside club have literally been really quite shit since 1991.
In terms of league titles, United have 19 compared to Liverpool's 18, while the Merseysiders have five European Cup wins to the Old Trafford side's three he added irrelevantly.
Sturridge scored on his Liverpool debut as his new side beat the mighty Mansfield in the FA Cup and is resigned to the fact that Reds boss Brendan Rodgers has signed him.

"To be honest, its a disappointment to have to move to a club like this and I am literally dreading living in the north west again but at the end of the day, I get paid more money than you can shake a shitty stick at so I'll put up with it. On that score, each and every day I thank that imaginary deity in the sky for making it possible for me to be paid millions of pounds for kicking a football about, even if it for a team like Liverpool" added Sturridge.

"For the manager, even if he is sexually suspect, to pay me a transfer fee the size he did and to then pay me oodles of cash each week to kick a ball about makes up for the bitter disappointment I feel in joining this average club. I don't think I'll ever be able to repay his stupidity.

"As a young player, when you play for average clubs you can sometimes get caught up in the shittness of it all and the thought that you'd never get another opportunity to play for another big club.

"And so it is" added Sturridge glumly.

average and stolen

Originally Posted by DuanePipe

This is the best summing up I've seen on the topic.

I've heard so many supporters try to put together the perfect algorithm to define a club's bigness. History divided by titles multiplied by median attendance average over x years. All %@#$&!s. There is the tangible; club honours. Then there is the irrelevant; average crowd size. Then the sheer %@#$&!s; founder member status, number of Facebook 'likes' etc.

When you find your team 18th in the N-Power Championship you realise very quickly that it's all about relevance (or more to the point, irrelevance).

think the average crowd size is very relevant tbh, even when we were shit we still had huge crowds and there is no club in the country other than United that could have cdrowds of 75,000 every other week certainly not the £#%&!ing Scousers

Originally Posted by £#%&! KFC

think the average crowd size is very relevant tbh, even when we were shit we still had huge crowds and there is no club in the country other than United that could have cdrowds of 75,000 every other week certainly not the £#%&!ing Scousers

I dunno. I've always felt resorting to the crowd size in ANY argument about football to be a bit of a cop out. Fair enough, and I've said this before, no British football supporter is going to come out well in an argument with a Utd fan because the club honours thing is like the mighty sword of dobber, ready and waiting to be crashed down upon one's neck. But if you're, say, a Nottingham Forest fan having it out with a wee Newcastle fan, the Geordie will resort almost immediately to the crowd size and your Forest fan is going to play their two European Cups trump card (rightly). Either way you look at it, it's still two bald blokes arguing over a comb as neither are particularly relevant.

For me, crowd size is similar to arguing that Justin Bieber or Nsync deserve recognition and credibility because they sold shit loads of records.

Originally Posted by DuanePipe

For me, crowd size is similar to arguing that Justin Bieber or Nsync deserve recognition and credibility because they sold shit loads of records.

but as I said when we were shit we still had huge crowds, we don't just get big crowds because we are the most succewssful club in the country we always did we had bigger crowds than the Scousers during their 10 year period of dominance

the size of our support is just something else that contributes to us being the biggest club in Britain

A dimwit reading from a cue card.

Originally Posted by £#%&! KFC

but as I said when we were shit we still had huge crowds, we don't just get big crowds because we are the most succewssful club in the country we always did we had bigger crowds than the Scousers during their 10 year period of dominance

the size of our support is just something else that contributes to us being the biggest club in Britain

and the most commercialised

I don't think any club will beat city for the script they give players when they sign;

"I got in a taxi the other day and the driver said all the city fans live in Manchester, city are Manchester's club"

Clichy £#%&!ed it up.

There's no bigger TEETH in the premiership

Originally Posted by £#%&! KFC

but as I said when we were shit we still had huge crowds, we don't just get big crowds because we are the most succewssful club in the country we always did we had bigger crowds than the Scousers during their 10 year period of dominance

the size of our support is just something else that contributes to us being the biggest club in Britain

Your definition of 'when we were shit' is quite relative though

I read your matchday threads. Seems like it's just differing degrees of shitness as you increase the gap at the top - some days really shit, others quite shit and on the great days, not too shit actually. Even when you were properly shit, were you as shit as, say, Port Vale or Luton or Barnsley? Even in the 50's and 60's Manchester Utd has always been an elite football club.

