The 'bigger' club.

[Danny CL 0]

If you think about it London is a proper football area. Just supposing there are 1.2m gay people in London. That would leave only 5.8m who aren't gay. 2.9m of them will be women, so that leaves 2.9m potential football fans. 300,000 people watch regular football in London, so that's like 1 in 9 almost, probably a better ratio than us. No one can deny it's a proper football city.

 

But taking just Newcastle or London population wise as your base you're distorting the figures - given that thousands travel from outside the area you have to count that as a factor - even if you took Berwick to Teesside as NUFC and the other clubs area, its tiny compared to adding the home counties to London.

12m is the South East pop. 2.5m the North East. London has 2 big clubs, 4 medium sized clubs, and 7 smaller clubs. The North East has 1 big club, 1 medium sized club and 3 small clubs. I still think they do ok.

 

Be interesting to see who you think London's 2 big clubs are.

[Guest Gordon McKeag]

If you think about it London is a proper football area. Just supposing there are 1.2m gay people in London. That would leave only 5.8m who aren't gay. 2.9m of them will be women, so that leaves 2.9m potential football fans. 300,000 people watch regular football in London, so that's like 1 in 9 almost, probably a better ratio than us. No one can deny it's a proper football city.

 

But taking just Newcastle or London population wise as your base you're distorting the figures - given that thousands travel from outside the area you have to count that as a factor - even if you took Berwick to Teesside as NUFC and the other clubs area, its tiny compared to adding the home counties to London.

12m is the South East pop. 2.5m the North East. London has 2 big clubs, 4 medium sized clubs, and 7 smaller clubs. The North East has 1 big club, 1 medium sized club and 3 small clubs. I still think they do ok.

 

Be interesting to see who you think London's 2 big clubs are.

Is it not obvious who they are you idiot?

[Danny CL 0]

If you think about it London is a proper football area. Just supposing there are 1.2m gay people in London. That would leave only 5.8m who aren't gay. 2.9m of them will be women, so that leaves 2.9m potential football fans. 300,000 people watch regular football in London, so that's like 1 in 9 almost, probably a better ratio than us. No one can deny it's a proper football city.

 

But taking just Newcastle or London population wise as your base you're distorting the figures - given that thousands travel from outside the area you have to count that as a factor - even if you took Berwick to Teesside as NUFC and the other clubs area, its tiny compared to adding the home counties to London.

12m is the South East pop. 2.5m the North East. London has 2 big clubs, 4 medium sized clubs, and 7 smaller clubs. The North East has 1 big club, 1 medium sized club and 3 small clubs. I still think they do ok.

 

Be interesting to see who you think London's 2 big clubs are.

Is it not obvious who they are you idiot?

 

Arsenal and ?????

[Guest Gordon McKeag]

If you think about it London is a proper football area. Just supposing there are 1.2m gay people in London. That would leave only 5.8m who aren't gay. 2.9m of them will be women, so that leaves 2.9m potential football fans. 300,000 people watch regular football in London, so that's like 1 in 9 almost, probably a better ratio than us. No one can deny it's a proper football city.

 

But taking just Newcastle or London population wise as your base you're distorting the figures - given that thousands travel from outside the area you have to count that as a factor - even if you took Berwick to Teesside as NUFC and the other clubs area, its tiny compared to adding the home counties to London.

12m is the South East pop. 2.5m the North East. London has 2 big clubs, 4 medium sized clubs, and 7 smaller clubs. The North East has 1 big club, 1 medium sized club and 3 small clubs. I still think they do ok.

 

Be interesting to see who you think London's 2 big clubs are.

Is it not obvious who they are you idiot?

 

Arsenal and ?????

Arsenal and the team with the second biggest fanbase by far in the south, who have been in 5 Champions League Semi Finals out of the last 6, who have won 3 league titles in the last 6 years (more than West Ham or Tottenham combined in their entire history), and who are the fifth richest club on earth by the size of the business.

[NJS 4386]

Hate to say it Stevie but Spurs are a much bigger club than Chelsea imo.

 

(apologies if you're winding the wanker up).

[Guest Gordon McKeag]

Hate to say it Stevie but Spurs are a much bigger club than Chelsea imo.

 

(apologies if you're winding the wanker up).

How? In what way? If you're in any country in the world ask a local who Chelsea is and they'll know straight away. They might know Tottenham but its unlikely. Chelsea are league champions one of the richest and most desirable clubs in the world, and Tottenham haven't even come close to winning the league for 50 years based in a hovel in North London. They've won a few FA Cups yes, 8 is it?, Chelsea have won 3 in the last 4 years. It's not even an argument.

[Craig 6682]

I'm with Stevie on this one - Chelsea are a considerably bigger club these days.

[NJS 4386]

Hate to say it Stevie but Spurs are a much bigger club than Chelsea imo.

 

(apologies if you're winding the wanker up).

