Potential

[Crab Lungs]

OK, so I've been thinking this for a while now but I wondered exactly just how big a club can Saints be - and what exactly is there current size in comparison to other clubs?

 

As we all know, if we ever do return to the Premier League then we are likely to see the ground near-capacity, even possibly at capacity for many of the fixtures but how far can we go beyond that? What is our real potential?

 

So, I've comprised a tiered list of the clubs in the country which take into account recent and historic attendances. In brackets are my estimations of their potential to reach a particular tier (for example, West Ham has the growth potential, if successful for a continued period, to reach Tier 3 and so on.) Also worth taking into account the catchment area and the local competition.

 

If there is no significant potential to be a "bigger club" then I have omitted the bracketed areas. From my estimation, I cannot see us ever being as big as Tier 4 clubs, though assuming we do return to the PL, we will maintain our Tier 5 status.

 

I hope this makes sense... and would be interested to here other peoples perspectives/perceptions on this!

 

Tier 1

Arsenal, Man Utd, Liverpool.

 

Tier 2

Man City, Newcastle.

 

Tier 3

Chelsea, Spurs.

 

Tier 4

Everton (3), Aston Villa (3), West Ham (3), Sunderland, Nottm Forest (3), Leeds (3).

 

Tier 5

Wolves (4), West Brom, Southampton, Sheff Utd (4), Leicester, Norwich, Ipswich, Sheff Wed (4), Derby.

 

Tier 6

Birmingham (5), Fulham, Stoke, Cardiff (5).

 

Tier 7

Coventry, Middlesbrough (5), Crystal Palace, Bolton (6), Blackburn (6), Reading, Portsmouth (6), Bristol City (6), Hull, Huddersfield (5), Brighton (6).

 

Tier 8

Swansea (6), Watford, Millwall (7), QPR (6), Burnley, Charlton (6).

 

Tier 9

Doncaster, Barnsley, Blackpool (8 ), Wigan (8 ), Preston (7), MK Dons (7), Carlisle (7), Plymouth (7), Bradford (7).

 

Tier 10

Notts County (8 ), Peterborough (9), Swindon, Gillingham, Oxford (8 ).

 

Tier 11

Bournemouth, Bristol Rovers (10), Exeter, Brentford, Leyton Orient, Tranmere, Oldham (10), Walsall, Chesterfield, Port Vale (9), Rotherham (9), Southend (10).

 

Tier 12

S****horpe (11), Colchester (11), Yeovil (11), Bury (11), Crewe, Lincoln, Northampton (11), Shrewsbury (11), Stockport, Wycombe.

 

Tier 13

Hartlepool (12), Rochdale, Aldershot (11).

 

Tier 14

Dag & Red, Burton Albion, Cheltenham (13), Hereford, Morecambe, Stevenage (12), Torquay (12).

 

Tier 15

Accrington, Barnet, Macclesfield.

[Crab Lungs]

We can be bigger than Villareal and they've done fairly well.

 

I don't get how Newcastle are bigger than Chelsea though.

 

Attendance wise? Or globally? Perhaps Chelsea are globally, but are they supported better than Newcastle? That said, they might be restricted by Stamford Bridge's capacity...

[SuperMikey]

We can be bigger than Villareal and they've done fairly well.

 

I don't get how Newcastle are bigger than Chelsea though.

 

Massive fanbase probably, the geordies regularly sell out their 50,000+ seater stadium whereas Chelsea have a smaller ground and have less potential therefore in ticket sales etc. Chelsea are a bigger global 'brand' than Newcastle though.

[Turkish]

Massive fanbase probably, the geordies regularly sell out their 50,000+ seater stadium whereas Chelsea have a smaller ground and have less potential therefore in ticket sales etc. Chelsea are a bigger global 'brand' than Newcastle though.

 

Would Joey Barton, Nile Ranger etc consider it a step up career wise to join Chelsea?

[Sour Mash]

Chelsea and Spurs should be above Manc City and Newcastle. Swansea and QPR should be higher.

