The mancityfans.net football forum

Right this has been on my mind now for at least a year, in what bracket as a club do you rate City in?, it's been obvious since are takeover in September of last year we get alot of shit from oposition fans such as "average club with no history" but it's all total bollocks. If you add up all the silverwere won by City we are about the 8th or 9th most sucesfull club in the history of English football, now, that is some feat when you consider we havn't won anything for 33 years, just imangine how high up that list we would of been in 76'. Anyways back on topic, I see City as a "big" club and no it's not just because i'm a City fan, i'll break it down. A big club is a club with a big fan base, a good history not just silverwere but in terms of the clubs culture, transfers, promotions etc and a history of having top class players in my opinion. Do City have all those things as a club? YES. So for me it is obvious that all this "small club, no history" bollocks, is nothing but jealousy from clubs who believe that they should have got the opportunity that we are now enjoying.

This is how I brake it down in terms of Club's status in this country...

You have the "elite clubs" which are obviously the most sucsesfull consisting off,

Scum
Liverpool
Arsenal

Then there's the next level down of the club's that are the "big clubs"

Villa,
City,
Chelsea,
Spurs,
Everton,
Notts Forest,
Newcastle,
Sunderland,
West Ham

Then there's your "average clubs"

Fulham,
Stoke,
Birmingham etc

Then obviously the small clubs which would be the likes of Blackburn and Burnley

That's how I brake it down in term's of club's satus in England anyway. Like I said going of fanbase, history and tradition that is how I see club's in this country.

Now on an European scale i'll hold my hands up and say we still need to do alot more to be considered one of the big boys (even though we already have a European trophy to our name), but it is a matter of time if we keep going the way we are at the moment.

Thoughts on this?

Nice post mate.

I had a similar thread in mind actually, but it'll fit in here. I often wonder why certain clubs are entitled to a certain status based only on their past. For example- Liverpool haven't won the title in 20 years at this stage but all their fans do is talk about history and put the clubs trying to build new successes down as 'small time'. On the other hand if a club like Middlesbrough or Wigan makes their way to the top and gets into a few cup finals, it's seen as a travesty. Shouldn't opinions be based on what's happening right now rather than twenty or thirty years ago?

nothing winds up a scouser like telling them they "were great in the eighties".

10.Goater_Legend wrote:big fan base, a good history not just silverware but in terms of the clubs culture, transfers, promotions etc and a history of having top class players in my opinion.

good topic.

just to play devil's advocate, you list burnley as a small club. however they are one of the oldest members of the football league and have won much, albeit a long, long time ago. clubs like PNE and blackpool and even bolton have enjoyed long and successful periods at various times in the history of the domestic game. these clubs may be somewhat in the wilderness now, but played a huge part in the development of footy and its culture in england. i would always consider them big clubs on the basis of this.

much as i hate the inbred fuckers :)

I'm never sure, cos it's disloyal to not see City as a big club, but...

the OP is right we are about 9th in terms of the tin we've won. However it's less than ten cups (excluding Charity shields) and 4 (+1) of them were won 1968-1970.
That was the only time we've put a string of successes together. Otherwise we've spread them out a bit 1904 1934 1956...
I'm not saying they should be ignored. The opposite. But there's an argument that for 120+ of our 125 years (sorry John) we haven't even been top 10.

That said we are a fuckin big club and getting bigger.

It's difficult to wade through all the inter-club barbs here. But there was an article last week which mentioned the original big 6 - I think it was the Telegraph. These 6 - the big City clubs with traditional big crowds and fan base (and hopefully trophies!!):

City, Scum, Arsenal, Spuds, Everton, Dippers. Others may add Villa.

Some journos used to leave City out either because we were shite at the time or because they favoured Spuds, being South-based.

Obviously Chelsea have now smashed into this group, although in the past their fan base was very, very fickle, like Leeds, Forest and other fly-by-night clubs.

Newcastle were always left out because, although some folk talk of big crowds watching a fella called Jackie Milburn in black and white (telly), the crowds since were about as big as Norwich on a bad day until some fella called Keegan came along. Then they all sprung out of the woodwork, another fickle lot.

That's my take, although I am obviously biased because due to our lamentable club management since 1979 more recent neutral fans would see us as just becoming a big club. Although we are respected for our fanbase in hard times.

Sunderland a big club? Never really thought of them as a big club really.. They pull in a good attendance then or something? I really never paid much attendance to them to be honest.