How? In what way? If you're in any country in the world ask a local who Chelsea is and they'll know straight away. They might know Tottenham but its unlikely. Chelsea are league champions one of the richest and most desirable clubs in the world, and Tottenham haven't even come close to winning the league for 50 years based in a hovel in North London. They've won a few FA Cups yes, 8 is it?, Chelsea have won 3 in the last 4 years. It's not even an argument.

 

Tradition, history, fanbase (I think you underestimate them hugely - they are one of the clubs with a higher average than ours).

 

The last time I was "put right" about history by a Yid they had 14 trophies and I think they've won a couple since then.

 

Before Abramovitch Chelsea had a poor history - one league title and 2 or 3 cups - I recognise your opinion is more "current" but as more of a traditionalist I still think Spurs are bigger.

[Guest Gordon McKeag]

Hate to say it Stevie but Spurs are a much bigger club than Chelsea imo.

 

(apologies if you're winding the wanker up).

How? In what way? If you're in any country in the world ask a local who Chelsea is and they'll know straight away. They might know Tottenham but its unlikely. Chelsea are league champions one of the richest and most desirable clubs in the world, and Tottenham haven't even come close to winning the league for 50 years based in a hovel in North London. They've won a few FA Cups yes, 8 is it?, Chelsea have won 3 in the last 4 years. It's not even an argument.

 

Tradition, history, fanbase (I think you underestimate them hugely - they are one of the clubs with a higher average than ours).

The last time I was "put right" about history by a Yid they had 14 trophies and I think they've won a couple since then.

 

Before Abramovitch Chelsea had a poor history - one league title and 2 or 3 cups - I recognise your opinion is more "current" but as more of a traditionalist I still think Spurs are bigger.

You're showing astonishing ignorance there like, especially the higher average than ours. Our average attendance is calculated from 1892, so we have at least 14 seasons of gates between 1892 and 1906 where the average was 1000-5000. By the time Spurs came in 14 years later everyone was averaging 20000+, from their inception our average is far greater just our overall average is less because we were handicapped by the gates at footballs inception. Same applies to Liverpool, Arsenal and Everton all support wise significantly away from Tottenham although it doesn't appear that way due to their late inclusion in league football.

 

Tradition? Tottenham? A few Cup runs? We have every bit as much tradition as they do, and are certainly more famous than Spurs yet I wouldn't say we're a bigger club than Chelsea because we're not. Chelsea were knocking on the door of becoming great for a good few years before they were bought out as well.

[Renton 21627]

Chelsea have a bigger average attendance than we do as well as it happens.

 

But really, who gives a shit?

[Guest Gordon McKeag]

Chelsea have a bigger average attendance than we do as well as it happens.

 

But really, who gives a shit?

Yes but again you're showing ignorance, it's not difficult to understand. Chelsea joined the league in 1905, we joined the league in 1892. Absolutely clueless. If you don't give a shit why comment?

Edited July 16, 2010 by Gordon McKeag

[JawD 99]

Id have to a agree that not only are Chelsea a bigger club than Spurs these days but Chelsea were on the verge for quite some time before they were bought out. Id actually say we were as well and both clubs had opposite turns in fortune.

 

That aside, what the fuck has that to do with the OP's thread? This twats only been back here 5mins and he his derailing threads to their usual bollocks about Spurs. On that, yes, who gives a shit?

[NJS 4386]

You're showing astonishing ignorance there like, especially the higher average than ours. Our average attendance is calculated from 1892, so we have at least 14 seasons of gates between 1892 and 1906 where the average was 1000-5000. By the time Spurs came in 14 years later everyone was averaging 20000+, from their inception our average is far greater just our overall average is less because we were handicapped by the gates at footballs inception. Same applies to Liverpool, Arsenal and Everton all support wise significantly away from Tottenham although it doesn't appear that way due to their late inclusion in league football.

 

Tradition? Tottenham? A few Cup runs? We have every bit as much tradition as they do, and are certainly more famous than Spurs yet I wouldn't say we're a bigger club than Chelsea because we're not. Chelsea were knocking on the door of becoming great for a good few years before they were bought out as well.

 

I know those figures are skewed in exactly the way you describe but I still think they show a "big" club and not one that can be dismissed as easily as to seem to.

 

Spurs also have the first double landmark and I would repeat that certainly as far as I can remember from the 70s onwards were always a top club - moreso than Chelsea. I remember when talk of a breakaway league started before the premier league where they were one of the instigators.

 

I don't get your point about Chelsea knocking on the door - they certainly never challenged for the league in the way we did though under Bates they were obviously improved from previously - much like ourselves though I would say not as much.

 

I'm not some closet Yid btw - when asked which London club I hate the most I usually say whoever we're playing at the time but if you asked me for an instinctive answer I'd say Spurs.

[Renton 21627]

Chelsea have a bigger average attendance than we do as well as it happens.

 

But really, who gives a shit?

Yes but again you're showing ignorance, it's not difficult to understand. Chelsea joined the league in 1905, we joined the league in 1892. Absolutely clueless. If you don't give a shit why comment?

