Rank League 2 clubs in order of size.. (Stolen from L1)

[shoddycollins]

It does make me wonder how much bigger our crowds would be if we had a shiny new stadium, too.

You'd have to build it in the sea

 

[Don Tonberry]

We were actually planning to at one point! Artificial land on the seafront with a 38,000 seater stadium on it along with some shopping complex.

All pie in the sky, of course.

 

[Kim Mitten]

Southend I'm unsure on, they can get solid gates, but seem to sort've not lose masses when doing poor, but not gain masses when doing well, I think when they were in Championship they only got 8,000 odd

Last in the championship we averaged 10,000. Home areas were pretty much sold out every game, so as you say about 8,000 home fans, its the away fans that push it up - nearly everyone bought 2,000. Seem to have a hardcore of fans no matter what and a similar number of 'floating fans' who frankly can sod off if they remain the same bunch who followed the club from around 1989-1998.
The club, if you averaged out overall league position throughout history would be a solid mid-table 3rd tier side, bumbling around not doing much, but hey when you actually do something good it makes it all the better!

In this division if you're looking historical performances, attendances etc... Portsmouth and Luton are head and shoulders above the rest.
Oxford are a funny one for me, non-league for a long time (under a different name) when they finally made it to the league had massive success culminating in top tier football and a league cup win, to then falling all the way back to non-league. I'm really not sure where I'd rank them.

 

[TrinidadsNumberOne]

http://www.myfootballfacts.com/ClubLeagueHistorySummary.html

Found this website on Google, might be a better indicator of League Position over the years. The Third Division section is always going to be skewed by regionalised divisions but you can judge a hell of a lot clearer when you see the number of seasons sides have spent in the Fourth tier.

 

[huddsmoose]

Ultimately the fans are the club and so I'd rate attendances as the biggest indicator of club size, along with achievements which raise club profile.

I don't see the point of including potential as it's so abstract and subjective. I think Cambridge would have a big boost in attendances with a new stadium for instance, but this is pie in the sky.

My view on club size is perceived over the 25 years I've watched Cambridge play across 4 divisions:

1. Pompey
2. Luton
3. Plymouth
........
4. Oxford
5. Tranmere
6. Southend
..........
7. Carlisle
8. Northampton
9. Cambridge
10. Exeter
11. Shrewsbury
12. Wycombe
13. York
14. Wimbledon
...........
15. Hartlepool
16. Mansfield
17. Bury
..........
18. Newport
19. Cheltenham
20. Stevenage
21. Burton
22. Morecambe
23. Dagenham
24. Accrington

 

[UTS]

So we are 17th despite having 13th best attendances and probably top 4 history?

Also in response to the Stockport comment, Stockport is probably bigger than Bury and Rochdale combined and is in South Manchester rather than the Oldham, Bury and Rochdale triangle in the north.

 

[Womble98]

How on earth are we after York/Wycombe?

 

[huddsmoose]

You can't really judge history back to the early 1900s, it's a completely different game now, hence why I've only used the timeframe that I've been watching football.

I could be easily convinced to move Bury up a couple of places but they seem to have always had smaller attendances than the likes of Exeter and Shrewsbury when playing in the same league (based on what I've noticed, not any thorough research!)

 

[huddsmoose]

Wimbledon are a tough one - if you include the original club's history then fine, they'd be higher.

I've also placed them in a large group where all clubs are much of a muchness size wise.

 

[UTS]

"History doesn't count in the 1900's". I suppose the division 4 and 3 titles won in 1996 and 97 mean nothing to you then? Also the first team to score 1,000 goals in each of the top 4 divisions..

Well I will say it again, you said your table is is based on fan base, we rank 13th in attendances.

Why are we 17th when we average about 300 more than the likes of York who have also been in the conference?

Flawed logic that's all

 

[AtaturkOzgutson]

I rarely say this about these usually contrived willy waving contests, but it's pretty much bang on in the first post.

Good effort.

 

[AtaturkOzgutson]

I rarely say this about these usually contrived willy waving contests, but it's pretty much bang on in the first post.

Good effort.

 

[shoddycollins]

Wimbledon are a tough one - if you include the original club's history then fine, they'd be higher.

I've also placed them in a large group where all clubs are much of a muchness size wise.

The thing with Wimbledon is that if people go off their own feelings as to how big a club are then they will seem small, despite their time in the Premier League.

Even if you wanted to say that AFC Wimbledon are Wimbledon FC, because the fans make the club and they have the same fans, you couldn't argue that it was a seamless transition, and having to begin again from the bottom with a fan-created club has left a distinctive mark on the club that sides who haven't been through what they've been through just don't have.