I've seen Newcastle come to Molineux for a league fixture on a Tuesday night in the same month that Keegan was first appointed and they had less than 250 fans standing in the away end. Fast forward a few seasons and they're filling away ends everywhere. Contrast that to a team like Sheff Wed and they will ALWAYS bring a much larger hardcore following regardless of how shit they are, but to listen to the Geordies they place themselves above most teams based on the fact they can pack a load in to their one team, one city stadium. Equally, I've seen City take several thousand to our place when they were genuinely, properly shit. So I'd say it's more about having a degree of respect (as irrelevant as that may be) for those clubs who do have a sustained, loyal fan base. Seeing Wigan barely fill their own rabbit hutch of a stadium is hard to take if you're a club like Forest, Leeds, Sheffield Wed etc but that's where we come back to the here and now, relevant vs irrelevant.

Originally Posted by DuanePipe

I dunno. I've always felt resorting to the crowd size in ANY argument about football to be a bit of a cop out. Fair enough, and I've said this before, no British football supporter is going to come out well in an argument with a Utd fan because the club honours thing is like the mighty sword of dobber, ready and waiting to be crashed down upon one's neck. But if you're, say, a Nottingham Forest fan having it out with a wee Newcastle fan, the Geordie will resort almost immediately to the crowd size and your Forest fan is going to play their two European Cups trump card (rightly). Either way you look at it, it's still two bald blokes arguing over a comb as neither are particularly relevant.

For me, crowd size is similar to arguing that Justin Bieber or Nsync deserve recognition and credibility because they sold shit loads of records.

so which is the biggest club in the Pl and why?

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

so which is the biggest club in the Pl and why?

It's Manchester Utd. In my opinion for no other reason than titles won.

If Fulham had won more league titles on crowds of less than half of what Utd get, I'd proclaim them to be the biggest.

I think when you get in to an algorithmic or intangible assessment of a club's 'bigness' you move dangerously close to par league territory.

Originally Posted by DuanePipe

Your definition of 'when we were shit' is quite relative though

I read your matchday threads. Seems like it's just differing degrees of shitness as you increase the gap at the top - some days really shit, others quite shit and on the great days, not too shit actually. Even when you were properly shit, were you as shit as, say, Port Vale or Luton or Barnsley? Even in the 50's and 60's Manchester Utd has always been an elite football club.

I've seen Newcastle come to Molineux for a league fixture on a Tuesday night in the same month that Keegan was first appointed and they had less than 250 fans standing in the away end. Fast forward a few seasons and they're filling away ends everywhere. Contrast that to a team like Sheff Wed and they will ALWAYS bring a much larger hardcore following regardless of how shit they are, but to listen to the Geordies they place themselves above most teams based on the fact they can pack a load in to their one team, one city stadium. Equally, I've seen City take several thousand to our place when they were genuinely, properly shit. So I'd say it's more about having a degree of respect (as irrelevant as that may be) for those clubs who do have a sustained, loyal fan base. Seeing Wigan barely fill their own rabbit hutch of a stadium is hard to take if you're a club like Forest, Leeds, Sheffield Wed etc but that's where we come back to the here and now, relevant vs irrelevant.

glad someone else can see through the utter myth that is Newcastle fans...best supporters in the land my arse.......Everton have always had a bigger away following than City and a more loyal home following imo, Cirty's 'credibility' as fans ended with the 3,007 at home to Mansfield we had some pretty awful home crowds in the 80s and 90s...19,000 against Wimbledon not much more than that against Oxford and plenty of other poor crowds we can't ignore but never stooped to City's levels

I tend not to read our matchday threads....probably because I am at the game tbh

Originally Posted by DuanePipe

It's Manchester Utd. In my opinion for no other reason than titles won.

If Fulham had won more league titles on crowds of less than half of what Utd get, I'd proclaim them to be the biggest.

