No idea-I'm only going on what was posted yesterday. I don't spend hours trawling through attendances. The bloke yesterday said you averaged 41000 and we averaged just under 39000. Whether you average 2000 more or 5000 is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things-Its hardly a figure to be used in gauging what is termed a big club.
-
The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.
villa bigger club than Sunderland
- Thread starter mr chuckles
- Start date
- Status
No idea-I'm only going on what was posted yesterday. I don't spend hours trawling through attendances. The bloke yesterday said you averaged 41000 and we averaged just under 39000. Whether you average 2000 more or 5000 is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things-Its hardly a figure to be used in gauging what is termed a big club.
Bladecat
Striker
Its nice how you have that main stand with the never to be used seats so we can all admire that lovely block of claret up top. Its a nice decorative touch.
Would you like to tell us when you predict you will take up your rightful place in the top 4 again. You only look a player away from it, though not sure if Lerner has enough money to prise God away from Paradise City
Maximus
Striker
If we are going off history - which we usually use to tell the mags and Chelsea etc. (i.e. Most league titles) then of course Villa are the bigger club. More leagues, more FA cups, more league cups, European cup, super cup. Both clubs even have a 3rd division league win as well!
It might have been a long time ago but SAFC and AVFC were massive rivals late 1800/early 1900s competing regular as country's top dog.
Villa, like Sunderland were huge. Sadly both are classed as also rans now but have a justifiably proud history.
But we still got more than you for the midweek game.
It seems you want to cherry pick what figures to use when qualifying "good support"
I personally think that such a drastic drop from 41000 to 14000 is nothing short of disgraceful but I'm sure you'd disagree
oddbod
Striker
Celtic and Rangers may now be playing in the equivilent of a pub league .....but they are the best supported clubs in the country..and as for candle lighters and arse wipes I wonder what their crowds would be like if they won only one cup and nowt else in 60 years?When it comes to support SAFC is in thr big league, and to deny that is idiotic.We are bigger than those crappy little upstarts Liverpool and Arsenal then!
How's about we look at this from another angle Cridge. Which clubs in the Premiership are bigger than Villa? Spurs? Newcastle? Everton?
Tin Soldier
Striker
Forever on the shadow of Birmingham City
O
ollie c
Guest
You cite one game....so who's actually doing the cherry picking? You know your support is awful.....worse still, if you are labouring under and attempting to defend the "big club" delusion.
It's really as simple as that.
Aye and you turned him into utter dog shite with your legendary support. Well done!
SuperGerryHarrison
Striker
A few truths.
1. Villa are probably a bigger club given they've won more and had more sustained top flight football post war. Given this most neutrals would also say Villa are better known.
2. It's a silly argument as neither of us are "Big" in reality. Both clubs are irrelevant in the modern game, which is a massive shame.
3. Villas support is surprisingly poor given point 1
4. Cridge is a bit of a twat
1. Villa are probably a bigger club given they've won more and had more sustained top flight football post war. Given this most neutrals would also say Villa are better known.
2. It's a silly argument as neither of us are "Big" in reality. Both clubs are irrelevant in the modern game, which is a massive shame.
3. Villas support is surprisingly poor given point 1
4. Cridge is a bit of a twat
Come on Cridge. List them. Just so we know.
GK
Striker
Its 5k more. Significantly larger.
They should be one of the top 4 in the country, the more successful club out of the 2 in the country's second largest city. In reality though they're as average and pointless as us, making up the numbers for the big boys.
JohnKay
Striker
Bit of context I hope:
I'm 40 this year, in my time Villa have 1 league, 1 European cup, 3 League cups, a Super cup and the charity shield. (we have won nowt)
My oldest is 18, in his time Villa have won nowt, the same as us.
Older lads will think more of Villa (big club imo) than the kids, and that shows why.
Cridge is still a bit sad like, coming on our forum trying to tell others what to think of his club.
I'm 40 this year, in my time Villa have 1 league, 1 European cup, 3 League cups, a Super cup and the charity shield. (we have won nowt)
My oldest is 18, in his time Villa have won nowt, the same as us.
Older lads will think more of Villa (big club imo) than the kids, and that shows why.
Cridge is still a bit sad like, coming on our forum trying to tell others what to think of his club.
EFC
Midfield
@Villan You say that Villa are above the big club argument, yet the other Villa fan is coming on here sounding very argumentative and aggressive to prove that Villa are a bigger club. You've been pretty reasonable about it from reading a couple of posts but there is no need to come on another teams forum and start ridiculing them like he has. Just don't understand it personally.
