Who is the bigger club? Arsenal or Chelsea?

[longers]

Not strictly true. North and East London yes. South and West London no.

I live in south west London, Chelsea fans are very rare to come across in my experience

 

[emir]

That's one point dressed up as three really isn't it? I know Leeds are generally perceived to be a bigger club, but that's what I was getting at - why? You're effectively saying they're bigger because people think they're bigger. I do get what you mean, but what is the criteria for them being perceived that way? Is it just because there's fans who remember them being big in the 70s and go 'ooh' and nobody remembers Blackburn being good because it was so long ago?

It's the same thing with West Ham United. They are perceived to be the biggest club after the top 6 or at least in that bracket, yet they've not won the title ever. But their gigantic fanbase in the South, makes up for all this.

 

[Goat]

It's the same thing with West Ham United. They are perceived to be the biggest club after the top 6

Now you're just trolling.

 

[1874]

West Ham are miles behind Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs . West Ham don’t make the top ten criteria in anything unless you count their new ground capacity and recent big crowds. They have a pretty big fan base but biggest club outside top 6??? Get away with ya . Back on to Chelsea-Arsenal, Chelsea used to take some serious numbers up to the north east back in the day . Not many clubs did, and they were certainly the best travelled London club up to the north east .

 

[catcherintherye]

Of course, and that's fine as long as you acknowledge that's what you're doing. I just find it really weird when you get people insisting that Forest or someone are a bigger club 'traditionally' than Chelsea. They just aren't, but somehow people think that who was good when they were 15 defines who is and isn't a 'big club'.

On the latter point, there's a lot of that.

I used to get this with my dad, who was dismissive of Newcastle as a big club when I was growing up and I could never understand. I grew up with them challenging for the title, whacking 15m on Newcastle, big stadium etc. In honesty you're right, but it's probably a bit younger than that, it's probably when you 1st start watching football and the impression you get is a strong one. This will sound awful, but growing up watching us in dogfights, at my core I don't really view Everton as like a big, trophy winning club. Not in the same way my dad does anyway. I accept a lot lower standards etc.

Essentially we all take a frame of reference from about 7 through to 10. We also all look back at football, cricket or whatever and think that it was much better then. And in a lot of ways it was much better than, because you were 9 and everything is much more exciting then.

Like if you're about 15-20 now, all you've ever known of Chelsea is Abramovich and winning loads of trophies. So they will be the bigger club. In a lot of ways I'm surprised they don't have more fans.

 

[catcherintherye]

Pre 1997 Chelseas trophy haul was 1 league title in 1955, 1 Fa Cup in 1970, 1 League Cup in 1965, and 1 European Cup Winners Cup in 1971. I think by any standards that record wasn't that great. But from the late 90's onwards they became a big club, no doubt about it there.

To be fair to Chelsea, probably post 97 they were have probably won more trophies than anyone but United.

 

[anxiouswarrior]

Arsenal a far bigger club than Chelsea

 

[catcherintherye]

For me Leicester will never be a bigger club than Everton, Aston Villa, Spurs etc; they could win back to back leagues and it wouldnt change that.

It's an organic thing that develops over years, you cant touch it and money cant buy it. I think it's live embodyment now is Man City's sensitivity over the "Emptyhad" jibes.

The thing for me with City though, is they averaged close to 30k, in division 3, when their neighbours were winning the treble in the days when football was watched by probably about 70% of the people it's currently watched by. Not many clubs would have been able to do it. I don't really get the jibes with City. I can with Chelsea, but City fans have tended to stick with them through thick and thin.

 

[Methuselah]

On the latter point, there's a lot of that.

I used to get this with my dad, who was dismissive of Newcastle as a big club when I was growing up and I could never understand. I grew up with them challenging for the title, whacking 15m on Newcastle, big stadium etc. In honesty you're right, but it's probably a bit younger than that, it's probably when you 1st start watching football and the impression you get is a strong one. This will sound awful, but growing up watching us in dogfights, at my core I don't really view Everton as like a big, trophy winning club. Not in the same way my dad does anyway. I accept a lot lower standards etc.

Essentially we all take a frame of reference from about 7 through to 10. We also all look back at football, cricket or whatever and think that it was much better then. And in a lot of ways it was much better than, because you were 9 and everything is much more exciting then.

Like if you're about 15-20 now, all you've ever known of Chelsea is Abramovich and winning loads of trophies. So they will be the bigger club. In a lot of ways I'm surprised they don't have more fans.

I agree, everything changes over time. I remember when New Brighton were in the football league.

 

[Cork Evertonian]

To be fair to Chelsea, probably post 97 they were have probably won more trophies than anyone but United.

Chelsea have grown massively as a club, over the past 24 years. I suppose it's a bit weird, when people say that Chelseas success is too recent. Because if you say to the same person, that Huddersfield Town won three league titles in a row back in the 1920's, then they would say that's too far in the past! Success is success at the end of the day, irrespective of the period of time it was achieved, and Chelsea certainly are a club, that has developed their brand and fanbase to a massive extent in the modern era.

 

[ClausThomsen]

I think a lot of the old class system comes into it as well with people's perceptions of a proper traditional club.

On some level, possibly subconsciously, there are people who are still slightly beholden to the idea that a history of respectable English sorts with double-barrelled names and titles lend a more decent and wholesome air. Not a surprise given how forcefully the class system and the value of tradition has been enforced and reinforced in English society and valued above actual progress and achievement.

Any progress or achievements made by someone not of the "right stuff" is dismissed as nouveau riche or tacky and worth less for no discernible reason. There'll be talk of these upstarts "buying" success while conveniently ignoring the fact that pretty much all clubs that have had success in the past have done so by being big spenders relative to those around them.

Certainly Arsenal has a longer history of old money ownership and stuffed shirts all round while Chelsea had an air of gaudy flamboyancy, wide-boys and then shifty foreign sorts. All things often brought into the mix to muddy the waters.

 

[Walham Green Blue]

I live in south west London, Chelsea fans are very rare to come across in my experience

I’ve lived in SW London almost all my life and what you’ve stated is wholly inaccurate.

 

[Beware of the Catt]

See what happens when we go a full week without a game...
the correct answer is who gives a fcuk

 

[gonetomorrow]

They are exactly the same.

Sorry to be boring.

 

[JordanianEmbassy]

Saying a club has no history just because they haven't won trophies year in year out is glory hunting rubbish. If there's been a club there for a hundred years or so and people have been standing there rain or shine watching them then they've got a history.