What EPL clubs are we bigger than?

[garycassidy1802 37]

It depends what you put as the criteria for "biggest", whether footballing, financial, or popularity worldwide.

I think, as a club, we are a big club, but as far as these "Euro giants" comments, if you asked someone the biggest teams in Europe, we'd struggle to get in the top ten, maybe even top twenty.

How many European trophies have us and them won between us? How many have Liverpool, Man United, Barca, Real Madrid, AC Milan etc etc won. Even clubs like Ajax, Porto, Juventus, Lyon etc, do we go above them? What would justify that? Our trophy count? No one really rates the SPL, so I doubt that. Our European acclaim? I doubt it, one European trophy a piece for the OF, and no Scottish team had qualified for the CL until our draw with Inter got us through in 2005, ever since, both us and Celtic have failed to make a huge impact on that competition, being merely minnows who have come through the groups a couple of times. The Europa or UEFA, sure, we have got to the final, so have they, both of these factors are amazing, yes, but people havee beaten us so surely in terms of football, we go below each of those teams, and all of the ones who progress in the CL.

If we aren't such huge fish in football terms, surely we are as a business? Well, if you look at our income, and Celtic's of course, how would it compare to the Premiership, La Liga and Serie A teams. It wouldn't. Our finances are nowhere near what even teams at the bottom of the Premiership, and even a lot in the Championship are, same with most La Liga and Serie A teams. That is before we even think about trying to analyse the current climate at our club.

In terms of our support, yes, we make a HUGE impression on any team who comes here, the OF are known for having the best supports in the world, that is the one area where we really make an impact, as being more than a club, but again, teams like Barcelona whose financial situation allows them to be sponsored for charity, etc, would surely be the biggest in the world.

I hate to put a dampener on things, really, but we are not one of the biggest clubs in the world, this is a common misconception of the gold fish bowl that is Glasgow. We do have some popularity worldwide, everyone has heard of Rangers and Celtic, when you go abroad, and people know you are Scottish, chances are they will either mention Braveheart, or ask what side you are on, blue or green. We are not unknown, but to believe we are this massive multi-million pound organisation, is a bit over the top, if we were, then we wouldn't have been trying to break into the Chinese market by twinning with a small team there a bit back, and Celtic would not be bringing in Asian players to try get shirt sales, for the past few years. I believe we brought in Matt McKay to try recoup or big Oz following too.

Yes, we are a huge club, but saying we are one of the largest in the world, may be a bit overstated. That should not matter though, as to me, we are the biggest club, the only club I care about. We do have the potential though, if the finances are correct, to be one of the biggest.

[lau03143 87]

It really does depend on what you mean by 'bigger'.

Most of the teams from the big English cities will be bigger than us.

I really don't see Rangers (or Celtic) as being globally 'big' clubs. It's a myth pedaled to try to get one up over each other.

[lanbrox 10]

Fuck, if we had 750mil debt like man u, I would like to think we would have won at least 6 CL titles!

[Stevie1892 3]

Fuck, if we had 750mil debt like man u, I would like to think we would have won at least 6 CL titles!

Man Utd's debt is fuck all to do with them spending beyond their means, the debt is entirely attached to their owners purchase of the club.

[ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895]

Bigger than all of them apart from.

Arsenal, Liverpool & Man united.

[garycassidy1802 37]

I don't get when people are saying we're bigger than _____.

No explanation or anything as to in what way we are bigger, or smaller than said clubs. 'Cause we just are isn't exactly mindblowing as an argument.

[sergio 1,199]

We are unique, I really don't see the point comparing us to anyone. Rangers is the biggest club in my world, I have no desire to live in anyone else's world.

[super_boca 31]

All but Man United and Liverpool

[jack1690 793]

All depends on what people class as "bigger".

In 60s & 70s We were classed as one of europes biggest clubs. Crowds of 90,000 & above were not uncommon.

Only thing, imo, thats changed is the money situation (apart from smaller stadium). We will still have as many, if not more fans, than we had then.

