Discussion in 'Molineux Mix Archive' started by Gornal, Mar 25, 2015.
Wolves equal 13th biggest
Never seen so much tosh in my life! Even taking my gold tinted specs off, West Ham and West Brom above us? Right....
Bolton above Forest...These tables are ridiculous!
Chelsea 4th is the one that made me laugh. Having an owner who stole billions from the people of Russia to throw away does not make you a big club.
Global fanbase is hilarious, and how do you judge player calibre
Typical opinion masquerading as fact!
For a start it gives equal weighting to those six categories and doesn't count anything else. It's the Mail's opinion that those are the categories that determine the size of a club and that they are all equally important.
That's before even starting on how on earth they measure the various categories (e.g apparently Forest have the 14th best squad in the country, a solid Premier League side, while Leicester has the 25th - a promotion hopeful but not the best squad in the Championship: eh?!? Even more bizarre - Reading's team is the same quality as Bury's!)
Complete and utter rubbish
Edit: ok I now see that 'player quality' is actually based on England and World Cup 2014 caps... still rubbish!
Wigan bigger than Coventry
Just a bit of fun. Few seasons in the Prem will get us in the top ten.
I think it's quite a decent attempt, using record attendances & social media followings to see how big your global pull is. Sparks a debate anyway.
I think the criteria is sound, but not sure how WBA (sorry JW!!) are higher historically than Leeds, derby or even us on crowd score.
Makes a mockery.
I'm assuming this is a joke, but does the fact that Wigan have quite a considerable amount more followers on Twitter than us, does that makes them a bigger club than us?
West Brom bigger than both us and Leeds on crowds and global fanbase.
I think that says all you need to know about the quality of this 'report'.
Edit and Wigan have a higher global fanbase than us and Leeds, they don't even have a fanbase in Wigan!
West Brom higher than Wolves and Leeds. Laughable.
Took 500 to Liverpool in the Premiership. Big club.
I've seen a fair few of these 'Biggest club in England' lists, but I would go as far as to say this is the worst. It makes absolutely no sense at all!
What are they basing player quality on? The players of now or as a whole throughout the history of English football? I'm assuming as a whole, which means according to this list that Albions player quality has been over twice as good as ours!
Tottenham bigger than Villa made me smile.
Swansea bigger than anyone... 10 years ago they played in front of 7 fans in a shed.
Soton bigger than Leeds, Sheffield Weds and Sunderland is a good one.
Stoke bigger than the mighty, world famous, Nottingham Forest hahaha.
Agreed. Norwich and the albion have far more twitter followers..
As do Cardiff, Swansea, Hull, QPR, Reading...I could go on! All of which I see as smaller clubs than Wolves, but have considerably more Twitter followers than us. Followers means sod all!
It says it is on current crowds plus the historic high. I think them lot had a high of 64000 to our 61000. Basically its how many could cram into your ground before they shut the gates in the old days before Health & Safety so it distorts the figures.
Using player quality and income as a ranking factor are both heavily biased towards Premier League clubs. So if we got into the premier league our ranking would automatically improve.
Overall though the ranking seems pretty accurate apart from West Brom. Not too bad and we are the highest of the championship clubs with Leeds which is about right. I've seen far worse ranking methods.
Twitter has grown over the last few years. All those clubs have been in the Premier League more recently than us. Probably loads of global twitter followers just follow all premier league clubs and then dont necessarily unfollow if/when they get relegated. So if we got promoted our official twitter feed would start attracting new followers globally.
People use computers in Smethwick??
They've found that having those extra fingers is a great asset when using a keyboard.
Yes I understand exactly what you've just said, but that is what I was trying to get across.
However in my opinion it just shows you how much you cannot start basing sizes of clubs based on Twitter followers. For example, we could be promoted this season, gain an extra 80k followers then be relegated and spend the next 5 years in the Championship and nobody would be interested then, Twitter is all about what is flavor of the month, or in this case the season.
The Global fanbase must be based on overseas viewing figures during recent times in the premiership. Wigan, Hull and Reading bigger fanbase than us ? Seeing the crowds and fanbase for Charlton, whoever compiled this rubbish must support them.
Nope, but it makes them a bigger club on Twitter/Facebook than us so when they announce a new sponsor it get's more potential views than it would if we did it.
Bald men arguing over a comb.....
What it says to me Sedge is what a load of absolute and utter ****ing tosh.
The Wigan thing alone is enough to right the whole thing of as just poorly done.
If only those followers could actually make it to the DW. I think it should count attendances based on attendances in various divisions. If they can't do it for Man Utd or Arsenal then bring in league cup games etc
I think certain catergories should be less important than others. I mean come on...
Damn - thought this was another potential player coming in on loan
Loads of tw##s in Wigan - after drinking there last week, I agree with that
A couple of laughable 'results' that I noticed after a quick glance. Double european cup winners Nottingham Forest are lower than 1 league cup win Stoke City.
20,000 average fans in the PL West Brom are higher than Leeds, Sheff Wed or even Wolves. A silly league table that makes no sense at all.
It's mental isn't it! I've always thought the Daily Mail was a ridiculous paper, but where on earth are they getting these facts from!
They must have counted every single trophy won by a team, even Stoke City's impressive 'Watney Mann Invitation Cup' win!
Actually, have to say I think this is pretty sound.
Historical success isn't everything. Considering we've dabbled with only 4 years of Premier League football since it's inception (which, let's face it, is when football began in this age), we're doing pretty well. Premier League football is a major factor. Who here really follows any other football other than the top division of another country?
I'd say we're doing pretty well, considering we're not a premier league club.
Had we stuck around when we first got in the Premier League, I'd hazard a guess that we would be a fair bit higher in this list, and higher certainly than many of those that you scoff at.
The fact that Leeds are below Albion in terms of crowds shows the assessment is a joke though.
The assessment is meant to assess biggest club. How can you compare clubs respective gates when they are in different leagues? Shouldnt it compare average gates in whilst in each division? Now that would give a better answer and put WBA much lower, where they belong in this assessment.
Yes but currently more people around the world will be watching West Brom than Leeds, they will get more sponsorship & advertising deals than Leeds, the same for Stoke & Swansea.
Separate names with a comma.