Which club in terms of size are Sunderland most similar in your opinion?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 45378
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Real Madrid and then probably Barcelona are the clubs that can attract the best Premier League players from our biggest clubs when they are at the peak of their career. (also Serie A , Bundesliga)
I’d say this is what makes them the biggest in the world.
Man Utd might be comparable commercially but if Rashford for instance left I’d say it would only be to Real ( or Barca but less likely I reckon)


In terms of pecking order Real Madrid (hate using 'Real' and expect everyone to know who you mean at the detriment of other clubs called Real. Similarly I'll never call Man u - 'United', or man City 'city' - fkin arrogant mancs...)and Barcelona have almost always been able to get players due to who they are. There is no question as to them being the biggest clubs to most football fans.

after that there are a slue of clubs that can also get players based on their name alone:

Man U
Juventus
Bayern Munich

Juve struggled to do it when the Italian league was struggling but they still pulled in top names. There have been times when milan, Inter, Lazio etc have been able to draw the biggest names but it has been relatively shortlived.

Liverpool are an odd one because they do attract players and have the money and trophies to back themselves up. However klopp and the Coutinho money has somewhat skewed what there natural place seemed to have become for 25 or so years.

so in terms of looking at size using this barometer alone. If real and Barce come calling the player goes. less so Man U, Juve, Bayern but they still will attract players from the tranche of clubs below them and the odd one or two from the top two - but only if the top two don't want that player.

if we look at the English game then it kind of still works the same but only as a short-termism. In League One with a level playing field you will have the pick of the players given your size. In the premier League the pecking is slightly skewed again because of relative success but, ahem, size does still matter.

take leicester as an example. A very good team and well-run club but not a big club. If a Man U/ C, Liverpool, Chelsea, arsenal etc come in for a player that both clubs want, then again, with all things being equal Leicester will struggle to get the player over those clubs. they will stand their ground against most others but they still would not necessarily be next in the pecking order for the better players.

Also, walk around foreign lands and other than Thailand you won't see leicester shirts. nothing to criticise them for, and not trying to demean them as a club just using them as an example.
Real Madrid and then probably Barcelona are the clubs that can attract the best Premier League players from our biggest clubs when they are at the peak of their career. (also Serie A , Bundesliga)
I’d say this is what makes them the biggest in the world.
Man Utd might be comparable commercially but if Rashford for instance left I’d say it would only be to Real ( or Barca but less likely I reckon)


In terms of pecking order Real Madrid (hate using 'Real' and expect everyone to know who you mean at the detriment of other clubs called Real. Similarly I'll never call Man u - 'United', or man City 'city' - fkin arrogant mancs...)and Barcelona have almost always been able to get players due to who they are. There is no question as to them being the biggest clubs to most football fans.

after that there are a slue of clubs that can also get players based on their name alone:

Man U
Juventus
Bayern Munich

Juve struggled to do it when the Italian league was struggling but they still pulled in top names. There have been times when milan, Inter, Lazio etc have been able to draw the biggest names but it has been relatively shortlived.

Liverpool are an odd one because they do attract players and have the money and trophies to back themselves up. However klopp and the Coutinho money has somewhat skewed what there natural place seemed to have become for 25 or so years.

so in terms of looking at size using this barometer alone. If real and Barce come calling the player goes. less so Man U, Juve, Bayern but they still will attract players from the tranche of clubs below them and the odd one or two from the top two - but only if the top two don't want that player.

if we look at the English game then it kind of still works the same but only as a short-termism. In League One with a level playing field you will have the pick of the players given your size. In the premier League the pecking is slightly skewed again because of relative success but, ahem, size does still matter.

take leicester as an example. A very good team and well-run club but not a big club. If a Man U/ C, Liverpool, Chelsea, arsenal etc come in for a player that both clubs want, then again, with all things being equal Leicester will struggle to get the player over those clubs. they will stand their ground against most others but they still would not necessarily be next in the pecking order for the better players.

