Tales from the Toon. The ups and downs of an NUFC supporter....

[DungBeetle]

"All ahead of Newcastle in my book in terms of the way the clubs are run, players and management."

What does the way clubs are run have anything to do with whether they are a big club?  Or currrent players and management?  "Big" club status is about long term potential.  Leeds would be a more extreme version of Newcastle. 

[Kmac84]

Seems not only Newcastle fans are deluded.

[DungBeetle]

I just don't think you get the concept.  If Watford finished top 10 five years in a row I wouldn't call them a big club, as we probably would struggle to get above 30,000 fans for home games even with that success.

The concept of being a big club isn't about where you are now.  It's where you "should" be given your fanbase revenue streams (or even potential fanbase revenue streams in the case of some fallen teams). 

That's why despite the last 10 years Chelsea are still a smaller club than Newcastle by my reckoning.

[Kmac84]

The concept of being a big club imo is money in the bank, potential for growth, past history. 

Newcastle don't have much of either imo. 

They are never a top 4 side,  as I said earlier they couldn't get to the summit when Joh Hall was free rolling them.  Even Blackburn managed it.   

Newcastle will no doubt maintain their home gates.  But realistically they aren't going to break into the top 6 anytime soon.

Even based on history I would say Leeds were a bigger club. 

[pleno1]

Huh? We were 5th a few seasons ago pal.

Suggesting we are a similar sized club to stoke is just laughable a, perhaps you're not real though.. Arbboy3?

[DungBeetle]

And finished 2nd in the late 90s?

[pleno1]

2nd, 2nd, 3rd,3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 7th, 7th since we came into the premiership. Negatives is of course a relegation.

[Doobs]

I think claiming Newcastle are bigger than Chelsea is just plain wrong.

The big 5 (Arsenal, Man U, Man City, Chelsea and Liverpool) are well clear of the rest.  You can see that in matchday income, turnover or  

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/may/01/premier-league-club-accounts-debt-wages

I don't think it matters what size the stadium is if Chelsea can get £71m in gate income and Newcastle only £28m.  

Spurs are the 6th biggest club and there isn't much doubt about that.

You could argue Newcastle are 7th, and they are on turnover, but I wouldn't put Everton and Villa far away on history, crowds etc.  If they are finishing around 7th to 10th, they are finishing at around their level.  Not underachieving and not overachieving.

If you just look at pure turnover, Newcastle are as close to the 20th biggest club inb the premiership than they are to Spurs.  So it is more laughable to suggest Newcastle are as big as Tottenham or bigger than Chelsea than it is to suggest they are similar sized to Stoke.   I don't even think there is much potential to get as big as Spurs, for instance they could double their gate turnover or commercial income and still not be that close.  

[DMorgan]

Adjust those turnovers for average wages within an x mile radius of stadium and I'd imagine it's a lot closer than those numbers suggest between Chelsea and Newcastle

[Kmac84]

I think claiming Newcastle are bigger than Chelsea is just plain wrong.

The big 5 (Arsenal, Man U, Man City, Chelsea and Liverpool) are well clear of the rest.  You can see that in matchday income, turnover or  

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/may/01/premier-league-club-accounts-debt-wages

I don't think it matters what size the stadium is if Chelsea can get £71m in gate income and Newcastle only £28m.  

Spurs are the 6th biggest club and there isn't much doubt about that.

You could argue Newcastle are 7th, and they are on turnover, but I wouldn't put Everton and Villa far away on history, crowds etc.  If they are finishing around 7th to 10th, they are finishing at around their level.  Not underachieving and not overachieving.

If you just look at pure turnover, Newcastle are as close to the 20th biggest club inb the premiership than they are to Spurs.  So it is more laughable to suggest Newcastle are as big as Tottenham or bigger than Chelsea than it is to suggest they are similar sized to Stoke.   I don't even think there is much potential to get as big as Spurs, for instance they could double their gate turnover or commercial income and still not be that close.  

That says it much better than I ever could. 

[DungBeetle]

I'm not sure why people get fixated by a particular point in history when looking at who is bigger than who.  The concept of "big club" must be looked at over a longer period, and also consider potential.

If Newcastle as an area became more affluent in the future, and if they had the same success on the pitch, they would make more money in matchday income than Chelsea.  At the send of the day they have a bigger fanbase.

Chelsea make more money at the moment.  But I'm not sure that is any more relevant than us looking at 1981 matchday income before Ken Bates bought them for £1.  

[DungBeetle]

Incidentally, looking at those figures does that include all matches (i.e. Champs League for Chelsea but nothing for Newcastle?)

If not it means Chelsea on average charge three times more per ticket than Newcastle once you adjust for average attendance.  Which may be correct I suppose.

[Ironside]

Loving the fact saints have been put on a par with newcastle and stoke!!  Saints are a smaller club than newcastle but bigger than stoke but currently a better side than both

[Doobs]

I'm not sure why people get fixated by a particular point in history when looking at who is bigger than who.  The concept of "big club" must be looked at over a longer period, and also consider potential.

If Newcastle as an area became more affluent in the future, and if they had the same success on the pitch, they would make more money in matchday income than Chelsea.  At the send of the day they have a bigger fanbase.

Chelsea make more money at the moment.  But I'm not sure that is any more relevant than us looking at 1981 matchday income before Ken Bates bought them for £1.  

Because you weren't talking about who was the biggest you were talking about who is the biggest.

If Newcastle became the biggest club at some point in the future, then I would happily say they are now the biggest, and it wouldn't make any difference that Chelsea were once 3 times as big.  Things change, history doesn't mean an awful lot.  Given how succesful Man U have been over the years, then there is no reason this can't ever happen.


 

[RickBFA]

None of this changes the view of most neutrals, that Pardew did a decent job with the resources at his disposal.

Football fans are football fans though and often cant see the woods for the trees.