Douggy B 0 Posted June 2, 2008 Author Share Posted June 2, 2008 we've been pretty successful by any definition barring winning cups/leagues, and clearly only WUMs pretend that is the only definition of success. I must be a WUM then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Fop, you do us a disservice by writing of the years before Keegan - how many times did we win the FA cup in the fifties? It may be a long time ago but it's all history. Yeah that's why I said historically we do fine, I mean the years after "success" and before Keegan and Hall. Like I said actually surviving that period could be argued to be the greatest "success" a club can have. we've been pretty successful by any definition barring winning cups/leagues, and clearly only WUMs pretend that is the only definition of success. I must be a WUM then. Perhaps. But frankly anyone that completely discounts European finishes, genuinely challenging for the title (if not winning it) and Champions League football coming from where NUFC were not so long ago is simply an idiot. And again surviving the FFS years would probably count as a success in many books - although in fairness it might still be a bit premature to start talking about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted June 2, 2008 Author Share Posted June 2, 2008 Fop, you do us a disservice by writing of the years before Keegan - how many times did we win the FA cup in the fifties? It may be a long time ago but it's all history. Yeah that's why I said historically we do fine, I mean the years after "success" and before Keegan and Hall. Like I said actually surviving that period could be argued to be the greatest "success" a club can have. we've been pretty successful by any definition barring winning cups/leagues, and clearly only WUMs pretend that is the only definition of success. I must be a WUM then. Perhaps. But frankly anyone that completely discounts European finishes, genuinely challenging for the title (if not winning it) and Champions League football coming from where NUFC were not so long ago is simply an idiot. And again surviving the FFS years would probably count as a success in many books - although in fairness it might still be a bit premature to start talking about that. The problem is that no one ever remembers the runners up. You have fans now that dont remember the first KK era. Unfortunatly the exciting brand of football will be forgotton and you will be left with nothing tangible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Fop, you do us a disservice by writing of the years before Keegan - how many times did we win the FA cup in the fifties? It may be a long time ago but it's all history. Yeah that's why I said historically we do fine, I mean the years after "success" and before Keegan and Hall. Like I said actually surviving that period could be argued to be the greatest "success" a club can have. we've been pretty successful by any definition barring winning cups/leagues, and clearly only WUMs pretend that is the only definition of success. I must be a WUM then. Perhaps. But frankly anyone that completely discounts European finishes, genuinely challenging for the title (if not winning it) and Champions League football coming from where NUFC were not so long ago is simply an idiot. And again surviving the FFS years would probably count as a success in many books - although in fairness it might still be a bit premature to start talking about that. The problem is that no one ever remembers the runners up. You have fans now that dont remember the first KK era. Unfortunatly the exciting brand of football will be forgotton and you will be left with nothing tangible. Defining success by other people remembering you is a fools errand. Although even by those standards I'd say we're actually better remember from the 90's (and maybe under Robson too) than clubs that actually DID win stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9023 Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Danny, define success then. What makes a successful club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted June 2, 2008 Author Share Posted June 2, 2008 Fop, you do us a disservice by writing of the years before Keegan - how many times did we win the FA cup in the fifties? It may be a long time ago but it's all history. Yeah that's why I said historically we do fine, I mean the years after "success" and before Keegan and Hall. Like I said actually surviving that period could be argued to be the greatest "success" a club can have. we've been pretty successful by any definition barring winning cups/leagues, and clearly only WUMs pretend that is the only definition of success. I must be a WUM then. Perhaps. But frankly anyone that completely discounts European finishes, genuinely challenging for the title (if not winning it) and Champions League football coming from where NUFC were not so long ago is simply an idiot. And again surviving the FFS years would probably count as a success in many books - although in fairness it might still be a bit premature to start talking about that. The problem is that no one ever remembers the runners up. You have fans now that dont remember the first KK era. Unfortunatly the exciting brand of football will be forgotton and you will be left with nothing tangible. Defining