Rip Van Fish
Striker
fckin massive m'lord
-
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
fckin massive m'lord
T
The Omega Man
Guest
Aston Villa & SAFC fixture was described by the National Football Museum as world footballs first big club rivalry.
Theyve done more than us in recent years but neither has shaken anyone out of their slumber.
Theyve done more than us in recent years but neither has shaken anyone out of their slumber.
WHD
Striker
Chelsea, spurs or arsenal haven't got our level of support? Are you for real? They've got miles bigger support than us.
D
Deleted member 11942
Guest
Why is this 20 pages?
Villa were bigger, now neither of us are. Simple
Villa were bigger, now neither of us are. Simple
T
the walrus
Guest
Deluded fans m'lord
W
Wet Wesley
Guest
Why do people get fixated on this argument? Outside of the top four and the European TV money it's meaningless.
Villa are a big enough club. Bigger than us, yes, probably. The fact our histories were relatively similar up until over half a century ago stands for nothing. It doesn't give them an immediate advantage over anyone else in the league, though. Maybe years ago when income was more reliant on heads through the gate it could mean something, but now when you can become amongst the top 30 richest clubs in the world just through playing in the PL for a number of seasons it's very academic.
Villa are a big enough club. Bigger than us, yes, probably. The fact our histories were relatively similar up until over half a century ago stands for nothing. It doesn't give them an immediate advantage over anyone else in the league, though. Maybe years ago when income was more reliant on heads through the gate it could mean something, but now when you can become amongst the top 30 richest clubs in the world just through playing in the PL for a number of seasons it's very academic.
FanchesterCity
Central Defender
The older ones amongst us have a habit of remember when certain clubs were very good, and so we sort of assume they remain big clubs. Large numbers of fans are particularly prone to living in the past, because for most, that's where find memories are.
I think of Wolves as a big club, I think of Sunderland the same way, as I do Everton, City, Villa, Spurs, Newcastle, Leeds etc. (I'm not comparing relative sizes here, just saying that I consider them well supported stalwarts of the League).
Most of those clubs have had ups and downs, some to a larger degree than others. Ask a 50 year old if Leeds are big, and they'll probably say yes. Ask a 16 year old, and they'll say no.
Winning trophies cannot be a measure of size. Some very well supported clubs haven't won much, and some less well supported ones have won the European Cup twice.
Being successful often results in winning more fans, but in general, that only tends to happen with longer periods of success i.e. Arsenal, Liverpool, United, and more recently Chelsea. City are only just entering into what might be called a 'period of success' (they probably need to carry on for another few years though).
When you have a longer period of success, that's when young you start to attract a larger share of young kids supporting you. It's not 30 year old blokes choosing a team, it's 6 year old kids who love Aguero, or Rooney etc. If you win the European Cup one year, you're not going to win all that many fans. Nor will you if you win the league 10 times over 150 years. If you win it 5 times in 10 years, you'll win over a large number of one generation. So even though one club has won the league 10 times and the other only 5, the one with 5 may end up with a larger fan base.
There are also countless geographic and socio-economic reasons why some clubs attract more fans, so it's never quite as easy and using attendance figures either. Of course a club regularly attracting 40K vs one attracting only 10K tells its own story, but one pulling in 37K in a 38K stadium vs a club pulling 45K in a 48K stadium is a lot harder to differentiate between.
In the end, none of it matters. You are where you are in the league table, and that's that. What a clubs has won in the past should be remembered with fondness, but it's no measure of where a club is today.
As things stand today, Villa and Sunderland have little between them - a few league places, similar crowd figures, and nothing to suggest which will do better in the future. Sunderland could just as easily turn a corner as Villa could, and Villa's past successes, as impressive as they are, will not have much influence on matters.
Let's not kid ourselves that somehow 'our supporters' are any more special than other clubs supporters either. Man City slipped down to the 3rd tier and still had incredible attendances, but they would have fallen eventually just like they would with any other club if they'd stayed down in the doldrums. They were only down there for a season, which isn't long enough to see the attendances truly eroded. Leeds' attendances have fallen because of a prolonged period out of the top flight. Sunderland, Newcastle, Villa etc would all exhibit the same pattern too. Regardless of how 'big' we think any of our clubs are - the size of a club is dynamic, not static, and whilst clubs don't change overnight, you'd be a fool to believe any club is the same size as it was 30 years after it's hey day with relatively little success thereafter.
I think of Wolves as a big club, I think of Sunderland the same way, as I do Everton, City, Villa, Spurs, Newcastle, Leeds etc. (I'm not comparing relative sizes here, just saying that I consider them well supported stalwarts of the League).
Most of those clubs have had ups and downs, some to a larger degree than others. Ask a 50 year old if Leeds are big, and they'll probably say yes. Ask a 16 year old, and they'll say no.
Winning trophies cannot be a measure of size. Some very well supported clubs haven't won much, and some less well supported ones have won the European Cup twice.
Being successful often results in winning more fans, but in general, that only tends to happen with longer periods of success i.e. Arsenal, Liverpool, United, and more recently Chelsea. City are only just entering into what might be called a 'period of success' (they probably need to carry on for another few years though).
When you have a longer period of success, that's when young you start to attract a larger share of young kids supporting you. It's not 30 year old blokes choosing a team, it's 6 year old kids who love Aguero, or Rooney etc. If you win the European Cup one year, you're not going to win all that many fans. Nor will you if you win the league 10 times over 150 years. If you win it 5 times in 10 years, you'll win over a large number of one generation. So even though one club has won the league 10 times and the other only 5, the one with 5 may end up with a larger fan base.
