brummie

Aren't you the one with 10,000 plus posts on gg-chat.net?

Mate, my point was that with investment, and hope, our potential is definitely there. if you look at attendance stats from pre 1990 - I'm assuming it was 1990 when SJH ousted McKeag and started instilling some ambition in Newcastle, but forgive me if I'm wrong - the average attendances of both clubs have not been hugely different over history. There've been times when yours have been better than ours, there were times when ours were better than yours. However, this somehow equates as Villa have never shown potential for great support, yet Newcastle always did, and Villa's potential is up there with that of Crystal Palace and Portsmouth? Get a grip. Mat if we won the league and were champions of Europe, even in the 80's 70,000 would've been too small, and that's a fact. Yet only 26,000 of you could be arsed on average. We've not won a domestic trophy for 50 odd years, you have and you've won the biggest cup of them all. If you think any English club would have pulled more than 70,000 on a regular basis in the early 1980s, then you're clearly off your rocker.

Based on top flight average, ours pisses on all of there's at 35,000 I believe. Size of the club was always based on fanbase in the past, which is why Manchester United despite a bleak 26 years, were always perceived as the biggest club. It's how Wenger judges Arsenal's status. It's just a new gimpy feature of the modern fan who has changed this, Manchester United's case is a special one, given the cache the club obtained post Munich. And you refer to their "bleak 26 years". Yep, they may not have won the title for 26 years, but in that time they managed to win 4 FA Cups and 1 European Cup Winners Cup. The fact of the matter is that big clubs win things, something Villa and Newcastle have managed to avoid for too long now.

Mate, my point was that with investment, and hope, our potential is definitely there. if you look at attendance stats from pre 1990 - I'm assuming it was 1990 when SJH ousted McKeag and started instilling some ambition in Newcastle, but forgive me if I'm wrong - the average attendances of both clubs have not been hugely different over history. There've been times when yours have been better than ours, there were times when ours were better than yours. However, this somehow equates as Villa have never shown potential for great support, yet Newcastle always did, and Villa's potential is up there with that of Crystal Palace and Portsmouth? Get a grip.

Much like yourselves before you got an ambitious board willing to spend money and finally started getting a whiff of success, you mean? He said "potential". The thing is you've had success and still couldn't get the numbers. Second in 1990 and 1993, averaging 25,000 and 29,000. Second to us was success, we mid table non-entities and we're still averaging over 50,000, that is a club with a huge potential fanbase. 34,000 when you won the fuckin league, and 26,000 in the season you won the European Cup. Sunderland have more potential than Villa by far. A huge potential fanbase to me is a club who at their peak could average 80,000 fans: i.e Man Utd, Newcastle, Arsenal, Celtic FULL STOP, THERE'S NOBODY ELSE. You seem to be neglecting a few facts. In 1993, we averaged 29k, yes you are right. But you dont mention that it iwas the third highest average in the Premier League that season. Same with 1990 - average attendances across the league 20K. Arsenal only managed 33k FFS. When we won the league? Are you aware of what football crowds were like in the early 1980s? 1980-1 average crowd in Div 1 = 24,000. 1982 = 22k. The early 80's yes I'm well aware of what gates were in the early 80's, better than they were in the mid 80's, when you were barely scraping 15,000 as an average in the top flight. Newcastle's 30,000 in 1984 was the third best in England despite being in the second division. We're the only club to my knowledge, to take over 14,000 away on more than one, occasion, Liverpool 84, Spurs 87, the potential to have a massive fanbase, was ALWAYS evident here. It never has been at Aston Villa. Ever. Gates in the early 80's..... What like Manchester United's 52,000 in 1980. In your year of being reigning champions, you only averaged 26,000, two years later we averaged almost 5,000 more in division two. To say Aston Villa potentially have a MASSIVE FANBASE, is the same as saying Crystal Palace potentially have a massive fanbase. You seem to be incapable of taking any comment about another club as some sort of comparison to, or sleight on, Newcastle. It wasn't meant as that, and isn't. If you prefer to see it that way, then carry on ranting and raving. Do you think one club having a big potential fanbase in some way means it has to be comparied to Newcastle? Because it doesn't, you know. I could point out that in 1972 our average crowd was 32k - pretty much the same as yours, except you were in the first division and we were in the third. We could pick out statistics like this that show both arguments all night, but it has absolutely no relevance whatsoever, because the original point was not about who has the largest potential fan base, you just seemed to fancy making it look that way to create a bit of confrontation.

