Sunderland

[Guest stevieintoon]

Arguments about which clubs are biggest are pointless at best, and anyway, what does it matter? Fan base and success always get confused. What's more impressive, a 'small' club like Forest winning the European cup twice in a row or a 'big' club like us winning fuck all for 38 years in a row?

 

Spurs are a special case imo though, as they are always percieved as bigger than they really are due to the media love affair with them. I reckon they would win the award for the most hated club by normal fans though, and yes, I'd consider them to be 'bigger' than Sunderland but not us.

 

Btw, it's interesting to note that both Everton and Spurs (as well as Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, and ManU) are above us in the all time attendance league. Sunderland are not in the top 10.

It's also interesting to note that on time spent in the top flight only Man Utd have a higher average, according to the Sunday Sun anyway.

[Guest alex]

Arguments about which clubs are biggest are pointless at best, and anyway, what does it matter? Fan base and success always get confused. What's more impressive, a 'small' club like Forest winning the European cup twice in a row or a 'big' club like us winning fuck all for 38 years in a row?

 

Spurs are a special case imo though, as they are always percieved as bigger than they really are due to the media love affair with them. I reckon they would win the award for the most hated club by normal fans though, and yes, I'd consider them to be 'bigger' than Sunderland but not us.

 

Btw, it's interesting to note that both Everton and Spurs (as well as Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, and ManU) are above us in the all time attendance league. Sunderland are not in the top 10.

It's also interesting to note that on time spent in the top flight only Man Utd have a higher average, according to the Sunday Sun anyway.

Sounds right, which only proves the potential for crowds at the Toon when we're in the top division. I still think that's a slightly different thing to how 'big' a club is although it's a massive factor.

[Baggio 0]

I don't think Spurs are a bigger club than us, however they're making the most of what they've got which is why they have overtaken us in the last few years.

 

They're a very well organised club with a forward thinking board who are doing everything they can for the club to reach it's potential.

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes trying to have his cake and eat it. And failing.

Once upon a time, Alex, you used to put up an interesting debate.

 

Losing the plot are we ? Or do you realise you can't put up facts to show that I - and stevie too - are wrong ?

The bit in bold, ffs - have you no sense of irony?

As for the 'facts', I've stated why I think the Mackems aren't as big as Spurs in this thread already. Not that it's something you can prove but I think most people would agree.

 

most people on here may agree, because they will only see what they have seen since they started supporting the club. It is a shame they aren't intelligent enough to see the bigger picture, and put to one side the fact that the mackems have been a poor club in their time

 

But I expected this, limited, viewpoint on here.

 

Your sole reason behind the Mackems being bigger was them taking 8,000 to an away game in the Championship. I doubt Spurs would manage that but I would argue that Spurs never having been outside the top-flight in my lifetime makes them 'bigger' than a club that arguably has a larger potential fan-base.

 

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, as we were too, and only very stupid people remain blind to this fact, even more so when they are explained this and STILL ignore it.

 

Hey, but if you are a schoolteacher or a doctor, you know best .........

[Guest alex]

So, that was your sole argument then?

[Renton 18051]

My - correct - view

 

blah blah blah

 

 

It's just your opinion Leazes. The mackems are a bigger club than spurs how again? Because they have won the league more often in a time when nearly everyone who witnessed it is dead? Conveniently forgetting about the FA cup, League cup, and Europe (surprised you forgot about that one tbh)? Are Sunderland a bigger club because they have present and historic smaller attendances?

 

Like I said, I think arguing about which clubs are biggest is best left to school ground, but you've not convinced me you are correct. Infact, using every criteria I can think of except League success pre-1936 (ffs!) you're wrong.

[LeazesMag 0]

My - correct - view

 

blah blah blah

 

 

It's just your opinion Leazes. The mackems are a bigger club than spurs how again? Because they have won the league more often in a time when nearly everyone who witnessed it is dead? Conveniently forgetting about the FA cup, League cup, and Europe (surprised you forgot about that one tbh)? Are Sunderland a bigger club because they have present and historic smaller attendances?

 

Like I said, I think arguing about which clubs are biggest is best left to school ground, but you've not convinced me you are correct. Infact, using every criteria I can think of except League success pre-1936 (ffs!) you're wrong.

 

There are 2 ways of defining "big" clubs, or there are two ways people do it.

 

One is potential support, and fanbase.

 

The 2nd is by how much you have won.

 

My opinion is that it is done by fanbase and potential support.

