Sunderland

[LeazesMag 0]

the facts show that Spurs have been more successful - in the last 40 years - and also us for the majority of the same period.

 

There is no disputing that. However, as I said to you earlier, how you consider what makes a big club, and I told you what I consider makes a big club, is potential support. All clubs need to be run well to realise their potential or begin too. It is a fact that we have been ran far better recently and so have shown we are a bigger club than Spurs, and the same could be said of the mackems, which willl be conclusively proved if they do get their act together.

 

You're right about Whitley Bay though, that is bollocks.

 

We are not talking about the most successful club, but the biggest [potential] club, on a level playing field.

 

You knew this though didn't you

 

Has anyone, responded to the post where I listed all the teams that were more successful than others because they acted bigger ?

 

I realise the point will be lost on the fuckwits

 

What's your criteria for measuring potential then? In fact, conveniently for you, its something you can't measure, isn't it? So to summarise:

 

Spurs have won much, much, much, more than Sunderland. Including 3 European trophies.

They have won the league more recently.

They have bought famous international players in their past, like Gazza, Waddle, Linekar and Klinsman.

They have bigger crowds.

Historically they have had bigger crowds.

They have an international presence (see first point).

They have always had a very strong, probably disproportionate, media profile.

 

In fact, the only objective measure you could use to suggest Sunderland were the bigger club is probably they have won the league more times, although the last time was 71 years ago!

 

But NONE of this matters to you, because your magic (and conveniently subjective) measure of a club's size, potential, is much more important than all of these facts! And what's more, if you dare even to disagree with the mighty Leazes on this or any other matter, it makes you clueless, and an apologist for other clubs, which you may as well go and support to free up seats for the real Newcastle fans, like yourself!

 

FFS.

 

its quite simple Renton.

 

The mackems have been run by a shit board for decades, like we were, so its impossible to compare the clubs during that period.

 

For support, and potential, both us and the mackems piss all over them. I believe this is the point of the thread BTW ie who is the bigger potential club, not who has been the most successful. Did you see my post naming all those clubs who have won domestic trophies since we did ? Do you think it is because they are "bigger", or because they were just run better than us at the time, with better managers, etc ?

For decades prior to the 1960's and the decline of both ourselves and the mackems, we were bigger and better than Spurs,

 

Its not rocket science, even for the fuckwits .....

 

although the fuckwits on here don't do history, only the history since 1997 ....

 

Meanwhile, Spurs have scored, the wankfest - that so called NUFC supporters have sadly latched onto - by the cockney based media continues .......

[Scottish Mag 3]

Meanwhile, Spurs have scored, the wankfest - that so called NUFC supporters have sadly latched onto - by the cockney based media continues .......

 

[Renton 22414]

the facts show that Spurs have been more successful - in the last 40 years - and also us for the majority of the same period.

 

There is no disputing that. However, as I said to you earlier, how you consider what makes a big club, and I told you what I consider makes a big club, is potential support. All clubs need to be run well to realise their potential or begin too. It is a fact that we have been ran far better recently and so have shown we are a bigger club than Spurs, and the same could be said of the mackems, which willl be conclusively proved if they do get their act together.

 

You're right about Whitley Bay though, that is bollocks.

 

We are not talking about the most successful club, but the biggest [potential] club, on a level playing field.

 

You knew this though didn't you

 

Has anyone, responded to the post where I listed all the teams that were more successful than others because they acted bigger ?

 

I realise the point will be lost on the fuckwits

 

What's your criteria for measuring potential then? In fact, conveniently for you, its something you can't measure, isn't it? So to summarise:

 

Spurs have won much, much, much, more than Sunderland. Including 3 European trophies.

They have won the league more recently.

They have bought famous international players in their past, like Gazza, Waddle, Linekar and Klinsman.

They have bigger crowds.

Historically they have had bigger crowds.

They have an international presence (see first point).

They have always had a very strong, probably disproportionate, media profile.

 

In fact, the only objective measure you could use to suggest Sunderland were the bigger club is probably they have won the league more times, although the last time was 71 years ago!

 

But NONE of this matters to you, because your magic (and conveniently subjective) measure of a club's size, potential, is much more important than all of these facts! And what's more, if you dare even to disagree with the mighty Leazes on this or any other matter, it makes you clueless, and an apologist for other clubs, which you may as well go and support to free up seats for the real Newcastle fans, like yourself!

 

FFS.

 

its quite simple Renton.

 

The mackems have been run by a shit board for decades, like we were, so its impossible to compare the clubs during that period.