There are also countless geographic and socio-economic reasons why some clubs attract more fans, so it's never quite as easy and using attendance figures either. Of course a club regularly attracting 40K vs one attracting only 10K tells its own story, but one pulling in 37K in a 38K stadium vs a club pulling 45K in a 48K stadium is a lot harder to differentiate between.
In the end, none of it matters. You are where you are in the league table, and that's that. What a clubs has won in the past should be remembered with fondness, but it's no measure of where a club is today.
As things stand today, Villa and Sunderland have little between them - a few league places, similar crowd figures, and nothing to suggest which will do better in the future. Sunderland could just as easily turn a corner as Villa could, and Villa's past successes, as impressive as they are, will not have much influence on matters.
Let's not kid ourselves that somehow 'our supporters' are any more special than other clubs supporters either. Man City slipped down to the 3rd tier and still had incredible attendances, but they would have fallen eventually just like they would with any other club if they'd stayed down in the doldrums. They were only down there for a season, which isn't long enough to see the attendances truly eroded. Leeds' attendances have fallen because of a prolonged period out of the top flight. Sunderland, Newcastle, Villa etc would all exhibit the same pattern too. Regardless of how 'big' we think any of our clubs are - the size of a club is dynamic, not static, and whilst clubs don't change overnight, you'd be a fool to believe any club is the same size as it was 30 years after it's hey day with relatively little success thereafter.
Last edited:
S
stephen cartwright
Guest
imo arsenal, liverpool and man utd are the top three
then come spurs, everton, villa, nufc, safc
then the new era of chelsea and man city. all of these have more trophies combined then the rest put together. i am using footballs complete history not since 1992
then come spurs, everton, villa, nufc, safc
then the new era of chelsea and man city. all of these have more trophies combined then the rest put together. i am using footballs complete history not since 1992
GK
Striker
The love affair? My enemy's enemy is not my friend. Yourselves and Villa are, in the main deluded wankers. Throw spurs and Liverpool in and you have, without a doubt, the most deluded supporters in the country.
Chelsea and city aren't new era as they both have higher all time average attendances than us.
Last edited:
FanchesterCity
Central Defender
Just for the curious... here's the average attendances since 2000.
Man City were getting more than Villa when City were in Division 1.
I will add earlier years when I get chance... but the last 15 years is a reasonable approximation of 'now' I'd say. I'm sure the Villa fan will be hoping that going further back in time will help him. I'm afraid to say, it won't. It's purely to illustrate to him that his perception vs reality are somewhat apart.
Man City were getting more than Villa when City were in Division 1.
I will add earlier years when I get chance... but the last 15 years is a reasonable approximation of 'now' I'd say. I'm sure the Villa fan will be hoping that going further back in time will help him. I'm afraid to say, it won't. It's purely to illustrate to him that his perception vs reality are somewhat apart.
Logon or register to see this image
Bladecat
Striker
GK post: 21205935 said:
Spot on mate. I dont recall anyone saying Villa were our idols because they sent our nearest and dearest down.
I said to @TAFKAHM yesterday as we drove down, dont expect West Brom! I much prefer a trip to Everton than Liverpool, Arsenal rather than Spurs, West Brom rather than Villa.
We had a good craic with Everton fans after we beat them last year. Villa fans yesterday were mouthing off after the match about our fans acting like we had won. Bitterness isnt a good emotion oh deluded ones.
Ive never felt the need to remind the Baggies of their empty seats, as they are generally friendly at both home and away games. Villa last season at our place, even before they tonked us, reminded me why I dont like them. Arrogance personified.
Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
For all the holier than thou comments last night about the past being irrelevant, this freak of nature from Manchester is now doing exactly that.
You couldn't make it up.
It must be terrible to suffer from little man syndrome but unfortunately, Man City are the biggest sufferes of all-They're not even the biggest club in their own town
Quite what Man City have to do with this thread is anyones guess but I suppose its understandable for such a small time team.
You couldn't get more petty than that
For all the holier than thou comments last night about the past being irrelevant, this freak of nature from Manchester is now doing exactly that.
You couldn't make it up.
It must be terrible to suffer from little man syndrome but unfortunately, Man City are the biggest sufferes of all-They're not even the biggest club in their own town
Quite what Man City have to do with this thread is anyones guess but I suppose its understandable for such a small time team.
You couldn't get more petty than that
Father Jack Hackett
Striker
Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
For all the holier than thou comments last night about the past being irrelevant, this freak of nature from Manchester is now doing exactly that.
You couldn't make it up.
It must be terrible to suffer from little man syndrome but unfortunately, Man City are the biggest sufferes of all-They're not even the biggest club in their own town
Quite what Man City have to do with this thread is anyones guess but I suppose its understandable for such a small time team.
You couldn't get more petty than that
Desperate, 1/10
Yes he is, isn't he?
Unfortunately, that is what a lifetime of living in the shadow of his neighbours has done to him-He's all bitter & twisted & by the time Man City have started doing something, nobody else gives a fuck-Talk about missing the boat
Kitch
Striker
This^^^^
stockton
Winger
I think you are a reasonably good wind-up merchant mate.
Am I right in recalling that on another thread that you posted on a couple of days ago, you completely slated the city that your team is aligned to, saying something along the lines of you having moved away several years ago and would never ever move back there?
Is my recollection correct?
Man city have always been a big well supported club to be fair, even before they hit the jackpot.
- Status