[Crab Lungs]

Would Joey Barton, Nile Ranger etc consider it a step up career wise to join Chelsea?

 

Depends on how you gauge a "bigger" club. On my tiered structure above, I estimating potential in terms of fanbase as opposed to winning trophies... I take your point though; Nile Ranger at Chelsea (lol)

[derry]

Unless prices go up for us there is a finite income from spectators say max £20m, the tv place money is far in excess of that, so basically, as far as I am concerned, on the field success, league position and tv income has a much greater value than the size of the spectators unless one has a 60 - 75000 capacity and fills it every week (cat 1).

[Griffo]

We could easily be as big as 'level 4'.

[jawillwill]

Odd thread, this.

[shurlock]

No reason why we can't expand and attract new fans across the south - unlike london, the midlands and north which are congested and cluttered with successful clubs, there is a massive vacuum in the south. Of course, that requires us first to spend real money and challenge for things and second be willing to tolerate hordes of gloryhunters; but the potential is there to climb very high.

[keithd]

Odd thread, this.

 

wot you said. and its given me a headache trying to understand it. maybe it monday and im grumpy and cant concentrate...

[Spudders]

wot you said. and its given me a headache trying to understand it. maybe it monday and im grumpy and cant concentrate...

 

Or maybe you're just a retard?

[Dig Dig]

So you don't think man city have the potential to be tier 1 crab lungs?

 

Re saints, looks about right but if we are successful enough in the prem then i think we have the potential to get to tier 3. Using the JPT as an example for potential we took 55000. Of course we won't appeal to the same level week in week out but a successful saints side in the premiership should see us at around 40-45000 imo

[Sour Mash]

So you don't think man city have the potential to be tier 1 crab lungs?

 

Re saints, looks about right but if we are successful enough in the prem then i think we have the potential to get to tier 3. Using the JPT as an example for potential we took 55000. Of course we won't appeal to the same level week in week out but a successful saints side in the premiership should see us at around 40-45000 imo

 

Man City haven't even come close to selling out loads of home games this season, one of their most successful in many, many years.

 

Luton took something like 40k+ to Wembley, doesn't mean they should be a "Tier 4" club does it?

[Ken Tone]

The perception of how big other clubs are tends to depend on when you started watching football. I remember years ago when Bobby Charlton stopped playing he tried his hand (pretty disastrously) at management. At one stage he made a coy announcment to the effect that he was about to be appointed , couldn't yet say at whch club but he was starting right at the top. Blimey we all thought ..Man U ,Livedrpool etc? Then it came out that he was going to manage Preston.

 

The point is, to him Preston were a big club, because he came from the generation when they were big. ..Tom Finney etc.

 

Similarly Chelsea, although always a fair-sized club, are still not all that big to me, because I saw them many times at the bottom of the first div and indeed in Div 2, as flash under-achievers.

 

To most other fans, Saints will always be thought of a bottom of first div, top of second div club, regardless of how well we actually do.

[The Kraken]

I don't think your criteria for ranking clubs based just on attendances is particularly valid in today's game. The massive amounts on offer in the form of TV money and sponsorship has reduced the need for a huge stadium full up with paying punters. Don't get me wrong, it certainly helps, but you have to consider that Sky pay £50M a year just to clubs for being in the Premier League. Add in TV related bonuses, prize money, Champions League etc and you're probably talking in excess of £100M per year from TV money alone.

 

Now add in sponsorship; Liverpool have just signed a kit deal worth up to £25M per year. That doesn't include sponsorship emblazoned on the shirts themselves; Man United's current deal with AON is worth £20M per year.

 

So that's around an extra £150M per year up for grabs for the most successful sides.

 

Man City have used their owner's money to get themselves into the top 4 very quickly. But now that they are there they have a massive advantage compared to the likes of Spurs and Liverpool in the Champions League money they will receive. Finish up in the top 4 next year at Liverpool/Spurs expense and the gap just becomes much, much wider.

 

With the amount of foreign investment coming in to the league, you have to look well beyond attendances as an indicator of potential for success. The UEFA fair play rules may start to bring it back into line, but I suspect with the amounts at stake the likes of Chelsea and Man City will just find ways around it.