Newcastle United play in black and white stripes. That is not black and white stripes, and is clearly to do with making numbers and names clearer on telly. That's another piece of our football heritage getting chipped away at by Sky.

^^^ nail / head interface here ^^^ Ellis took League then European champions (in his absence) to relegation in five years, then constantly failed to provide the backing to make the final step when we got close to winning the league again. That's enough to put anyone off for life.

Pardew is a strange one, last season West Ham were excellent and he had them playing really good football too, none of this long ball rubbish you see promoted teams playing but a good, pass and move game. This season he just couldn't get them going, he also left out Carlos Tevez for Bobby Zamora which is shocking when you think about it, he does seem to have Charlton on the right track now though. Look at the crap Pardew had to put up with at West Ham behind the scenes, though, with that initial, dodgy takeover, then the weird stuff we now know about with Tevez and Mascherano. He's done impressively well since moving to Charlton, though, as you said. I know you already sort of answered this but what's your personal view on O'Neill by the way? Disappointing given his reputation and the money that has been made availiable to him or someone who is definitely putting the club on the right road to success? Well, if you look at the table, it isn't great, but things aren't always as they immediately seem. He's had the chance to spend some money, but only in the January window (when it is very difficult to make signings, no matter how much cash you have). The August window closed and the takeover still hadn't gone through, so all he could do was sign Petrov. In January he picked up Maloney, Young and Carew (swap for Baros, and an absolutely awesome piece of business). Since the end of the Jan window, we've only actually played 5 games, and Maloney has been unfit for most of them. The upshot of it is that we can't judge him on this season, he's had to make do with O'Dreary's dross squad for the first half of the season (actually, although he got Petrov in, we lost De La Cruz (no biggie) and Milner (who was probably our best player last season) so he actually had a weaker squad than O'Leary did. He'll get there, he'll have bucketfuls of cash to spend in the summer, and can build his own side. We'll judge him on that rather than this season. The main thing is that optimism for the future is still sky high at the moment, and a bit of hope is always a good thing.

Pardew is a strange one, last season West Ham were excellent and he had them playing really good football too, none of this long ball rubbish you see promoted teams playing but a good, pass and move game. This season he just couldn't get them going, he also left out Carlos Tevez for Bobby Zamora which is shocking when you think about it, he does seem to have Charlton on the right track now though. Look at the crap Pardew had to put up with at West Ham behind the scenes, though, with that initial, dodgy takeover, then the weird stuff we now know about with Tevez and Mascherano. He's done impressively well since moving to Charlton, though, as you said.

Completely agree with Biffa from NUFC.COM. You really are laughable, mate. I make a point that Invicta was talking about our potential fanbase, and you go off on one. Feeling threatened or something? You're incredibly defensive about something. I was at both of those games mentioned. Firstly, Reading did bring as many fans as you did. They sold their allocation. Secondly, if we got more to watch us play Reading than we did for our match against you, what other inference could you possibly draw from that?

Much like yourselves before you got an ambitious board willing to spend money and finally started getting a whiff of success, you mean? He said "potential". The thing is you've had success and still couldn't get the numbers. Second in 1990 and 1993, averaging 25,000 and 29,000. Second to us was success, we mid table non-entities and we're still averaging over 50,000, that is a club with a huge potential fanbase. 34,000 when you won the fuckin league, and 26,000 in the season you won the European Cup. Sunderland have more potential than Villa by far. A huge potential fanbase to me is a club who at their peak could average 80,000 fans: i.e Man Utd, Newcastle, Arsenal, Celtic FULL STOP, THERE'S NOBODY ELSE. You seem to be neglecting a few facts. In 1993, we averaged 29k, yes you are right. But you dont mention that it iwas the third highest average in the Premier League that season. Same with 1990 - average attendances across the league 20K. Arsenal only managed 33k FFS. When we won the league? Are you aware of what football crowds were like in the early 1980s? 1980-1 average crowd in Div 1 = 24,000. 1982 = 22k.

Much like yourselves before you got an ambitious board willing to spend money and finally started getting a whiff of success, you mean? He said "potential". You've got a new chairman and MON the saviour, yet you've still got thousands of empty seats. I don't see the potential support you're referring to. O'Neill has been a disappointment this season, that's not to say he would have been as bad with us though. This season was a write off before it even started in absolutely every respect. I said then we'd finish mid table, and I still think we'll finish mid table now. You can't judge MON on the dross he inherited, judge him after at least a season with his own side. It takes time to make up for years of lack of ambition. Attendances are averaging at around 37k for this season, 7 percent or so up on last season, which is a decent start.

