The on topic thread

[moomba]

Erm, but making a semi final, or final or finishing second or third does trophy win not. That category is called trophies. I wouldnt put the Community Shield in there either. It's a glorified friendly that nobody cares about.

They wouldn't have the same weighting as winning something, but I think there is merit in reaching finals/semi finals and high placings.

As for the community shield, again it woudn't get the same weighting but I think it's worth including. In this they haven't counted things like the UEFA Super Cup either, which I think is worthy of some sort of recognition.

 

[moomba]

Also social media like Twitter, Facebook is a bad way to judge global fanbase. Im a huge Liverpool fan as we all know. But I dont have Twitter. Twitter to me seems like something just for famous people and I have no use for it. So then that is one less huge Liverpool fan who isnt following them on Twitter.

How would you measure global following?

 

[SM]

Any mention yet about the 1bn being committed to lower league and grass roots clubs, as well as paying all full time staff at clubs more? Great news and a step in the right direction.

 

[moomba]

Any mention yet about the 1bn being committed to lower league and grass roots clubs, as well as paying all full time staff at clubs more? Great news and a step in the right direction.

I'll wait and see the devil in the detail but it sounds a positive step. City have been paying our staff a living wage for a while so no real change there. Not sure if this will apply to sub-contract staff as well, I don't think we have agreements with our contractors to pay their staff a living wage yet. Chelsea does IIRC.

 

[jod23]

How would you measure global following?

No idea, it's very hard to measure something like that. Social media is not the best way though. I mean football is huge in Asia but some of Asia is third world type stuff. China doesnt even allow Facebook does it? Not everybody has access to the internet in places like Africa for example where Arsenal may have a large following.

Anyways, from my experiences, absolute no way do Arsenal or Chelsea have a bigger global fan base than LFC.

 

[SM]

I'll wait and see the devil in the detail but it sounds a positive step. City have been paying our staff a living wage for a while so no real change there. Not sure if this will apply to sub-contract staff as well, I don't think we have agreements with our contractors to pay their staff a living wage yet. Chelsea does IIRC.

Kind of depressing that paying a living wage is seen as a good thing in football, when the staff should probably be paid a lot more for the work they do, but it's a step in the right direction.

 

[Dirty Bird]

I think you need to look beyond "my club is bigger than yours" to get anything out of those stats. But when you do you can get some interesting info out of them.

Crowds - they've given each club a ranking for the average attendance this season, and then a ranking for each clubs record attendance. By combining the two rankings they've determined a ranking for each club. So as an example, Hull may have a lower attendance than West Ham or Southampton this season they have a higher record attendance so are ranked higher.

Personally think thats a bit of a pointless exercise particularly when historic attendance statistics are available. I'd just determine the average attendance for each team over time and rank each team accordingly.

Global fanbase - there isn't a lot more you can do than things like twitter/facebook. Maybe you could look at things like TV viewing audiences but that can vary depending on the game, opponent and time of the game. So twitter/facebook figures are interesting, and like most I was surprised that Liverpool were so low. ADL makes a good point about foreign language accounts, I know City have around a dozen or so. The numbers can also reflect the quality of the content provided, so maybe if Liverpool were still lagging after adding in their foreign language accounts that might indicate that their twitter/facebook content needs improving rather than their global fanbase diminishing.

I wouldn't underestimate Chelsea's global fanbase either, it's pretty huge and growing.

Trophies - It is what it is. You can argue all day about what trophies should be included and what weighting should be given for each. Personally if I was putting something like this together I would include the charity/community shield (with a low weighting) and probably semi-final/final appearances and runner up/3rd placings as well.

Average league finish - seems pretty straightforward

Player quality - Keane, Henry, Vieira, Bergkamp, Giggs, Ronaldo, Cantona. All named in the Telegraphs top 10 players in premier league history. None count for anything by this metric. Joey Barton, Carl Jenkinson, Frazier Campbell, John Flanagan, Steven Caulker, Jay Rodriguez, Matt Jarvis all count for something. Enough said.

