king canary 8,757 Posted July 17, 2023 (edited) This'll be a long one, apologies! A few days ago Badger posed this question in another thread... Quote Which clubs with a ground capacity of 27,000 has spent more time than us in the Premier League in the last 20 years? I thought it was an interesting question and I had some time on my hands over this weekend so look into it. Data can be found here. So to start with I looked at the wikipedia list of stadium size. Obviously not many clubs have exactly the same sized ground as ours so I took a sample of 20 clubs (including us) either a bit above or below us. I excluded a couple (Darlington and MK Dons, both of whom have oversized stadiums to remotely related not their stature as clubs) but outside of that worked exclusively from ground size. The clubs who fit the criteria were... Stoke Ipswich Bolton Charlton Bristol City West Brom Crystal Palace Bradford City Fulham Hull Wigan Birmingham Huddersfield Preston Reading Barnsley Burnley Watford Swansea Again using Wiki, I looked at the following, since the year 2000 (not including the upcoming season) which seemed a nice cut off point... How many Premier League seasons each team had had in that time period Their longest continuous Premier League run Highest finish Lowest finish Best FA Cup Performance Best League Cup Performance Number of European seasons I've long thought that we've been more consistent than most- our highs haven't been as high but our lows haven't been as low. Looking at the stats I think that is somewhat backed up. My main takeaways were... 7 out of 20 have spent more seasons in the Premier League, 8 have spent less, 7 have spent the exact same amount as us (7 seasons) 3 of these teams have had no seasons in the Premier League 13 of the 20 have finished higher than our highest finish (11th), 13 have also had a lower finish, backing up the above idea that we've not had the highest highs but missed out on the lowest lows. 7 teams have had both a higher top finish and a lower low finish than us. We're not good at sustaining these Premier League runs- of the 16 other teams with Premier League seasons, 11 have had managed more than our best run of 3 years. We're better at bouncing back than most- 7 of those 16 teams have had all of their Premier League seasons in one spell. Where we really do fall behind these competitor clubs is our performance in cup competitions- we've not been past the QF in either cup during this spell, 16 of the 20 clubs have at least made it to one semi final (including Bradford, Reading, Barnsley, Bristol City and even Ipswich!). This lack of success in cup competitions also largely explains why we've not had a single season in Europe while 9 others have had at least one. Conclusions? I'm sure different people will draw different conclusions but to me it suggests a couple of things. We should be grateful that we've never fallen to the depths lots of these clubs have- some have spent time in League Two, others have had extended spells in League One. We've avoided those. It also isn't unreasonable to suggest a club of our size can or should have acheived more than we have- it hasn't been unusual for similar teams to finish in the top half of the Premier League, have extended runs in the top flight or go on memorable cup runs. Edited July 17, 2023 by king canary 4 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Robert N. LiM 6,284 Posted July 17, 2023 (edited) Great post. It probably explains the deathless debate between pant wetters and happy clappers on here; both groups can easily find examples of clubs who've done better or worse to support their argument. I get why 2000 would be a reasonable cut off. I'd have started when the PL started, in 1992. We'd have come out of that much better 😉 Edited July 17, 2023 by Robert N. LiM Removed evidence I missed the link... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 8,757 Posted July 17, 2023 Just now, Robert N. LiM said: Great post. I can't be the only person who wants to see the spreadsheet Does the link I put in not work? I'm not sure how to make google docs public... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Robert N. LiM 6,284 Posted July 17, 2023 2 minutes ago, king canary said: Does the link I put in not work? I'm not sure how to make google docs public... No, it does work. I just missed it for some reason. Apologies 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheGunnShow 7,377 Posted July 17, 2023 1 hour ago, king canary said: Does the link I put in not work? I'm not sure how to make google docs public... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 8,757 Posted July 17, 2023 2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said: Thats the one- not the most sophisticated tbf Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Google Bot 3,934 Posted July 17, 2023 There's quite a few teams in there that have only had one spell in the prem league (based on season count and longest run figures being the same). i.e.: Stoke, Ipswich, Bolton, Charlton, Bradford, Wigan, Huddersfield, Swansea. All had a taste in the prem, but never returned. I never really considered us to be that similar to Birmingham, but these particular set of figures show so many similarities between us both. Interesting study you've done here, like it! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
