Jump to content

....A club like Southampton.


Ohio Saint
 Share

Recommended Posts

We could finish above Everton and Spurs every season for a decade and Saints still won't be seen as a bigger club. And rightly so, because we won't be.

 

The sense of arrogance and entitlement sweeping through this forum is an absolute joke.

 

Troll

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think you're probably right. Maybe not tiny, given that he's been to both stadiums and of course we are now in the same league, but he still might make the judgement that Fulham were a bit bigger than Saints. It's the same for us as adults, we formed opinions of which were big clubs as kids and that stays with you to some extent.

 

Not really, once you reach your mid to late teens you start to lose that child like naivity and realise who the big clubs were and who aren't. Liverpool where the top team when I was growing up, in fact the big 5 them were considered to be Liverpool, Everton, Man U, arsenal and spurs. So the top 6-8 clubs havent really changed much in 30 years.

 

Like I said above then, great news for us is if we can finish above spurs for 10 years and have a bit of success our perception amongst primary school age kids will be that we are bigger than them. Fantastic news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really, once you reach your mid to late teens you start to lose that child like naivity and realise who the big clubs were and who aren't. Liverpool where the top team when I was growing up, in fact the big 5 them were considered to be Liverpool, Everton, Man U, arsenal and spurs. So the top 6-8 clubs havent really changed much in 30 years.

 

Like I said above then, great news for us is if we can finish above spurs for 10 years and have a bit of success our perception amongst primary school age kids will be that we are bigger than them. Fantastic news.

 

What's with the sarcasm?

 

Do you think it would only be the perception among primary school kids that would change?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not that fussed how a club did a generation or more ago or how 'big' its fans think - does it increase anyone's excitement or enjoyment for their team?

 

How good team is now and how optimistic its future is more important to fans and prospective players (plus mainly money for players).

 

40 odd years ago Leeds won the title - counts for nothing now.

 

(Saints and man u relegated sides!)

 

Top 6 sides included Burnley and Derby.

 

Of course is not black and white - if Man U had a nightmare first season without Ferguson, they would still be biggest side.

 

If we finish above Everton and spurs for ten years then everyone would view us as one of very top clubs - here and overseas.

 

I didn't consider Chelsea a big club - following football in 70s/80s through to 1998 as they spent 90% in 2nd tier or lower half top tier. Crowds 15-20k.

 

They were miles behind Liverpool and not a big club.

 

Fifteen years of money and success and most would say bigger than Liverpool.

 

If Everton / spurs league positions dip for next 10-15 years their status will too.

 

Only size that counts is league table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not that fussed how a club did a generation or more ago or how 'big' its fans think - does it increase anyone's excitement or enjoyment for their team?

 

How good team is now and how optimistic its future is more important to fans and prospective players (plus mainly money for players).

 

40 odd years ago Leeds won the title - counts for nothing now.

 

(Saints and man u relegated sides!)

 

Top 6 sides included Burnley and Derby.

 

Of course is not black and white - if Man U had a nightmare first season without Ferguson, they would still be biggest side.

 

If we finish above Everton and spurs for ten years then everyone would view us as one of very top clubs - here and overseas.

 

I didn't consider Chelsea a big club - following football in 70s/80s through to 1998 as they spent 90% in 2nd tier or lower half top tier. Crowds 15-20k.

 

They were miles behind Liverpool and not a big club.

 

Fifteen years of money and success and most would say bigger than Liverpool.

 

If Everton / spurs league positions dip for next 10-15 years their status will too.

 

Only size that counts is league table.

 

So our 76 cup final win means nothing then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about Liverpool's European cup wins from the 70s/80s?

Some might say that those wins are a major part of the reason that, despite not winning the league in over 20 years, Liverpool are still seen as a massive club. Although going by Clark's logic, they mean nothing when talking about the size of the club today. Absolutely nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some might say that those wins are a major part of the reason that, despite not winning the league in over 20 years, Liverpool are still seen as a massive club. Although going by Clark's logic, they mean nothing when talking about the size of the club today. Absolutely nothing.

 

They are irrelevant. HTH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a fair point to be made about Chelsea though - a decade at the top and anybody would laugh if you said they weren't one of the biggest clubs in England. They weren't small before, but it's success alone that's earned them that status. We'd be the same if we were to ever do what they have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a fair point to be made about Chelsea though - a decade at the top and anybody would laugh if you said they weren't one of the biggest clubs in England. They weren't small before, but it's success alone that's earned them that status. We'd be the same if we were to ever do what they have.

 

They were massive in the 50s, 60s and 70s too. Had a bad time in the 80s due to hooliganism in no small part and have now recovered. Seriously, some of you lot have no idea what you're on about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a fair point to be made about Chelsea though - a decade at the top and anybody would laugh if you said they weren't one of the biggest clubs in England. They weren't small before, but it's success alone that's earned them that status. We'd be the same if we were to ever do what they have.

