WVB 2,560 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I actually think there's a fair amount of logic behind it to be fair. No no....I'm spouting shite. Derek is correct. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albluenose1990 29 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 It should be considered as two different things, biggest club is based on the most successful team at the time and then the most supported club. Don't people talk of Dortmund as the most supported club in Germany? Yet no one would call them the biggest when you look at Bayern's success. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobatai 70 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Interesting. How did you reach that conclusion? 99% would agree? Here's the thing..........unpalatable as it may be. The difference between clubs in Britain that have had terrible tragedies.........ourselves, Liverpool, Bradford, Manchester United, is quite obvious. In three of those tragedies, the three which claimed the most lives, Ibrox, Valley Parade & Hillsborough, the victims were (and this is where it becomes distasteful, but factual all the same) only spectators. In the case of the Munich Disaster, there were loads of household names (at the time) killed. The names of the tragic Manchester United players were given worldwide coverage, the sort of thing that will get worldwide sympathy. No one persons life or death is more important than another, except in the eyes of the media, its how these things are reported that changes peoples perceptions. In the cold light of day, I don't think Rangers, Liverpool or Bradford ever atracted more fans on the back of our tragedies, whereas the more famous victims of the Munich Disaster got greater atention & worldwide sympthy & tacit support for MUFC, which they have milked. There endeth the lesson for today.I didn't like to make that point ... knew it wouldn't go down well with some. But it is true, however distasteful. I tried to raise it indirectly with reference to the famous celebrities who gained additional lustre by "dying young". Came across this last evening:http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/34/soccer-10_Manchester-United_340001.htmlLegend of the past is Duncan Edwards not Bobby Charlton, Denis Law, George Best or Matt Busby.But, tragic as the events may have been, the major disasters involving the death of fans brought about good things. The Ibrox disaster brought about the Safety at Sports Grounds Act, while Rangers as a club, burdened with the stigma of an unsafe ground, transformed Ibrox years ahead of other clubs. Ibrox went from being a vast archaic bowl of terracing to being a compact, modern and mainly seated stadium ... a fine monument to those lost that fateful day. The disasters at Valley Parade and Hillsborough brought forth the Taylor Report, the provisions of which forced other clubs to follow Rangers' example. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobatai 70 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 It should be considered as two different things, biggest club is based on the most successful team at the time and then the most supported club. Don't people talk of Dortmund as the most supported club in Germany? Yet no one would call them the biggest when you look at Bayern's success.Bayern Munich arguably has a larger fanbase than Dortmund. By fanbase I don't mean people turning up week after week, but those who term themselves as fans. It's also about global recognition ... Bayern has a global profile that Dortmund can't match. Remember, Rangers gets around 50,000 people to turn up at Ibrox, but 250,000 people descended on Manchester for the Uefa cup final. Juventus doesn't get the crowds that the Milan teams get, but no one would seriously question that the "Old Lady" is Italy's biggest club. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVB 2,560 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Bayern Munich arguably has a larger fanbase than Dortmund. By fanbase I don't mean people turning up week after week, but those who term themselves as fans. It's also about global recognition ... Bayern has a global profile that Dortmund can't match. Remember, Rangers gets around 50,000 people to turn up at Ibrox, but 250,000 people descended on Manchester for the Uefa cup final. Juventus doesn't get the crowds that the Milan teams get, but no one would seriously question that the "Old Lady" is Italy's biggest club.Just don't mention the Torino Disaster, or our argument will be holed below the waterline! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobatai 70 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Just don't mention the Torino Disaster, or our argument will be holed below the waterline! Ah, Superga, yes ... I kept hoping no one would know of that. And so far I've been lucky. I would imagine it's being Googled ... actually quite a beautiful story, in a tragic sort of way. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie1993RFC 13 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Arsenal and Chelsea have always been my favourite English clubs. Jack Wilshere is one of my favourite players, mainly because a tim asked him on Twitter what Scottish team he supports and he replied Rangers. Pity he's injured so much. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVB 2,560 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Ah, Superga, yes ... I kept hoping no one would know of that. And so far I've been lucky. I would imagine it's being Googled ... actually quite a beautiful story, in a tragic sort of way.All those years I wasted reading books..........I should have just waited for the fucking internet & google to come along. I've wasted my life. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobatai 70 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 All those years I wasted reading books..........I should have just waited for the fucking internet & google to come along. I've wasted my life. Must admit that I learned of Superga via a book: Football Grounds of Europe. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek1872 548 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Interesting. How did you reach that conclusion? 