 

For support, and potential, both us and the mackems piss all over them. I believe this is the point of the thread BTW ie who is the bigger potential club, not who has been the most successful. Did you see my post naming all those clubs who have won domestic trophies since we did ? Do you think it is because they are "bigger", or because they were just run better than us at the time, with better managers, etc ?

For decades prior to the 1960's and the decline of both ourselves and the mackems, we were bigger and better than Spurs,

 

Its not rocket science, even for the fuckwits .....

 

although the fuckwits on here don't do history, only the history since 1997 ....

 

Meanwhile, Spurs have scored, the wankfest - that so called NUFC supporters have sadly latched onto - by the cockney based media continues .......

 

Christ on a bike, listen to yourself. For your benefit, since you are in one of your "thick" moods:

 

NO-ONE ON THIS BOARD LIKES SPURS. BUT SOME OF US BELIEVE THEY ARE A BIGGER CLUB THAN SUNDERLAND. THIS IS SHOWN BY NOT ONLY THE FACT THEY HAVE CONSIDERABLE DOMESTIC AND EUROPEAN SUCCESS, BUT ALSO BY THE FACT THEY HAVE BIGGER PRESENT AND HISTORIC ATTENDANCES.

 

It's not fucking rocket science Leazes, the simple facts indicate that Spurs are presently and historically a better supported club than Sunderland for whatever reason, whether that be the fact they have had better boards or they have a much bigger population base, or, most likely, a combination of both.

 

Edited March 14, 2007 by Renton

[Ketsbaia 0]

As far as i'm concerned you're all gay.

[LeazesMag 0]

the facts show that Spurs have been more successful - in the last 40 years - and also us for the majority of the same period.

 

There is no disputing that. However, as I said to you earlier, how you consider what makes a big club, and I told you what I consider makes a big club, is potential support. All clubs need to be run well to realise their potential or begin too. It is a fact that we have been ran far better recently and so have shown we are a bigger club than Spurs, and the same could be said of the mackems, which willl be conclusively proved if they do get their act together.

 

You're right about Whitley Bay though, that is bollocks.

 

We are not talking about the most successful club, but the biggest [potential] club, on a level playing field.

 

You knew this though didn't you

 

Has anyone, responded to the post where I listed all the teams that were more successful than others because they acted bigger ?

 

I realise the point will be lost on the fuckwits

 

What's your criteria for measuring potential then? In fact, conveniently for you, its something you can't measure, isn't it? So to summarise:

 

Spurs have won much, much, much, more than Sunderland. Including 3 European trophies.

They have won the league more recently.

They have bought famous international players in their past, like Gazza, Waddle, Linekar and Klinsman.

They have bigger crowds.

Historically they have had bigger crowds.

They have an international presence (see first point).

They have always had a very strong, probably disproportionate, media profile.

 

In fact, the only objective measure you could use to suggest Sunderland were the bigger club is probably they have won the league more times, although the last time was 71 years ago!

 

But NONE of this matters to you, because your magic (and conveniently subjective) measure of a club's size, potential, is much more important than all of these facts! And what's more, if you dare even to disagree with the mighty Leazes on this or any other matter, it makes you clueless, and an apologist for other clubs, which you may as well go and support to free up seats for the real Newcastle fans, like yourself!

 

FFS.

 

its quite simple Renton.

 

The mackems have been run by a shit board for decades, like we were, so its impossible to compare the clubs during that period.

 

For support, and potential, both us and the mackems piss all over them. I believe this is the point of the thread BTW ie who is the bigger potential club, not who has been the most successful. Did you see my post naming all those clubs who have won domestic trophies since we did ? Do you think it is because they are "bigger", or because they were just run better than us at the time, with better managers, etc ?

For decades prior to the 1960's and the decline of both ourselves and the mackems, we were bigger and better than Spurs,

 

Its not rocket science, even for the fuckwits .....

 

although the fuckwits on here don't do history, only the history since 1997 ....

 

Meanwhile, Spurs have scored, the wankfest - that so called NUFC supporters have sadly latched onto - by the cockney based media continues .......

 

Christ on a bike, listen to yourself. For your benefit, since you are in one of your "thick" moods:

 

NO-ONE ON THIS BOARD LIKES SPURS. BUT SOME OF US BELIEVE THEY ARE A BIGGER CLUB THAN SUNDERLAND. THIS IS SHOWN BY NOT ONLY THE FACT THEY HAVE CONSIDERABLE DOMESTIC AND EUROPEAN SUCCESS, BUT ALSO BY THE FACT THEY HAVE BIGGER PRESENT AND HISTORIC ATTENDANCES.

 

It's not fucking rocket science Leazes, the simple facts indicate that Spurs are presently and historically a better supported club than Sunderland for whatever reason, whether that be the fact they have had better boards or they have a much bigger population base, or, most likely, a combination of both.