Historically Chelsea have something like the 4th or 5th highest average attendance of all time; so they've always been one of the biggest clubs in the country, albeit with periods of under-achievement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were massive in the 50s, 60s and 70s too. Had a bad time in the 80s due to hooliganism in no small part and have now recovered. Seriously, some of you lot have no idea what you're on about.

Turkish trademark. :rolleyes: Was it really necessary to end your up til then proper post with that sly remark? No wonder some people want you banned. :facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were massive in the 50s, 60s and 70s too. Had a bad time in the 80s due to hooliganism in no small part and have now recovered. Seriously, some of you lot have no idea what you're on about.

It's almost as if they say it enough times it actually becomes true. How many times has the "Chelsea used to be a small unsuccessful club" line been trotted out? Mental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's almost as if they say it enough times it actually becomes true. How many times has the "Chelsea used to be a small unsuccessful club" line been trotted out? Mental.

 

There also seems to be an imaginary cut off point where previous success becomes irrelevant, I'd love to know what year this is as it will help me hugely when deciding if Chelsea, Leeds, Liverpool and Everton are big clubs or tiny ones they had a golden period years ago which now means nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's post like this that the mods need to stamp out. No contribution to the discussion at all, just a totally unnessasary personal attack. And people want me banned. :rolleyes:

 

You should be banned. If ghq continually posted **** then so should he. Fair enough you have a more grounded opinion of where Saints are and what you think that they will/might achieve compared to others, it's good to have both sides of the debate. But your dull repetition of your stock phrases, your sarcasm and insults do nothing to contribute to the forum. Rather than putting you on ignore I wish more people would contest what you say, and I'm glad to see that's what has happened recently as more people seem to have had enough of you dragging this place down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not that fussed how a club did a generation or more ago or how 'big' its fans think - does it increase anyone's excitement or enjoyment for their team?

 

How good team is now and how optimistic its future is more important to fans and prospective players (plus mainly money for players).

 

40 odd years ago Leeds won the title - counts for nothing now.

 

(Saints and man u relegated sides!)

 

Top 6 sides included Burnley and Derby.

 

Of course is not black and white - if Man U had a nightmare first season without Ferguson, they would still be biggest side.

 

If we finish above Everton and spurs for ten years then everyone would view us as one of very top clubs - here and overseas.

 

I didn't consider Chelsea a big club - following football in 70s/80s through to 1998 as they spent 90% in 2nd tier or lower half top tier. Crowds 15-20k.

 

They were miles behind Liverpool and not a big club.

 

Fifteen years of money and success and most would say bigger than Liverpool.

 

If Everton / spurs league positions dip for next 10-15 years their status will too.

 

Only size that counts is league table.

 

How do you fancy our chances in our first game of the season against WBA?

 

Got to say I am nervous starting the season against a club who, on your terms, are massively much bigger than we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who lives inside a very different bubble, in which the vast majority of people are concerned with the plight of Liverpool or Everton, not much news about Southampton FC filters through the membrane. With a couple of notable exceptions, we're much like every other club in that respect. The locals don't spend much time talking about other clubs at all. I suspect that's emulated to lesser degree in most places. The local big teams eclipsing tidings of others.

 

That said, I do wonder how any fan of a so-called smaller Premier League team can listen to the nonsense offered up by professional pundits and suffer it with a smile. Celtic fans have every right to feel aggrieved. Deep down, they know the score, which is why they keep parroting about the CL and the 60K stadium. They've victims of circumstance. That's really what most of their bitterness is about. If I were in their shoes, I'd probably feel justified in saying the same things.

 

The general state of punditry annoys me, whether it's the execrable MoTD punditry, which seems to encounter every upset with "full credit to small team x, but big team y had an off day". I famously know f*ck all about football, but even tactically crap me is seething on the couch when it's clear pretty clear that we've successfully implemented a gameplan that nullified the opposition's biggest threats.

 

You'll find the "club like Southampton" attitude on here as well. There have been numerous examples of "it'll never happen" over the years. Deep down, I've got worries that the club might lose its soul in the transition to Premier League behemoth - I think every sensible fan entertains the notion. I hope we find the middle ground. I think there is room for a "specialist" team, one that is respected for the football it plays.

 

That all said, I do think we'll have to win stuff and increase stadium capacity (convincingly) before we lose the "club like Southampton" tag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should be banned. If ghq continually posted **** then so should he. Fair enough you have a more grounded opinion of where Saints are and what you think that they will/might achieve compared to others, it's good to have both sides of the debate. But your dull repetition of your stock phrases, your sarcasm and insults do nothing to contribute to the forum. Rather than putting you on ignore I wish more people would contest what you say, and I'm glad to see that's what has happened recently as more people seem to have had enough of you dragging this place down.

 

If I was banned who would you stalk then? Last time I looked over 75% of your posts were about me or in response to me. I see you seem to be positioning yourself as some sort of mboard vigilante intent on trying to take out the dissenters, its quite sweet but very sad. What is also noticeable is that you've ignored my argument and points on here now and turned yet another thread into your crusade against me, bless you.

