@Wendoverman said:
Looks like a good chance well be playing most of them again next term...be nice if Peterborough bottle it at the end of the season too.
They won't "bottle it", if they fail it will be as a result of their opponents cheating. Probably our fault as well, as we stole their rightful place in the Championship last season.
Very interesting so few believe in a natural level. A bit disappointing it took us so long to get up to the second tier, given we had no disadvantages in size, money or fan base! It also means all the celebrating over the achievement of getting promoted was a bit overblown.
But the beauty of the pyramid is that your natural level is where ever you happen to be at the time.
It's always fun to point out that Nottingham Forest have more European Cups than Man City, and that in terms of league championships, Aston Villa belong in the big six, but it has no baring on today.
It's always fun to point out that Nottingham Forest have more European Cups than Man City,
Always. Definitely.
True story, i typed Notts Forest and then changed it out of deference to you...
@floyd If I have persuaded just one person to write Nottingham Forest instead of Notts....this life will not have been (well not completely anyway) in vain.
@floyd said:
But the beauty of the pyramid is that your natural level is where ever you happen to be at the time.
It's always fun to point out that Nottingham Forest have more European Cups than Man City, and that in terms of league championships, Aston Villa belong in the big six, but it has no baring on today.
I understand that argument, @floyd. Obviously there is no official definition of natural level, but for me it is a case of where 'par' would be for a club of your size, funds, fan base and catchment area. This can change - Wycombe were non-league for most of their existence, of course, so entering the league gave a bump to certain aspects of the club. I just think there are a limit to how high those bumps can take you in size - Bournemouth were always going to get relegated out of the PL eventually, for example, as were the likes of Huddersfield and Wigan. To me, we are the smallest club in the second tier, and overachieving to be here. It does not mean I want to get relegated, or that I don't want us to stay here for as long as possible. I just think we could spend ten years in the second tier and still be the smallest club in the division.
Despite being in the second tier with us, I still regard Forest, Sheffield Wednesday and the like as "sleeping giants". I see them as bigger than Burnley and Brighton, no matter how long the latter two hang in the PL and rake in the TV money.
Despite being in the second tier with us, I still regard Forest, Sheffield Wednesday and the like as "sleeping giants". I see them as bigger than Burnley and Brighton, no matter how long the latter two hang in the PL and rake in the TV money.
I tend to think the same thing but i wonder if that's only because Forest and Wednesday were in the Premier League when i started watching football, and Burnley and BHA weren't. By the same token I wouldn't call Reading a sleeping giant, but they've been in the Premier League much more recently than either Forest or Wednesday.
Some of it for me is simply stadium size as an indicator of fan base. It's not always an accurate measurement, but in general clubs seek to have a stadium commensurate with how many punters they can get in the doors, so it can give a vague indication:
Hillsborough: 39,732
City Ground: 30,445
Turf Moor: 21,401
Mind you, I did not realize how big Brighton's ground is (30,750 - actually bigger than the City Ground). This form of measurement does have some obvious flaws (MK have 30K, and we all remember Darlington). Also, these stadiums might not be full unless the club is actually in the top flight, so more of an indicator of potential crowds. Burnley are a better example, as were Bournemouth. The latter could have played in the PL for 20 years with Sheffield Wednesday in the third tier, and I would still regard Wednesday as the bigger club.
Comments
They won't "bottle it", if they fail it will be as a result of their opponents cheating. Probably our fault as well, as we stole their rightful place in the Championship last season.
In all seriousness, I think Peterborough will do ok (just) in the Championship.
Dynamite! Stand back.
I doubt they'll win five games.
Very interesting so few believe in a natural level. A bit disappointing it took us so long to get up to the second tier, given we had no disadvantages in size, money or fan base! It also means all the celebrating over the achievement of getting promoted was a bit overblown.
But the beauty of the pyramid is that your natural level is where ever you happen to be at the time.
It's always fun to point out that Nottingham Forest have more European Cups than Man City, and that in terms of league championships, Aston Villa belong in the big six, but it has no baring on today.
Always. Definitely.
True story, i typed Notts Forest and then changed it out of deference to you...
@floyd If I have persuaded just one person to write Nottingham Forest instead of Notts....this life will not have been (well not completely anyway) in vain.
I understand that argument, @floyd. Obviously there is no official definition of natural level, but for me it is a case of where 'par' would be for a club of your size, funds, fan base and catchment area. This can change - Wycombe were non-league for most of their existence, of course, so entering the league gave a bump to certain aspects of the club. I just think there are a limit to how high those bumps can take you in size - Bournemouth were always going to get relegated out of the PL eventually, for example, as were the likes of Huddersfield and Wigan. To me, we are the smallest club in the second tier, and overachieving to be here. It does not mean I want to get relegated, or that I don't want us to stay here for as long as possible. I just think we could spend ten years in the second tier and still be the smallest club in the division.
Despite being in the second tier with us, I still regard Forest, Sheffield Wednesday and the like as "sleeping giants". I see them as bigger than Burnley and Brighton, no matter how long the latter two hang in the PL and rake in the TV money.
I tend to think the same thing but i wonder if that's only because Forest and Wednesday were in the Premier League when i started watching football, and Burnley and BHA weren't. By the same token I wouldn't call Reading a sleeping giant, but they've been in the Premier League much more recently than either Forest or Wednesday.
Some of it for me is simply stadium size as an indicator of fan base. It's not always an accurate measurement, but in general clubs seek to have a stadium commensurate with how many punters they can get in the doors, so it can give a vague indication:
Hillsborough: 39,732
City Ground: 30,445
Turf Moor: 21,401
Mind you, I did not realize how big Brighton's ground is (30,750 - actually bigger than the City Ground). This form of measurement does have some obvious flaws (MK have 30K, and we all remember Darlington). Also, these stadiums might not be full unless the club is actually in the top flight, so more of an indicator of potential crowds. Burnley are a better example, as were Bournemouth. The latter could have played in the PL for 20 years with Sheffield Wednesday in the third tier, and I would still regard Wednesday as the bigger club.
...and more than all the London clubs put together?