[Dig Dig]

Man City haven't even come close to selling out loads of home games this season, one of their most successful in many, many years.

 

Luton took something like 40k+ to Wembley, doesn't mean they should be a "Tier 4" club does it?

 

Fair enough re City but success and attendance goes hand in hand so if City were able to compete at the levels they plan to then I would have thought that over time, they could potentially be "tier 1".

 

No I'm not saying that Luton should be a tier 4 club and there is no comparion there with saints. We have many other attributes which indicate that potentially, we could compete with the likes of Everton, Leeds etc. This would take some time, but if we could consistently compete in the top half of the prem then I could see us being tier 3.

[Sour Mash]

Fair enough re City but success and attendance goes hand in hand so if City were able to compete at the levels they plan to then I would have thought that over time, they could potentially be "tier 1".

 

No I'm not saying that Luton should be a tier 4 club and there is no comparion there with saints. We have many other attributes which indicate that potentially, we could compete with the likes of Everton, Leeds etc. This would take some time, but if we could consistently compete in the top half of the prem then I could see us being tier 3.

 

But if City don't come close to selling out their ground now, even though they're having one of their most successful season's for 35 years, then how can they be seen as a tier 1 club? There are loads of clubs that if they had had the season City have would be getting better crowds.

 

And my point re Luton was in relation to you saying we took X to Wembley, therefore have potentioal to be bigger. Loads of clubs take stupid numbers to Wembley, its a day out for the whole family/town/city, not really a proper way of judging the size of a club's long-term support and potential.

[SuperMikey]

Would Joey Barton, Nile Ranger etc consider it a step up career wise to join Chelsea?

 

Of course not, but this is about potential. Newcastle have a world-class stadium with 50k+ seats, whereas Chelsea's ground is a lot worse in comparison and has tens of thousands less seats. If Newcastle received the same amount of investment that Chelsea have over the last 10 years, then arguably they would be a bigger club. This is about potential.

 

IMHO anyway.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

I think if Markus had not passed away the sky could have been the limit, but as it stands it is all about money and I'm not sure the Liebherr family will be as generous with the funds as Markus would have been. Therefore you have it about right.

[NickG]

...

Edited 16 May, 2011 by NickG

[NickG]

I think potential is mainly based on what standard players you can attract.

 

The factors which will determine how good the players you get in are

 

1) money you can pay, fees and salaries - by far the main issue

2) ground / training facilties etc

3) location - (overseas player choosing between moving to Middlesborough or London for example)

4) support you will play in front of

5) recent history of the club (last 4 or 5 years).

 

I have ignored the pulling ability of a good manager as any club could get a good manager - and they will be attracted by much the same thing.

 

We do pretty well in most of those.

 

1) money, not many seem to have more generous backers (Chelsea / Man City..)

Income from crowds - only Leeds and Derby from the championship can beat our league 1 top crowd this season. Only 11 teams in premiership beat it. If we are doing well our support will only be significantly behind Man U, Newcastle, Arsenal, Man City, Liverpool, Chelsea and Sunderland. We not in debt compared to many of those.

We also have a better youth set up to supply first team and to fund other purchases.

 

2) our ground is probably in the second level behind the bigger stadiums. The training facilities and their location are very good.

 

3) some players will prefer to live in London, or the north west city areas but again with seafront, forest and closeness to London we are probably more attractive location than midlands or north east.

 

4) support - as in income.

 

5) recent history - Chelsea, Arsenal, Man U have great names to attract players. Many teams have been so up and down in recent years that if we are reaching towards our potential we will be just as attractive.

 

for potential

 

1) Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool,

2) Man City, Newcastle

3) Aston Villa, Saints, Sunderland, Spurs, Everton, Leeds

4) West Ham, Notts For, etc etc

[Sour Mash]

I think potential is mainly based on what standard players you can attract.