I think when you get in to an algorithmic or intangible assessment of a club's 'bigness' you move dangerously close to par league territory.

So three years ago Sturridge, sorry 'Ridges, would have been right?

Madness.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

so which is the biggest club in the Pl and why?

us

beacause we are Manchester United

Originally Posted by DuanePipe

It's Manchester Utd. In my opinion for no other reason than titles won.


.

sorry Duane but have a

we had 7 titles to the Dippers 18....we were still bigger than them

Originally Posted by DuanePipe

It's Manchester Utd. In my opinion for no other reason than titles won.

If Fulham had won more league titles on crowds of less than half of what Utd get, I'd proclaim them to be the biggest.

I think when you get in to an algorithmic or intangible assessment of a club's 'bigness' you move dangerously close to par league territory.

Fan base has to be brought into it though

If your going to base it on league titles then we are the 3rd biggest club in the country and that is as far from the truth as you could be

Originally Posted by no fun

us

beacause we are Manchester United

And we do what we want.

Originally Posted by utd99

So three years ago Sturridge, sorry 'Ridges, would have been right?

Madness.

They haven't won a Premier League title.

Again, it comes down to relevant vs irrelevant and I'm just not buying in to the idea that crowd size means much at all.

Originally Posted by DuanePipe

It's Manchester Utd. In my opinion for no other reason than titles won.

If Fulham had won more league titles on crowds of less than half of what Utd get, I'd proclaim them to be the biggest.

I think when you get in to an algorithmic or intangible assessment of a club's 'bigness' you move dangerously close to par league territory.

you're speaking to someone who gets the principle of the par league though, even if the idea of actually using it to construct a table is £#%&!ing bizarre

It's easy to say United are the biggest club in the PL based on titles won since it started, but 7 of its titles were won by 1967 ffs and it still attracted the biggest crowds and the biggest coverage throughout the 26 years in between, give or take the fall-out from the odd terrace riot, so there's something more intangible going on that cannot be ignored. For example, United has been playing its home games on an industrial estate for over a hundred years and used to get huge crowds from Trafford Park going back donkey's years. The size of the club wasn't simply defined by its success, it was defined much more by the number of people who followed them in Manchester before television coverage and before Munich...

I don't know much about Wolves, but I do know that they were huge in the 50s with the Honved malarly and the Cup finals and all that - it's off the back of those days that they remain the biggest club in the black country surely?

Originally Posted by My Name is Keith

That's the version to get the fans onside. He can hardly come out with the real version:

Liverpool's Daniel Sturridge says there isn't a more average club than Liverpool in the Premier League, ahead of Sunday's game against Manchester United.
The 23-year-old striker signed for the Reds on 2 January from Chelsea and has also played for current champions Manchester City.

"It's easily the most average side I have ever played for and I include City in that," Sturridge told Liverpool's official website.

Liverpool and United are the two most decorated clubs in the top flight but the Merseyside club have literally been really quite shit since 1991.
In terms of league titles, United have 19 compared to Liverpool's 18, while the Merseysiders have five European Cup wins to the Old Trafford side's three he added irrelevantly.
Sturridge scored on his Liverpool debut as his new side beat the mighty Mansfield in the FA Cup and is resigned to the fact that Reds boss Brendan Rodgers has signed him.

"To be honest, its a disappointment to have to move to a club like this and I am literally dreading living in the north west again but at the end of the day, I get paid more money than you can shake a shitty stick at so I'll put up with it. On that score, each and every day I thank that imaginary deity in the sky for making it possible for me to be paid millions of pounds for kicking a football about, even if it for a team like Liverpool" added Sturridge.

"For the manager, even if he is sexually suspect, to pay me a transfer fee the size he did and to then pay me oodles of cash each week to kick a ball about makes up for the bitter disappointment I feel in joining this average club. I don't think I'll ever be able to repay his stupidity.

"As a young player, when you play for average clubs you can sometimes get caught up in the shittness of it all and the thought that you'd never get another opportunity to play for another big club.

"And so it is" added Sturridge glumly.

Nearly as good as the "Rodgers Quote" the other day.