Based on we are the best club in the ****ing world. Not the 'biggest', but the best. Fucķ the details. We are Ull
Recent history, i.e previous 10 years. Fan base Potential.. Potentially they're all bigger clubs than us, but using the above criteria, they're not. Boro what have they ever done? Spent most of the time in Champ/Div1 Blades..Spent the last five years in Div1. 1 season in the prem recently under Colin Owls...potentially a major league side, but done £uck all for years, except have loads of gobby fans Derby...Done jack **** for decades Norwich...Bit of a yo-yo side, no bigger than us Forest..living on past triumphs. Done £uck all for 20 years Wolves...Struggled for the past few years...A big club in the 1950's
TWS. Monk recently said he went to Middlesbrough because they had more potential to succeed. He said Leeds were a bigger club, but he wanted to be a part of a successful club and he believes he has a better chance of doing that at Burra.
Surely there are only two ways of judging who are "big" clubs: 1. Past history 2. The current league table. Given the absence of 2, suggesting Hull City is an equal to twice European Champions Nottingham Forest is a bit silly.
If you asked any neutral fan, who from that list of clubs is bigger - us or any of them - I'd expect 90%+ to say any of the other teams. I know I ****ing would.
Indeed, Bury FC two time winners of the F.A. Cup and 22 seasons in the top flight, bigger than Hull City? The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
I always say this but why do some clubs history not get mentioned? I'd never heard that about Bury and for years I didn't know about Huddersfield's historical success. Yet we're constantly lectured about what brilliantly 'big' clubs Leeds, Forest and Sheff Wednesday are because of their historic success. What's the difference? It's all ancient and they're all **** and insignificant now.