Also, walk around foreign lands and other than Thailand you won't see leicester shirts. nothing to criticise them for, and not trying to demean them as a club just using them as an example.
 


United and Liverpool
Arseneal
Spurs, Everton, Chelsea, Man City
Villa, Newcastle
Sunderland, West Ham, Leeds, Sheff Wednesday etc with likes of Leicester, West Brom and Wolves just behind
 
Pre-money and Tottenham's 'success' I would have had Everton, Villa, tottenham, man City as all similar sized clubs.

After that would be Newcastle.
 
It would be interesting to know the views of supporters of european clubs.
To change it slightly,what would be the criteria if I asked which is the biggest company in the world? Would it be the biggest profit?
Most employees? Biggest turnover?
Are Real Madrid the biggest club in the world because they have the biggest turnover?

Real Madrid are biggest club in world as they have twice as many European Cups as anybody else. And apart from Barcelona they have the pick of the world best players. That they also have the biggest turnover is incidental. Man Utd have held that stat recently. And they have never been biggest club in world.
 
Their are 90 other League clubs so which one club would you put Sunderland on par with...?.... Try and explain your reasoning and be realistic.... Obviously no fan would choose us as being on par with Man United Liverpool etc so who do we most resemble?

Personally I think West Ham.... Passionate support, never won anything in donkeys years .. The infrastructure is in place for them to be massive but seem to make so many mistakes off the field.
Eastleigh
 
Real Madrid are biggest club in world as they have twice as many European Cups as anybody else. And apart from Barcelona they have the pick of the world best players. That they also have the biggest turnover is incidental. Man Utd have held that stat recently. And they have never been biggest club in world.

Barcelona now have the biggest annual revenue in football, and by a margin of €83.5m compared to Real Madrid.

see below .......

Football clubs revenue ranking 2018/19 | Statista
 
Last edited:
Well the thread heading states "size".
For the thread to return to topic, I think the OP needs to clarify to what he he is referring to with the word "size".
Does "size" mean pitch dimensions?, stadium capacity?, wagebill?, number of staff?, number of supporters?, or something else?
 
For me the biggest clubs are :
Liverpool
Man United
Arsenal
Villa
Everton

We're behind that obviously, and since the recent success of Man City and Chelsea we'd be behind them. For me, Spurs are a glorified cup team, but aye, put them ahead now for longevity in the top flight and actually getting into and doing well in europe. Behind that, us, the mags, West ham, all the fairly big clubs in terms of history with big supports, not much in it. Our current position obviously marks us behind them mind

I would not have Villa ahead of us, or you, in terms of size.

LFC, MUFC miles ahead of Arsenal who in turn are a long way ahead of the next bunch of clubs.
 
I would not have Villa ahead of us, or you, in terms of size.

LFC, MUFC miles ahead of Arsenal who in turn are a long way ahead of the next bunch of clubs.

Again mate it's a bit of a daft argument because everyone has a different definition. For me, a clubs overall honour roll has to be a major part of what makes a club big. Villa have won 7 top flight titles, 7 FA cups, 5 league cups and a European cup. So in terms of honours they're ahead of both of our clubs for everything. They've also spent longer in the top flight than either of our clubs, which again is a decent indicator of which clubs have been traditionally "big". That's enough for me to say that if I'm being honest I think they're a bit bigger than us. I'd say we both beat them in terms of fan numbers, but I'll probably have some villa fan coming along with figures that show it to be close on that as well!
 
Neutral fan here, SWFC fan.