 

The factors which will determine how good the players you get in are

 

1) money you can pay, fees and salaries - by far the main issue

2) ground / training facilties etc

3) location - (overseas player choosing between moving to Middlesborough or London for example)

4) support you will play in front of

5) recent history of the club (last 4 or 5 years).

 

I have ignored the pulling ability of a good manager as any club could get a good manager - and they will be attracted by much the same thing.

 

We do pretty well in most of those.

 

1) money, not many seem to have more generous backers (Chelsea / Man City..)

Income from crowds - only Leeds and Derby from the championship can beat our league 1 top crowd this season. Only 11 teams in premiership beat it. If we are doing well our support will only be significantly behind Man U, Newcastle, Arsenal, Man City, Liverpool, Chelsea and Sunderland. We not in debt compared to many of those.

We also have a better youth set up to supply first team and to fund other purchases.

 

2) our ground is probably in the second level behind the bigger stadiums. The training facilities and their location are very good.

 

3) some players will prefer to live in London, or the north west city areas but again with seafront, forest and closeness to London we are probably more attractive location than midlands or north east.

 

4) support - as in income.

 

5) recent history - Chelsea, Arsenal, Man U have great names to attract players. Many teams have been so up and down in recent years that if we are reaching towards our potential we will be just as attractive.

 

for potential

 

1) Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool,

2) Man City, Newcastle

3) Aston Villa, Saints, Sunderland, Spurs, Everton, Leeds

4) West Ham, Notts For, etc etc

 

How on earth have you got us as having the same potential as Villa, Spurs etc? They are much bigger, better supported clubs, with much more "pull" throughout the footballing world. Unless the Liebherr's want to spend very large amounts of money, we will do very well to regularly be a mid-table Prem team with the occasional cup run.

[sandwichsaint]

OK, so I've been thinking this for a while now but I wondered exactly just how big a club can Saints be - and what exactly is there current size in comparison to other clubs?

 

As we all know, if we ever do return to the Premier League then we are likely to see the ground near-capacity, even possibly at capacity for many of the fixtures but how far can we go beyond that? What is our real potential?

 

So, I've comprised a tiered list of the clubs in the country which take into account recent and historic attendances. In brackets are my estimations of their potential to reach a particular tier (for example, West Ham has the growth potential, if successful for a continued period, to reach Tier 3 and so on.) Also worth taking into account the catchment area and the local competition.

 

If there is no significant potential to be a "bigger club" then I have omitted the bracketed areas. From my estimation, I cannot see us ever being as big as Tier 4 clubs, though assuming we do return to the PL, we will maintain our Tier 5 status.

 

I hope this makes sense... and would be interested to here other peoples perspectives/perceptions on this!

 

Tier 1

Arsenal, Man Utd, Liverpool.

 

Tier 2

Man City, Newcastle.

 

Tier 3

Chelsea, Spurs.

 

Tier 4

Everton (3), Aston Villa (3), West Ham (3), Sunderland, Nottm Forest (3), Leeds (3).

 

Tier 5

Wolves (4), West Brom, Southampton, Sheff Utd (4), Leicester, Norwich, Ipswich, Sheff Wed (4), Derby.

 

Tier 6

Birmingham (5), Fulham, Stoke, Cardiff (5).

 

Tier 7

Coventry, Middlesbrough (5), Crystal Palace, Bolton (6), Blackburn (6), Reading, Portsmouth (6), Bristol City (6), Hull, Huddersfield (5), Brighton (6).

 

Tier 8

Swansea (6), Watford, Millwall (7), QPR (6), Burnley, Charlton (6).

 

Tier 9

Doncaster, Barnsley, Blackpool (8 ), Wigan (8 ), Preston (7), MK Dons (7), Carlisle (7), Plymouth (7), Bradford (7).

 

Tier 10

Notts County (8 ), Peterborough (9), Swindon, Gillingham, Oxford (8 ).

 

Tier 11

Bournemouth, Bristol Rovers (10), Exeter, Brentford, Leyton Orient, Tranmere, Oldham (10), Walsall, Chesterfield, Port Vale (9), Rotherham (9), Southend (10).