 

If you do it by how much you have won, then the conclusion is that the likes of Wimbledon, Luton, Oxford, QPR, Norwich, Ipswich, Coventry, West Brom, Stoke, Southampton, Swindon, Leicester.. are all bigger clubs than ourselves and the mackems.

 

Do you really think this is the case ?

 

BTW - all these clubs WERE bigger than us in the way they operated as clubs [ which is a possible 3rd method of definition] when they won the trophies in question, but as this is meant to be a serious constructive answer, to which I am interested in other's views, I'll leave it at there on this occasion.

[Sima 0]

I don't get how having historically larger attendances (figures prove this - 59m as opposed to 51m) makes you a smaller club, when it suits you on your own criteria of what defines a "big" club

 

Potential is that, only potential. Means fuck all if you don't fulfill it.

 

Your 2 points

 

Trophies:

 

Spurs

Sunderland

 

Attendances

 

Spurs

Sunderland

 

There's your two criteria, there's Spurs at the top of both.

 

Any more evidence on what a big club is?

Edited March 13, 2007 by Sima

[Renton 18051]

My - correct - view

 

blah blah blah

 

 

It's just your opinion Leazes. The mackems are a bigger club than spurs how again? Because they have won the league more often in a time when nearly everyone who witnessed it is dead? Conveniently forgetting about the FA cup, League cup, and Europe (surprised you forgot about that one tbh)? Are Sunderland a bigger club because they have present and historic smaller attendances?

 

Like I said, I think arguing about which clubs are biggest is best left to school ground, but you've not convinced me you are correct. Infact, using every criteria I can think of except League success pre-1936 (ffs!) you're wrong.

 

There are 2 ways of defining "big" clubs, or there are two ways people do it.

 

One is potential support, and fanbase.

 

The 2nd is by how much you have won.

 

My opinion is that it is done by fanbase and potential support.

 

If you do it by how much you have won, then the conclusion is that the likes of Wimbledon, Luton, Oxford, QPR, Norwich, Ipswich, Coventry, West Brom, Stoke, Southampton, Swindon, Leicester.. are all bigger clubs than ourselves and the mackems.

 

Do you really think this is the case ?

 

BTW - all these clubs WERE bigger than us in the way they operated as clubs [ which is a possible 3rd method of definition] when they won the trophies in question, but as this is meant to be a serious constructive answer, to which I am interested in other's views, I'll leave it at there on this occasion.

 

I'd say a big club should be successful and have a big fanbase; naturally both normally go together.

 

But, anyway, Spurs have a higher historical attendance than Sunderland, and have a higher average now. It'd probably be higher if they had more reasonable prices or a bigger stadium - like Sunderland. Traditionally they were London's second club. So how are Sunderland "bigger" again?

 

Is it down to a purely speculative "potential", or are you going to admit you're wrong at last?

[LeazesMag 0]

I don't get how having historically larger attendances (figures prove this - 59m as opposed to 51m) makes you a smaller club, when it suits you on your own criteria of what defines a "big" club

 

Potential is that, only potential. Means fuck all if you don't fulfill it.

 

Your 2 points

 

Trophies:

 

Spurs

Sunderland

 

Attendances

 

Spurs

Sunderland

 

There's your two criteria, there's Spurs at the top of both.

 

Any more evidence on what a big club is?

 

you should go and support Spurs if you are so infatuated with them.

 

Personally, I hate the cockney yid twats, and also think as a football club we are by far the bigger of the two.

 

I am aware we have not always acted the bigger club, and consequently have been far lower, but that is the point I am making regarding our old board, which also happened to co-incide with the greatest era that they had, which they have basically lived off ever since.

 

They are to North London, what Everton and Man City are to Liverpool and Manchester respectively ie poor relations.

[LeazesMag 0]

My - correct - view

 

blah blah blah

 

 

It's just your opinion Leazes. The mackems are a bigger club than spurs how again? Because they have won the league more often in a time when nearly everyone who witnessed it is dead? Conveniently forgetting about the FA cup, League cup, and Europe (surprised you forgot about that one tbh)? Are Sunderland a bigger club because they have present and historic smaller attendances?

 

Like I said, I think arguing about which clubs are biggest is best left to school ground, but you've not convinced me you are correct. Infact, using every criteria I can think of except League success pre-1936 (ffs!) you're wrong.

 

There are 2 ways of defining "big" clubs, or there are two ways people do it.

 

One is potential support, and fanbase.

 

The 2nd is by how much you have won.