For all their history, their time at the top, their fame, their FA Cup and their definitely league-sized crowds, they're essentially a small-club flavoured big-club.

 

[Richard Cranium]

Portsmouth
Plymouth
Tranmere
---------------
Luton
Carlisle
Southend
Oxford
---------------
Shrewsbury
Exeter
Northampton
Bury
Wycombe
---------------
Hartlepool
AFC Wimbledon
Mansfield
York
Cambridge
---------------
Stevenage
Burton
Cheltenham
Newport
---------------
Morecombe
Dagenham & Redbridge
Accrington Stanley

 

[Matt_]

I have a feeling that the low ranking of my club in this thread is as much indicative of the average age of the posters than other factors.

In more recent times, i.e. the last 15 years or so, Town have struggled and have spent most of the time in the fourth tier and one season in the Conference. This has been comfortably the worst period in the club's history but is probably what immediately springs to mind for the younger supporters.

However, prior to 1997 Town had only spent four seasons in the fourth tier, twice winning an immediate promotion back to the third tier and taking taking two seasons to do so on the other occasion.

Prior to that saw a period of ten successive seasons in the second tier, which is comparable with Tranmere's record at that level (11 seasons) for example and betters the record of the likes of Southend and Northampton in that regard. Our cup record, twice FA Cup quarter finalists and once League Cup semi-finalists also stands up well by comparison with others.

Northampton, for example, have spent all but four seasons in their history in the third and fourth tiers but are strangely consistently ranked high up in this thread, possibly off the back of a single season in the top division a long time ago?

So to see my club ranked below the likes of some of these clubs, and bizarrely the likes of Exeter and York (no offence intended to those clubs) for example, is very odd.

For me the highest ranked clubs would be Portsmouth, Luton, Plymouth and Oxford. Then followed by Bury, Carlisle, Tranmere and ourselves.

 

[3Loggerheads]

I have a feeling that the low ranking of my club in this thread is as much indicative of the average age of the posters than other factors.

In more recent times, i.e. the last 15 years or so, Town have struggled and have spent most of the time in the fourth tier and one season in the Conference. This has been comfortably the worst period in the club's history but is probably what immediately springs to mind for the younger supporters.

However, prior to 1997 Town had only spent four seasons in the fourth tier, twice winning an immediate promotion back to the third tier and taking taking two seasons to do so on the other occasion.

Prior to that saw a period of ten successive seasons in the second tier, which is comparable with Tranmere's record at that level (11 seasons) for example and betters the record of the likes of Southend and Northampton in that regard. Our cup record, twice FA Cup quarter finalists and once League Cup semi-finalists also stands up well by comparison with others.

Northampton, for example, have spent all but four seasons in their history in the third and fourth tiers but are strangely consistently ranked high up in this thread, possibly off the back of a single season in the top division a long time ago?

So to see my club ranked below the likes of some of these clubs, and bizarrely the likes of Exeter and York (no offence intended to those clubs) for example, is very odd.

For me the highest ranked clubs would be Portsmouth, Luton, Plymouth and Oxford. Then followed by Bury, Carlisle, Tranmere and ourselves.

Sums up my thoughts exactly Matt!

 

[AdamStag]

Which is why you are 5th on the table I devised on page 1.

 

[BigDaveCUFC]

Dave, I can't fathom how you'd put Plymouth above us simply because of their potential.

Silverware and prestige surely have to play a part in how big a club is. Plymouth have neither having never won a major honour or played in the top flight. We're the most successful club south of London.

It does make me wonder how much bigger our crowds would be if we had a shiny new stadium, too.

Mostly for the reason you've just given, if they had won a major trophy or played in the top flight they could in my view be a bigger club......could be wrong, but its a bigger area and is in middle of no where with limited choices for football fans so I could see them latch a lot of glory-hunters if they did what you could.

but it is all ifs and buts.

Oh and laker to be honest the middle part is much of a muchness than can go in any order, very hard to do

 

[Tom_CUFC]

Ultimately with these sorts of things it depends ultimately on where you draw the line with regards to "relevant" history, if you're not of the mindset that history is history and it is all relevant, then I guess the next judgement is largely done based on the length of time you've been following football.

Cambridge is a good example of different ways you could reasonably justify different rankings. In the last 10 years we've spent 9 in non-league, which would put us right near the bottom, in the past 25 years though we've spent 16 in the league, 2 in the second tier, reached two FA Cup quarter finals and got into the playoffs for the Premier League, the latter 3 accomplishments would put us near the top. In the last 45 years we've spent 36 in the league, 8 of them in the second tier, which again would put us in the top half, but in the 58 years prior to that we didn't spend one in the league, meaning we've spent 65% of our history outside of the league, which would put us back in the bottom third. You can interpret it in many ways and you'll never get an answer that satisfies everyone.