So, I think we are the biggest in Britain bar none.

[Escobar 13,676]

Bigger than every one of them apart from Manure.

[gunslinger 270]

in the epl we would bo on a par with arsenal.

[Stevie1892 3]

Looking at the list the forum seems to rate the 21 clubs in this order

1 Man Utd 86

2 Liverpool 81

3 Arsenal 61

4 Chelsea 55

5 Man City 51

6 Rangers

7 Tottenham 39

8 Newcastle 31

9 Everton 19

10 Villa 19

11 Sunderland 13

12 Fulham 11

I'll say right now Aberdeen and Hearts should be bigger than Fulham, manufactured club of Tarquins who averaged 4000 from 1975 to 1996

[Bear94 16]

Probably all apart from Man UTD and Liverpool.

[albluenose1990 29]

Three of the best, most accurate and bang on sentences I've seen written about the two Glasgow teams. No one cares, like literally no one cares, Celtic and Rangers are largely forgotten about. There's a website that showed Celtic v Rangers game a few years ago with British viewing figures of about 350,000, a Championship game on the BBC at the same time got about 2.5m. I understand why people try to claim their club is big or bigger than it really is, because of paranoia about how they're perceived. You hit the nail on the head, it's an insignificance worldwide, and all of these demands to join the English league? No one says Ajax should join the Premier League, were people asking for this 40 years ago?

If either club joined the Premiership, they'd NEVER win it without an owner like Man City have. The fact is the top top players want to play in London, even Man Utd a club 50 times bigger than Rangers have lost out to people wanting to play for Arsenal and Chelsea, then there's Man Utd and Liverpool who are global institutions (Rangers are not, never have been and never will be neither are Celtic), there's Tottenham another London club who are becoming more attractive, there are Man City who will pay higher wages than anyone else, there's Newcastle who get more people through the gate than Rangers and without the Premiership TV money had the same turnover as Rangers in 09/10, there's Aston Villa and Everton who would certainly regard themselves as no smaller than Rangers or Celtic, so where exactly would the OF fit in, in the hierarchy? You'd have a better team and a better infrastructure, but I can't think of any entity in life more deluded than an OF football fan thinking they could win the Premiership in 5 years. It would be a freak occurance if either did it within 20 years, without help an Abramovic type oligarch, and even then it would be doubtful.

Do you honestly think that if we moved into the Premiership facing some of the glamour games each season as you do we wouldn't get the same crowds as Newcastle and not look to expand Ibrox? We get 45,000 fans coming to watch us play utter dross like Kilmarnock and St Mirren every other Saturday. I think fans would be slightly more inclined to come and watch the Rangers if they were watching Arsenal and Chelsea instead. They also only turned over more than us because they had to commit to a firesale of players due to getting relegated and received a parachute payment from the PL as well as receiving sponsorship money which was high due to them being in the Premiership which they couldn't dream of getting if they played in the Championship on a regular basis. It should also be noted that their average attendance that season the year they won the league in the Championship was 43,000. Do you really think they'd get more fans than us coming to watch if they were in the SPL?

[Adoniram 1,919]

Anyone who says Rangers are a small team doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.

We play in a small league in a small country...huge difference.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

Some amount of the glitter-minded voting obviously.

20 votes for Wigan?

[G.E.C. 19,075]

Again, the poll is very confusing.

I thought it asked "Are (insert club) bigger than Rangers". And I fucked up my votes completely.

[Stevie1892 3]

Do you honestly think that if we moved into the Premiership facing some of the glamour games each season as you do we wouldn't get the same crowds as Newcastle and not look to expand Ibrox? We get 45,000 fans coming to watch us play utter dross like Kilmarnock and St Mirren every other Saturday. I think fans would be slightly more inclined to come and watch the Rangers if they were watching Arsenal and Chelsea instead. They also only turned over more than us because they had to commit to a firesale of players due to getting relegated and received a parachute payment from the PL as well as receiving sponsorship money which was high due to them being in the Premiership which they couldn't dream of getting if they played in the Championship on a regular basis. It should also be noted that their average attendance that season the year they won the league in the Championship was 43,000. Do you really think they'd get more fans than us coming to watch if they were in the SPL?

