[Football] London football clubs. Biggest and smallest

[Sheebo]

The only thing I would change on this is Palarse and Charlton as I think Charlton were and have been a club with a lot more history and a far bigger following over the years.
The Valley was once the biggest ground in the whole old four divisions 76,000 something I believe.

So surely they're in the correct position mate? Ie above palarse... I consider size of club history as well as current, fan base, attendances home and away etc etc FWIW

 

[Simster]

This. Spurs are bigger than Chelsea

It isn't 1998 anymore, so I'd say Chelsea are bigger than Spurs nowadays. Bigger stadium, crowds and after recent history, they have more honours to their name. But they are very similar sized clubs.

It remains to be seen what happens if Abramovich leaves or when Spurs move into the rebuilt WHL...

 

[Gullflyinghigh]

Spurs will be moving into a much bigger ground than Stamford Bridge. Spurs have always had a bigger fan bases. Chelsea's only claim to being a bigger club is all the trophies Abramahovic has bought in the last 10 or so years.

I think, and I could be wrong, that the trophy claim probably trumps all others, with the money spent to get them a bit of an irrelevance, considering the vast majority of the winners of the same trophies tend to have similar spending power.

Why does the size of a stadium make much of a difference? Or fan base numbers (though I would question Spurs having a larger one)?

You don't get anything for those other than arguments between rival fans regarding attendances and % of seats sold, along with a whole other bunch of figures that mean very little to the wider world.

 

[EDS]

Bromley is in Kent and I would say is a Charlton area, also Millwall are followed by a few all around SE London.

Sorry disagree totally. Some Millwall and Palace but mostly established premier supporting clubs.

 

[The Truth]

So the titles and trophies they won prior to Abramovic arriving don't count?

That's your assumption.

I don't think Abramhovic's cash makes Chelsea bigger than spurs. You do.

Anyone's who's lived in London will tell you Spurs are bigger.

 

[EDS]

I'm assuming you're a palace fan?

These lists are difficult as some just base in what division they're in 'at the moment' as you have. IMO like...

Probably why he said "at the moment, IMO like.

 

[father_and_son]

It always surprises me for instance that there are no big clubs South of the river despite there being a huge population.

It's because they couldn't play evening matches because of the transport problems... everyone knows London cabbies won't go south of the river in the evening!

 

[algie]

It isn't 1998 anymore, so I'd say Chelsea are bigger than Spurs nowadays. Bigger stadium, crowds and after recent history, they have more honours to their name. But they are very similar sized clubs.

It remains to be seen what happens if Abramovich leaves or when Spurs move into the rebuilt WHL...

Growing up Spurs were the bigger club. You just can't wipe out over a 100 years of history. Put both clubs on an even keel ie stadium,money,team etc and Spurs will draw in the bigger crowds. But as you say in modern era Chelsea edge it purely on a billionaire. Bit like City. Man City will never be bigger than Arsenal,Liverpool etc or not in my life time they won't.

 

[studio150]

Chelsea is the only London team to win the European Cup

Chelsea have never played in the European Cup

 

[EDS]

Remember that the Premier League is supported globally. In the UK, Spurs and Chelsea's fanbase may be fairly similar in size - but worldwide, there will be countless Chelsea shirts seen on every continent - they are a far bigger club, one of the most supported teams in the world, probably greater than Arsenal now.

On channel 4 there is a programmer about pilots in remote destinations. There is a remote tribe I'm Papua new guinea and a few of them were wearing Chelsea shirts. Plastics

 

[El Presidente]

That's your assumption.

I don't think Abramhovic's cash makes Chelsea bigger than spurs. You do.

Anyone's who's lived in London will tell you Spurs are bigger.

I've lived in London, and disagree with you.

 

[The Grockle]

On channel 4 there is a programmer about pilots in remote destinations. There is a remote tribe I'm Papua new guinea and a few of them were wearing Chelsea shirts. Plastics

Haha was thinking about exactly the same program when I read his post!

 

[Sheebo]

Probably why he said "at the moment, IMO like.

This isn't a thread on crystal palace. Just my opinion like.

 

[Simster]

Growing up Spurs were the bigger club. You just can't wipe out over a 100 years of history. Put both clubs on an even keel ie stadium,money,team etc and Spurs will draw in the bigger crowds. But as you say in modern era Chelsea edge it purely on a billionaire. Bit like City. Man City will never be bigger than Arsenal,Liverpool etc or not in my life time they won't.

So "You just can't wipe out over a 100 years of history", yet it's ok to wipe out the most recent 20 years of history?

And I'm not sure I agree with if they were on an even keel. 20 years ago, if you said "put them on an even keel", I would agree that Spurs would have been FAR bigger. But now, after 20 years of complete sellouts and trophies, Chelsea have a massive following themselves. They sell out their 42,000 seat stadium even for tin-pot league cup games against 4th division minnows.

I've lived in London, and disagree with you.

Me too.

 

[The Truth]

I've lived in London, and disagree with you.

Same here.

What actually determines the bigger team?

 

[El Presidente]

Growing up Spurs were the bigger club. You just can't wipe out over a 100 years of history. Put both clubs on an even keel ie stadium,money,team etc and Spurs will draw in the bigger crowds. But as you say in modern era Chelsea edge it purely on a billionaire. Bit like City. Man City will never be bigger than Arsenal,Liverpool etc or not in my life time they won't.

The last time Spurs averaged over 40,000 was in 1967/8.

 

[EDS]

This isn't a thread on crystal palace. Just my opinion like.

Neither is a thread on Manchester united so you really should not be contributing either. Just my opinion like

 

[El Presidente]

Same here.

What actually determines the bigger team?

So you live in London, and disagree with yourself?

 

[The Truth]

The last time Spurs averaged over 40,000 was in 1967/8.

Wasn't it their 1930's crowds which were making headlines?

 

[El Presidente]

Same here.

What actually determines the bigger team?

Nothing 'actually' determines the bigger team. It's a heady mix of heritage, history, cultural position and trophies IMO though. There is no definitive answer.