LeazesMag 0 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) cropped up in the pub last night...........my mate, who's a bit more parochial and biased than me, partly because he's extremely biased and also has a mackem wife.......says he thinks the mackems are about as big a club as Villa and says they would never fill the SOL. I disagree, I think with a bit of success or the real possibility they would fill it easily, and I think they are bigger than Villa for 2 reasons. He underestimates the mackems through instinct and bias, and Villa aren't really that big a club as people think, see their crowds even when they are doing well and their shit away support. I think the top clubs in England, in no particular order based on SUPPORT [not having a sugar daddy which in the end may only be a temporary period depending on how long the owners stay before they have to stand on their own 2 feet again] Manu, Arsenal, NUFC, Liverpool, with ManCity, mackems, Chelsea and Everton just behind. The likes of Villa, Leeds, Spurs being in the next group. Thoughts ? If anything, the fact that Chelsea and Man City have been bought by sugar daddies makes it even more puzzling that we were not before them in the pecking order, while understanding Abramovic's desire to be near Kensington and the Russian Embassy etc...lucky bastards. Edited March 21, 2011 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I'd rather leave us out of it. I agree that the mackems are a better supported club than Villa and have more potential on a level playing field. The spurious notion of potential and the lack of an actual level playing field makes the comparison a bit iffy though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I suppose Sunderland's problem (and ours to a lesser extent) is that their support is very localised compared to other clubs who could / can attract similar gates who have a more nationwide / worldwide support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Those smaller clubs attracted sugar daddies before us because they weren't tied into dodgy warehouse contracts and debted up to the eyeballs iirc (abramovich told me this directly) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 Those smaller clubs attracted sugar daddies before us because they weren't tied into dodgy warehouse contracts and debted up to the eyeballs iirc (abramovich told me this directly) fancy slipping Roman a fiver to buy out your uncle Mike and getting rid of that rubbish on the Gallowgate roof while he's at it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I suppose Sunderland's problem (and ours to a lesser extent) is that their support is very localised compared to other clubs who could / can attract similar gates who have a more nationwide / worldwide support. I disagree there. Go to Fulham away Alex, you have 3,000 toon fans proper, and 3,000 Southern toon fans in that neutral bit, I think it's easy to underestimate our national fanbase, the Keegan years brought us hundreds and thousands of new fans. In 1995 we sold 850,000 home shirts in the UK, more than the England shirt, four times Celtic's shirt, and second only to Man Utd. That's the untapped potential of NUFC, we're romanticised, we just need a sustained period of a few years where we look like we'll do something and we'd have as big as support as anyone bar Man Utd. The reason SKY put us on more than Chelsea even is because of the audiences we get even though we're shit. In our relegation season 1.9m people watched Sunderland v Newcastle, just 1.2m could be arsed to watch Everton v Liverpool the week before, that shows you the potential of NUFC. Go anywhere in the country, any city, any town, even a small town, and there'll be a toon fan there. In terms of local support we're far ahead of anyone else apart from Man Utd and Arsenal. Overall fanbase I'd say we're 4th then Chelsea, and a group of teams who's fans would all fuck off if they were shit like Spurs, Everton, Villa, Leeds, Sunderland - Villa being easily the smallest of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano 0 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I suppose Sunderland's problem (and ours to a lesser extent) is that their support is very localised compared to other clubs who could / can attract similar gates who have a more nationwide / worldwide support. I disagree there. Go to Fulham away Alex, you have 3,000 toon fans proper, and 3,000 Southern toon fans in that neutral bit, I think it's easy to underestimate our national fanbase, the Keegan years brought us hundreds and thousands of new fans. In 1995 we sold 850,000 home shirts in the UK, more than the England shirt, four times Celtic's shirt, and second only to Man Utd. That's the untapped potential of NUFC, we're romanticised, we just need a sustained period of a few years where we look like we'll do something and we'd have as big as support as anyone bar Man Utd. The reason SKY put us on more than Chelsea even is because of the audiences we get even though we're shit. In our relegation season 1.9m people watched Sunderland v Newcastle, just 1.2m could be arsed to watch Everton v Liverpool the week before, that shows you the potential of NUFC. Go anywhere in the country, any city, any town, even a small town, and there'll be a toon fan there. In terms of local support we're far ahead of anyone else apart from Man Utd and Arsenal. Overall fanbase I'd say we're 4th then Chelsea, and a group of teams who's fans would all fuck off if they were shit like Spurs, Everton, Villa, Leeds, Sunderland - Villa being easily the smallest of them. Good post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesD 0 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 We never fucked off 'when we were shit', nor did Leeds fans, yes attendances dropped, but not on a huge scale. We have great support, but that alone doesn't make you a 'big club', does it? Guess someone needs to define what a big club is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 We never fucked off 'when we were shit', nor did Leeds fans, yes attendances dropped, but not on a huge scale. We have great support, but that alone doesn't make you a 'big