 

Tier 12

S****horpe (11), Colchester (11), Yeovil (11), Bury (11), Crewe, Lincoln, Northampton (11), Shrewsbury (11), Stockport, Wycombe.

 

Tier 13

Hartlepool (12), Rochdale, Aldershot (11).

 

Tier 14

Dag & Red, Burton Albion, Cheltenham (13), Hereford, Morecambe, Stevenage (12), Torquay (12).

 

Tier 15

Accrington, Barnet, Macclesfield.

 

 

Interesting stuff and I broadly agree with your rankings (think you've probably got Forest one too high and maybe Stoke one too low?)

 

What sort of time scale are we talking about, say 10 years?

 

On that basis it's very encouraging to see that we are as well placed as almost anyone on that page to move up a level; it's quite possible that we can be level with (or better than) West Ham, Sunderland, or Notts Forest in ten years time. (We 'could' beat Forest and West Ham on crowds and league position next season!)

 

What the list does show is the massive leap required to get into the top 8-9 clubs and with all the will in the world that has to be seen as 'unlikely' at this stage, think most people would be very happy if we were solidly established in that fourth tier.

[NickG]

How on earth have you got us as having the same potential as Villa, Spurs etc? They are much bigger, better supported clubs, with much more "pull" throughout the footballing world. Unless the Liebherr's want to spend very large amounts of money, we will do very well to regularly be a mid-table Prem team with the occasional cup run.

 

average crowds 36,000 when towards top of premiership - do you not think we would be far behind in similar circumstances?

[Matthew Le God]

average crowds 36,000 when towards top of premiership - do you not think we would be far behind in similar circumstances?

 

How can Spurs get more than 36k in a 36k capacity stadium?

[NickG]

so their bigger support is going where???

Edited 16 May, 2011 by NickG

[Matthew Le God]

What do you mean?

 

Their surplus support isn't going anywhere, they can't get a ticket and there is a huge waiting list for season tickets. Hence why they want a new larger stadium. It is a bit like saying Saints in the year 2000 only had 15k fans, give them a stadium twice the size a year later and they showed the fanbase could fill it. The extra fans for Saints weren't going elsewhere before St Mary's, St Mary's just meant the club could fit more in.

[NickG]

if they get bigger stadium their potential support will be bigger than ours.

 

at the moment it isn't.

[Sour Mash]

average crowds 36,000 when towards top of premiership - do you not think we would be far behind in similar circumstances?

 

Spurs could easily get 50k most weeks, they've got massive support, and when they finally sort themelves out and get their ground development out of the way (which I know is stilla fair way off), they will be getting much bigger crowds than us. The whole point of this thread is about potential. Spurs are potentially a massive club, we are not.

[Matthew Le God]

if they get bigger stadium their potential support will be bigger than ours.

 

at the moment it isn't.

 

Their current support is much bigger than ours...

 

- we had a 22k average in the 3rd tier

- they had a 36k average in the 1st tier

 

Also just because their support can't get a ticket for White Hart Lane, that doesn't mean they don't spend money. Shirt sales and other merchandising would be huge compared to Saints. Spurs are a large London clubs with fans all over the country and worldwide, Saints are a provincial team with fans largely from the city itself and the surrounding region (Hampshire/Dorset etc).

 

They want a 55k to 60k stadium, and they have the fans to fill it every week if it were to be built tomorrow. Saints would only ever be 40k to 50k in the best possible circumstances.

Edited 16 May, 2011 by Matthew Le God

[NickG]

I am sure they would. Potentially they have more potential but don't think it is a lot difference with their current stadium

Edited 16 May, 2011 by NickG

[Sour Mash]

I am sure they would. Potentially they have more potential but don't think it is a lot difference with their current stadium.

