If you had to put all the historically big clubs in a top 20 what would yours be? (in no particular order as such mainly nearer the bottom) Man United Liverpool Arsenal Everton Aston Villa Tottenham Sunderland Man City Sheff Wed Newcastle Chelsea Nottm Forest Wolves Leeds Utd Derby Co WBA Blackburn Sheff United West Ham Southampton
Too difficult to do. Liverpool fans would arghue that historically they're still more significant than Man Utd. Even after years of winning the EPL they have still won two more league titles than Man Utd and 3 more Champions Leagues. Whjy are Tottenham bigger than Manchester City? Or Sunderland? City have a decent record and European success. After Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal, Everton and Chelsea there are a number of clubs who mesh into one big "big-ish" category. Personally I think this is pointless....
There not any bigger/smaller, it's not in any particular order. Don't take it so serioulsy, it's just a bit of fun.
Historically. 1. Liverpool 2. Man United 3. Arsenal 4. Aston Villa 5. Nottingham Forest 6. Everton 7. Preston North End 8. Manchester City 9. Leeds United 10. Chelsea
Historically chelsea should be nowhere near the top ten, a tin pot club who were going bust till a mr abramovich came along
A big club - yes. A historically significant one - no. Not at the moment. But Chelsea are a club making their own history. Chelsea are a big club. They fill their ground every week, compete for the biggest trophies and buy the best players. They are almost unmatched in world football in terms of funds available for transfer investment. No matter how you cut it, that makes them big. They can compete with and out-bid ManUtd, Real Madrid and AC Milan for the worlds most in demand players. Their history, however, is not as rich or as illustrious as the those clubs with whomb they compete. However, in time this will change as their vast amounts of money will bring them success, as it has already. But in 10, 20, 30 years time people will see Chelsea as a historically significant club simply because they changed the face of English and European football over night and on their own. They mixed things up and made things interesting and all of a sudden the Man Utds, Real Madrids and AC Milans of this world were unable to boss the markets as they saw fit because they were no longer the richest clubs around. In that respect there would be a legitimate argument to see Chelsea much further up the list because they have, even in their short life in their current guise, had a huge impact on not just English football, but world and European football as a whole......
Preston? They've spent more time outside the top flight than in it. They're dwarfed by the likes of Newcastle and Sunderland. Liverpool and Man Utd are clearly nos 1 & 2, with Arsenal in third. Villa and Everton would come next - each have a combined total of 14 league and FA cup wins. How you rank them would depend on whether you hold Villa's European Cup higher than Everton's Cup Winners Cup and 8 extra top flight seasons. After that you have (in approximate order with records listed): Spurs (2 titles, 8 FA Cups and 72 top flight seasons - 3 European Trophies) Newcastle (4 titles, 6 FA Cups and 77 top flight seasons - 1 European Trophy) Sunderland (6 titles, 2 FA Cups and 76 top flight seasons) Chelsea (3 titles, 4 FA Cups and 72 top flight seasons - 2 European Trophies) Blackburn (3 titles, 6 FA Cups and 67 top flight seasons) Man City (2 titles, 4 FA Cups and 78 top flight seasons - 1 European Trophy) Sheffield Wednesday (4 titles, 3 FA Cups and 66 top flight seasons) Wolves (3 titles, 4 FA Cups and 60 top flight seasons) WBA (1 title, 5 FA Cups and 71 top flight seasons) Leeds (3 titles, 1 FA Cup and 50 top flight seasons - 2 European Trophies) Then the likes of Sheffield United, Forest, Huddersfield, Derby and Preston making out the top 20.
chelsea did win things before abramovich came along mate. and they've won european cups so therefore I class them as a big club.
Fair enough you're entitled to your opinion, but Preston were the first truly invincible club and had a record that stood for over 90 years, so therefore historically they rank up there - they may not be a massive club that have won things consistantly, but they achieved something that only Arsenal have managed to match
No doubt that going through any league campaign unbeaten is a great achievement, but it doesn't make up for the 7 extra trophies won and 31 extra seasons spent in the top flight that Newcastle have managed. Following the second season of the Football League, Preston have won the same number of trophies as Coventry or Wimbledon. Their early achievements mean that they can be considered an important club historically, but not a big or successful club historically which is what the op is asking for.
A cup winners cup and a few fa cups in the 90s hardly constitutes for 80 odd years in the wilderness does it. As soon as abramovich leaves they will return to a Tottenham like club.
Chelsea have won trophies in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 90s and 00s and have spent 72 out of 91 seasons in the top flight. Granted, the majority of their success has come recently, but that makes it no more or less valid than teams like Sunderland or Newcastle with the majority of their successes in the first half English football history. A lot of the ground work they are laying at youth level and their increasing global profile means that even if Abramovich were to leave in 5 or 10 years time, they will still be in a position to challenge consistantly for honours.
Enough BS, they are not a big club...only in the last 3 years due to their big pockets. Chelsea FC - 17 titles (only 7 real titles)...6 of the 17 have been won in the last 3 years. Premiership/1st div titles: 3 (1954/55, 2004/05, 2005/06) FA Cup: 4 (1970, 1997, 2000, 2007) League Cup: 4 (1965, 1998, 2005, 2007) Community Shield: 3 (1955, 2000, 2005) UEFA Cup Winners Cup: 2 (1971, 1998) UEFA Super Cup: 1 (1998)
And how are trophies won this century any different to those won in the 1920s? Financial clout is nothing new - Sunderland were called "The Bank of England" in the late 40s and early 50s and Arsenal outspent most teams under Herbert Chapman in the 30s. Historically, Chelsea are certainly not comparable to Liverpool, Man Utd or even Everton, but they can easily mix it with the likes of Man City, Leeds and Sunderland.
And why would that be? Only 9 clubs have won more top flight league games than Chelsea, and even discounting the Abramovich influence they would still likely be in the same position (being over 100 wins ahead of 11th place). Could it be that you are just a Liverpool fan who resents the fact that they have been overtaken in the current pecking order by some upstarts with cash?
ding ding ding. We have a winner, ladies and gentelmen. Top 10 in English history = big club. Case closed.
Their is a big difference between being successful and big. eg Bolton have been relatively successfull over recent times but you cant compare them to a club like Sheffield Wednesday or Wolves.
Chelsea are a big club fanbase wise, but they don't have the tradition to rival Man U or Liverpool. Tradition is primarily what gives a club its name and fame.
No but ive supported my club all my life which cant be said for 90% of your fanbase. Before Sky TV you were no better or worse than Sunderland.
to be honest I've always regarded support as a better indicator of a size of a club than trophies won. Nobody would regard Oxford United as having being bigger than Newcastle over the last 35 years, yet Oxford have won more trophies.