The problem is, taking Newcastle as an example, the size of the following is obviously very impressive, and I would happily concede that they are a bigger club than ourselves (that wouldn't be particularly close), but you will see people willing to die on that hill by arguing that Newcastle obviously haven't won anything since Jesus was in short trousers. And the same argument applies to Sunderland because their league titles are beyond living memory and they have had their ups and downs in the century since.
And I am sure that most fans of other clubs look at us and say, bar the halcyon period under Cullis, which was A LONG TIME AGO, the achievements amount to two league cups, a few semi-finals, and a UEFA cup final. We may have been the best, but it was a long time ago now.
I just find it difficult to hit upon a satisfactory solution to the "size of club" arguments that fire back and forth, bar the fact that there are three REALLY big clubs in Liverpool, Manchester United and Arsenal, and no current or recent money-doped achievements by either Manchester City or Chelsea are getting them into that league.
For teams below that level you can see endless arguments flying about. I'm not sure they are really that relevant in this age where you have the clubs regularly in the Champions League places, and the rest of the top division starts in August with aspirations of maybe sneaking into the Europa Conference with luck and a fair wind to their sails, or more certainly, aiming for forty points to remain on the gravy train.