How big is AUFC?

[Stuckey]

As a club compared to the other HAL clubs?

What do people think?
I'm talking about the club generally.
Like saying in England Man Utd are big
In Italy AC Milan are big
In Spain Barca and Real are.

I guess we're talking financially, results and reputation wise.

[Stuckey]

You can also offer your thoughts on who is and isn't big.

My table is

MVFC
SFC
Brisbane
AUFC
Perth
CCM
WSW
Newcastle
Nix
Heart

[sevengoals]

That's a hard one.

In my heart they are huge.
On the OZ football landscape I feel we are respected.
In the scheme of things we are relatively small.

[Stuckey]

I think if it wasn't for our ACL form and the history of Adelaide being a football city, Perth could easily be above us and CCM would be closing in.

[Agostinho]

Urgh, I hate this big club small club mentality amongst fans. And its meaningless in a league like ours where there's no promotion relegation and is salary capped.

[Old Gregg]

I don't know, I think it's a good thing to think realistically about where the club sits in relation to others and why. There's no doubt that there are 'bigger' clubs and 'smaller' clubs in the league despite the salary cap. That's not to say that a big club is better, some of the smaller clubs like Phoenix and Mariners have excellent community support and I'd imagine fans might feel more closely connected to the club than at somewhere like Brisbane or Sydney FC. Frankly I'm happy that Adelaide is not one of the real 'big boys', I don't think it would suit us.

Taking everything into account(history of success, attendences, size of the city they represent, depth of penetration in their own city, broader awareness, etc etc) I reckon there are a few distinct tiers:

-Melbourne (definitely #1) and Sydney
-Brisbane and Adelaide, probably Wanderers too but hard to judge in their 1st season
-Perth, Newcastle, Central Coast
-Heart, Wellington

It's all pretty intangible though.

[Agostinho]

Exactly - its intangible. What's the measuring stick?

OG you've put Central Coast near the bottom, but they've been very successful over the years. More so than Adelaide. They don't get the same crowds, but per head of population they're pretty well represented.

And Newcastle - they DO get excellent crowds, yet you don't see them as one of the big boys.

Perth also have a great history of success but they're in the 3rd tier also?

The reason I hate the debate comes from English football fans, especially in the lower leagues. It ends up just being a dick measuring contest beteween fans "you're tinpot, we're massive", "we're too big for this division" etc. You're in the 3rd division because you're shit.

In England for example once you get past the clubs in the top half of the premier league the perception of a club's size compared to others is pretty accurately reflected by the size of the crowds they draw. That doesn't really work in Australia.

[Old Gregg]

Exactly - its intangible. What's the measuring stick?

Just the feel of it all. it's Mabo, it's the vibe...

You're right, there's not much to separate most of the teams in the league. But there will always be bigger clubs and smaller clubs and that will be how their fans will see themselves.

Where problems arise is when fans are unrealistic about their own club's place in the world, when there's a huge gulf between how others see them and how they see themselves. Melbourne Victory fans would be horrified if their team was drawing 10k rather than 20k. Sydney fans would cut themselves if they didn't make a big-name signing every season and have a panel of Sydney football identities talking about their club's every move on national TV... Leeds in the lower tiers in England has been a bit like that.

[Agostinho]

OK, works for me!

[davidbloop]

I'd put AUFC about half way down in the scheme of things

[ChillyPhilly]

I feel they keyword in this question is 'relevance'. Success isn't a measuring stick, unless you're referring to overseas reputation - which ee are miles and miles at the top of. Crowd figures? Tricky; what is the context for this to be a measure of club size? Budgets? MV operate on an overall budget of $13 million, with $7 million of that going to the football department alone. AU's budget is $5.8 million.

If 'relevance' is the answer, who is and isn't relevant? How can we determine it? Off the top of my head, I feel Newcastle and Heart are irrelevant, Perth too to an extent. Each has lacked major success in recent seasons, bar Perth. Yet each can pull a crowd.

It's definitely food for thought.

[shinAUFC]

Yep.

Define big?

Who gets the most national Media?
Who is most respected overseas?
Who is most successful ?
Most fans ?
Biggest cash turn over ?
Biggest city ?

Every single one of these factors are irrelevant in a salary capped league that is only in its 8th season.

Could just as easily argued South Melbourne is one of the biggest clubs, because its not as if you would say Rangers are not a big club in scotland despite them not being in the SPL.

I think in time a big club in the A-league will be defined by a strong and deep football culture.

[General Ashnak]

I think you guys are over thinking it, just look at the question and respond with your first answer as it will be the right one.

For me we are not the 'biggest' club, nor the second biggest one, but we are definitely in that next grouping of clubs.

We are respected, have rivals, on field success and a national presence whilst not being at the forefront of peoples minds when they talk about the A-League in general.