 

 

one of your thick posts.

 

Some of us believe the mackems have potentially bigger and better suppor than the yids.

 

Shame you are so insecure you need to put it in big letters like that....is it so the schoolteacher can read it

 

Historically, the mackems were known as, the "Bank of England" club, BTW.

 

Oh, and was said earlier, how many clubs take 8000 to an away game, the yids don't even do that in a London away game.

[gram 0]

So after deciding that all teachers are [insert expletive], then telling me that they arent and that I should learn to read, you have decided I'm partially blind too?

 

What do you have in store for us in your next episode of ill-informed prejudice?

 

What do you do for a living by the way?

[Guest stevieintoon]

the facts show that Spurs have been more successful - in the last 40 years - and also us for the majority of the same period.

 

There is no disputing that. However, as I said to you earlier, how you consider what makes a big club, and I told you what I consider makes a big club, is potential support. All clubs need to be run well to realise their potential or begin too. It is a fact that we have been ran far better recently and so have shown we are a bigger club than Spurs, and the same could be said of the mackems, which willl be conclusively proved if they do get their act together.

 

You're right about Whitley Bay though, that is bollocks.

 

We are not talking about the most successful club, but the biggest [potential] club, on a level playing field.

 

You knew this though didn't you

 

Has anyone, responded to the post where I listed all the teams that were more successful than others because they acted bigger ?

 

I realise the point will be lost on the fuckwits

 

What's your criteria for measuring potential then? In fact, conveniently for you, its something you can't measure, isn't it? So to summarise:

 

Spurs have won much, much, much, more than Sunderland. Including 3 European trophies.

They have won the league more recently.

They have bought famous international players in their past, like Gazza, Waddle, Linekar and Klinsman.

They have bigger crowds.

Historically they have had bigger crowds.

They have an international presence (see first point).

They have always had a very strong, probably disproportionate, media profile.

 

In fact, the only objective measure you could use to suggest Sunderland were the bigger club is probably they have won the league more times, although the last time was 71 years ago!

 

But NONE of this matters to you, because your magic (and conveniently subjective) measure of a club's size, potential, is much more important than all of these facts! And what's more, if you dare even to disagree with the mighty Leazes on this or any other matter, it makes you clueless, and an apologist for other clubs, which you may as well go and support to free up seats for the real Newcastle fans, like yourself!

 

FFS.

 

its quite simple Renton.

 

The mackems have been run by a shit board for decades, like we were, so its impossible to compare the clubs during that period.

 

For support, and potential, both us and the mackems piss all over them. I believe this is the point of the thread BTW ie who is the bigger potential club, not who has been the most successful. Did you see my post naming all those clubs who have won domestic trophies since we did ? Do you think it is because they are "bigger", or because they were just run better than us at the time, with better managers, etc ?

For decades prior to the 1960's and the decline of both ourselves and the mackems, we were bigger and better than Spurs,

 

Its not rocket science, even for the fuckwits .....

 

although the fuckwits on here don't do history, only the history since 1997 ....

 

Meanwhile, Spurs have scored, the wankfest - that so called NUFC supporters have sadly latched onto - by the cockney based media continues .......

 

Christ on a bike, listen to yourself. For your benefit, since you are in one of your "thick" moods:

 

NO-ONE ON THIS BOARD LIKES SPURS. BUT SOME OF US BELIEVE THEY ARE A BIGGER CLUB THAN SUNDERLAND. THIS IS SHOWN BY NOT ONLY THE FACT THEY HAVE CONSIDERABLE DOMESTIC AND EUROPEAN SUCCESS, BUT ALSO BY THE FACT THEY HAVE BIGGER PRESENT AND HISTORIC ATTENDANCES.

 

It's not fucking rocket science Leazes, the simple facts indicate that Spurs are presently and historically a better supported club than Sunderland for whatever reason, whether that be the fact they have had better boards or they have a much bigger population base, or, most likely, a combination of both.

 

 

one of your thick posts.

 

Some of us believe the mackems have potentially bigger and better suppor than the yids.

 

Shame you are so insecure you need to put it in big letters like that....is it so the schoolteacher can read it

 

Historically, the mackems were known as, the "Bank of England" club, BTW.

 

Oh, and was said earlier, how many clubs take 8000 to an away game, the yids don't even do that in a London away game.

West Ham away (2,900 tickets), the other week, was on general sale for 12 days. Five miles away. It would be interesting to compare Sunderland's average gate and Tottenham's average gate based on being in the top flight only.

 

Sunderland's problem isn't they're a small club, never was, their problem for generations is woeful mis-management at all levels. They were the richest club in England prior to the war predominantly due to their League and Cup success and huge gates.

