OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote:Micheal wrote:i didnt know port vale and oldham were big teams i been watching footy all my life and thats news to me
Size is always relative isn't it (perhaps we should ask Einstein?) . Obviously compared with us Port Vale and Oldham see themselves as big teams. Of course compared with their neighbours within their respective conurbations they are minnows.
As we know size isn't everything. I being trying to convince my wife of that for over 40 years.
It took me longer to write my piece than it did you yours...
You have to define what you mean by "big".
They've generally had/have better drawing power than we have, so I guess that makes them "bigger" than us.
And they have bigger stadia than we do, so I suppose that's another "bigger" string to their bows.
And they've both spent longer at higher elechons of the league than us, and so I guess that makes them "bigger" than us in some respects (but yes, they are tier 4 clubs, just like we are).
And Oldham have been to the top of the pile (in the early 1990s), spending 3 or 4 seasons there. So yes, Oldham are "bigger" than us (were "bigger" in truth).
But big as in the case of the top London and northern English clubs in terms of history and pulling power? Well no, they aren't big at all (even when Oldham were in the premier league they were the "minnows").
But they generally both have better histories than us, and with that some of their supporters have delusions of former grandeur now they find themselves having to dirty their feet in tier 4.
But I daresay we also have supporters in the past who have said as a big former league club we shouldn't be losing to such and such a "tinpot" club. Indeed, I know we have them.
FGR then and now anyone?