club', does it? Guess someone needs to define what a big club is. I said in the opening "based on support". Which is what, personally, I base it on. I know some people base it on success, but more successful doesn;'t mean "bigger". Would you say the smoggies are bigger than NUFC or you lot because they have won a trophy more recently ? Exactly. A lot of clubs have acted bigger than Newcastle and sunderland and had more success accordingly in my lifetime ie Leeds, Spurs, Villa, Forest.....they have had success because they have acted bigger and had bigger ambitions, which is nothing but a disgrace and only highlights how poorly both our clubs have been run for long periods. Leeds are like Villa. They didn't even fill a 44,000 stadium when they were playing in the Champions League man. If you can't do that, no way are you bigger than either us or you lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idioteque 0 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 so what makes a big club then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 so what makes a big club then? errr.....the clubs with the potentially biggest support are the biggest clubs ? Or clubs like Leicester, middlesboro, Wimbledon, Oxford are bigger than us, sunderland, man city because they have won a trophy more recently ? What do you think ? Do you think the above example shows those clubs to be "bigger"? Do you think it is how "big" you act [in which case we are back to being also rans]? Or do you think it is based on support and potential support to a successful side ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idioteque 0 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Obviously support comes into it, but having thousands of people watching teams win nothing isn't going to make the club bigger is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesD 0 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 History has to come into things, big clubs win trophies. It can't be all about support, has to be a mix. IMO, a good history of trophy wins + good support home and away through thick and thin = a big club. I suppose there isn't a real definition of it, and it's down to personal opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 Obviously support comes into it, but having thousands of people watching teams win nothing isn't going to make the club bigger is it? I can see this becoming difficult. How do you define it ? There is an obvious link between acting big and becoming successful, attracting supporters back, and being seen to be big by others as a result. The problem is, if a club acts like a small club [like we are doing], does it mean they aren't a big club anymore ? Or is it just that you are a big club being run badly ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Big clubs are the ones that average the most european qualifications over a given period imo. Nothing else comes into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 History has to come into things, big clubs win trophies. It can't be all about support, has to be a mix. IMO, a good history of trophy wins + good support home and away through thick and thin = a big club. I suppose there isn't a real definition of it, and it's down to personal opinion. you could say that, but there is a difference between "successful" and "big". Leeds are far too big for the 3rd division, same as you lot were, and Villa, and Wolves. Did it mean that when you were down there, you were a smaller club like Plymouth, Shrewsbury for instance or still a big club ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 Big clubs are the ones that average the most european qualifications over a given period imo. Nothing else comes into it. I thought you had me on ignore ? Anyway, nice to see a constructive response, I hope it continues. I agree with what you say by the way. We are a big club, but aren't behaving like one under Mike Ashley's ownership. Correct ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idioteque 0 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Obviously support comes into it, but having thousands of people watching teams win nothing isn't going to make the club bigger is it? I can see this becoming difficult. How do you define it ? There is an obvious link between acting big and becoming successful, attracting supporters back, and being seen to be big by others as a result. The problem is, if a club acts like a small club [like we are doing], does it mean they aren't a big club anymore ? Or is it just that you are a big club being run badly ? That's the thing though, people not going to matches isn't just about success on the field Lots of our fans have stopped going because they aren't happy with how the club is being run, sick of having to get by and then there was the 2 failed stadium moves (1 of which none of us wanted) I think we'll get less season ticket sales next season because people seeing that we are being left behind if we don't get investment so are boycotting Newcastle are obviously a big club and have a fantastic support, you could see that with the protests etc but I don't think support equals everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asprilla 96 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Big clubs are the ones that average the most european qualifications over a given period imo. Nothing else comes into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 It's all about the Uefa Cup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idioteque 0 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 It's all about the Uefa Cup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 Obviously support comes into it, but having thousands of people watching teams win nothing isn't going to make the club bigger is it? I can see this becoming difficult. How do you define it ? There is an obvious link between acting big and becoming successful, attracting supporters back, and being seen to be big by others as a result. The problem is, if a club acts like a small club [like we are doing], does it mean they aren't a big club anymore ? Or is it just that you are a big club being run badly ? That's the thing though, people not going to matches isn't just about success on the field Lots of our fans have stopped going because they aren't happy with how the club is being run, sick of having to get by and then there was the 2 failed stadium moves (1 of which none of us wanted) I think we'll get less season ticket sales next season because people seeing that we are being left behind if we don't get investment so are boycotting Newcastle are obviously a big club and have a fantastic support, you could see that with the protests etc but I don't think support equals everything I have to disagree with your first comment. Success on the pitch is everything. Win and your crowds go up, at any level of the game, at NUFC a winning team is a full house. 