[gram 0]

Chimney sweeps used to make a fair bit of cash then too......times move on.

 

Doesnt this debate belong on N-O with the kids?

[Renton 22414]

one of your thick posts.

 

Some of us believe the mackems have potentially bigger and better suppor than the yids.

 

Shame you are so insecure you need to put it in big letters like that....is it so the schoolteacher can read it

 

Historically, the mackems were known as, the "Bank of England" club, BTW.

 

Oh, and was said earlier, how many clubs take 8000 to an away game, the yids don't even do that in a London away game.

 

I was writing in big letters in an attempt to get you to understand the basic facts of the matter, which is obviously pointless. The facts on the average attendance of spurs relative to the mackems, since both clubs were formed, is indisputable, you can believe whatever you want might exist in a parallel Universe but that doesn't change the reality of this one.

 

Do you seriously think if you asked this question to most other fans nationally they would say Sunderland? Are they all deluded too? What about internationally - how many people will even have heard of Sunderland? Are you now basing your opinion of the relative sizes of the two clubs on the basis of one away attendance and an obsure pre-war quote? Do they outweigh the evidence of average attendences over the course of a century? Personally, I think the day Sunderland lost any claim to be a well supported club died about 3 years ago, when they couldn't even sell out their ground for a play-off semifinal ffs.

 

You're a fool Leazes, you say the facts never lie yet you ignore them whenever it suits you. I honestly don't know how you have the brass neck to continue spouting your rubbish, but credit to you, at least you're consistent.

Edited March 14, 2007 by Renton

[LeazesMag 0]

one of your thick posts.

 

Some of us believe the mackems have potentially bigger and better suppor than the yids.

 

Shame you are so insecure you need to put it in big letters like that....is it so the schoolteacher can read it

 

Historically, the mackems were known as, the "Bank of England" club, BTW.

 

Oh, and was said earlier, how many clubs take 8000 to an away game, the yids don't even do that in a London away game.

 

I was writing in big letters in an attempt to get you to understand the basic facts of the matter, which is obviously pointless. The facts on the average attendance of spurs relative to the mackems, since both clubs were formed, is indisputable, you can believe whatever you want might exist in a parallel Universe but that doesn't change the reality of this one.

 

Do you seriously think if you asked this question to most other fans nationally they would say Sunderland? Are they all deluded too? What about internationally - how many people will even have heard of Sunderland? Are you now basing your opinion of the relative sizes of the two clubs on the basis of one away attendance and an obsure pre-war quote? Do they outweigh the evidence of average attendences over the course of a century? Personally, I think the day Sunderland lost any claim to be a well supported club died about 3 years ago, when they couldn't even sell out their ground for a play-off semifinal ffs.

 

You're a fool Leazes, you say the facts never lie yet you ignore them whenever it suits you. I honestly don't know how you have the brass neck to continue spouting your rubbish, but credit to you, at least you're consistent.

 

Shame Renton, but I think you are a fool.

 

And I think a lot of the posters on here are fools too.

 

As Stevie says, the mackems have been woefully mis-managed for decades. Give them the right set up and they will piss all over Spurs. Anyone who opens their eyes and isn't a biased NUFC fan, especially a KK bandwagon jumper, a cockney or quite simply someone who knows the North East football supporter, will know this. It isn't a case of the "facts" at all, because you are referring to the "facts" during a time of apathy at the club through decades of mismanagement, because it suits you. They are just as capable of getting top crowds as they have always been. Do you think it is strange that the 2 longest supporting fans, or 2 of the longest supporting fans, of NUFC that post on here agree with this view ?

 

I don't know what "rubbish" you refer to, if you mean the fact that Newcastle United have qualified for europe more than any team bar 4 in the last decade, this may not suit the fact you dislike the chairman, but nevertheless its a fact. It is also a fact that are a lot of potential people out there who could take over the club and not show ambition or the desire to do their best for the club. It may not also suit you that when fuckwits on here say that "fans are laughing at us", they won't be laughing tomorrow when we play in europe - again - and this time tomorrow may be in the last 8 of a european competition - again. The only people fans are laughing at, is the modern arsehole Newcastle supporter who whinges on like a stupid kid that "their" team and club is "shite" despite filling a big ground, playing in europe, and buying major international players. Fact is, YOU people go to watch that team, and if they are so unhappy and think a change will bring the success you feel would be automatic and theirs by right with a new board, then YOU are a fool for going, in fact, you aren't just a fool, you are a fucking idiot. But the fact is, you AREN'T unhappy, you are going because you know the club are trying to be successful. If that were not the case, then you would stop going, and you WOULD also then have something to complain about. If the club was so shite, 30000 people would disappear, just like they did when they WERE shite.