Pretty hard to quantify player quality, personally I'd scrap it and just go with average league position. Surely thats a better assessment of the quality of a team.

Income - pretty straightforward

I don't think crowds should be included.
95% of EPL games are sell outs so it comes down to stadium capacity. If you have 1 season in a lower tier, it drops. Even Newcastle were getting sub 40k crowds in the Championship. One season is detrimental there.

I also don't think income should be included either. The prize money/ticket sales/concession sales etc. go up in higher divisions. Hull City rose quite quickly, but would be held back a bit in this category because of less tv money, less prize money etc.

 

[Magma]

marchisio has done his acl

 

[Dirty Bird]

No idea, it's very hard to measure something like that. Social media is not the best way though. I mean football is huge in Asia but some of Asia is third world type stuff. China doesnt even allow Facebook does it? Not everybody has access to the internet in places like Africa for example where Arsenal may have a large following.

Anyways, from my experiences, absolute no way do Arsenal or Chelsea have a bigger global fan base than LFC.

I'm not going to argue Arsenal, but from my experiences, Chelsea seems larger than Liverpool.
They OWN Russia.

 

[moomba]

I don't think crowds should be included.
95% of EPL games are sell outs so it comes down to stadium capacity. If you have 1 season in a lower tier, it drops. Even Newcastle were getting sub 40k crowds in the Championship. One season is detrimental there.

If I was going to rank the size of a club, crowds would have to be included. Whether that's down to stadium size or not being relegated isn't really relevant to me.

I also don't think income should be included either. The prize money/ticket sales/concession sales etc. go up in higher divisions. Hull City rose quite quickly, but would be held back a bit in this category because of less tv money, less prize money etc.

If Hull get relegated their income and their ranking will drop accordingly. I think money has to be in there as it's such a significant part of football nowadays.

 

[jd2010]

15 year olds in Japan clicking like or following a club on Twitter doesn't really grasp support.

EDIT: if they are a Chelsea fan they probably can still get their hands on a Champions League or mid-week game ticket with a simple like.

 

[moomba]

15 year olds in Japan clicking like or following a club on Twitter doesn't really grasp support.

EDIT: if they are a Chelsea fan they probably can still get their hands on a Champions League or mid-week game ticket with a simple like.

How would you measure global support?

 

[jd2010]

How would you measure global support?

Actual members of supporters clubs in different countries. Number of supporters clubs outside the country.

A much better look at attendances is the table below. Back when grounds like Anfield & WHL weren't capped with terracing restrictions etc.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Yet they can't sell their cup final ticket allocations out. Most plastic club in the UK!

I'm not going to argue that, but their global support is there.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Actual members of supporters clubs in different countries. Number of supporters clubs outside the country.

Very good point.
Most fans can only get tickets to their club if they're a member.
I know Palace moved to that this year (last year some tickets reached the public) and Arsenal do that as well.

So may foreigners would become members to obtain tickets when they do get to England.
Would be intrigued in the total member numbers now.

 

[moomba]

Actual members of supporters clubs in different countries. Number of supporters clubs outside the country.

Has some merit, although I think you'd get a few anomolies there. For example, there used to be a Man City supporters club in Melbourne but no-one joined it because the person running it was an oddball. Yet there we regular gatherings each week when the games were televised.

I'd still have Facebook/Twitter as a factor in my assessment. It's not perfect, and it doesn't measure quality of support. But it's another indicator.

A much better look at attendances is the table below. Back when grounds like Anfield & WHL weren't capped with terracing restrictions etc.

Historical attendances would be what I'd use as well.

 

[jd2010]

Very good point.
Most fans can only get tickets to their club if they're a member.
I know Palace moved to that this year (last year some tickets reached the public) and Arsenal do that as well.

So may foreigners would become members to obtain tickets when they do get to England.
Would be intrigued in the total member numbers now.

