Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

CAFC - A Sleeping Giant or a Little Club ?

TotalAddicktionTotalAddicktion
edited January 2011 in General Charlton
With all the very annoying speculation recently in respect of the takeover and
now 'new manager' I would like to start a thread which will be very interesting
to read all your thoughts and honest opinions.

It does'nt seem all that long ago that I was seeing comments about CAFC being
a 'Sleeping Giant' with massive support potential which was probably noted
because of all the fans that used to swarm to the Valley many years ago and
perhaps the nr capacity crowds of those not so long ago 'premiership years'.

Support for CAFC is far reaching, as it's not only in the s.east but also worldwide
as well. Now, I'm not just talking here about bums on seats, I'm really trying to get
at the numbers of people worldwide including the ex-pats in countries such as
the USA and Canada, Australia and New Zealand and closer to home where I've
seen forums and websites for 'foreign' fans in Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Spain
and even as far away as Scotland !

Recently, I've heard and seen mentioned that CAFC are a 'Little Club' and that to
me is REALLY annoying because I am definately in the 'Sleeping Giant' category.

So....what do you think? Sleeping Giant or Little? .... Be honest.

Further, I am thinking about including some of your comments, good or bad, within
a new CAFC related PDF publication which should be, subject to unforseen delays, ready
to download at the end of January.

I will put a link in this thread if you are interested? BTW- Is it within the rules here
to put a website or email address?
«1

Comments

  • oohaahmortimeroohaahmortimer
    Neither

    We are definitely not a sleeping giant , imo the likes of leeds and man city showed what sleeping giants were by keeping reasonably sized gates in this league and having proper sized away followings (not just for new grounds)

    We're not a small club either, although a few more years of this dross may turn us into a small club like millwall with regular gates of below 10k.......
  • oohaahmortimeroohaahmortimer
    edited January 2011
    .
  • nollynolly
    proper groundhog moment there for me oooah
  • Henry IrvingHenry Irving
    Neither.

    Good luck with the PDF magazine but no you don't have my permission to use my comments in it.
  • stilladdictedstilladdicted
    edited January 2011
    My new lawyer told me not to comment.
  • Gazcafc81Gazcafc81
    edited January 2011
    [quote][cite]Posted By: oohaahmortimer[/cite]Neither

    We are definitely not a sleeping giant , imo the likes of leeds and man city showed what sleeping giants were by keeping reasonably sized gates in this league and having proper sized away followings (not just for new grounds)

    We're not a small club either, although a few more years of this dross may turn us into a small club like millwall with regular gates of below 10k.......[/quote]

    I agree with you mate but we're not the only team in SE London, If we were then of course we would have a lot more support, Only 2 big teams in city of Manchester and Leeds is a City so thats why they get massive support home and away but yes also depends on you're teams History what you have achieved. Although I'd say our (Charlton's) history is a lot better then Millwall or Palace's, what was our highest ever gate? 75,000 some odd probably less was along time ago but I reckon we can be massive (not saying we would get 70 odd thousand at the valley again) and we've won the FA Cup only team in South London to have done it.

    Arsenal could probably fill Wembley week in week out because they have been the most successful team to have come out of London.

    Like (oohaahmortimer) said we're not massive, but I'd like to think in years to come we could be, I'd love for us to always be Number 1 in South London!!!!

    *edit* : record Attendance at the valley 75,031 v Aston Villa, 12 February 1938 (FA Cup Fifth Round), had to look it up ;)

    - Also wanted to add that Charlton have never been in the 4th Division (League Two) Millwall & Palace both have
  • Gazcafc81Gazcafc81
    Lol did I just write all that? There was no need.

    No not massive club, not small either.

    Still a bit mashed from early this morning, off for pie and mash.

    win today COME ON YOU RIP ROARING FREE SCORING ADDICKS!
  • Lewis CoachesLewis Coaches
    We were a big club back presecond world war and for a few years after that,this was due to the set up of industry in and around the Thames and the fact that households had very little way of transport to get them around.The man of the house would work local and seek his entertainment in the same area as he lived.
    Times have now changed and the people nolonger fell attached to just one club,but will follow a team that is having success,this was the case with Charlton afew years ago when in the top flight.Off course the hardcore of fans will follow the club nomatter what an as with Charlton this group off fans numbers around 10000.
  • Saga LoutSaga Lout
    I wouldn't go so far as to say Charlton are a "sleeping giant" - those days are long gone, as Lewis says, but neither would I say we're a "small club". The potential is there for gates to increase - the Valley is surrounded by houses - it's not in the middle of nowhere like some clubs.