 

Keep agreeing with your chums, in their stupidity and ignorance. Or get a mind of your own, its your choice.

 

Oh, by the way. For the "planners". The mackems, through the 1960's, and 1970's used to tell their fans, every time they changed their manager, they had a "5 year plan" ..... for success. From Alan Brown, George Hardwick, Ian McColl, Alan Brown again and Alan Durban. Just thought I'd drop it in, but it is also a FACT. The one manager they could have had, but didn't go for who would have walked there on broken glass, was Brian Clough. Some "plan" that would have been ... still, its all in the "plan" and not the manager eh

 

[Tom 14021]

one of your thick posts.

 

Some of us believe the mackems have potentially bigger and better suppor than the yids.

 

Shame you are so insecure you need to put it in big letters like that....is it so the schoolteacher can read it

 

Historically, the mackems were known as, the "Bank of England" club, BTW.

 

Oh, and was said earlier, how many clubs take 8000 to an away game, the yids don't even do that in a London away game.

 

I was writing in big letters in an attempt to get you to understand the basic facts of the matter, which is obviously pointless. The facts on the average attendance of spurs relative to the mackems, since both clubs were formed, is indisputable, you can believe whatever you want might exist in a parallel Universe but that doesn't change the reality of this one.

 

Do you seriously think if you asked this question to most other fans nationally they would say Sunderland? Are they all deluded too? What about internationally - how many people will even have heard of Sunderland? Are you now basing your opinion of the relative sizes of the two clubs on the basis of one away attendance and an obsure pre-war quote? Do they outweigh the evidence of average attendences over the course of a century? Personally, I think the day Sunderland lost any claim to be a well supported club died about 3 years ago, when they couldn't even sell out their ground for a play-off semifinal ffs.

 

You're a fool Leazes, you say the facts never lie yet you ignore them whenever it suits you. I honestly don't know how you have the brass neck to continue spouting your rubbish, but credit to you, at least you're consistent.

 

Shame Renton, but I think you are a fool.

 

And I think a lot of the posters on here are fools too.

 

As Stevie says, the mackems have been woefully mis-managed for decades. Give them the right set up and they will piss all over Spurs. Anyone who opens their eyes and isn't a biased NUFC fan, especially a KK bandwagon jumper, a cockney or quite simply someone who knows the North East football supporter, will know this. It isn't a case of the "facts" at all, because you are referring to the "facts" during a time of apathy at the club through decades of mismanagement, because it suits you. They are just as capable of getting top crowds as they have always been. Do you think it is strange that the 2 longest supporting fans, or 2 of the longest supporting fans, of NUFC that post on here agree with this view ?

 

I don't know what "rubbish" you refer to, if you mean the fact that Newcastle United have qualified for europe more than any team bar 4 in the last decade, this may not suit the fact you dislike the chairman, but nevertheless its a fact. It is also a fact that are a lot of potential people out there who could take over the club and not show ambition or the desire to do their best for the club. It may not also suit you that when fuckwits on here say that "fans are laughing at us", they won't be laughing tomorrow when we play in europe - again - and this time tomorrow may be in the last 8 of a european competition - again. The only people fans are laughing at, is the modern arsehole Newcastle supporter who whinges on like a stupid kid that "their" team and club is "shite" despite filling a big ground, playing in europe, and buying major international players. Fact is, YOU people go to watch that team, and if they are so unhappy and think a change will bring the success you feel would be automatic and theirs by right with a new board, then YOU are a fool for going, in fact, you aren't just a fool, you are a fucking idiot. But the fact is, you AREN'T unhappy, you are going because you know the club are trying to be successful. If that were not the case, then you would stop going, and you WOULD also then have something to complain about. If the club was so shite, 30000 people would disappear, just like they did when they WERE shite.

 

 

 

I agree on a lot of it TBH

 

but it's all an arguement in Vain...

[Guest stevieintoon]

one of your thick posts.

 

Some of us believe the mackems have potentially bigger and better suppor than the yids.

 

Shame you are so insecure you need to put it in big letters like that....is it so the schoolteacher can read it

 

Historically, the mackems were known as, the "Bank of England" club, BTW.

 

Oh, and was said earlier, how many clubs take 8000 to an away game, the yids don't even do that in a London away game.

 

I was writing in big letters in an attempt to get you to understand the basic facts of the matter, which is obviously pointless. The facts on the average attendance of spurs relative to the mackems, since both clubs were formed, is indisputable, you can believe whatever you want might exist in a parallel Universe but that doesn't change the reality of this one.