 

^

[Bearsy]

On the subject of fanbase, this is the number of prem club fans signed up to the Premier League fantasy football game:

 

Man Utd 638,763

Liverpool 426,053

Arsenal 326,040

Chelsea 221,093

Tottenham 124,255

Man City 67,427

Newcastle 60,602

Everton 53,335

Aston Villa 50,930

West Ham 45,737

Sunderland 20,635

Fulham 18,673

Blackpool 17,958

Blackburn 17,743

Wolves 17,823

Birmingham 13,913

Stoke City 12,666

Bolton 12,597

Wigan 7,244

West Brom 9,233

[70's Mike]

Think you have it right in OP except Forest who I think are on same level as us

[Turkish]

Of course not, but this is about potential. Newcastle have a world-class stadium with 50k+ seats, whereas Chelsea's ground is a lot worse in comparison and has tens of thousands less seats. If Newcastle received the same amount of investment that Chelsea have over the last 10 years, then arguably they would be a bigger club. This is about potential.

 

IMHO anyway.

 

You cant just base it on the size of the ground. As mentioned Spurs only get 36k because that is all their capacity will allow, that is also Arsenal got whilst at Highbury, they now get 60k a week. Chelsea would sell that many as well.

Newcastle are one of the biggest clubs in the country but you could argue that about any club in the top 10, if Everton, Leeds or Aston Villa had recieved the investment chelsea had would they now be bigger? Chelsea have a massive fan base, particularly in the home counties and are now a worldwide brand. They have always, apart from a period in the early 80's where they struggled, been seen as a very big club. They were always considered Londons glamour club and also attract a very wealthy fanbase, i think a recent survery showed Chelsea have more fans earning over £50k a year than any other club. Also for the record Chelseas record attendance is over 80,000 whereas Newcastles is just over 60k. They are not miles apart but I dont think there can be any arguement over which club is bigger, potentially or otherwise.

[dune]

They are not miles apart but I dont think there can be any arguement over which club is bigger, potentially or otherwise.

 

Agreed - Newcastle are bigger.

 

Edit - No they're not.

Edited 16 May, 2011 by dune
Just seen what Mikey said.

[Wade Garrett]

I think we could be tier 4 if we increased our ground capacity.

 

With Premier League football and the right pricing structure I see no reason why we couldn't get 40k attendances.

[Saint Fan CaM]

Not sure why everyone including the OP is modelling the expectation on just PL clubs. Where for example, would Barcelona sit in that league? Wherever that is (let's say level 2 for arguements sake as that's realistic), then that's where we might (at this point in time anyway) expect Saints to be. Why? Because our model for the future is not based on an ability to dig into the Leibherrs bank account, but to be self-sustaining through an excellent youth development policy that is the envy of the entire footballing world. And everyone at the club who knows what Cortese can achieve, believes in this strategy - so should we!

[Sour Mash]

Not sure why everyone including the OP is modelling the expectation on just PL clubs. Where for example, would Barcelona sit in that league? Wherever that is (let's say level 2 for arguements sake as that's realistic), then that's where we might (at this point in time anyway) expect Saints to be. Why? Because our model for the future is not based on an ability to dig into the Leibherrs bank account, but to be self-sustaining through an excellent youth development policy that is the envy of the entire footballing world. And everyone at the club who knows what Cortese can achieve, believes in this strategy - so should we!

 

Please don't take this the wrong way, but what the f**k are you on about?

[sperm_john]

heres a mind fck question, how many saints fans are there in the world? total ...

[Griffo]

heres a mind fck question, how many saints fans are there in the world? total ...

 

I'd guess at around 100,000.

[Saint Fan CaM]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but what the f**k are you on about?

 

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I'll make it real simple for you.

 

The expectation at the club is for the bus to tick-over at tier 2-3. Got that?

[dune]

I'd guess at around 100,000.

 

I'd say more. For every fan that goes to home games there must be at least 20 that don't.

[Sour Mash]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I'll make it real simple for you.

 

The expectation at the club is for the bus to tick-over at tier 2-3. Got that?

 

No, I still honestly don't have a clue what you're on about. Sorry.

[Saint Fan CaM]

I'd guess at around 100,000.

 

Wouldn't be too far off I reckon - but what about in the future when we're tearing a new hole in the PL? (;

[Saint Fan CaM]

No, I still honestly don't have a clue what you're on about. Sorry.