2nd sentence - most people have forgotten about those stadium moves now. Personally, I think we should have moved to Leazes Park and forced the issue more. We will get less season ticket renewals next season because the team is struggling on the pitch and there is little optimism for improvement. 3rd sentence - I don't think any club would fill a 52000 stadium anywhere in the world having put up with what we have for so long to be honest, although it is going down now, it will still hover between 30-40,000 even when the damage inflicted by Mike Ashley increases, and no club in the world would get that either, especially when even a few wins in a lower league will send it back near 50,000 again. Just my opinions of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Obviously support comes into it, but having thousands of people watching teams win nothing isn't going to make the club bigger is it? I can see this becoming difficult. How do you define it ? There is an obvious link between acting big and becoming successful, attracting supporters back, and being seen to be big by others as a result. The problem is, if a club acts like a small club [like we are doing], does it mean they aren't a big club anymore ? Or is it just that you are a big club being run badly ? That's the thing though, people not going to matches isn't just about success on the field Lots of our fans have stopped going because they aren't happy with how the club is being run, sick of having to get by and then there was the 2 failed stadium moves (1 of which none of us wanted) I think we'll get less season ticket sales next season because people seeing that we are being left behind if we don't get investment so are boycotting Newcastle are obviously a big club and have a fantastic support, you could see that with the protests etc but I don't think support equals everything I have to disagree with your first comment. Success on the pitch is everything. Win and your crowds go up, at any level of the game, at NUFC a winning team is a full house. 2nd sentence - most people have forgotten about those stadium moves now. Personally, I think we should have moved to Leazes Park and forced the issue more. We will get less season ticket renewals next season because the team is struggling on the pitch and there is little optimism for improvement. 3rd sentence - I don't think any club would fill a 52000 stadium anywhere in the world having put up with what we have for so long to be honest, although it is going down now, it will still hover between 30-40,000 even when the damage inflicted by Mike Ashley increases, and no club in the world would get that either, especially when even a few wins in a lower league will send it back near 50,000 again. Just my opinions of course. Disagree with that like. There are more than enough dafties like me to keep going. We averaged 44,000 in the Championship playing the likes of Doncaster and Scunthorpe every week. The next few years we will come out of the recession and people will have more money. We were in the bottom half of the table largely from 2004 to 2009 and 90% of home games sold out. I think economic conditions are having an impact, but we're still averaging nearly 48,000 fans, and how many times have we been on live telly?? A fuckin lot. We will never go under 40,000 in the Premiership, and even if Ashley is here the next five years, sadly it will have no impact on attendances. This season the games have been fucking great you don't know what will happen, the gates have been going up all season, and we'll have even more season ticket holders next season, particularly if there's a few decent signings in the summer. Don't underestimate how daft NUFC fans are. There isn't a parallel to Newcastle United's support in world sport, anyone that says Man City is a mug, they all fucked off under Pearce, we stayed and faced the Championship music. As for big club. Course we're a big club. I find it insulting to be compared to Aston Villa. The muddy area of what a big club comes when you're comparing sizes. To me it's fanbase. You can't pin it all down to history. Man Utd are 10 times bigger than Liverpool in my eyes, but have slightly fewer trophies, and I can think of parallel examples with certain clubs and us. If you don't have more fans able and willing to go to support the team than Newcastle, you're not a bigger club than us, and only Man Utd and Arsenal have, Liverpool have many more when they're doing well. All of the rest well it's just muddy water. A debate no one can ever win, but I think we're an important club which the Premiership can't do without. There are only a few clubs you can say that about. Not one person would miss Villa, even if they were gone 10 years you'd just think so fuck. Everyone missed us, even if they don't admit it, they did, BBC certainly did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Your sig I'm off to do a nightshift with the cunt shortly, man flu'd up to fuck as well, chances of me attacking are slightly increased Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Your sig I'm off to do a nightshift with the cunt shortly, man flu'd up to fuck as well, chances of me attacking are slightly increased I've got it too, I've had so much illness since December must be all these immigrants flocking in to the country spreading disease What's your occupation like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now