 

Do you seriously think if you asked this question to most other fans nationally they would say Sunderland? Are they all deluded too? What about internationally - how many people will even have heard of Sunderland? Are you now basing your opinion of the relative sizes of the two clubs on the basis of one away attendance and an obsure pre-war quote? Do they outweigh the evidence of average attendences over the course of a century? Personally, I think the day Sunderland lost any claim to be a well supported club died about 3 years ago, when they couldn't even sell out their ground for a play-off semifinal ffs.

 

You're a fool Leazes, you say the facts never lie yet you ignore them whenever it suits you. I honestly don't know how you have the brass neck to continue spouting your rubbish, but credit to you, at least you're consistent.

 

Shame Renton, but I think you are a fool.

 

And I think a lot of the posters on here are fools too.

 

As Stevie says, the mackems have been woefully mis-managed for decades. Give them the right set up and they will piss all over Spurs. Anyone who opens their eyes and isn't a biased NUFC fan, especially a KK bandwagon jumper, a cockney or quite simply someone who knows the North East football supporter, will know this. It isn't a case of the "facts" at all, because you are referring to the "facts" during a time of apathy at the club through decades of mismanagement, because it suits you. They are just as capable of getting top crowds as they have always been. Do you think it is strange that the 2 longest supporting fans, or 2 of the longest supporting fans, of NUFC that post on here agree with this view ?

 

I don't know what "rubbish" you refer to, if you mean the fact that Newcastle United have qualified for europe more than any team bar 4 in the last decade, this may not suit the fact you dislike the chairman, but nevertheless its a fact. It is also a fact that are a lot of potential people out there who could take over the club and not show ambition or the desire to do their best for the club. It may not also suit you that when fuckwits on here say that "fans are laughing at us", they won't be laughing tomorrow when we play in europe - again - and this time tomorrow may be in the last 8 of a european competition - again. The only people fans are laughing at, is the modern arsehole Newcastle supporter who whinges on like a stupid kid that "their" team and club is "shite" despite filling a big ground, playing in europe, and buying major international players. Fact is, YOU people go to watch that team, and if they are so unhappy and think a change will bring the success you feel would be automatic and theirs by right with a new board, then YOU are a fool for going, in fact, you aren't just a fool, you are a fucking idiot. But the fact is, you AREN'T unhappy, you are going because you know the club are trying to be successful. If that were not the case, then you would stop going, and you WOULD also then have something to complain about. If the club was so shite, 30000 people would disappear, just like they did when they WERE shite.

 

 

 

I agree on a lot of it TBH

 

but it's all an arguement in Vain...

I agree with all of it, and the bit in bold is the most relevant sentence I've seen on here in a long while. Same as any message board though, if there's a clique and one of the clique hold a point of view, it's unlikely any of the sheep are going to contradict their stance, and particularly seeing as the person is Leazes Mag, who it seems is the receiver of much uncalled for abuse.

 

We do have so many modern arsehole fans though. Especially those who were introduced to football in the Premiership years, who are blissfully ignorant to how football was, I'm not saying all people of this age group are, but people like Jonny2J are few and far between who genuinely have a clue. It's heart breaking really. The last game before Keegan came was against Bournemouth in the FA Cup, we went out on penalties, we were relegation threatened, yet there were 26,000 people there, when (then) so called bigger clubs like Man City and Everton were getting no where near that in the top flight. The whistle blew and that was it no booing just dejected silent faces trooping off home. I was proud to be a member of the finest support in the country. Today, fuckin pah, you only have to see some people on these message boards to see how badly it's all went wrong. It's upsetting. Yes football had to move on, but I didn't think it would evolve to the extent it has.

Edited March 15, 2007 by stevieintoon

[Renton 22414]

As Stevie says, the mackems have been woefully mis-managed for decades. Give them the right set up and they will piss all over Spurs.

That's pure conjecture, and anyway has absolutely no bearing on whether they are a bigger club than Spurs. The fact is, Spurs are the better supported club, its as simple as that.

Anyone who opens their eyes and isn't a biased NUFC fan, especially a KK bandwagon jumper, a cockney or quite simply someone who knows the North East football supporter, will know this.

Usual insults you use to discredit people who disagree with you. I get the feeling you think there is something special about supporters from the North East though, which is both bollocks and ironic, considering it is a media driven cliche.

It isn't a case of the "facts" at all, because you are referring to the "facts" during a time of apathy at the club through decades of mismanagement, because it suits you.

I'm referring to a time span which is relevant, as only Noelie was alive last time the mackems were more successful than Spurs, and he would have been about 3 last time they won the league. Anyway, Spurs all time support is better than the mackems, and surely this is the most important statistic - which time period do you want to use to support your argument? The 1930s?

 

They are just as capable of getting top crowds as they have always been.

