Swampy Posted December 12, 2010 Share Posted December 12, 2010 What? I didn't say they deserve to be anywhere. Everyone deserves to be in their current position. What was my ridiculous statement? I agree it is the biggest pish going, however its obvious their are 4 clubs bigger than the rest, then a group of similar sized clubs behind them. Quite a big group. Im amazed anyone thinks otherwise. In what possible way are Newcastle in the same bracket as Spurs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted December 12, 2010 Share Posted December 12, 2010 Good enough to put you in the same bracket as Spurs? Hardly. Not good enough, no. I wouldn't consider Spurs much, if atall bigger than Everton, Villa, Newcastle, City etc. They are currently better though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted December 12, 2010 Share Posted December 12, 2010 Not good enough, no. I wouldn't consider Spurs much, if atall bigger than Everton, Villa, Newcastle, City etc. They are currently better though. Spurs are vastly more successful on the pitch than any of those clubs and have far and away the biggest turnover of the lot, too. Once they get their new stadium that'll only increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted December 12, 2010 Share Posted December 12, 2010 Spurs are vastly more successful on the pitch than any of those clubs and have far and away the biggest turnover of the lot, too. Once they get their new stadium that'll only increase. At the moment they are, however they only have 2 league championships to their name, despite being a good cup team. Their turnover has shot up over the past few years and they have great potential because of recent 'success'. If anyone is going to compete with the biggest clubs, it will be them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trgf Posted December 12, 2010 Share Posted December 12, 2010 In what possible way are Newcastle in the same bracket as Spurs? Haven't won the league for generations, deluded fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 At the moment they are, however they only have 2 league championships to their name, despite being a good cup team. Their turnover has shot up over the past few years and they have great potential because of recent 'success'. If anyone is going to compete with the biggest clubs, it will be them. Why would you consider Chelsea amongst the biggest clubs then, if that is your criteria? Chelsea only have 4 championships to their name, and they are only considered one of the big clubs because of their recent success. Everton, Aston Villa and Sunderland all have more league championships than Chelsea, and Villa have also won the European Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latino Lover Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Off the top of my head Newcastle have had 5 top 4 finishes to Spurs 1 since the dawn of the EPL, more champions league campaigns and FA Cup Final appearances as well as better crowds. Sure Spurs are better now, have done better in the league cup and havn't been relegated but to speak of them in a different class is incredibly short sighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trgf Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Yep Spurs have grabbed the odd trophy but have usually been shite in the league where it matters. Does anyone remember their league cup run and team from 1999? exactly... but people remember the Newcastle team competing for the league. Qualifying for the champions league last year makes Spurs seem a bigger force than they've been for 20+ years, just like Newcastle were a bigger force between 94-04 even though they didn't win anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Off the top of my head Newcastle have had 5 top 4 finishes to Spurs 1 since the dawn of the EPL, more champions league campaigns and FA Cup Final appearances as well as better crowds. Sure Spurs are better now, have done better in the league cup and havn't been relegated but to speak of them in a different class is incredibly short sighted. Yep Spurs have grabbed the odd trophy but have usually been shite in the league where it matters. Does anyone remember their league cup run and team from 1999? exactly... but people remember the Newcastle team competing for the league. Qualifying for the champions league last year makes Spurs seem a bigger force than they've been for 20+ years, just like Newcastle were a bigger force between 94-04 even though they didn't win anything. You're both missing the point: it's primarily about money. Spurs have more of it than Newcastle do, and are in a greater position than Newcastle for sustaining high income levels. It's why Spurs have players like Rafael van der Vaart, while Newcastle can only get big-name players if they're somehow "damaged goods" (Ben Arfa being the prime example - superb player but severe injury problems and some discipline issues.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 You're both missing the point: it's primarily about money. Spurs have more of it than Newcastle do, and are in a greater position than Newcastle for sustaining high income levels. It's why Spurs have players like Rafael van der Vaart, while Newcastle can only get big-name players if they're somehow "damaged goods" (Ben Arfa being the prime example - superb player but severe injury problems and some discipline issues.) It depends what your definition of a big club is. I wouldn't say its primarily about money. If it was, the Newcastle have been in the top 6 in terms of turnover for well over the last decade, although I assume last season saw a big drop. Newcastle's turnover was bigger than Spurs until 3 or 4 seasons ago. Anyway, I wouldn't consider it delusion to place Newcastle in a group of similar sized clubs who would cover from about 5th to 12th. If you have the 5th-6th biggest turnover and you're finishing in the bottom half most seasons, then something is going wrong somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 It depends what your definition of a big club is. I wouldn't say its primarily about money. If it was, the Newcastle have been in the top 6 in terms of turnover for well over the last decade, although I assume last season saw a big drop. Newcastle's turnover was bigger than Spurs until 3 or 4 seasons ago. Anyway, I wouldn't consider it delusion to place Newcastle in a group of similar sized clubs who would cover from about 5th to 12th. If you have the 5th-6th biggest turnover and you're finishing in the bottom half most seasons, then something is going wrong somewhere. Deluded fans, perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Deluded fans, perhaps? You don't seem the brightest, it has to be said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordieBoy80 Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Before Keegan Newcastle weren't even getting 20000 as their average attendance, in English terms that hardly constitutes a 'big' club, the Toon Army are nearly as bad as Celtic with their delusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trgf Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Before Keegan Newcastle weren't even getting 20000 as their average attendance, in English terms that hardly constitutes a 'big' club, the Toon Army are nearly as bad as Celtic with their delusions. Newcastle have only averaged less than 20,000 3 times in the last 100 years (all in the second division at English football attendances lowest point during the 80's). http://www.newcastle...cerecords.shtml And are 6th on the all time list in England with an average of over 30,000. http://www.nufc.com/...e-all-time.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtie23 Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Next Blackburn boss????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 Newcastle have only averaged less than 20,000 3 times in the last 100 years (all in the second division at English football attendances lowest point during the 80's). http://www.newcastle...cerecords.shtml And are 6th on the all time list in England with an average of over 30,000. http://www.nufc.com/...e-all-time.html You shouldn't let the facts get in the way. What Adrian Durham says goes! Loads of clubs had bad crowds around that time. Arsenal and Villa with sub-20'000 crowds and Man Utd with only 23'000 in for a Division 1 match against Wimbledon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 You shouldn't let the facts get in the way. What Adrian Durham says goes! Loads of clubs had bad crowds around that time. Arsenal and Villa with sub-20'000 crowds and Man Utd with only 23'000 in for a Division 1 match against Wimbledon. Yeah, English football was at a low ebb at that point, before the 1990 World Cup sparked a turnaround. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordieBoy80 Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 I was actually talking about the early 90s when they were in the lower end of the English 2nd Division Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 I was actually talking about the early 90s when they were in the lower end of the English 2nd Division So the fans are deluded and Newcastle can't be described as a 'big' club because they had 2 seasons of poor crowds in nearly 20 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 And if it's Pardew then forget what I said, Ashley's an idiot Everything's okay though because Alan Pardew is (supposedly) interested in taking over (!) http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/dec/06/alan-pardew-newcastle-manager Alan Pardew is odds on across the board with the bookies. Oh dear. Binning Hughton for someone lke Pardew is utter madness, although considering the club and the Chairman, perhaps it's all that could be expected! If it turns out to be Alan Pardew, there isn't a word strong enough to describe the level of stupidity involved. Just to top it off, he's risked dressing room unrest and a relegation battle. Jesus fucking wept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.