Someone clicking like or follow is not someone who should be counted. People willing to find/start/join a supporters club outside the country of the club is a proper showing of a passionate supporter IMO

 

[Dirty Bird]

Just an idea on the attendance category, could you take into account crowds in the FA Cup finals/semi-finals, League Cup final, Community Shield?
Being neutral and such a large stadium you could get a gauge there.

 

[moomba]

Someone clicking like or follow is not someone who should be counted. People willing to find/start/join a supporters club outside the country of the club is a proper showing of a passionate supporter IMO

They aren't measuring passionate support though, just global support.

And I'd consider myself passionate about Man City, yet I've never been a member of a supporter club. Even though there's one based at my local.

 

[jd2010]

Has some merit, although I think you'd get a few anomolies there. For example, there used to be a Man City supporters club in Melbourne but no-one joined it because the person running it was an oddball. Yet there we regular gatherings each week when the games were televised.

I'm not sure if it is the case with City, but I know with Spurs you can have more than 1 supporters club per city so if things like that were the case somebody else could step up and contact the club and organise their own thing. With the Melb City link it could be of some use I'd say! I know the Ozspurs members have gala events coming up when the team come down-under

 

[jd2010]

They aren't measuring passionate support though, just global support.

And I'd consider myself passionate about Man City, yet I've never been a member of a supporter club. Even though there's one based at my local.

A follow on twitter doesn't even constitute support at all really. It's just so you can see their updates in a newsfeed. You have international teams who follow clubs teams etc. It's just way out of reality and is heavily skewed to the big 3-4.

There is no way any metric that doesn't have Liverpool & Man U as #1 & #2 in Global Support is the best way of tracking it

 

[jd2010]

Just an idea on the attendance category, could you take into account crowds in the FA Cup finals/semi-finals, League Cup final, Community Shield?
Being neutral and such a large stadium you could get a gauge there.

Not really because the FA gives a 50/50 split for those games. Very rarely (Bradford, Chelsea, maybe Hull did) clubs give back some of their allocation to the FA to re-sell.

 

[moomba]

A follow on twitter doesn't even constitute support at all really. It's just so you can see their updates in a newsfeed. You have international teams who follow clubs teams etc. It's just way out of reality and is heavily skewed to the big 3-4.

There is no way any metric that doesn't have Liverpool & Man U as #1 & #2 in Global Support is the best way of tracking it

For me, it's just a guide and it tells me nothing more than which clubs have the biggest twitter and facebook followings. As I said before, Liverpool being low might indicate nothing more than multiple accounts, or that their content isn't very good.

Maybe the assessment could be expanded by including other metrics but I would definitely see Facebook/Twitter as a useful indicator of global support.

FWIW I think the whole thing would have been better received if it didn't attach itself to the "which is the bigger club" stuff.

 

[moomba]

I'm not sure if it is the case with City, but I know with Spurs you can have more than 1 supporters club per city so if things like that were the case somebody else could step up and contact the club and organise their own thing. With the Melb City link it could be of some use I'd say! I know the Ozspurs members have gala events coming up when the team come down-under

Not sure how it is now, but back then you basically applied to the club to run the official supporters club. The lady that applied for City's was a nutter. So everyone else just sorted themselves out. I doubt the club would authorise two official supporters clubs in Melbourne, but I'm not sure what the situation is in Melbourne now.

 

[jd2010]

For me, it's just a guide and it tells me nothing more than which clubs have the biggest twitter and facebook followings. As I said before, Liverpool being low might indicate nothing more than multiple accounts, or that their content isn't very good.

Maybe the assessment could be expanded by including other metrics but I would definitely see Facebook/Twitter as a useful indicator of global support.

FWIW I think the whole thing would have been better received if it didn't attach itself to the "which is the bigger club" stuff.

For me it should be on a 50/50 with the supporters clubs outside the country. It would shock people quite a bit how skewed the results would be. Probably just as many overseas Leeds United & Newcastle fan clubs as there is Chelsea