How many other Premiership Clubs have 36,000 Season Ticket Holders?

since i was a lad i've always known us as a "big club" like john said it was always both scousers,both north london clubs the scum & us, for me it's not changed, fcuk your chelski,they are only big cause of the money ploughed in,never saw newcastle as a big club nor sunderland ,leeds ,etc..
@10.goater sorry mate how can you put forest in your "big club "table nowhere near us ,i'd put leeds before them anyday

I wouldn't class Blackburn as a "small club", as much as I'm not particularly fond of them

Founded the best part of 200 years ago (within about 5 years of God's own club), won the league "recently" and FA cup winners 6 times.

They have a massive following too considering thier vicinity to the "elite" north-west clubs.

dazlebluefrog wrote:since i was a lad i've always known us as a "big club" like john said it was always both scousers,both north london clubs the scum & us, for me it's not changed, fcuk your chelski,they are only big cause of the money ploughed in,never saw newcastle as a big club nor sunderland ,leeds ,etc..
@10.goater sorry mate how can you put forest in your "big club "table nowhere near us ,i'd put leeds before them anyday

I including them because of the two European Cups they have won pal, in all honestly I forgot about Leeds but your right I would also count Leeds as a much bigger club than Forest.

I look at it in a very simple way.

There are the big clubs, those clubs that win things like leagues and cups and stuff. And then there is everybody else.

Can anyone advise how I put on my opwn topics on here? In meantime can somone put post on my behalf letting anyone who has southstand seasoncard can buy tickets now aslong as they purchase non season ticket seats just got mione for east second tier. Wanted to let everyone on this great website know

Looking at this question in the present, City with all the money, the quality and depth of the squad, the fan base etc, Internationally, City are probably just about stood at the front door but not inside the the "BIG CLUB" club. The likes of Barca, Madrid, the rags etc have a record far superior to us and it will be long time and a lot of trophies before we can be considered as part of that group.

Historically, according to football historian Gary James, (at the end of season 2006-07) our average league position, calculated relative to all othe English clubs and all games played in all divisions since we joined the Football league in 1892 was a meagre 15th.
That said, City have certainly had spells at the top. Between 1894 and 1904, we gradually became a massive club, until all the City players were banned for life around 1906.
In the early 20s we were a major club and in the 1930s, City and Arsenal were very dominant. City had massive gates League and Cup success.
Post war, apart from 1968 til the end of the 70s, City were without doubt a huge club, won trophies in Europe and domestically, had a big fan base and spent heavily in transfers when needed.
The last 30 odd years have severely damamged our standing in the game but we are on the up and once again building to challenge at the top table.

I thought it was commonly accepted that we are in fact a "massive" club?

ant london wrote:I thought it was commonly accepted that we are in fact a "massive" club?

Ahhh that makes me cringe so much, fucking hate the Rag basterds.

Tokyo Blue wrote:I look at it in a very simple way.

There are the big clubs, those clubs that win things like leagues and cups and stuff. And then there is everybody else.

Not really that simple though is it? If Wigan suddenly win the cup, does that make them a big club? Portsmouth did but I still call them small/tiny.

There has to be some consideration of fanbase!

Tokyo Blue wrote:I look at it in a very simple way.

There are the big clubs, those clubs that win things like leagues and cups and stuff. And then there is everybody else.

Not really that simple though is it? If Wigan suddenly win the cup, does that make them a big club? Portsmouth did but I still call them small/tiny.

There has to be some consideration of fanbase!

when it comes to history silverwear means nothing its only the rags that like to beleive that, the only history they have is a list of trophies(which is a very impressive F**K S**T W***ERS list) but there is no depth the only thing the fans have is 2003 we won this 2008 we won this, no remember when........

i have never seen city win anything apart from the playoffs and division 1 but things like getting relegated/promoted and being a battling team that no matter how bad it gets can always pull itself back up makes me proud to be a city fan and gives us a richer history then the rags, liverpool and arsenal because without the success they wouldnt be the club they are today but were here without it which shows depth and character which is something people are never going to beleive in 5 years from now when we are europes number 1 club, i dont no wether to be sad that were all soon to be "glory hunters" or happy that were gonna be more succesful trophy wise

The way I understand it, there are two ways of a club being seen as "big":

1) Sustained success over the years in terms of trophy-winning and challenging. This is a category we don't fall into but Liverpool do. They might not have won the title for 20 years, but they have, of course, won a UEFA Cup and a Champions League in the last nine (as well as being CL runners-up in 2007) as well as a fair few domestic trophies. According to this criterion, we could be seen as a club with a golden era, ours being the 60s/70s, and many clubs including Derby and Forest fall into this category.

2) Fan base. If it's a matter of fanbase and unwavering attendances during shit periods, then we fall into this category.

So, tradition is what makes a big club in my opinion; a tradition of winning trophies and playing in Europe or a tradition of big stadia with bums on seats. As some clubs can claim both of these things (Munes, Liverpool, Arsenal), I don't think we can be considered as one of the biggest in the country for a while yet.