But their crowds are shit now and on average historically are lower than Spurs. FACT.

 

Do you think it is strange that the 2 longest supporting fans, or 2 of the longest supporting fans, of NUFC that post on here agree with this view ?

Whose the other one? Plenty people have been going to the match longer than Stevie as far as I can work out, and anyway, he has a pathological hatred of Spurs and is hardly an unbiased observer. Leave the North East though and I'm certain virtually no-one would entertain your idea. In fact, I think even many mackems would be embarassed by the comparison. But as usual, you think your opinion counts more than anyone elses, and anyone who agrees with you is correct and knows what they are talking about, and anyone who doesn't is clueless.

 

The rest was just a cut and paste of your usual boring drivel by the looks of things, not sure if it was meant for me or not, but certainly was irrelevant to the topic at hand. The discussion we are having is absurd of course on a Newcastle forum, because anyone with any sense would hate both clubs; however it does quite nicely illustrate what a joke you are, not that anyone is in doubt about that.

Edited March 15, 2007 by Renton

[Renton 22414]

Leazes Mag, who it seems is the receiver of much uncalled for abuse.

 

Could this be any more ironic, considering it was penned by this board's most abusive poster, and is about about the board's second most abusive poster?

[Gemmill 47102]

Leazes Mag believes Sunderland are potentially a bigger club than Spurs in the same way that Ethiopia has a potential obesity problem.

[Sima 0]

I hate all of this north-east hotbed bollocks.

 

It's that much of a hotbed that there has only been one trophy win in 34 FUCKING YEARS

[sweetleftpeg 0]

'Leazes, did you threaten to overrule NE5?'

 

[Guest alex]

I agree with all of it, and the bit in bold is the most relevant sentence I've seen on here in a long while. Same as any message board though, if there's a clique and one of the clique hold a point of view, it's unlikely any of the sheep are going to contradict their stance, and particularly seeing as the person is Leazes Mag, who it seems is the receiver of much uncalled for abuse.

 

We do have so many modern arsehole fans though. Especially those who were introduced to football in the Premiership years, who are blissfully ignorant to how football was, I'm not saying all people of this age group are, but people like Jonny2J are few and far between who genuinely have a clue. It's heart breaking really. The last game before Keegan came was against Bournemouth in the FA Cup, we went out on penalties, we were relegation threatened, yet there were 26,000 people there, when (then) so called bigger clubs like Man City and Everton were getting no where near that in the top flight. The whistle blew and that was it no booing just dejected silent faces trooping off home. I was proud to be a member of the finest support in the country. Today, fuckin pah, you only have to see some people on these message boards to see how badly it's all went wrong. It's upsetting. Yes football had to move on, but I didn't think it would evolve to the extent it has.

I agree with a lot of the 2nd paragraph, but I think the first is a load of cobblers tbh. If you think the likes of me, Sima and Renton (for example) always agree, you're way off the mark. And a lot of the time, Leazes deserves a lot of what he gets, imo, and I'd like to think I'm the first to hold my hand up when I agree with him.

[luckyluke 2]

'Leazes, did you threaten to overrule NE5?'

 

 

 

Spurs' first goal last night was quality by the way. MASSIVE team tbh.

Edited March 15, 2007 by luckyluke

[Shearergol 0]

the facts show that Spurs have been more successful - in the last 40 years - and also us for the majority of the same period.

 

There is no disputing that. However, as I said to you earlier, how you consider what makes a big club, and I told you what I consider makes a big club, is potential support. All clubs need to be run well to realise their potential or begin too. It is a fact that we have been ran far better recently and so have shown we are a bigger club than Spurs, and the same could be said of the mackems, which willl be conclusively proved if they do get their act together.

 

You're right about Whitley Bay though, that is bollocks.

 

We are not talking about the most successful club, but the biggest [potential] club, on a level playing field.

 

You knew this though didn't you

 

Has anyone, responded to the post where I listed all the teams that were more successful than others because they acted bigger ?

 

I realise the point will be lost on the fuckwits

 

What's your criteria for measuring potential then? In fact, conveniently for you, its something you can't measure, isn't it? So to summarise:

 

Spurs have won much, much, much, more than Sunderland. Including 3 European trophies.

They have won the league more recently.

They have bought famous international players in their past, like Gazza, Waddle, Linekar and Klinsman.

They have bigger crowds.

Historically they have had bigger crowds.

They have an international presence (see first point).

They have always had a very strong, probably disproportionate, media profile.

 

In fact, the only objective measure you could use to suggest Sunderland were the bigger club is probably they have won the league more times, although the last time was 71 years ago!

