luckyluke 1 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Leazes is now a parody of a parody of himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Leazes is now a parody of a parody of himself. I'm going to start calling him Vanessa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/...p?topic=37250.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottish Mag 3 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/...p?topic=37250.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevieintoon Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Surely how you perceive a club in terms of status, "bigness", and potential, is purely a personal opinion, is neither right nor wrong, and can't be proved as ABSOLUTE FACT, but to me and clearly to Leazes Mag, Sunderland are a bigger club than Tottenham. I could write all night with evidence to back up my claims on why I feel this way, but at the same time, anybody could put a Spurs slant on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 8948 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/...p?topic=37250.0 Has nothing to do with Mr. Jekyll Leazes though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Surely how you perceive a club in terms of status, "bigness", and potential, is purely a personal opinion, is neither right nor wrong, and can't be proved as ABSOLUTE FACT, but to me and clearly to Leazes Mag, Sunderland are a bigger club than Tottenham. I could write all night with evidence to back up my claims on why I feel this way, but at the same time, anybody could put a Spurs slant on it. Of course, both sides can be argued. My issue was more with being called clueless etc. with someone unwilling/unable to form anything remotely approaching a decent argument. But I should be used to that I suppose. I've got plenty respect for the Mackems who, like us in the past, get very good crowds when you consider what they've been through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevieintoon Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Surely how you perceive a club in terms of status, "bigness", and potential, is purely a personal opinion, is neither right nor wrong, and can't be proved as ABSOLUTE FACT, but to me and clearly to Leazes Mag, Sunderland are a bigger club than Tottenham. I could write all night with evidence to back up my claims on why I feel this way, but at the same time, anybody could put a Spurs slant on it. Of course, both sides can be argued. My issue was more with being called clueless etc. with someone unwilling/unable to form anything remotely approaching a decent argument. But I should be used to that I suppose. I've got plenty respect for the Mackems who, like us in the past, get very good crowds when you consider what they've been through. No-one called you clueless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Surely how you perceive a club in terms of status, "bigness", and potential, is purely a personal opinion, is neither right nor wrong, and can't be proved as ABSOLUTE FACT, but to me and clearly to Leazes Mag, Sunderland are a bigger club than Tottenham. I could write all night with evidence to back up my claims on why I feel this way, but at the same time, anybody could put a Spurs slant on it. Of course, both sides can be argued. My issue was more with being called clueless etc. with someone unwilling/unable to form anything remotely approaching a decent argument. But I should be used to that I suppose. I've got plenty respect for the Mackems who, like us in the past, get very good crowds when you consider what they've been through. No-one called you clueless. I'm pretty sure he meant me (amongst others) earlier. Whatever tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevieintoon Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Surely how you perceive a club in terms of status, "bigness", and potential, is purely a personal opinion, is neither right nor wrong, and can't be proved as ABSOLUTE FACT, but to me and clearly to Leazes Mag, Sunderland are a bigger club than Tottenham. I could write all night with evidence to back up my claims on why I feel this way, but at the same time, anybody could put a Spurs slant on it. Of course, both sides can be argued. My issue was more with being called clueless etc. with someone unwilling/unable to form anything remotely approaching a decent argument. But I should be used to that I suppose. I've got plenty respect for the Mackems who, like us in the past, get very good crowds when you consider what they've been through. No-one called you clueless. I'm pretty sure he meant me (amongst others) earlier. Whatever tbh. There's been nothing but net rows since I came back on last week, was alright the time before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 If Sunderland are a bigger club than Sunderland , presumably they are worth more too? I reckon Quinn got a great deal there then. Anyone fancy chipping in to tap the potential of Whitley Bay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Leazes clinging to whatever crumbs are thrown his way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 31,358 Spurs were barely getting that in the Premiership before Jol, let alone Tuesday night on fuckin SKY against Stoke. Yep, cos attendances are all that matter. I've never understood why loads of people do have a fixation about crowd/fan numbers and the "size" of a club. I've always considered it to be the equivalent of comparing the size of your dicks. Ok, it might be nice to be well hung, but it is in the end absolutely worthless if you are restricted to wanking. In the end all that matters is success. But only people with small cocks say size doesn't matter: FACT. I'm the 5th biggest cock on here. Genius Leazes, pure genius. Answer me question in your own time though, given you don't avoid questions. And here it is again, so you can't use the excuse of not knowing which one I mean: Why are Sunderland bigger than Spurs then? In your opinion. (Note the present tense). Feel sorry sometimes for you Alex, along with one or two of your bum chums because you're probably an OK bloke, but its not your fault you can't see the blatantly obvious, or make judgements. Just as you can't see a good board at a football club, you can't see that the mackems with a half decent board ie see the point made about "level playing field", would piss all over Spurs. Is this message board about to become the Spuds fan club as most of the fuckwits seem to be becoming more fascinated by their "plan".. well you never know, we might be about to get rid of the post Keegan bandwagon jumpers and fuckwits at last. White Hart Lane is south of here. That answer is actually laughable. You're the one who keeps banging on about facts never being wrong; well the facts show that spurs are both more successful and have had and currently have bigger attendances than the mackems, anything else is pure conjecture on your part. I could equally argue that Whitley Bay would be a bigger club than Spurs under the right management; it'd still be utter bollocks though. I hate Spurs more than just about any other club btw. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 (edited) 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 No, that's the narrow criteria you've now attached to this debate to try and regain some credibility. Most other people made the point Sunderland had the potential to be bigger, which is of course a completely different point to the one initially discussed. Not like you to move the goal posts though, is it? Edited March 14, 2007 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 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 No, that's the narrow criteria you've now attached to this debate to try and regain some credibility. Most other people made the point Sunderland had the potential to be bigger, which is of course a completely different point to the one initially discussed. Not like you to move the goal posts though, is it? No Alex, I have credibility, this is what I have always said, that the mackems have the potential to be one of the biggest clubs in the country. I have said it on numerous occasions, but people have disagreed with me, probably the same people who think it is impossible for NUFC to appoint unambitious directors - although I can excuse that ignorance on the basis they don't understand what unambitious directors are, in spite of myself trying to tell them. Probably the same people who booed Bobby Robson too, on the basis they thought it was impossible for us to finish outside of a UEFA cup spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 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 No, that's the narrow criteria you've now attached to this debate to try and regain some credibility. Most other people made the point Sunderland had the potential to be bigger, which is of course a completely different point to the one initially discussed. Not like you to move the goal posts though, is it? No Alex, I have credibility, this is what I have always said, that the mackems have the potential to be one of the biggest clubs in the country. I have said it on numerous occasions, but people have disagreed with me, probably the same people who think it is impossible for NUFC to appoint unambitious directors - although I can excuse that ignorance on the basis they don't understand what unambitious directors are, in spite of myself trying to tell them. Probably the same people who booed Bobby Robson too, on the basis they thought it was impossible for us to finish outside of a UEFA cup spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 35566 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 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 No, that's the narrow criteria you've now attached to this debate to try and regain some credibility. Most other people made the point Sunderland had the potential to be bigger, which is of course a completely different point to the one initially discussed. Not like you to move the goal posts though, is it? No Alex, I have credibility, this is what I have always said, that the mackems have the potential to be one of the biggest clubs in the country. I have said it on numerous occasions, but people have disagreed with me, probably the same people who think it is impossible for NUFC to appoint unambitious directors - although I can excuse that ignorance on the basis they don't understand what unambitious directors are, in spite of myself trying to tell them. Probably the same people who booed Bobby Robson too, on the basis they thought it was impossible for us to finish outside of a UEFA cup spot. The people who said that Sunderland didn't have the potential to be the biggest clubs in the country ARE THE SELF SAME PEOPLE that booed Bobby Robson. Leazes knows this to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottish Mag 3 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 (edited) 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 No, that's the narrow criteria you've now attached to this debate to try and regain some credibility. Most other people made the point Sunderland had the potential to be bigger, which is of course a completely different point to the one initially discussed. Not like you to move the goal posts though, is it? No Alex, I have credibility, this is what I have always said, that the mackems have the potential to be one of the biggest clubs in the country. I have said it on numerous occasions, but people have disagreed with me, probably the same people who think it is impossible for NUFC to appoint unambitious directors - although I can excuse that ignorance on the basis they don't understand what unambitious directors are, in spite of myself trying to tell them. Probably the same people who booed Bobby Robson too, on the basis they thought it was impossible for us to finish outside of a UEFA cup spot. The people who said that Sunderland didn't have the potential to be the biggest clubs in the country ARE THE SELF SAME PEOPLE that booed Bobby Robson. Leazes knows this to be true. And they are also "fuckwits", "clueless", "post Keegan bandwagon jumpers", "Glory Hunters" and "want to join the Spuds fan club"... Through in a couple of references of Top 5 finishes and England internationals and we cannot be far off a Leazes Mag full house. Edited March 14, 2007 by Scottish Mag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18051 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sima 0 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Yeah, but if Sunderland. But if....... LETS GO ROUND AGAIN MAYBE WE'LL TURN BACK THE HANDS OF TIME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Yeah, but if Sunderland. But if....... LETS GO ROUND AGAIN MAYBE WE'LL TURN BACK THE HANDS OF TIME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 My - correct - view that the mackems are a bigger club than the yids is because I open my eyes to the bigger picture, and history, rather than discount or ignore things simply because they don't suit me. The mackems are a bigger club than the yids, because their support and potential as a club is bigger. Like us, they were run for years by wankers............and only very stupid people remain blind to this fact, even more so when they are explained this and STILL ignore it. I'm confused. Who on here ever argued the point that we weren't run by 'wankers' i.e. Long John Westwood/McKeag/Forbes for a long time?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missed Sticks 0 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 This is a very strange topic for Newcastle fans to be actually arguing over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 This is a very strange topic for Newcastle fans to be actually arguing over Maybe they're scared of Sunlun overtaking us????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missed Sticks 0 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 This is a very strange topic for Newcastle fans to be actually arguing over Maybe they're scared of Sunlun overtaking us????? In the way Spurs have you mean? 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