 

My opinion is that it is done by fanbase and potential support.

 

If you do it by how much you have won, then the conclusion is that the likes of Wimbledon, Luton, Oxford, QPR, Norwich, Ipswich, Coventry, West Brom, Stoke, Southampton, Swindon, Leicester.. are all bigger clubs than ourselves and the mackems.

 

Do you really think this is the case ?

 

BTW - all these clubs WERE bigger than us in the way they operated as clubs [ which is a possible 3rd method of definition] when they won the trophies in question, but as this is meant to be a serious constructive answer, to which I am interested in other's views, I'll leave it at there on this occasion.

 

I'd say a big club should be successful and have a big fanbase; naturally both normally go together.

 

But, anyway, Spurs have a higher historical attendance than Sunderland, and have a higher average now. It'd probably be higher if they had more reasonable prices or a bigger stadium - like Sunderland. Traditionally they were London's second club. So how are Sunderland "bigger" again?

 

Is it down to a purely speculative "potential", or are you going to admit you're wrong at last?

 

Oh I agree with that, or to put it another way, the big clubs should always be the top clubs or among the top clubs.

 

I don't think I am wrong anyway Renton. I think the mackems are one of the biggest clubs in the country, if they had their act together, and I really don't understand how people can think otherwise. When it boils down to it, there are about 7 or 8 clubs who could all dominate the game in this country if they had the best run clubs, and ourselves and the mackems are both 2 of them. Spurs probably are as well, but they are behind Manu, Us, Mackems, Liverpool, Arsenal, Villa....and probably on a par with Everton and Chelsea - until Abramovic for reasons best known to himself which I suspect are to do with it being the most prosperous part of London, chose to put his money into such a bunch of tossers when he could have chosen the most passionate club in the country with the best supporters who deserve real success more than any other and would appreciate it more than any other.

 

Do you not think, looking back at the Keegan years, that we showed everyone just what the club could achieve and attract ? Forget about 70,000 gloryseekers from all over the UK trekking to the Alton Towers of football, half the city of Newcastle wanted to watch that team play.

[Renton 18051]

I don't get how having historically larger attendances (figures prove this - 59m as opposed to 51m) makes you a smaller club, when it suits you on your own criteria of what defines a "big" club

 

Potential is that, only potential. Means fuck all if you don't fulfill it.

 

Your 2 points

 

Trophies:

 

Spurs

Sunderland

 

Attendances

 

Spurs

Sunderland

 

There's your two criteria, there's Spurs at the top of both.

 

Any more evidence on what a big club is?

 

you should go and support Spurs if you are so infatuated with them.

 

Personally, I hate the cockney yid twats, and also think as a football club we are by far the bigger of the two.

 

I am aware we have not always acted the bigger club, and consequently have been far lower, but that is the point I am making regarding our old board, which also happened to co-incide with the greatest era that they had, which they have basically lived off ever since.

 

They are to North London, what Everton and Man City are to Liverpool and Manchester respectively ie poor relations.

 

 

 

The argument was about Sunderland and Spurs btw, not us.

[LeazesMag 0]

I don't get how having historically larger attendances (figures prove this - 59m as opposed to 51m) makes you a smaller club, when it suits you on your own criteria of what defines a "big" club

 

Potential is that, only potential. Means fuck all if you don't fulfill it.

 

Your 2 points

 

Trophies:

 

Spurs

Sunderland

 

Attendances

 

Spurs

Sunderland

 

There's your two criteria, there's Spurs at the top of both.

 

Any more evidence on what a big club is?

 

you should go and support Spurs if you are so infatuated with them.

 

Personally, I hate the cockney yid twats, and also think as a football club we are by far the bigger of the two.

 

I am aware we have not always acted the bigger club, and consequently have been far lower, but that is the point I am making regarding our old board, which also happened to co-incide with the greatest era that they had, which they have basically lived off ever since.

 

They are to North London, what Everton and Man City are to Liverpool and Manchester respectively ie poor relations.

 

 

 

The argument was about Sunderland and Spurs btw, not us.

 

Shame at your response. Maybe it sidetracked slightly, but the points raised were genuine ones.

[Scottish Mag 3]

Do you not think, looking back at the Keegan years, that we showed everyone just what the club could achieve and attract ? Forget about 70,000 gloryseekers from all over the UK trekking to the Alton Towers of football, half the city of Newcastle wanted to watch that team play.

 

Some of those "so called glory seekers" still splash out year after year to support the club. Even with those, the club still fail to fill the ground these days....

