44th biggest club in the country?

[Postman Pat]

Daily Mail have tried to resolve the issue of club size in England and have us 44th.

What do you think?



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-finally-settles-football-s-great-debate.html

 

[Simster]

[MENTION=15922]Working class pride[/MENTION] is going to shìt the bed when he sees this.

 

[Icy Gull]

Historically, that would be hard to argue with but over the last 4 years we should have jumped right up that list with the opening of the Amex which does make us a bigger club than 44th now.

 

[Hastings gull]

Daily Mail have tried to resolve the issue of club size in England and have us 44th.

What do you think?

View attachment 64191

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-finally-settles-football-s-great-debate.html

Thanks for this and it makes for a fascinating read. Of course we can make with stats what we like, and one should always treat the figures with caution. I am not surprised at the rating of player quality, certainly after the first half of the season, but the income is baffling. If it is from football alone, ie season tickets and on the day purchase, then we should be higher, I would have thought, as we are generally regarded as one of the most expensive in the championship. If, TV money is taken into account, which I assume it is, then that of course tells a different story.

 

[Return of the Rev]

Smaller club than Reading

 

[Postman Pat]

I think our player quality score is too high compared to the likes of Millwall and Coventry who score lower.

I imagine Leeds fans are going mental over their global fanbase score compared to Stoke, Fulham and Charlton!

 

[8ace]

Those global fanbase rankings look a bit dodgy to me - Dirty L**ds 23rd only two ahead of Reading and Scumhampton 11th!!!

 

[Dave the OAP]

Taking those criteria into consideration, that is about right really.

I still think the fact that in the our history we have only been in the top flight for 4 of those years does have an effect on people's thinking, and we have only missed out twice on going up I seem to recall.

 

[skipper734]

Doesn't have time parameters, so is nonsense.

 

[Hillian1]

Can I go on record as quite frankly not giving a shit.

 

[El Presidente]

Doesn't have time parameters, so is nonsense.

Are we back to talking about [MENTION=15922]Working class pride[/MENTION] again?

 

[El Presidente]

Those global fanbase rankings look a bit dodgy to me - Dirty L**ds 23rd only two ahead of Reading and Scumhampton 11th!!!

I suspect WACCOE will be going into meltdown, although 13th does seem about fair to me.

 

[8ace]

I suspect WACCOE will be going into meltdown, although 13th does seem about fair to me.

I'm guessing they've failed to include the European Cup in the trophy score as well

 

[Gwylan]

That looks a bizarre ranking. How on earth can the Mail say Bury, Notts Co and Blackpool have better players than us? How can a side with the second highest gates in the second tier be only the 33rd best supported team? Are they using figures from six years ago for this?

 

[Bozza]

That looks a bizarre ranking. How on earth can the Mail say Bury, Notts Co and Blackpool have better players than us? How can a side with the second highest gates in the second tier be only the 33rd best supported team? Are they using figures from six years ago for this?

Player quality

We counted the number of players from each club who have played for England, all-time, ranking the clubs by total. This reflects historic ‘bigness’. We then ranked the clubs by the number of players provided to the 2014 World Cup — a measure of modern ‘bigness’. The overall ranking is an aggregate of these two.

Crowds

We ranked all clubs on the size of their average gates during this season to reflect contemporary pull. Then we ranked each club by the size of their biggest historic gates. Their overall crowd rank is an aggregate of current pull and also potential based on past highs.

 

[Bozza]

Under their contentious questions section:

Aren’t Leeds too low?

Leeds fans will point to the dominance of the Revie era and a Champions League semi-final in the not too distant past, to the size of Elland Road and their potential to be mighty whites again.

But there are 14 other teams with a better haul of major trophies. There are 11 others who have a higher all-time average league finish and 14 with bigger crowds when the current season and historic highs are both considered. Leeds rank only 25th of the 58 clubs in the study for the calibre of the players measured by all-time England players plus current global stars, and 23rd for global popularity, and 26th by income. They were giants for a time, some decades ago. But they are much diminished, for now.

 

[Notters]

Crowds

We ranked all clubs on the size of their average gates during this season to reflect contemporary pull. Then we ranked each club by the size of their biggest historic gates. Their overall crowd rank is an aggregate of current pull and also potential based on past highs.

But on ours they've done it on past lows, which surely doesn't make sense?

 

[n1 gull]

Notts County

 

[El Presidente]

But on ours they've done it on past lows, which surely doesn't make sense?

Past lows can turn into future lows!

 

[Gwylan]

Player quality

We counted the number of players from each club who have played for England, all-time, ranking the clubs by total. This reflects historic ‘bigness’. We then ranked the clubs by the number of players provided to the 2014 World Cup — a measure of modern ‘bigness’. The overall ranking is an aggregate of these two.

Crowds

We ranked all clubs on the size of their average gates during this season to reflect contemporary pull. Then we ranked each club by the size of their biggest historic gates. Their overall crowd rank is an aggregate of current pull and also potential based on past highs.

Well, those are nonsensical criteria: it's fair enough to include some measure of the past but it needs to be weighted more heavily to the present. Using those criteria I'm surprised Wanderers with their five FA Cup wins aren't somewhere near there