top 50 all time club rankings

please log in to view this image

 

Hull @ 32 there's going to be hell on if they see this, bruce out

 

They did it last week, it's a dead thread now so here's the minutes.

http://www.not606.com/threads/top-flight-club-rankings.295772/

 

Top division league titles should trump trophies which would have put us higher up..

 

I find it hard to believe that either of Chelsea or Arsenal have a bigger global fanbase than the scouse ****ers.

 

I don't.

Football has boomed in the far east and US to a lesser extent over the past 20 years, in which time, Liverpool have won the Champions League once, the same as Porto. In that same time, Arsenal and Chelsea have won the prem on numerous occasions and had some of the best footballers on the planet playing for them, Liverpool have had Alonso and Suarez.

 

Sunderland 5th best supported - Newcastle 7th best......

That can;t be right - for the last 125 years Newcastle have had 52000 inside St James park and others waiting outside trying to get in.....

 

just going of, what i see..Scouse and Manc tops, outnumber all the rest put together easily.

 

Surprised there's not a load of City fans considering Shinawatra owned them.

 

hardly any..after scouse and mancs, its probably barca.

 

Surprised to see the baggies in the mix there.

 

Looks to me like the figures are completely arbitrary. Who gets paid to make this ****e up?

 

**** off hamster humper.

 

im not taking this table as gospel, but this indicates the reason why us supporters are really pissed off at our current plight and constant struggles! ive heard from various sources (fans and pundits) that as a club in general we sit about where we deserve to be! this table shows we should be comfortably mid table, which would suit me down to the ground!

 

It's based on top flight statistics from beginning of time. Whoever compiled those stats earned their money no doubt about it, it's a gargantuan task. My gripe is trophies are clearly based on how many and not the quality. But the Crowds will be taking into account the days when Roker getting close to the 100k mark, the finances will take into consideration our Bank of England Club era. Player quality will take into account decades of 2nd flight football. They're good stats imo. Credit to the team who compiled them. Proud to be in the top 10 of what I see is most historic Clubs in English history.

 

It's bullshit I tells ya - Newcastle have had in excess of 50000 for every top flight game they have ever played and we have only ever filled 2 thirds of our stadium - the mags fans keep telling me that so it must be true!

 

Stats can be twats.
Just ask the politicians.

 

Most successful teams bought their trophies. The Team of All the Talents back in the 1890s was mostly made up of Scottish players who came down here for good jobs in J. L. Thompson's shipyard or the various firms owned by Samuel Tyzack before professionalism became generally recognized. Middlesbrough were near certainties for relegation but bought their way out of it with the world's first £1,000 transfer (Alf Common). The Bank of England team wasn't called that for nothing - they were breaking transfer records all the time. Later, Brian Clough paid £1m for Peter Shilton and paid him Britain's first £1,000 a week wages at Nottingham Forest because he reckoned that Shilton was worth "a goal a game". So there's nothing wrong with the way Chelsea did things. And for the record, their record home crowd is two or three hundred higher than ours - 75,000-odd to see Chelsea v. Grimsby in about 1936. You can't single Chelsea out like that. We've all done it over the years.

 

Mate, we used to pack nearly 100k into roker park for games. It's not Premeir League stats mate it's top flight stats. The prem is dot on English Footballing history.