I think Sunderland are a huge club, great fans and a good history. Been very badly managed over the years. You remind me of us in terms of fan base, history and a proud tradition yet underachieved. You lot have a bigger more modern ground than us so you're potential could be grater.
Prior to the advent of the PL and mad money owners I would’ve put Sunderland, Sheff Wed, Chelsea, WHU and Newcastle in the same bracket. IE big clubs being badly ran. Being promoted and relegated every four or five years while smaller better ran clubs such as Watford, Luton, Coventry, Southampton, Ipswich, Forest etc managed to remain in the top flight for longer periods than expected due to hanging onto the good teams they’d stumbled upon because of the then transfer/contract rules.
Once freedom of contract then bosmans then super rich owners got involved the smaller clubs nivver had a chance Of any long term success which is why rich potential owners sniff around the same 13 clubs. Of which two are currently in the championship and one is in L1. Wednesday, Leeds and Sunderland are better long term bets than 82 of the other clubs in the system.
They’d cost less to buy but need more work doing and most rich men won’t have that patience or be able to overcome the embarrassment of not being in the PL.
 
Last edited:
Again mate it's a bit of a daft argument because everyone has a different definition. For me, a clubs overall honour roll has to be a major part of what makes a club big. Villa have won 7 top flight titles, 7 FA cups, 5 league cups and a European cup. So in terms of honours they're ahead of both of our clubs for everything. They've also spent longer in the top flight than either of our clubs, which again is a decent indicator of which clubs have been traditionally "big". That's enough for me to say that if I'm being honest I think they're a bit bigger than us. I'd say we both beat them in terms of fan numbers, but I'll probably have some villa fan coming along with figures that show it to be close on that as well!

Agree when taking into account trophies. By size I took that to mean, stadium, attendance, current profile.
When you start adding in success, particularly historical, then it becomes an impossible conundrum.
It is a minefield.
 
United and Liverpool
Arseneal
Spurs, Everton, Chelsea, Man City
Villa, Newcastle
Sunderland, West Ham, Leeds, Sheff Wednesday etc with likes of Leicester, West Brom and Wolves just behind
Spot on. Been saying exactly that for decades now. If all 92 clubs could be put into the same circumstances in the PL there’s 13 would attract bigger crowds than the other 79.
Big concerns size, nowt else. Rich measures money, trophies measure how good a team/squad was, league position measures how good a team/squad is now. Big gets confused with successful and success requires a bit of all the above, the more money you have the more succesful you should be if ran corr3ctly, the more fans you have the more money you’ll have if ran correctly.
If that and the 13 club theory wasn’t correct then the Russians, the Saudis, the Qataris, the Chinese lads, Glazers, Usmanovs etc would’ve sniffed around Shrewsbury, Orient, Plymouth, Mansfield, Hartlepool etc for vfm.
The Thais bought Leicester as they represented great value for money and potential. Not because they were one of the 13 biggest clubs in England. If they’d bought Sunderland, Leeds, Everton, Villa or Sheff Wed and things had gone as well for them they’d be expanding their stadiums to 60-70000. If they’d bought WBA, Ipswich, Soton, Wolves, Derby, Forest etc they’d be considering 40-50000 and being cautious about it.

Plus on TV Utd v anyone attracts higher viewing figures than anyone v anyone.
Liverpool v anyone attracts higher viewing figures than any non Utd game.
Then it’s Arsenal.
Then the rest.
 
Spot on. Been saying exactly that for decades now. If all 92 clubs could be put into the same circumstances in the PL there’s 13 would attract bigger crowds than the other 79.
Big concerns size, nowt else. Rich measures money, trophies measure how good a team/squad was, league position measures how good a team/squad is now. Big gets confused with successful and success requires a bit of all the above, the more money you have the more succesful you should be if ran corr3ctly, the more fans you have the more money you’ll have if ran correctly.
If that and the 13 club theory wasn’t correct then the Russians, the Saudis, the Qataris, the Chinese lads, Glazers, Usmanovs etc would’ve sniffed around Shrewsbury, Orient, Plymouth, Mansfield, Hartlepool etc for vfm.
The Thais bought Leicester as they represented great value for money and potential. Not because they were one of the 13 biggest clubs in England. If they’d bought Sunderland, Leeds, Everton, Villa or Sheff Wed and things had gone as well for them they’d be expanding their stadiums to 60-70000. If they’d bought WBA, Ipswich, Soton, Wolves, Derby, Forest etc they’d be considering 40-50000 and being cautious about it.