Player sales aren't even mentioned as part of turnover in the Deloitte report, and the parachute payments are about £11m spread over 4 years? The point you're making is insignificant. As to what Newcastle would get in the SPL, well they'd probably be automatic favourites to win it so I'd guess they'd get full houses as they do now, and did for many games watching the likes of Scunthorpe and Bristol City.

I saw an argument by a Hibs fan that the OF gates would go down permanently if they went 5 or 10 years winning nothing, which is more than likely what would happened, history shows the support of both clubs goes missing after a few years of neglect, you only need to see the pre-Souness gates to see that. Also would the fans be prepared to pay Premiership ticket prices. Take Newcastle a northern town, the cheapest ticket to watch Newcastle v Sunderland is £44, could the Rangers support maintain their 43 and 44000 gates with a big increase in prices. All hypothetical anyway, but nice to see not everyone is deluded.

[albluenose1990 29]

Player sales aren't even mentioned as part of turnover in the Deloitte report, and the parachute payments are about £11m spread over 4 years? The point you're making is insignificant. As to what Newcastle would get in the SPL, well they'd probably be automatic favourites to win it so I'd guess they'd get full houses as they do now, and did for many games watching the likes of Scunthorpe and Bristol City.

I saw an argument by a Hibs fan that the OF gates would go down permanently if they went 5 or 10 years winning nothing, which is more than likely what would happened, history shows the support of both clubs goes missing after a few years of neglect, you only need to see the pre-Souness gates to see that. Also would the fans be prepared to pay Premiership ticket prices. Take Newcastle a northern town, the cheapest ticket to watch Newcastle v Sunderland is £44, could the Rangers support maintain their 43 and 44000 gates with a big increase in prices. All hypothetical anyway, but nice to see not everyone is deluded.

I can hardly be arsed arguing this after the news today, especially as we couldn't be further away from being in the Premiership to put this arguement to the test.

But anyway you are incorrect about them selling out against both Doncaster and Bristol, they had 43,000+ at both games. I am also looking at Newcastle's attendances this season and no games were near selling out until they started on their winning run of games, their first sell out was against Chelsea in December and their attendances the season before were even poorer, so doesn't that blow your theory a little out of the water when you say they sell out every week?

It's £45 for an adult to see Rangers Vs Celtic this season which is our derby so a Newcastle game against their rivals doesn't seem out of the ordinary to be that price.

Finally, I believe our fans would be prepared to pay Premiership prices, if they were getting a Premiership product. Christ we get 47,000 to see a friendly against Chelsea but like you say it is all hypothetical.

[albluenose1990 29]

Player sales aren't even mentioned as part of turnover in the Deloitte report, and the parachute payments are about £11m spread over 4 years? The point you're making is insignificant. As to what Newcastle would get in the SPL, well they'd probably be automatic favourites to win it so I'd guess they'd get full houses as they do now, and did for many games watching the likes of Scunthorpe and Bristol City.

I saw an argument by a Hibs fan that the OF gates would go down permanently if they went 5 or 10 years winning nothing, which is more than likely what would happened, history shows the support of both clubs goes missing after a few years of neglect, you only need to see the pre-Souness gates to see that. Also would the fans be prepared to pay Premiership ticket prices. Take Newcastle a northern town, the cheapest ticket to watch Newcastle v Sunderland is £44, could the Rangers support maintain their 43 and 44000 gates with a big increase in prices. All hypothetical anyway, but nice to see not everyone is deluded.

Also yes it is it £11m, each season over 4 years. So quite a substantial amount going into your turnover. I would agree that if Newcastle were in the SPL it would be a 3 horse race. But they are not a bigger club than Rangers, very passionate and loyal fans but they are not bigger. I would like to see the day they take 150-200,000 fans to a european final unless it's in their own city....and even then!