[Renton 18051]

My - correct - view

 

blah blah blah

 

 

It's just your opinion Leazes. The mackems are a bigger club than spurs how again? Because they have won the league more often in a time when nearly everyone who witnessed it is dead? Conveniently forgetting about the FA cup, League cup, and Europe (surprised you forgot about that one tbh)? Are Sunderland a bigger club because they have present and historic smaller attendances?

 

Like I said, I think arguing about which clubs are biggest is best left to school ground, but you've not convinced me you are correct. Infact, using every criteria I can think of except League success pre-1936 (ffs!) you're wrong.

 

There are 2 ways of defining "big" clubs, or there are two ways people do it.

 

One is potential support, and fanbase.

 

The 2nd is by how much you have won.

 

My opinion is that it is done by fanbase and potential support.

 

If you do it by how much you have won, then the conclusion is that the likes of Wimbledon, Luton, Oxford, QPR, Norwich, Ipswich, Coventry, West Brom, Stoke, Southampton, Swindon, Leicester.. are all bigger clubs than ourselves and the mackems.

 

Do you really think this is the case ?

 

BTW - all these clubs WERE bigger than us in the way they operated as clubs [ which is a possible 3rd method of definition] when they won the trophies in question, but as this is meant to be a serious constructive answer, to which I am interested in other's views, I'll leave it at there on this occasion.

 

I'd say a big club should be successful and have a big fanbase; naturally both normally go together.

 

But, anyway, Spurs have a higher historical attendance than Sunderland, and have a higher average now. It'd probably be higher if they had more reasonable prices or a bigger stadium - like Sunderland. Traditionally they were London's second club. So how are Sunderland "bigger" again?

 

Is it down to a purely speculative "potential", or are you going to admit you're wrong at last?

 

Oh I agree with that, or to put it another way, the big clubs should always be the top clubs or among the top clubs.

 

I don't think I am wrong anyway Renton. I think the mackems are one of the biggest clubs in the country, if they had their act together, and I really don't understand how people can think otherwise. When it boils down to it, there are about 7 or 8 clubs who could all dominate the game in this country if they had the best run clubs, and ourselves and the mackems are both 2 of them. Spurs probably are as well, but they are behind Manu, Us, Mackems, Liverpool, Arsenal, Villa....and probably on a par with Everton and Chelsea - until Abramovic for reasons best known to himself which I suspect are to do with it being the most prosperous part of London, chose to put his money into such a bunch of tossers when he could have chosen the most passionate club in the country with the best supporters who deserve real success more than any other and would appreciate it more than any other.

 

Do you not think, looking back at the Keegan years, that we showed everyone just what the club could achieve and attract ? Forget about 70,000 gloryseekers from all over the UK trekking to the Alton Towers of football, half the city of Newcastle wanted to watch that team play.

 

Yeah, but you're dealing in an alternate Universe when you're saying Sunderland are bigger than Tottenham, I'm basing my viewpoint on the one that we actually live in. Many clubs could be huge given the right set of circumstances - i.e. investment and success. Some, like ours, have an inherent advantage due to Geography, and whilst I can accept your view that things are much better than they were 20 years ago, I still don't think we have manged to capitalise fully on this, mores the pity.

 

Anyway, fuck this sticking up for Spurs.

[Renton 18051]

I don't get how having historically larger attendances (figures prove this - 59m as opposed to 51m) makes you a smaller club, when it suits you on your own criteria of what defines a "big" club

 

Potential is that, only potential. Means fuck all if you don't fulfill it.

 

Your 2 points

 

Trophies:

 

Spurs

Sunderland

 

Attendances

 

Spurs

Sunderland

 

There's your two criteria, there's Spurs at the top of both.

 

Any more evidence on what a big club is?

 

you should go and support Spurs if you are so infatuated with them.

 

Personally, I hate the cockney yid twats, and also think as a football club we are by far the bigger of the two.

 

I am aware we have not always acted the bigger club, and consequently have been far lower, but that is the point I am making regarding our old board, which also happened to co-incide with the greatest era that they had, which they have basically lived off ever since.

 

They are to North London, what Everton and Man City are to Liverpool and Manchester respectively ie poor relations.

 

 

 

The argument was about Sunderland and Spurs btw, not us.

 

Shame at your response. Maybe it sidetracked slightly, but the points raised were genuine ones.

 

Leazes man, you spat your dummy out in that post, accept it.