 

That's kind of my point though, none of these comparisons are meaningful. I'd personally say that at the moment, Chelsea are bigger than Spurs who are bigger than us. Thtat's just based on gut feeling though, it's not something that is easily measured.

 

Also I fucking hate both Chelsea and Spurs, but Spurs edge it for me as the most obnoxious London club.

[Guest Gordon McKeag]

You're showing astonishing ignorance there like, especially the higher average than ours. Our average attendance is calculated from 1892, so we have at least 14 seasons of gates between 1892 and 1906 where the average was 1000-5000. By the time Spurs came in 14 years later everyone was averaging 20000+, from their inception our average is far greater just our overall average is less because we were handicapped by the gates at footballs inception. Same applies to Liverpool, Arsenal and Everton all support wise significantly away from Tottenham although it doesn't appear that way due to their late inclusion in league football.

 

Tradition? Tottenham? A few Cup runs? We have every bit as much tradition as they do, and are certainly more famous than Spurs yet I wouldn't say we're a bigger club than Chelsea because we're not. Chelsea were knocking on the door of becoming great for a good few years before they were bought out as well.

 

I know those figures are skewed in exactly the way you describe but I still think they show a "big" club and not one that can be dismissed as easily as to seem to.

 

Spurs also have the first double landmark and I would repeat that certainly as far as I can remember from the 70s onwards were always a top club - moreso than Chelsea. I remember when talk of a breakaway league started before the premier league where they were one of the instigators.

 

I don't get your point about Chelsea knocking on the door - they certainly never challenged for the league in the way we did though under Bates they were obviously improved from previously - much like ourselves though I would say not as much.

 

I'm not some closet Yid btw - when asked which London club I hate the most I usually say whoever we're playing at the time but if you asked me for an instinctive answer I'd say Spurs.

Preston don't exist now like. Wank club, wank fans.

[Guest Gordon McKeag]

You're showing astonishing ignorance there like, especially the higher average than ours. Our average attendance is calculated from 1892, so we have at least 14 seasons of gates between 1892 and 1906 where the average was 1000-5000. By the time Spurs came in 14 years later everyone was averaging 20000+, from their inception our average is far greater just our overall average is less because we were handicapped by the gates at footballs inception. Same applies to Liverpool, Arsenal and Everton all support wise significantly away from Tottenham although it doesn't appear that way due to their late inclusion in league football.

 

Tradition? Tottenham? A few Cup runs? We have every bit as much tradition as they do, and are certainly more famous than Spurs yet I wouldn't say we're a bigger club than Chelsea because we're not. Chelsea were knocking on the door of becoming great for a good few years before they were bought out as well.

 

I know those figures are skewed in exactly the way you describe but I still think they show a "big" club and not one that can be dismissed as easily as to seem to.

 

Spurs also have the first double landmark and I would repeat that certainly as far as I can remember from the 70s onwards were always a top club - moreso than Chelsea. I remember when talk of a breakaway league started before the premier league where they were one of the instigators.

 

I don't get your point about Chelsea knocking on the door - they certainly never challenged for the league in the way we did though under Bates they were obviously improved from previously - much like ourselves though I would say not as much.

 

I'm not some closet Yid btw - when asked which London club I hate the most I usually say whoever we're playing at the time but if you asked me for an instinctive answer I'd say Spurs.

Always a top club despite never being in the top two. Nice one.

[NJS 4386]

Always a top club despite never being in the top two. Nice one.

 

Well after 71, Arsenal did nowt until the late 80s - they were still a top club though.

[Danny CL 0]

This Chelsea love stinks of new fan, post 92 b0ll0x.

 

In our short lifetime Stevie, stamford bridge looked like this:

 

 

fans walking around with buckets "save our club" etc..24 hours from administration.

 

Then some russian with a shed load of money he needs to launder turns up and they are champions?? Im sorry but everything they have won since has a massive asterisk next to it.

 

Big club my behind.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Danny CL

[Danny CL 0]

oh and our ground will never have spare seats for a Champions League game EVER.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Danny CL

[Happy Face 29]

oh and our ground will never have spare seats for a Champions League game EVER.

 

 

Don't put yourself down man. You might qualify.

[Danny CL 0]

oh and our ground will never have spare seats for a Champions League game EVER.

 

 

Don't put yourself down man. You might qualify.

 

Still stings?

[Danny CL 0]

Oh and for those who think I am dragging this back to Spurs want to look who started this.

 

Can't work out if Stevie is properly on the wind up or if he's a post Italia 90, sky fan.

[Happy Face 29]

oh and our ground will never have spare seats for a Champions League game EVER.

 

 

Don't put yourself down man. You might qualify.

 

Still stings?

 

What?

[Craig 6682]

Oh and for those who think I am dragging this back to Spurs want to look who started this.

 

Can't work out if Stevie is properly on the wind up or if he's a post Italia 90, sky fan.

 

You could count on one hand the number of times Spurs had been mentioned in the 12 months you've not been here fucktard.

 

Do us all a favour and fuck off back to whatever shit-pit you've been hiding in.

[Rob W 0]

what has this to do with Birtley FFS?