 

Don't say sorry - it's a sign of weakness. I don't have any other answer for you other than to read the thread.

[Sour Mash]

Don't say sorry - it's a sign of weakness. I don't have any other answer for you other than to read the thread.

 

[Avenue Saint]

OK, so I've been thinking this for a while now but I wondered exactly just how big a club can Saints be - and what exactly is there current size in comparison to other clubs?

 

As we all know, if we ever do return to the Premier League then we are likely to see the ground near-capacity, even possibly at capacity for many of the fixtures but how far can we go beyond that? What is our real potential?

 

So, I've comprised a tiered list of the clubs in the country which take into account recent and historic attendances. In brackets are my estimations of their potential to reach a particular tier (for example, West Ham has the growth potential, if successful for a continued period, to reach Tier 3 and so on.) Also worth taking into account the catchment area and the local competition.

 

If there is no significant potential to be a "bigger club" then I have omitted the bracketed areas. From my estimation, I cannot see us ever being as big as Tier 4 clubs, though assuming we do return to the PL, we will maintain our Tier 5 status.

 

I hope this makes sense... and would be interested to here other peoples perspectives/perceptions on this!

 

Tier 1

Arsenal, Man Utd, Liverpool.

 

Tier 2

Man City, Newcastle.

 

Tier 3

Chelsea, Spurs.

 

Tier 4

Everton (3), Aston Villa (3), West Ham (3), Sunderland, Nottm Forest (3), Leeds (3).

 

Tier 5

Wolves (4), West Brom, Southampton, Sheff Utd (4), Leicester, Norwich, Ipswich, Sheff Wed (4), Derby.

 

Tier 6

Birmingham (5), Fulham, Stoke, Cardiff (5).

 

Tier 7

Coventry, Middlesbrough (5), Crystal Palace, Bolton (6), Blackburn (6), Reading, Portsmouth (6), Bristol City (6), Hull, Huddersfield (5), Brighton (6).

 

Tier 8

Swansea (6), Watford, Millwall (7), QPR (6), Burnley, Charlton (6).

 

Tier 9

Doncaster, Barnsley, Blackpool (8 ), Wigan (8 ), Preston (7), MK Dons (7), Carlisle (7), Plymouth (7), Bradford (7).

 

Tier 10

Notts County (8 ), Peterborough (9), Swindon, Gillingham, Oxford (8 ).

 

Tier 11

Bournemouth, Bristol Rovers (10), Exeter, Brentford, Leyton Orient, Tranmere, Oldham (10), Walsall, Chesterfield, Port Vale (9), Rotherham (9), Southend (10).

 

Tier 12

S****horpe (11), Colchester (11), Yeovil (11), Bury (11), Crewe, Lincoln, Northampton (11), Shrewsbury (11), Stockport, Wycombe.

 

Tier 13

Hartlepool (12), Rochdale, Aldershot (11).

 

Tier 14

Dag & Red, Burton Albion, Cheltenham (13), Hereford, Morecambe, Stevenage (12), Torquay (12).

 

Tier 15

Accrington, Barnet, Macclesfield.

 

City and Chelsea to tier 1 and hopefully with the right progress, infrastructure development and investment, all could combine to see Saints hopefully in tier 2!

 

A major advantage we have is geographical location which teams I'm midlands and up north have to contend with in terms of competition.

 

Up the Saints and long live the successful stewardship of the Don.

[Sour Mash]

City and Chelsea to tier 1 and hopefully with the right progress, infrastructure development and investment, all could combine to see Saints hopefully in tier 2!

 

A major advantage we have is geographical location which teams I'm midlands and up north have to contend with in terms of competition.

Up the Saints and long live the successful stewardship of the Don.

 

This is another mistake that many seem to make when talking about "potenital" support. Yes, there is more geographical space around us than clubs in other parts of the country, but rural Hampshire, Wiltshire, Berkshire aren't footballing areas in the same way that Lancashire, the North-East or even London is. Its why people rattling on about Plymouth's potential is pointless - yes they have a big "catchment area", but that's not much good if most of them don't give a f**k about Plymouth or football.