Much like yourselves before you got an ambitious board willing to spend money and finally started getting a whiff of success, you mean? He said "potential".

"Much lower"? Unless we beat Everton tomorrow (with our game in hand), in which case we'll be higher. 10th position down to 17th is one big vat of mediocrity.

I honestly doubt it. Win our game in hand on Monday and we're on 37 points. Then we've got a run in of Blackburn(a), Wigan (h), Boro (a), Portsmouth (h), Citeh (a), Sheff Utd (h), Bolton (a). Not hugely worrying on that front. Although what is freaky is the near total feeling of confidence for next season, once he can get his own team together. Being in a shit league position but full of confidence and hope is weird. As I said, it won't be you, it won't be us. Charlton were, apparently, mightily lucky to win yesterday, and have Spurs and Liverpool as their last two games. Too much for them to do, tbh.

You won't go down. It is a chance, yes, but it won't happen. We're in a precarious position too, but we're not going down either. You're in a much better position, it won't happen. EDIT that sounds like the least well argued argument ever, but there's too many teams worse than you for it to happen.

I couldn't agree more. I'm duty bound to point out, however, that Ron Saunders didn't actually win the European Cup, Tony Barton did, albeit with Saunders' team. However, he is known informally as Sir Ron Saunders round these parts, anyway ;-) (PS - do you ever wonder how Man City would have done in the 70s / 80s if Swales hadn't bowed to player power and sacked Saunders?) How Cloughie didn't get a knighthood but Ferguson did is surely the best indicator of how screwed up it is. Oh and before anyone dives in and says Cloughie didn't get one because he was too controversial, yes, yes, I know

I don't like the way Chelsea play. Actually, let me rephrase that, I think they could play better football with the players they have. I find Mourinho entertaining, and football in the wider sense will be worse off if he goes abroad. What I do find funny is when people go on about Mourinho being an unpleasant ungracious git, whilst at the same time lauding Wenger as some sort of messianic presence in the British game, overlooking the fact that he is a far more ungracious, worse loser than Mourinho ever was.

seriously? that's just sad Why is that sad? Would you prefer to be the perennially underachieving loser but liked by most? Like some kind of footballing Tim Henman? I'll take winning stuff and not giving a f*** about what other people think. like they're mutually exclusive Like he said they were. reckon he did actually Where would that be then? you said would we prefer to be a perennially liked loser, or a hated winner? sounds like a mutually exclusive suggestion to me Not to me it doesn't. It sounds like a choice of two options. I could have said "or a generally ignored mid-table team", but felt it unnecessary as your original post implied that in some way being unpopular was not a price worth paying for being massively successful. I was merely pointing out your foolishness, which you have continued to do quite effectively by yourself for the rest of the thread, so I'll leave you to it. bullshit You're winning me over now.

seriously? that's just sad Why is that sad? Would you prefer to be the perennially underachieving loser but liked by most? Like some kind of footballing Tim Henman? I'll take winning stuff and not giving a f*** about what other people think. like they're mutually exclusive Like he said they were. reckon he did actually Where would that be then? you said would we prefer to be a perennially liked loser, or a hated winner? sounds like a mutually exclusive suggestion to me Not to me it doesn't. It sounds like a choice of two options. I could have said "or a generally ignored mid-table team", but felt it unnecessary as your original post implied that in some way being unpopular was not a price worth paying for being massively successful. I was merely pointing out your foolishness, which you have continued to do quite effectively by yourself for the rest of the thread, so I'll leave you to it.

seriously? that's just sad Why is that sad? Would you prefer to be the perennially underachieving loser but liked by most? Like some kind of footballing Tim Henman? I'll take winning stuff and not giving a f*** about what other people think. like they're mutually exclusive Like he said they were. reckon he did actually Where would that be then?

seriously? that's just sad Why is that sad? Would you prefer to be the perennially underachieving loser but liked by most? Like some kind of footballing Tim Henman? I'll take winning stuff and not giving a fuck about what other people think.

I'd put up with being hated in return for what they've won over the last few years.

Roeder always comes across to me as a person who *thinks* he is far more eloquent than he actually is. One result of this is that in interviews, he tries too hard, and manages to come across as many things, one of which is arrogant. Whether he actually is or not is a different matter.

When you stop really caring about them, watching England matches becomes way less stressful or bothersome.