    It's obvious that for gates to increase we must get higher up the leagues - if we could acheive a sustained period back in the Prem then the plans to increase the capacity at the Valley to 40,000 could be dusted off.
  • Friend Or DefoeFriend Or Defoe
    Medium sized club.
  • Sponsored links:


  • nth_london_addicknth_london_addick
    small london club with potential for medium sized growth
  • Kap10Kap10
    edited January 2011
    I think we are a mid table second tier club, neither sleeping giant or small club. Often quoted is the crowd potential offered by the housing developments in kent that increases our catchment area in populous terms, but i have never believed that just because people move to kent they will support Charlton.

    My recollection of the last couple of seasons - not just the relegation season - was that crowds were declining in the home areas and I think that a 40,000 stadium would rarely be filled - just for the big games - and an average of between 25 and 30 thousand woudlbe more likely.

    Good luck with your publication.
  • soapy_jonessoapy_jones
    edited January 2011
    Medium sized - middle/top chumpionship. Average crowds of between 25-30,000 would have us batting a better average than 10 or so current Premiership teams. Would like to think that we had just not hit our potential ceiling when we were last in the Prem. A bit of success and if we had stayed there, I reckon 30,000+ crowds this season would compare very favourably with the one team northern towns in the Prem. Would of loved to of seen the Valley completed to plan.
  • pilchardpilchard
    edited January 2011
    I don't think Charlton are a small club at all, given our rich and interesting history, ground size, potential to grow, we are most definately not a small club. The vast majority of teams in the lower two leagues are my definition of small club.We are however where we deserve to be at present as the old adage of the table not lying is essentially true! We are not a massive club that status belongs to the very obvious big boys plus a few that have fallen on harder times in recent years the like of which we are all well aware.
    We are a medium to biggish (but not massive) sized club that I feel can naturally swim around in the middle of the top tier comfortably (with the right players board and managemment). If we were to be promoted this season and with the right trailing wind I would not be at all shocked to see us in the play-off hunt next season. I don't feel we should undersell ourselves as we are not a Walsall but by the same token we are not a Manchester United either.
  • Richard JRichard J
    edited January 2011
    Lets look at London in terms of clubs, until Abramovic I would have said Arsenal was number one and Spurs number two , now I would put Chelsea above Spurs . Below this we have the happy Hammers .

    In my opinion Charlton come into the next category with Fulham and QPR .All teams that have spent 20 years or more in the top flight and could exist in the top half of the Prem .

    Following this group are the Nigels and Spanners who in terms of potential in my opinion are below us ,next come Brentford and Orient who in turn tower above Barnet and the Daggers.
  • pilchardpilchard
    I think that is a very reasonable way of looking at it Richard.
  • Paul Walsh 79Paul Walsh 79
    Small club we are not but with new club adherencies depending on the ever powerful media we are in danger of being transformed into a small London club.We need to establish ourselves into a decent Championship club and then hopefully push for the Premiership.We have the infrastructure .What we need is to uncover a couple of young Charlton Gems and maybe a high profile signing so we can get noticed again with new,young and upcoming supporters.
    Our catchment area is better than most other London clubs and the Valley does have an aura above our present station.
  • coastaladdickcoastaladdick
    As with the economy generally, so too is English football in financial trouble. Many have gone into administration, and survived as clubs by the skin of their teeth. It seems overdue, but I really think that from a financial point of view, football as we know it will have to reorganise to continue. Some will fold, of this I have no doubt.

    The clubs that survive will emerge stronger, and if we can be one of those, then we have the potential to be bigger than we currently are. Arsenal & Spurs seem assured of their place at the top table, Chelsea are there currently, but the Russian could pull his money at any time and I would be concerned if I were them. West Ham have the history and a loyal fan base, but they are sailing close to the wind in terms of debt. We have the potential to be a force, if and only if, we can ride this current storm.

