The mancityfans.net football forum

Do you think pre takeover that City were perceived as a big club?

I have always thought we were big

But then I'm a City fan..just wondered what an outsiders perception of us was?

More to the point..what even defines a big club?!

It's gonna be hard to get an outsiders perception of us on a City forum mate.

I don't care to be honest big club, small, medium.... what does it mean/matter? its like 'world class' what the f*** does that mean!!!? - they're just W@*K words/phrases bandied round by pleb journo's and un articulate pundits IMHO

a sleeping giant

A big club used to be defined partly by it's support over its history & partly by its success on the pitch imo. We were always a big club but the rags became bigger due to their support increasing & their success increasing. Same with Liverpool, the Milans, Madrids etc.

Now in the media age, profile is a big factor. Our profile is huge now & getting bigger. Provided we keep people interested (imo by playing high quality attacking football & winning a few trophies) the profile will get biger & bigger & attendances will go up to match.

We are one of the biggest clubs in the world now, but a long way behind the rags, Barca etc. That will change over the next 10 years. there are City fans being born every day, all around the world, who don't even know it yet.

Beeks wrote:Do you think pre takeover that City were perceived as a big club?

I have always thought we were big

But then I'm a City fan..just wondered what an outsiders perception of us was?

More to the point..what even defines a big club?!

I always remember the term sleeping giant being bandied about by the media so I guess they always thought we were a 'big' club.

I compiled a table recently for English clubs showing the total points won in top flight, total attendances and trophies won. I then added my own points score which places us in 9th, in a grouping that includes Chelsea, Spurs, Newcastle and Sunderland.

[album]29[/album]

The full table is at my site:
http://www.mcfchistory.com/2011/09/so-how-historic-are-we.html

I think we were probably regarded in the same way Villa or Newcastle are now. Big club, great traditions, good fan base but underachievers.

MCFChistory wrote:I compiled a table recently for English clubs showing the total points won in top flight, total attendances and trophies won. I then added my own points score which places us in 9th, in a grouping that includes Chelsea, Spurs, Newcastle and Sunderland.

[album]29[/album]

The full table is at my site:
http://www.mcfchistory.com/2011/09/so-how-historic-are-we.html

So we are the 9th biggest club?

Even behind Villa?!

Beeks wrote:

MCFChistory wrote:I compiled a table recently for English clubs showing the total points won in top flight, total attendances and trophies won. I then added my own points score which places us in 9th, in a grouping that includes Chelsea, Spurs, Newcastle and Sunderland.

[album]29[/album]

The full table is at my site:
http://www.mcfchistory.com/2011/09/so-how-historic-are-we.html

So we are the 9th biggest club?

Even behind Villa?!

Villa were one of the Football League's founding clubs and have won twice as many major trophies than us.

Whatever history says, we are regarded around the world as a much bigger club than Villa now.

Ted Hughes wrote:Whatever history says, we are regarded around the world as a much bigger club than Villa now.

Imo the here and now is why the Shiekh bought us because he saw a sleeping giant re:fanbase and the possibility of world football domination for years to come.Also he knows if we deliver on the pitch he also highlights his nation on a global scale.