As a neutral in the debate, I would have to say that I view Villa as the bigger club. Both are great traditional clubs and as has been mentioned, both have certain things that make them up there with the biggest clubs. Sunderland's current crowds are much better and loyal than Villa's, and it's certainly an important factor. Where I would disagree with some on here though is that it is not the only factor. And whilst both clubs are under performing on the pitch currently, if you look over history, then Villa have had far more impressive achievements. They've won a European Cup, but as opposed to Forest, they have several other things that make them huge that Forest don't have. Years in the top flight, record attendance, European Cup, League Titles and other domestic success. I think where Villa fall down in comparison even to us is that most of their success was pre War. 1 league title in over 100 years is abysmal and their success isn't as impressive as they claim it to be given that they've won so little after that pre 1900 success.
I think if you're also looking in the Premier League era to keep things more recent, Sunderland's performances on the pitch have been mostly terrible whereas Villa have at least competed for a few seasons. They were a decent team under O'Neill and played in Europe for a bit, and in the 90's they had quite a few top 6 finishes. That's what fans of other clubs will remember when having this debate. Crowds alone don't make a club bigger, which is why I mentioned Hertha Berlin in Germany who average about 50,000 yet aren't a big club.
As others have said, the big club debate is all a bit pathetic when fans of Everton, Newcastle, Sunderland and Villa are arguing about it to put eachother down. It's great to have a history to be proud of, but all of us are failing to compete at the top whilst City and Chelsea dominate. The fact we've all had success years ago continues to be forgotten and soon huge clubs like Liverpool will join us in only being able to talk about the past. 25 years without a title for them and I don't see it changing any time soon.
The good thing about each of our clubs is that we support them because they're our team. We don't need to win trophies to carry on supporting them like a large % of Chelsea, City and Man United do.
As a neutral in the debate, I would have to say that I view Villa as the bigger club. Both are great traditional clubs and as has been mentioned, both have certain things that make them up there with the biggest clubs. Sunderland's current crowds are much better and loyal than Villa's, and it's certainly an important factor. Where I would disagree with some on here though is that it is not the only factor. And whilst both clubs are under performing on the pitch currently, if you look over history, then Villa have had far more impressive achievements. They've won a European Cup, but as opposed to Forest, they have several other things that make them huge that Forest don't have. Years in the top flight, record attendance, European Cup, League Titles and other domestic success. I think where Villa fall down in comparison even to us is that most of their success was pre War. 1 league title in over 100 years is abysmal and their success isn't as impressive as they claim it to be given that they've won so little after that pre 1900 success.
I think if you're also looking in the Premier League era to keep things more recent, Sunderland's performances on the pitch have been mostly terrible whereas Villa have at least competed for a few seasons. They were a decent team under O'Neill and played in Europe for a bit, and in the 90's they had quite a few top 6 finishes. That's what fans of other clubs will remember when having this debate. Crowds alone don't make a club bigger, which is why I mentioned Hertha Berlin in Germany who average about 50,000 yet aren't a big club.
As others have said, the big club debate is all a bit pathetic when fans of Everton, Newcastle, Sunderland and Villa are arguing about it to put eachother down. It's great to have a history to be proud of, but all of us are failing to compete at the top whilst City and Chelsea dominate. The fact we've all had success years ago continues to be forgotten and soon huge clubs like Liverpool will join us in only being able to talk about the past. 25 years without a title for them and I don't see it changing any time soon.
The good thing about each of our clubs is that we support them because they're our team. We don't need to win trophies to carry on supporting them like a large % of Chelsea, City and Man United do.
r@mside
Striker
Give the lad a break.
There's another indisputable truth, his club is in decline and it must hurt.
None of those 3, although I'd say all are bigger than Sunderland.
I fear for Everton. They have punched above their weight for many years, thanks mainly to David Moyes astute transfer dealings. Their ground is very old fashioned and lacks any decent hospitality facilities or the potential to add any. They have a couple of saleable assets that will fund the team building in the short term but I suspect that long term, they will struggle to maintain their current status. Villa v Everton is incidently the most played top flight fixture.
Newcastle are not really a big club and I'm not sure why you included them
Spurs have became financially strong and are undoubtedly 2nd tier, along with Liverpool in terms of competing. In terms of club size, I would place them around the same level as Villa & Everton, behind Liverpool but ahead of Newcastle.
Here is the bottom line Cringe, both our clubs have a proud history, in this day and age neither of us are classed as big clubs.
We finish in the same area of the league yet you still claim that Villa are streets ahead of us, this simply doesn't add up and facts have shown you this. Villa and Sunderland are equal in most things, yes we have a better support but this alone does not make us a big club.
The difference between you and I is this, I am aware of our flaws as a club from top to bottom and realise that we are struggling, you believe you are streets ahead of us but still are competing to finish in the league around about us.
According to you we are the whipping boys but your side that are streets ahead of us failed to do this. You throw around the world deluded about us, there is clearly only one deluded person on this thread, the one who honestly believes Villa are streets ahead of Sunderland.
BNM
Striker
I would.
- Status