success by other people remembering you is a fools errand. Although even by those standards I'd say we're actually better remember from the 90's (and maybe under Robson too) than clubs that actually DID win stuff. Success / failure is almost wholly based round your legacy. in 50 years time the brand of football will be forgotten and the honours list will be criminally low for a club of your stature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 My Dad's bigger than all your dads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Fop, you do us a disservice by writing of the years before Keegan - how many times did we win the FA cup in the fifties? It may be a long time ago but it's all history. Yeah that's why I said historically we do fine, I mean the years after "success" and before Keegan and Hall. Like I said actually surviving that period could be argued to be the greatest "success" a club can have. we've been pretty successful by any definition barring winning cups/leagues, and clearly only WUMs pretend that is the only definition of success. I must be a WUM then. Perhaps. But frankly anyone that completely discounts European finishes, genuinely challenging for the title (if not winning it) and Champions League football coming from where NUFC were not so long ago is simply an idiot. And again surviving the FFS years would probably count as a success in many books - although in fairness it might still be a bit premature to start talking about that. The problem is that no one ever remembers the runners up. You have fans now that dont remember the first KK era. Unfortunatly the exciting brand of football will be forgotton and you will be left with nothing tangible. Defining success by other people remembering you is a fools errand. Although even by those standards I'd say we're actually better remember from the 90's (and maybe under Robson too) than clubs that actually DID win stuff. Success / failure is almost wholly based round your legacy. in 50 years time the brand of football will be forgotten and the honours list will be criminally low for a club of your stature. I suspect in 50 years time no one will remember who won what in the 90's, but the legend/myth of Keegan's Newcastle will still live on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted June 2, 2008 Author Share Posted June 2, 2008 Fop, you do us a disservice by writing of the years before Keegan - how many times did we win the FA cup in the fifties? It may be a long time ago but it's all history. Yeah that's why I said historically we do fine, I mean the years after "success" and before Keegan and Hall. Like I said actually surviving that period could be argued to be the greatest "success" a club can have. we've been pretty successful by any definition barring winning cups/leagues, and clearly only WUMs pretend that is the only definition of success. I must be a WUM then. Perhaps. But frankly anyone that completely discounts European finishes, genuinely challenging for the title (if not winning it) and Champions League football coming from where NUFC were not so long ago is simply an idiot. And again surviving the FFS years would probably count as a success in many books - although in fairness it might still be a bit premature to start talking about that. The problem is that no one ever remembers the runners up. You have fans now that dont remember the first KK era. Unfortunatly the exciting brand of football will be forgotton and you will be left with nothing tangible. Defining success by other people remembering you is a fools errand. Although even by those standards I'd say we're actually better remember from the 90's (and maybe under Robson too) than clubs that actually DID win stuff. Success / failure is almost wholly based round your legacy. in 50 years time the brand of football will be forgotten and the honours list will be criminally low for a club of your stature. I suspect in 50 years time no one will remember who won what in the 90's, but the legend/myth of Keegan's Newcastle will still live on. ha ha nice one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 13883 Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Apparently Joe Hart signs for Spurs today... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted June 2, 2008 Author Share Posted June 2, 2008 Apparently Joe Hart signs for Spurs today... I have heard that he is soon to be a Spurs player. good lad. Hope he is an understudy to a more experianced keeper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howay 12462 Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Apparently Joe Hart signs for Spurs today... I have heard that he is soon to be a Spurs player. good lad. Hope he is an understudy to a more experianced keeper. One of the best saves to shots against ratios in the league last season iirc he'd be fine as the first choice imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 8885 Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Apparently Joe Hart signs for Spurs today... Let me guess: ITK from F365? What happened to the Mutu deal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Apparently Joe Hart signs for Spurs today... Let me guess: ITK from F365? What happened to the Mutu deal... He always signs for Arsenal in FM. 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