www.bwfc.co.uk/news/article/club-statement-2368802.aspx

Small club relative to most in the top flight and a few others. Ultimately under current rules best way to measure club size is by turnover. Taking out artificial things like parachute payments of course. Wonder where that puts us? About 22nd I'd guess.....

Under what current rules?

Edited April 3, 201511 yr by jules_darby

Under what current rules?

Financial fair play is what I was thinking.

Financial fair play is what I was thinking.

What does that have to do with something as subjective as club size?

This club size debate rears its head regularly and then some fool trots out stats going back to 1631 as though owt outside the last 20 or 30 years is even vaguely worthy of a mention

 

Their have been three big changes in my time that have changed football massively

 

Home teams keeping all the gate money

TV monies

Bosman

 

Then look back to the abolition of the maximum wage for the ultimate game changer

 

Anything before that is just a whole different playing field

 

We're not small, we're not big

 

I'd put us about 30th

 

Top end of the middle group

What does that have to do with something as subjective as club size?

Your spending power is tied to turnover under these rules, so I was just suggesting turnover might be a relevant measure of size in the current climate.

Your spending power is tied to turnover under these rules, so I was just suggesting turnover might be a relevant measure of size in the current climate.

I know you were, I was rejecting it

Small club relative to most in the top flight and a few others. Ultimately under current rules best way to measure club size is by turnover. Taking out artificial things like parachute payments of course. Wonder where that puts us? About 22nd I'd guess.....

Well might I suggest you can Fook off too then!

 

If you think a clubs size is purely down to money, then you're the kind of sad, media brain washed moron of the Sky generation. It's about achievement on the pitch, not fan size, money or who sings the loudest, travels the best & so on.

 

Even if we only take the last 20-30 years as suggested, how many other teams have matched us, or beat us, for achievement?

 

Definitely less than 30. How many clubs would love to have had our time in the top league? 2 European tours? Cup final? Cup semi-finals? Wembley visits for play-offs?

 

Small club? My Fookin' Arse!

Well might I suggest you can Fook off too then!

If you think a clubs size is purely down to money, then you're the kind of sad, media brain washed moron of the Sky generation. It's about achievement on the pitch, not fan size, money or who sings the loudest, travels the best & so on.

Even if we only take the last 20-30 years as suggested, how many other teams have matched us, or beat us, for achievement?

Definitely less than 30. How many clubs would love to have had our time in the top league? 2 European tours? Cup final? Cup semi-finals? Wembley visits for play-offs?

Small club? My Fookin' Arse!

It depends how you want to look at it. We don't compete attendance wise with many. I'm not sure looking at recent history or league performance is a measure. But not sure it matters to be honest. As a club you are where you are and have to try and improve that whatever the circumstances. We can certainly do better than our current position, though certainly could see it getting worse too. Pivotal season next time I think.

I reckon we are pretty much at our level now in the grand scheme of things. Taking into account crowd size,money in the bank,history etc

 

Mid table championship

Swansea, Hull and Palace and a few others are probably considered bigger than us right now, but their time is due, no longer punching above their weight.. Of course they'll get massive parachute payments. What's scary though is that it's possible to have 12 teams receiving these payments in the Championship in any one season, and ours are finished next year,

We'll get our rightful place eventually. Onwards and upwards! 

Edited April 3, 201511 yr by land_and_sea

Swansea, Hull and Palace and a few others are probably considered bigger than us right now, but their time is due, no longer punching above their weight.. Of course they'll get massive parachute payments. What's scary though is that it's possible to have 12 teams receiving these payments in the Championship in any one season, and ours are finished next year,

We'll get our rightful place eventually. Onwards and upwards!

I might be wrong but I think there's only Norwich and Blackburn in the top 10 that received any form of parachute payment this season.

I reckon we are pretty much at our level now in the grand scheme of things. Taking into account crowd size,money in the bank,history etc

 

Mid table championship

Bolton are 17th in the 2nd Division which i think is a good 15 places lower than where they  should be. In the Premier League Hull, Swansea, QPR, Burnley and Palace are all lesser clubs than Bolton imo.

 

Money is basically Sky money, and these clubs have more money because they have had better managers in recent years.Thats not because they are bigger clubs but their owners have made wiser management choices

QPR have more money because they have billionaire owners. If you are claiming that appointing 'Arry was a wise choice then you are another fool who can join my ignore list.

QPR have more money because they have billionaire owners. If you are claiming that appointing 'Arry was a wise choice then you are another fool who can join my ignore list.

 

They appointed Arry and stayed up at Bolton's expense on smaller crowds and with less history

Brilliant. I could have keep them up on their budget.

 

They are coming down this year and will face the effects of buying their way out of this league.

 

They are totally fucked. What the fuck crowds and history have to do with it when you have billionaire owners, I don't know.

 

Bravo. Great example.

Bolton are 17th in the 2nd Division which i think is a good 15 places lower than where they should be. In the Premier League Hull, Swansea, QPR, Burnley and Palace are all lesser clubs than Bolton imo.

 

Money is basically Sky money, and these clubs have more money because they have had better managers in recent years.Thats not because they are bigger clubs but their owners have made wiser management choices

A few years ago we were above those clubs riding high in Europe. And above many who considered they should be comfortably above us. That's football. You have ups and downs. Just the way it is.

Sick of hearing about this financial fair play shit

I reckon we are pretty much at our level now in the grand scheme of things. Taking into account crowd size,money in the bank,history etc

 

Mid table championship

Bollicks

 

We are top division team given our history etc plus being the biggest town in Britain

Bollicks

We are top division team given our history etc plus being the biggest town in Britain

History doesn't have any bearing on where we 'should be' now.

Bollicks

 

We are top division team given our history etc plus being the biggest town in Britain

With an average crowd of 13,000

With an average crowd of 13,000

 

That demonstrates why you should never look at stats in isolation. You might as well quote the average attendance we had in 1976/77, when we were one of the best supported clubs in the country despite being in the Second Division.

That demonstrates why you should never look at stats in isolation. You might as well quote the average attendance we had in 1976/77, when we were one of the best supported clubs in the country despite being in the Second Division.

Not really because what matters is the crowd you can command now in relation to everyone else.

Bollicks

We are top division team given our history etc plus being the biggest town in Britain

I love you J

Not really because what matters is the crowd you can command now in relation to everyone else.

 

It might matter to you.

That demonstrates why you should never look at stats in isolation. You might as well quote the average attendance we had in 1976/77, when we were one of the best supported clubs in the country despite being in the Second Division.

Or a few years after when we were averaging 5k.