99% would agree? Here's the thing..........unpalatable as it may be. The difference between clubs in Britain that have had terrible tragedies.........ourselves, Liverpool, Bradford, Manchester United, is quite obvious. In three of those tragedies, the three which claimed the most lives, Ibrox, Valley Parade & Hillsborough, the victims were (and this is where it becomes distasteful, but factual all the same) only spectators. In the case of the Munich Disaster, there were loads of household names (at the time) killed. The names of the tragic Manchester United players were given worldwide coverage, the sort of thing that will get worldwide sympathy. No one persons life or death is more important than another, except in the eyes of the media, its how these things are reported that changes peoples perceptions. In the cold light of day, I don't think Rangers, Liverpool or Bradford ever atracted more fans on the back of our tragedies, whereas the more famous victims of the Munich Disaster got greater atention & worldwide sympthy & tacit support for MUFC, which they have milked. There endeth the lesson for today.I actually think there's a fair amount of logic behind it to be fair. He's right, more attention gets paid to 'famous' people, aka. Footballers dieing than regular folk. Look at the outpouring of grief over Gary Speed as opposed to the many who kill themselves every day.I do think he's over the top with the idea that they 'milk it' though. They pay respect, as all other clubs would. It does make a good story for the media. Redemption. The comeback. Etc etc. I'd suggest if anyone milled it, it would be themNo no....I'm spouting shite. Derek is correct. To say Man United milk the tradegy is a digrace of a thing to say. If you say the media milk it I might be inclined to agree.I still think you spoute shite. What facts do you have to back up that Man U are the bigger than Arsenal because of the Munich disaster? You have none. You have an opinion but not facts. Its impossible to say that thats the defining factor as to why they are bigger than Arsenal. You cant say they wouldnt be the biggest regardless. You can form an ill informed opinion and thats it. Myself on the other hand can offer facts as to why they are bigger than Arsenal.They have more titlesThey have more success in EuropeThey have a bigger attendance level than ArsenalThese are facts. Yours are an opinion based on something that cant be proven. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobatai 70 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 To say Man United milk the tradegy is a digrace of a thing to say. If you say the media milk it I might be inclined to agree.I still think you spoute shite. What facts do you have to back up that Man U are the bigger than Arsenal because of the Munich disaster? You have none. You have an opinion but not facts. Its impossible to say that thats the defining factor as to why they are bigger than Arsenal. You cant say they wouldnt be the biggest regardless. You can form an ill informed opinion and thats it. Myself on the other hand can offer facts as to why they are bigger than Arsenal.They have more titlesThey have more success in EuropeThey have a bigger attendance level than ArsenalThese are facts. Yours are an opinion based on something that cant be proven.Arsenal was perceived as being a bigger club than Manchester United before Munich ... it was the marble halls of Highbury and Herbert Chapman that captured the imagination. Manchester United was just a provincial club, with little appeal outside of the North West. The tragedy at Munich transformed Manchester United. Manchester United's status isn't based on trophies. It's based on the intangibles, such as Munich and the Bubsy Babes, and George Best and the "Theatre of Dreams". You are so narrow minded. It's about capturing the hearts and imaginations of people and Munich was the critical component. Up until a couple of years ago Liverpool had more titles than Manchester United, had more success in Europe than Manchester United, but no one outside of the Liverpool fanbase thought the club was bigger than Manchester United. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek1872 548 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Arsenal was perceived as being a bigger club than Manchester United before Munich ... it was the marble halls of Highbury and Herbert Chapman that captured the imagination. Manchester United was just a provincial club, with little appeal outside of the North West. The tragedy at Munich transformed Manchester United. Manchester United's status isn't based on trophies. It's based on the intangibles, such as Munich and the Bubsy Babes, and George Best and the "Theatre of Dreams". You are so narrow minded. It's about capturing the hearts and imaginations of people and Munich was the critical component. Up until a couple of years ago Liverpool had more titles than Manchester United, had more success in Europe than Manchester United, but no one outside of the Liverpool fanbase thought the club was bigger than Manchester United.It makes no difference whatsover who was bigger before it. The argument isnt who was bigger before the tradegy the argument was are Man U bigger than Arsenal because of it? You cant say yes based on anything but an opinion (not a good one at that). You can as I have stated give facts as to why they are bigger.Im not even sure I agree that Arsenal where bigger before it happened. Man U had just won theleague two years running and made the Fa cup final. Man U had just became the first English club to compete in Europe. This may have had a bigger bearing on becoming a big club than anything else. You can argue as much as you want but unless you give facts to back it up, it means nothing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobatai 70 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 It makes no difference whatsover who was bigger before it. The argument isnt who was bigger before the tradegy the argument was are Man U bigger than Arsenal because of it? You cant say yes based on anything but an opinion (not a good one at that). You can as I have stated give facts as to why they are bigger.Im not even sure I agree that Arsenal where bigger before it happened. Man U had just won theleague two years running and made the Fa cup final. Man U had just became the first English club to compete in Europe. This may have had a bigger bearing on becoming a big club than anything else. You can argue as much as you want but unless you give facts to back it up, it means nothing.Perceptions aren't based on facts. The size of a club isn't based on facts. Facts have nothing to do with it. I'd have thought if any set of supporters would understand that it would be the Rangers fans. Yes, Rangers has a huge fanbase and yes Rangers has unparalleled success, but isn't the magic of the club about something more than that? Or is that all Rangers amounts to? A crowd and a few pots and pans? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek1872 548 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Perceptions aren't based on facts. The size of a club isn't based on facts. Facts have nothing to do with it. I'd have thought if any set of supporters would understand that it would be the Rangers fans. Yes, Rangers has a huge fanbase and yes Rangers has unparalleled success, but isn't the magic of the club about something more than that? Or is that all Rangers amounts to? A crowd and a few pots and pans?Do you think Celtic are a bigger club than us? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobatai 70 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Do you think Celtic are a bigger club than us?No, but I don't think the difference is huge. And in spite of the noises emerging from Parkhead, the two clubs are mutually dependent. Moreover, I don't base my view on attendances or trophies won, it's something else ... it's the history, tradition and aura of the clubs. And Munich is large part of the history and aura that surrounds Manchester United. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek1872 548 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 No, but I don't think the difference is huge. And in spite of the noises emerging from Parkhead, the two clubs are mutually dependent. Moreover, I don't base my view on attendances or trophies won, it's something else ... it's the history, tradition and aura of the clubs. And Munich is large part of the history and aura that surrounds Manchester United.So the fact that we are recognised as the team with the most league titles in the word means nothing to you? They are just tin pots as you put it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVB 2,560 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 To say Man United milk the tradegy is a digrace of a thing to say. If you say the media milk it I might be inclined to agree.I still think you spoute shite. What facts do you have to back up that Man U are the bigger than Arsenal because of the Munich disaster? You have none. You have an opinion but not facts. Its impossible to say that thats the defining factor as to why they are bigger than Arsenal. You cant say they wouldnt be the biggest regardless. You can form an ill informed opinion and thats it. Myself on the other hand can offer facts as to why they are bigger than Arsenal.They have more titlesThey have more success in EuropeThey have a bigger attendance level than ArsenalThese are facts. Yours are an opinion based on something that cant be proven.So you love Manchester United......we get it. It changes nothing. I'm just stating the truth & you've got all uppity & tried to be derisory. You can offer whatever propoganda you like, and call it a fact, I already believe you've lost whatever argument you thought you may have had. You can believe what you like about big clubs etc, thats your prerogative, its not a crime to be wrong, don't worry. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek1872 548 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 So you love Manchester United......we get it. It changes nothing. I'm just stating the truth & you've got all uppity & tried to be derisory. You can offer whatever propoganda you like, and call it a fact, I already believe you've lost whatever argument you thought you may have had. You can believe what you like about big clubs etc, thats your prerogative, its not a crime to be wrong, don't worry. I would argue all day that Liverppol and Man u are bigger than Arsenal just as I would argue Rangers are bigger than Celtic. None of it has anything to do with tradegies. Its based on facts. If you cant offer any then you have lost. You are probably used to it these days so im sure it doesnt hurt much Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVB 2,560 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I would argue all day that Liverppol and Man u are bigger than Arsenal just as I would argue Rangers are bigger than Celtic. None of it has anything to do with tradegies. Its based on facts. If you cant offer any then you have lost. You are probably used to it these days so im sure it doesnt hurt much You carry on. Only one club is worth arguing all day about as far as I'm concerned. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek1872 548 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 You carry on. Only one club is worth arguing all day about as far as I'm concerned.And yet you have argued for 3 days about who is bigger between Arsenal, Man U and liverpool Comedy gold pal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVB 2,560 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 And yet you have argued for 3 days about who is bigger between Arsenal, Man U and liverpool Comedy gold pal. I've popped in and out of the thread, Look back, you'll find that I never argued about who was bigger than who, only that MUFC milked Munich.Pal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobatai 70 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 So the fact that we are recognised as the team with the most league titles in the word means nothing to you?And it means everything to you? That's all Rangers is as far as you're concerned? A collection of titles? Nothing else? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek1872 548 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 And it means everything to you? That's all Rangers is as far as you're concerned? A collection of titles? Nothing else?Are you going to answer my question? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobatai 70 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Are you going to answer my question?Pots and pans is all they are ... they add a small piece to the bigger picture. Satisfied? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek1872 548 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I've popped in and out of the thread, Look back, you'll find that I never argued about who was bigger than who, only that MUFC milked Munich.Pal. Manchester Utd have shamelessly traded off the back of the Munich Disaster for over 50 years. That, as much as anything they achieved on the pitch, is why they are the worldwide force they are. Arsenal are consistently Englands biggest club over the history of English football. Not the most succesful perhaps, but the most consistent.Aye I see what you mean Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.