Edited by Turkish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not that fussed how a club did a generation or more ago or how 'big' its fans think - does it increase anyone's excitement or enjoyment for their team?

 

How good team is now and how optimistic its future is more important to fans and prospective players (plus mainly money for players).

 

40 odd years ago Leeds won the title - counts for nothing now.

 

(Saints and man u relegated sides!)

 

Top 6 sides included Burnley and Derby.

 

Of course is not black and white - if Man U had a nightmare first season without Ferguson, they would still be biggest side.

 

If we finish above Everton and spurs for ten years then everyone would view us as one of very top clubs - here and overseas.

 

I didn't consider Chelsea a big club - following football in 70s/80s through to 1998 as they spent 90% in 2nd tier or lower half top tier. Crowds 15-20k.

 

They were miles behind Liverpool and not a big club.

 

Fifteen years of money and success and most would say bigger than Liverpool.

 

If Everton / spurs league positions dip for next 10-15 years their status will too.

 

Only size that counts is league table.

 

Nothing to argue about there and some good points made. But typically the usual brigade stuck in their time-warps do their best to discredit any arguments that run counter to their own opinions, refuse to acknowledge the simple truth that over a period of time, the hierarchy will often change due to any number of different circumstances. When they are forced to admit that Saints ending up in the top four is not an impossibility, all that ensues from them is scorn and insults whenever anybody dares to suggest that we are headed in that direction. And even if we did get up there, we can never ever be a bigger club than them, even if we were there for a decade, (presumably with the accompanying enlarged stadium that we would need to build in the process), because they have history as bigger clubs behind them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing to argue about there and some good points made. But typically the usual brigade stuck in their time-warps do their best to discredit any arguments that run counter to their own opinions, refuse to acknowledge the simple truth that over a period of time, the hierarchy will often change due to any number of different circumstances. When they are forced to admit that Saints ending up in the top four is not an impossibility, all that ensues from them is scorn and insults whenever anybody dares to suggest that we are headed in that direction. And even if we did get up there, we can never ever be a bigger club than them, even if we were there for a decade, (presumably with the accompanying enlarged stadium that we would need to build in the process), because they have history as bigger clubs behind them.

 

In the 1980s the 'big five' were considered to be Liverpool, Everton, Man united, Arsenal, Spurs. In 2013 those 5 made up the top 7 alongside two other very big clubs who have spent 100s of millions to get there, so what has changed in the last 30 years Les? One mans time warp is another mans grip on reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 1980s the 'big five' were considered to be Liverpool, Everton, Man united, Arsenal, Spurs. In 2013 those 5 made up the top 7 alongside two other very big clubs who have spent 100s of millions to get there, so what has changed in the last 30 years Les? One mans time warp is another mans grip on reality.

 

Were Forest considered a big club in the 80s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were Forest considered a big club in the 80s?

 

Big club yes, they still are, one that has done spectacularly badly for themselves.

 

Big 5, no. Think back to that time, 'the big 5' as they were called then were the clubs I listed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Top 4 finishes during the 90's

 

Manchester United 9

Arsenal 7

Liverpool 6

Leeds 4

Blackburn 3

Newcastle 3

Aston Villa 2

Chelsea 2

Nottingham Forest 1

Norwich 1

Sheffield Wednesday 1

Crystal Palace 1

 

Everton and Spurs nowhere to be seen.

Yet they were still considered much bigger clubs than many on that list, so what does that tell you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't want us to be a big generic club that's only supported because its fashionable and successful ie man united Chelsea etc there's a certain credibility about supporting your local club to me teams like man united represent the very worst they are the Simon cowell of the football world and dominate the market!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It tells me that you don't understand the difference between objectivity and subjectivity and that you have a hyper inflated opinion of the validity of your own viewpoints.

 

Alan Shearer was famously desperate to play for Spurs and Everton.

 

No doubt, its an age thing - no doubt, those who got their first real exposure to football in 80's will use that period as a benchmark, however much circumstances change.

Pretty much human nature, even if it's 'wrong' and means overestimating some teams and underestimating others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It tells me that you don't understand the difference between objectivity and subjectivity and that you have a hyper inflated opinion of the validity of your own viewpoints.

 

Alan Shearer was famously desperate to play for Spurs and Everton.

So you don't agree that Everton & Spurs were still generally considered bigger clubs than Palace, Norwich, Blackburn & Sheff Weds at the end of the 90s?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big club yes, they still are, one that has done spectacularly badly for themselves.

 

Big 5, no. Think back to that time, 'the big 5' as they were called then were the clubs I listed.

 

Yes I agree with you - they were the big five. I guess it's just strange in a way that Forest weren't considered in that bracket - very similar league record to United over the course of the decade, coming as it did after their consecutive European Cup wins and the League Championship that preceded it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every other bl00dy post on a Saints article on the BBC Sport website starts with that phrase. Makes my blood boil. Look at the Wanayama stuff...sigh..actually don't look, you'll live longer.

 

Who'd have thought one Pompey fan could register so many different accounts?! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})