norfolkngood 1,174 Posted July 17, 2023 Brentford only have a Ground that fits 17,250 i think they will continue to do well for a couple of seasons or until Franks leaves Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 8,757 Posted July 17, 2023 14 minutes ago, Google Bot said: There's quite a few teams in there that have only had one spell in the prem league (based on season count and longest run figures being the same). i.e.: Stoke, Ipswich, Bolton, Charlton, Bradford, Wigan, Huddersfield, Swansea. All had a taste in the prem, but never returned. I never really considered us to be that similar to Birmingham, but these particular set of figures show so many similarities between us both. Interesting study you've done here, like it! Yes, it seems quite a few teams found staying up much easier than us but bouncing back much harder. To me the most similar teams that I think we could aspire to match in their achivements are West Brom, Burnely and Palace. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nuff Said 5,963 Posted July 17, 2023 This all assumes ground size is the best comparator. It would be interesting to see how much money each club has spent (I.e. lost) over the same period. Any other metrics worth looking at - maybe population, other football clubs nearby. Or actual attendance figures? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cornish sam 1,040 Posted July 17, 2023 That got me thinking, what is the average league finish of those teams so I spent half an hour I should have been working doing this instead: Fulham 16.52173913 Wba 19.08695652 Palace 23.65217391 Burnley 24.69565217 Watford 25.52173913 Stoke 25.82608696 Norwich 26.08695652 Birmingham 26.95652174 Bolton 29.2173913 Reading 29.91304348 Wigan 32.60869565 Ipswich 34.52173913 Preston 34.69565217 Charlton 35.17391304 Swansea 36.30434783 Hull 38.2173913 Bristol 40.34782609 Huddersfield 43.17391304 Barnsley 43.7826087 Bradford 62.52173913 Continuing our alignment with Birmingham but also showing how, over the last 23 years we have done well for ourselves compared to almost all of the clubs people asked why we weren't... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aBee 176 Posted July 17, 2023 2 hours ago, norfolkngood said: Brentford only have a Ground that fits 17,250 i think they will continue to do well for a couple of seasons or until Franks leaves I think ground size only makes a substantial difference in the PL for those with 50k+ capacities. Adding 10k capacity, assuming an average ticket price per game of £50 gives £9.5m extra revenue in tickets (plus an uplift in catering/bars of maybe another £1m). That’s about the same as an extra 3-4 league places but if it cost say £30-40m to build the extra capacity it might be better to put the money into the squad than the ground. Particularly as the net profit rather than gross revenue from the extra seats will be much lower than £9.5m. It does mean that those clubs have a substantial advantage over ones with small grounds in the EFL where gate receipts are a larger part of turnover. We’ve had fans moan about having dropped down from the original plan for 25k capacity and asking if we could expand. We can’t because it’d involve rebuilding a stand over a railway line. Having even bigger grounds than the 27k benchmark hasn’t done an awful lot for Leeds, Forest, or the Sheffield clubs (or MK Dons). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hogesar 10,764 Posted July 17, 2023 35 minutes ago, cornish sam said: That got me thinking, what is the average league finish of those teams so I spent half an hour I should have been working doing this instead: Fulham 16.52173913 Wba 19.08695652 Palace 23.65217391 Burnley 24.69565217 Watford 25.52173913 Stoke 25.82608696 Norwich 26.08695652 Birmingham 26.95652174 Bolton 29.2173913 Reading 29.91304348 Wigan 32.60869565 Ipswich 34.52173913 Preston 34.69565217 Charlton 35.17391304 Swansea 36.30434783 Hull 38.2173913 Bristol 40.34782609 Huddersfield 43.17391304 Barnsley 43.7826087 Bradford 62.52173913 Continuing our alignment with Birmingham but also showing how, over the last 23 years we have done well for ourselves compared to almost all of the clubs people asked why we weren't... I was then going to ask for average league position so thanks! The above shows exactly what I thought it would in all honesty. Despite not having rich owners (nearly all in the list have or have had significantly richer owners, sometimes multiple of them, during the past 20 years) we are on average performing better than the majority of them. The idea that new owners = keeping that same average and just improving on it isn't realistic. Everything that Delia and Michael have implemented despite the lack of money to get us competing at the top of that list is subject to overhaul and change. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Duncan Edwards 2,424 Posted July 17, 2023 7 minutes ago, hogesar said: I was then going to ask for average league position so thanks! The above shows exactly what I thought it would in all honesty. Despite not having rich owners (nearly all in the list have or have had significantly richer owners, sometimes multiple of them, during the past 20 years) we are on average performing better than the majority of them. The idea that new owners = keeping that same average and just improving on it isn't realistic. Everything that Delia and Michael have implemented despite the lack of money to get us competing at the top of that list is subject to overhaul and change. So close to being a top 26 club in that period. Does that mean it’s a realistic and realisable goal or does it just show a massive lack of ambition… Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dylanisabaddog 6,146 Posted July 18, 2023 (edited) 5 hours ago, aBee said: I think ground size only makes a substantial difference in the PL for those with 50k+ capacities. Adding 10k capacity, assuming an average ticket price per game of £50 gives £9.5m extra revenue in tickets (plus an uplift in catering/bars of maybe another £1m). That’s about the same as an extra 3-4 league places but if it cost say £30-40m to build the extra capacity it might be better to put the money into the squad than the ground. Particularly as the net profit rather than gross revenue from the extra seats will be much lower than £9.5m. It does mean that those clubs have a substantial advantage over ones with small grounds in the EFL where gate receipts are a larger part of turnover. We’ve had fans moan about having dropped down from the original plan for 25k capacity and asking if we could expand. We can’t because it’d involve rebuilding a stand over a railway line. Having even bigger grounds than the 27k benchmark hasn’t done an awful lot for Leeds, Forest, or the Sheffield clubs (or MK Dons). I'm afraid that adding 10,000 capacity to Carrow Road would cost nearer to £80m than £40m. When the base rate was around 1% we would have had to sell 90% of the additional seats for 20 years in order to repay the loan. Interest rates are now 5 times higher. It's a huge problem because we don't need the extra capacity in the Championship but how likely are we to have 20 consecutive seasons in the Premier League? Edited July 18, 2023 by dylanisabaddog 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Midlands Yellow 4,682 Posted July 18, 2023 9 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said: I'm afraid that adding 10,000 capacity to Carrow Road would cost nearer to £80m than £40m. When the base rate was around 1% we would have had to sell 90% of the additional seats for 20 years in order to repay the loan. Interest rates are now 5 times higher. It's a huge problem because we don't need the extra capacity in the Championship but how likely are we to have 20 consecutive seasons in the Premier League? £80m, are we aiming to build one on par with the new Fulham stand? I see all the work at Ashton Gate cost around £50m in recent years so we could get a quote from their builders. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DraytonBoy 251 Posted July 18, 2023 I know it's difficult to compare grounds but the Anfield Road expansion which only adds 7K to the capacity has cost £80 million. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dylanisabaddog 6,146 Posted July 18, 2023 1 hour ago, Midlands Yellow said: £80m, are we aiming to build one on par with the new Fulham stand? I see all the work at Ashton Gate cost around £50m in recent years so we could get a quote from their builders. Post Covid the quote for a 6,500 extension was well in excess of £40m. You're talking about 10,000 which is probably not physically possible. It is complicated because of where it is and the fact that they have to go over the top of an existing stand while we continue to use the ground. Since Covid, construction costs have escalated by an extraordinary amount. And not that it affects construction, but post Truss borrowing costs have gone through the roof as well. It's easy to criticise the club for its failure to act earlier but we lost £30m to Covid. I suspect that was the down-payment on a new stand. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aBee 176 Posted July 18, 2023 3 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said: I'm afraid that adding 10,000 capacity to Carrow Road would cost nearer to £80m than £40m. When the base rate was around 1% we would have had to sell 90% of the additional seats for 20 years in order to repay the loan. Interest rates are now 5 times higher. It's a huge problem because we don't need the extra capacity in the Championship but how likely are we to have 20 consecutive seasons in the Premier League? I chose a deliberately low end cost because even at that level it makes little sense for most clubs. At a more realistic price and with higher financing costs it makes even less sense. If Norwich really wanted to the economics would point to moving to a completely new ground and taking the value of a nice large city centre development site to pay for it. But then you’re talking about a huge cultural shift in the club to make a 40-50k ground and a team that can fill it. Liverpool can do it because obviously they can rely on filling the seats at premium prices (also it’s an unusual case of doing something really good for away fans- before the rebuild the back third of the away end had unacceptably terrible views). At Brentford the cost of rebuilding the North Stand to add another tier would be almost as much as the cost of the whole ground when it was built 3 years ago according to our owner when explaining why it isn’t ever happening. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigFish 2,282 Posted July 18, 2023 13 hours ago, king canary said: Conclusions? I'm sure different people will draw different conclusions but to me it suggests a couple of things. We should be grateful that we've never fallen to the depths lots of these clubs have- some have spent time in League Two, others have had extended spells in League One. We've avoided those. It also isn't unreasonable to suggest a club of our size can or should have acheived more than we have- it hasn't been unusual for similar teams to finish in the top half of the Premier League, have extended runs in the top flight or go on memorable cup runs. 9 hours ago, cornish sam said: That got me thinking, what is the average league finish of those teams so I spent half an hour I should have been working doing this instead: Fulham 16.52173913 Wba 19.08695652 Palace 23.65217391 Burnley 24.69565217 Watford 25.52173913 Stoke 25.82608696 Norwich 26.08695652 Birmingham 26.95652174 Bolton 29.2173913 Reading 29.91304348 Wigan 32.60869565 Ipswich 34.52173913 Preston 34.69565217 Charlton 35.17391304 Swansea 36.30434783 Hull 38.2173913 Bristol 40.34782609 Huddersfield 43.17391304 Barnsley 43.7826087 Bradford 62.52173913 Continuing our alignment with Birmingham but also showing how, over the last 23 years we have done well for ourselves compared to almost all of the clubs people asked why we weren't... Ah, Lies, damned lies, and statistics as Mark Twain would say. The conclusion here is that we pretty much punch our weight as a top 26 club (just, or near enough) whichever way you cut it. Pretty much what would have been statistically expected given a decent sample (although I am not sure the methodology stands up to much scrutiny beyond being a bit of fun when bored). When it comes to the ground though, I think that the argument is **** about face. We have the ground we do because of the fundamentals of the club, not the other way round. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 8,757 Posted July 18, 2023 (edited) 18 minutes ago, BigFish said: Ah, Lies, damned lies, and statistics as Mark Twain would say. The conclusion here is that we pretty much punch our weight as a top 26 club (just, or near enough) whichever way you cut it. Pretty much what would have been statistically expected given a decent sample (although I am not sure the methodology stands up to much scrutiny beyond being a bit of fun when bored). When it comes to the ground though, I think that the argument is **** about face. We have the ground we do because of the fundamentals of the club, not the other way round. Sure, if average league position is all you care about. Also, I'm not claiming to be some statistical whizzkid, it isn't meant to be some in depth statistical study with rigerous methodology. People usually get paid for that sort of stuff. Edited July 18, 2023 by king canary 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 8,757 Posted July 18, 2023 10 hours ago, cornish sam said: That got me thinking, what is the average league finish of those teams so I spent half an hour I should have been working doing this instead: Fulham 16.52173913 Wba 19.08695652 Palace 23.65217391 Burnley 24.69565217 Watford 25.52173913 Stoke 25.82608696 Norwich 26.08695652 Birmingham 26.95652174 Bolton 29.2173913 Reading 29.91304348 Wigan 32.60869565 Ipswich 34.52173913 Preston 34.69565217 Charlton 35.17391304 Swansea 36.30434783 Hull 38.2173913 Bristol 40.34782609 Huddersfield 43.17391304 Barnsley 43.7826087 Bradford 62.52173913 Continuing our alignment with Birmingham but also showing how, over the last 23 years we have done well for ourselves compared to almost all of the clubs people asked why we weren't... Average League position was something I was going to add as I think it is also an interesting statistic- however I do think it is one part of the picture rather than the whole picture. For example would you trade 6 places lower average finishing position for an 8 year run in the Premier League, an FA Cup win and a season in Europe? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigFish 2,282 Posted July 18, 2023 (edited) Link Edited July 18, 2023 by BigFish Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