For me:

Tier 1: Portsmouth, Luton
Tier 2: Plymouth, Southend, Tranmere, Oxford
Tier 3: Shrewsbury, Carlisle, Northampton, Wimbledon, Bury
Tier 4: Exeter, Cambridge, York, Mansfield, Hartlepool
Tier 5: Newport, Wycombe
Tier 6: Burton, Stevenage, Cheltenham, Dagenham, Morecambe, Accrington

 

[1884 Belmont]

I think this is a subject that is going to be defined by the age of the poster. Yes, all clubs have history, but where that line is drawn can have a massive impact on the perspective of 'size'. Using us as an example, in my lifetime we have been: promoted from Div 4/Lg 2 to Div 2/Championship, won the JPT and reached a further final, appeared in the Championship playoffs 3 times (including being the 'best' team not to be automatically promoted twice), reached the quarter finals of the FA Cup 3 or 4 times, were runners-up in the 2000 League Cup and also reached the League 1 playoffs (where we again finished 3rd in the regular season).
This is the first ever season I have seen us play at this level, but to my father it is nothing new. Just prior to my birth we were struggling in the old Division 4, went into administration (the first ever to do so, I believe) and were one game against Exeter away from being relegated to the non-league. So every club has it's ups and downs and whilst I believe ours stacks up against most in the division, clubs like Portsmouth, Plymouth and Luton are way above the rest in terms of history, size and potential growth. I'd say we come in the second tier, but could get in that top bracket should Everton or Liverpool have a nightmare or we become successful again.

Tier 1 - Portsmouth, Luton, Plymouth
Tier 2 - Tranmere (us), Carlisle, Oxford.
Tier 3 - Southend, Shrewsbury, Northampton, Hartlepool, Bury, Mansfield, York
Tier 4 - Exeter, AFC Wimbledon, Wycombe, Newport, Cambridge
Tier 5 - Burton, Stevenage, Dagenham, Morecambe, Cheltenham
Tier 6 - Accrington.

The Wimbledon one will probably be unpopular but to me, AFC Wimbledon are a different club and are no bigger than the 'new' Newport. Accrington appear to be the smallest by some distance given the crowds, facilities and potential for growth.

 

[shoddycollins]

Dagenham and Redbridge
Wycombe Wanderers
Northampton Town
Accrington Stanley
Cambridge United
Cheltenham Town
Shrewsbury Town
Hartlepool United
Tranmere Rovers
Southend United
Plymouth Argyle
Newport County
AFC Wimbledon
Mansfield Town
Carlisle United
Oxford United
Burton Albion
Morecambe
Luton Town
Portsmouth
Exeter City
Stevenage
York City
Bury

Bury are a tiny club, any disagreements?

 

[shoddycollins]

It's Oxford United though, so they'd go up a few places!

ouch... I've been spending too much time around the Non League forums

 

[Shrimpurh]

ouch... I've been spending too much time around the Non League forums

Future home?

 

[shoddycollins]

Future home?

yeah, the who do you want up/down thread is a favourite. I've been reminding them that they'll probably get us and Hartlepool, no matter how much the southern clubs protest.

 

[AdamStag]

At least Carlisle is a nice place, with decent fans.

As for Hartlepool, well.....

 

[shoddycollins]

At least Carlisle is a nice place, with decent fans.

As for Hartlepool, well.....

Last time we played them at Brunton Park the police kettled them.

Although that was probably more overzealous policing than any real threat from them; they did sound quite boisterous but I imagine that was a result of being kettled. Cram a couple hundred drunken football fans whose team have just won (3-0 I think they beat us) into a tight space and they're bound to make some noise.

Still, could be mayhem on the last day of the season.

EDIT: It wasn't the last time, it was the time before that.

 

[Scumarmy.]

How on earth are we after York/Wycombe?

I would guess because those clubs have longer histories and have played at a higher level than yourselves.

 

[AdamStag]

Pretty much, the new Wimbledon have never played above this level.

Therefore, even if they are obviously an exception to the rule it makes them one of the smaller sides

 

[T.A]

Wycombe have only been a league club for 20 years ish I think 93 or 94 they were promoted. They seem pretty high in some lists.

 

[Chippy]

How certain individuals can say clubs like Carlisle and Tranmere are bigger than Luton is beyond me.