Yup, there is a massive generational divide. I'm 53, so working from a far longer data set than the average 23-year-old. To him, Leicester City were far more of a threat to the "big six" - the name he will give to what we call the "Sky Six" (and the difference matters) - than Everton ever were. The relegations of Leicester are bigger news than if Everton had fallen. Leicester actually won things in his lifetime. Everton? Usually circling the drain. We've not differentiated ourselves from the likes of Fulham, Southampton, or West Ham other than from the peculiarity, to them, that while they have been relegated and yo-yoed, we have always managed to stay up and make up the numbers.
People my age are considered old-timers living in the past, with our bizarre demands that Everton be considered a big club just because they were when we were younger. We're as irrelevant to the 20-somethings as they see Everton is to modern football.
Your point about Liverpool's Premier League titles versus those of Chelsea and City sums it up. Even their history prior to 1992 has been virtually erased. As relevant as the dinosaurs.
I watch loads of pre-1992 football. I collect it and record it and compile it. Nerdery. Younger people would laugh at the idea. "Living in the past." In football terms, Everton definitely has been. Why would they regard us as a big club when we haven't been relevant for nearly 40 years. It'd be like me, in the 1980s, imagining Sunderland to be a huge club. Or Wolverhampton Wanderers. Or Huddersfield, Or Preston.
Whisper it: but until we have transformational ownership, we will continue to have more in common with those clubs than we will Chelsea, Manchester City, or even Spurs. Especially in the eyes of those "consuming" the current "product".