 

But NONE of this matters to you, because your magic (and conveniently subjective) measure of a club's size, potential, is much more important than all of these facts! And what's more, if you dare even to disagree with the mighty Leazes on this or any other matter, it makes you clueless, and an apologist for other clubs, which you may as well go and support to free up seats for the real Newcastle fans, like yourself!

 

FFS.

 

its quite simple Renton.

 

The mackems have been run by a shit board for decades, like we were, so its impossible to compare the clubs during that period.

 

For support, and potential, both us and the mackems piss all over them. I believe this is the point of the thread BTW ie who is the bigger potential club, not who has been the most successful. Did you see my post naming all those clubs who have won domestic trophies since we did ? Do you think it is because they are "bigger", or because they were just run better than us at the time, with better managers, etc ?

For decades prior to the 1960's and the decline of both ourselves and the mackems, we were bigger and better than Spurs,

 

Its not rocket science, even for the fuckwits .....

 

although the fuckwits on here don't do history, only the history since 1997 ....

 

Meanwhile, Spurs have scored, the wankfest - that so called NUFC supporters have sadly latched onto - by the cockney based media continues .......

 

Christ on a bike, listen to yourself. For your benefit, since you are in one of your "thick" moods:

 

NO-ONE ON THIS BOARD LIKES SPURS. BUT SOME OF US BELIEVE THEY ARE A BIGGER CLUB THAN SUNDERLAND. THIS IS SHOWN BY NOT ONLY THE FACT THEY HAVE CONSIDERABLE DOMESTIC AND EUROPEAN SUCCESS, BUT ALSO BY THE FACT THEY HAVE BIGGER PRESENT AND HISTORIC ATTENDANCES.

 

It's not fucking rocket science Leazes, the simple facts indicate that Spurs are presently and historically a better supported club than Sunderland for whatever reason, whether that be the fact they have had better boards or they have a much bigger population base, or, most likely, a combination of both.

 

 

one of your thick posts.

 

Some of us believe the mackems have potentially bigger and better suppor than the yids.

 

Shame you are so insecure you need to put it in big letters like that....is it so the schoolteacher can read it

 

Historically, the mackems were known as, the "Bank of England" club, BTW.

 

Oh, and was said earlier, how many clubs take 8000 to an away game, the yids don't even do that in a London away game.

West Ham away (2,900 tickets), the other week, was on general sale for 12 days. Five miles away. It would be interesting to compare Sunderland's average gate and Tottenham's average gate based on being in the top flight only.

 

Sunderland's problem isn't they're a small club, never was, their problem for generations is woeful mis-management at all levels. They were the richest club in England prior to the war predominantly due to their League and Cup success and huge gates.

 

 

Scunny took more than that to Donny. Does that make Scunny a bigger club than Spurs?

[Teed 0]

LeazesMag,I know where ya coming from

and so I post this to aid your argument

 

Read me

 

hope this helps....

[Renton 22414]

LeazesMag,I know where ya coming from

and so I post this to aid your argument

 

Read me

 

hope this helps....

 

That doesn't help at all, it's based purely on success at winning trophies, nothing to do with support. And the points awarded for each trophy is arbitrary, to say the least. Three points for winning the championship, but nowt for coming second in the Premiership! Winning the FA cup is only worth 5 points, so according to that site over the course of 3 years, a club that finished 2nd in the premiership 3 times and wins the FA cup is smaller than one that wins the championship, is relegated, and then wins it again! And, even saying that, they specifically mention Sunderland as a weak point to the system as they haven't won anything significant for so long!

 

Still, If Leazes wants to use this to back his claims he'll have to accept that we are smaller than both Spurs and Sunderland.....

[Teed 0]

LeazesMag,I know where ya coming from

and so I post this to aid your argument

 

Read me

 

hope this helps....

 

That doesn't help at all, it's based purely on success at winning trophies, nothing to do with support. And the points awarded for each trophy is arbitrary, to say the least. Three points for winning the championship, but nowt for coming second in the Premiership! Winning the FA cup is only worth 5 points, so according to that site over the course of 3 years, a club that finished 2nd in the premiership 3 times and wins the FA cup is smaller than one that wins the championship, is relegated, and then wins it again! And, even saying that, they specifically mention Sunderland as a weak point to the system as they haven't won anything significant for so long!

 

Still, If Leazes wants to use this to back his claims he'll have to accept that we are smaller than both Spurs and Sunderland.....

 

 

Aye mebeez!!! mind!!.....thats ten points yays lads missed out on taneet eh!!... ..... ............

Edited March 15, 2007 by Teed

[Gemmill 47102]

Did you used to be Big Ted? Or is that someone else?

[Teed 0]

Did you used to be Big Ted? Or is that someone else?

same as mate!