Plus on TV Utd v anyone attracts higher viewing figures than anyone v anyone.
Liverpool v anyone attracts higher viewing figures than any non Utd game.
Then it’s Arsenal.
Then the rest.
New training complex ( as good as anything anywhere in Europe apparently) due to be finished this month , then the ground going up to 41k .
Not 60 or 70 thousand granted but will ratchet us up another few notches .
 
New training complex ( as good as anything anywhere in Europe apparently) due to be finished this month , then the ground going up to 41k .
Not 60 or 70 thousand granted but will ratchet us up another few notches .
Best way mate. Lay the foundations of a club before going mad with ground capacity.
We had a top academy and 42000+ stadium which it was selling out regular in the championship and PL. Unfortunately future planning permission was given for projects behind one end meaning we had to expand that part there and then or miss out forever. That money could’ve gone into the team which may have prevented us falling away from two consecutive 7th finishes, on the other hand we may have turned to shit anyway.
Now the grounds too big for our current circumstances and doesn’t look as good as it would if a second tier had been added along the side instead of an end.
We’ll be back in the PL one day. Wether the so called big 6 are still there for us to mix it with is an another matter. Which is how far in the future that days starting to look.
Aah well it’s all part of the fun.
 
I'd compare us with Portsmouth. Had success a long time ago before most of the fans were born. Overspent in quest for mid-table mediocrity in the greed league and are now suffering the consequences. Not many football clubs in close proximity, so support is drawn from a large net and can be very polarised between their only neighbours who are light years ahead both on and off the pitch, and have generally finished higher in my lifetime. Recently a 3rd team in the area has had a bit of success, but are generally seen by both other clubs as a bit of an irrelevance, even though they currently play in a higher division.
 
Last edited:
Best way mate. Lay the foundations of a club before going mad with ground capacity.
We had a top academy and 42000+ stadium which it was selling out regular in the championship and PL. Unfortunately future planning permission was given for projects behind one end meaning we had to expand that part there and then or miss out forever. That money could’ve gone into the team which may have prevented us falling away from two consecutive 7th finishes, on the other hand we may have turned to shit anyway.
Now the grounds too big for our current circumstances and doesn’t look as good as it would if a second tier had been added along the side instead of an end.
We’ll be back in the PL one day. Wether the so called big 6 are still there for us to mix it with is an another matter. Which is how far in the future that days starting to look.
Aah well it’s all part of the fun.
Everything changes over time and that belief is what we held onto when Derby and Forest were doing their best stuff.
They were doing it but neither were ever really “bigger” than us . Forest arguably slightly maybe and Derby slightly smaller maybe when all things are considered sensibly.
Seen enough to know we could end up back in the pack soon enough rather than slightly in front as we are right now but it won’t be because of living beyond our means or thinking we are “bigger” than we are ,whatever that means. It might just be the order being restored but as I’ve said previously it’s not beyond our potential to be around the top 6.Same goes for about 20 other clubs I’d say , Sunderland included and not counting the so called “big6”
 
I'd compare us with Portsmouth. Had success a long time ago before most of the fans were born. Overspent in quest for mid-table mediocrity in the greed league and are now suffering the consequences. Not many football clubs in close proximity, so support is drawn from a large net and can be very polarised between their only neighbours who are light years ahead both on and off the pitch, and have generally finished higher in my lifetime. Recently a 3rd team in the area has had a bit of success, but are generally seen by both other clubs as a bit of an irrelevance, even though they currently play in a higher division.
No chance are Sunderland and Portsmouth same size clubs mate
 
No chance are Sunderland and Portsmouth same size clubs mate

That's your opinion. Mine is that in terms of success in the last 40 years, catchment area and rivals then we are broadly comparable. If you are talking purely about crowds, then right now there's not a great deal between us, and I'm sure that if Portsmouth had a larger ground, they'd still fill it.

I hate to bring it up, but Newcastle consider themselves a massive club because they get close to 50k.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top