    So, to answer the question, are we a big club? No, but we can be.
  • ShootersHillGuruShootersHillGuru
    edited January 2011
    not a sleeping giant. I think Charlton missed their chance of becoming a giant during the post war Glikstein era when it was there for the taking but the owners couldn't see the potential if they invested in the stadium. That mistake cost us the chance of becoming south Londons giant. We are are decent second tier club that has the potential to flirt with the big boys every now and then but the same potential to nause it up big time as per now. Henry would disagree but I see our Natural level being at best a bottom half prem team but mostly mid to top half Championship.
  • creepyaddickcreepyaddick
    A Sleeping Club
  • Sponsored links:


  • ct_addickct_addick
    I have always thought of us as a medium sized club. A few years in the prem we became a big club for a while. Some of my mates who weren't even CAFC fans bought season tickets just to see prem soccer (plastics if you like). Now that the plastics have gone it shows we have a hard core 15 - 20K fan base which makes us a medium sized club again. I agree we will lose more fans if we continue this decline and hopefully this new ownership will resurrect us again....
  • thewolfboythewolfboy
    Middling. About 30th biggest in the country or thereabouts. (Bigger than Millwall.)
  • Bexley DanBexley Dan
    [cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]small london club with potential for medium sized growth

    i wouldn't say we are a small london club - i think we are a mid sized london club and mid sized nationwide as well but probably with more potential than most to grow if we were ever truly successful on the pitch. i think the big 4 in london are set and like others have said, post second world war was really the time we should have kicked on and become one of those established big london clubs. Outside of those 4, i see us as the next biggest with i suppose qpr and palace behind that and then maybe fulham, millwall and watford thereafter. ( this is obviously taking way the current differences in league status and ground capacity. if you'd asked me this 20 years ago i would probably have put us below qpr and palace but always felt we had the potential to get back to the status we had in the immediate pre and post war decades.
  • Chirpy RedChirpy Red
    edited January 2011
    [cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Neither.

    Good luck with the PDF magazine but no you don't have my permission to use my comments in it.

    Like he's bothered?

    I'll definitely subscribe then!
  • The Prince-e-PaulThe Prince-e-Paul
    [quote][cite]Posted By: thewolfboy[/cite]Middling. About 30th biggest in the country or thereabouts. (Bigger than Millwall.)[/quote]

    remember reading a few years ago that our average league position since the 40's was around 30th (of the 92). the fact that we won an FA Cup is a big acheivement, but it is a shame that for all the huge potential we had throught the 30's-40's it somehow fizzled out. i remember when i was about 12-13 my dad was saying that we'd like to be as big as a club like qpr (as they were then - 80's) funny how we shot past them and left them for dust and now they've passed us again. some can be said for clubs like leicester that had it all and lost it with devastating consequences. even when we were in the premiership i still thought of us as little charlton. i truelly believed that being in the premier league didn't give us any heirs and graces...and i am so grateful for those that saved the valley. you can take your, emirates, walker stadium, pride park, stadium of light, city of manchester etc, we have the valley and hopefully always will, because that is what charlton is about, not the premier league or multi-millionaire internationals and i hope our new owners safeguard that.
  • LenGloverLenGlover
    Curbs said when he left this is now a big club.

    How big is open to debate but we certainly aren't small and, as someone else has posted, are top 30 with, in my view, the potential to be top 20 or even top 15. There are a lot of similar sized clubs to us.
  • JTJT
    Medium London club.

    When you've got Arsenal, Spuds, Chelsea above us, & Dag & Red, Orient, Barnet below us.
  • American_AddickAmerican_Addick
    Little clubs don't have near 30,000 capacity modern stadiums, excellent training facilities, a solid academy and can bring in more than 14,000 in the Third Division.

    Giants? No.
    Sleeping? Yes.

    Given the clubs facilities and catchment area, a big club that is underachieving.

    ManU, Arsenal, Liverpool and now Chelsea and ManCity are giants.
    Sperz, Villa, Newcastle, Leeds are next.

    Charlton are lower Premier, mid-to-upper Championship-size club.
    Now let's get back to that status.
  • jazzyjazzyjazzyjazzyjazzyjazzy
    [cite]Posted By: American_Addick[/cite]Little clubs don't have near 30,000 capacity modern stadiums, excellent training facilities, a solid academy and can bring in more than 14,000 in the Third Division.

    Giants? No.
    Sleeping? Yes.

    Given the clubs facilities and catchment area, a big club that is underachieving.

    ManU, Arsenal, Liverpool and now Chelsea and ManCity are giants.
    Sperz, Villa, Newcastle, Leeds are next.

    Charlton are lower Premier, mid-to-upper Championship-size club.
    Now let's get back to that status.


    Good post!
  • Penfolds PermPenfolds Perm
    edited January 2011
    shouldn't be eating at the top table, but should definately have our fingers in the dessert trolley.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!