[Sima 0]

Leazes so unhappy that his 2 main criteria for arguing Sunderland are bigger than Spurs was totally unfounded.

 

Unlucky fella.

[Guest stevieintoon]

I don't get how having historically larger attendances (figures prove this - 59m as opposed to 51m) makes you a smaller club, when it suits you on your own criteria of what defines a "big" club

 

Potential is that, only potential. Means fuck all if you don't fulfill it.

 

Your 2 points

 

Trophies:

 

Spurs

Sunderland

 

Attendances

 

Spurs

Sunderland

 

There's your two criteria, there's Spurs at the top of both.

 

Any more evidence on what a big club is?

 

you should go and support Spurs if you are so infatuated with them.

 

Personally, I hate the cockney yid twats, and also think as a football club we are by far the bigger of the two.

 

I am aware we have not always acted the bigger club, and consequently have been far lower, but that is the point I am making regarding our old board, which also happened to co-incide with the greatest era that they had, which they have basically lived off ever since.

 

They are to North London, what Everton and Man City are to Liverpool and Manchester respectively ie poor relations.

It goes without saying, even fuckin Terry Venables has said on numerous occasions, anybody with a spor of a clue knows that, you can't preach to monkeys mate, you have to realise who you are disputing this point with then just laugh and realise it's like SAF debating with Michael Carroll, I realised that a long time ago, especially on these shitey message boards.

[Guest stevieintoon]

Do you not think, looking back at the Keegan years, that we showed everyone just what the club could achieve and attract ? Forget about 70,000 gloryseekers from all over the UK trekking to the Alton Towers of football, half the city of Newcastle wanted to watch that team play.

 

Some of those "so called glory seekers" still splash out year after year to support the club. Even with those, the club still fail to fill the ground these days....

Yeah we're ONLY averaging 50,000

[Gejon 2]

at this thread, its funny when someone is proved wrong so throw the toys "well go fuck off and support them then"

[Sima 0]

 

It goes without saying, even fuckin Terry Venables has said on numerous occasions, anybody with a spor of a clue knows that, you can't preach to monkeys mate, you have to realise who you are disputing this point with then just laugh and realise it's like SAF debating with Michael Carroll, I realised that a long time ago, especially on these shitey message boards.

 

haha, look at the mong trying to take the high ground

[Guest stevieintoon]

It's incredibly difficult not to take the high ground, when you're attempting to talk about football, it honestly is.

Edited March 13, 2007 by stevieintoon

[Sima 0]

Still not got those figures then?

 

Taking account player purchases, which you have choosed to omit in your only source, eh?

 

Seen as you seem to have noted another point of reference (Venables), perhaps you'd care to link me to his comments to back your stance up?

[Papa Lazaru 0]

Well, we haven't done the "biggest club argument" for a while.

 

Firstly one day people will learn to separate the word size from the word success, they are two completely differen things and should be treat as such by anyone with a basic grasp of English.

 

Size relates funnilly enough to size, ie. of attendances, turnover, money spent on players, and whatever other criteria you'd care to add. The argument could come from when you begin your assessment, is it last 5 years, 10, 20 or forever!

 

Newcastle are bigger than Spurs and have been for quite a while, we are not and sadly i don't think will ever be more successful as i don't ever see us winning a trophy. However in terms of league position, playing in europe and other non trophy based guides to success we have been ahead of them for a good while now, and only the wankers in the cockney media who permanently bum spurs would struggle to grasp that concept.

 

The mackems are currently a smaller club than Spurs, but potentially bigger, thats clear. If the mackems and Spurs had a completely even playing field in terms of success, playing to the same standard in the top flight, same money available to spend then the mackems would have the bigger crowds home and away. However thet don't have an equal playign field and currently Spurs are bigger.

Edited March 13, 2007 by Papa Lazaru

[Scottish Mag 3]

Do you not think, looking back at the Keegan years, that we showed everyone just what the club could achieve and attract ? Forget about 70,000 gloryseekers from all over the UK trekking to the Alton Towers of football, half the city of Newcastle wanted to watch that team play.

 

Some of those "so called glory seekers" still splash out year after year to support the club. Even with those, the club still fail to fill the ground these days....

Yeah we're ONLY averaging 50,000

 

Aye but the point is shitloads of people, sorry gloryhunters, from outwith the area help fill the ground yet the so called uber local supporter is still failing to even see us reach full attendance. If it wasn't for these people still travelling week in week out the crowds would be even less.

Edited March 13, 2007 by Scottish Mag