Can we compete with Manchester City?

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Genuine question NE5, do you think if Keegan says to Ashley that he wants Ronaldinho we should pay him those sort of wages?

 

I'd say no.

 

I would want to say no, but you should back the manager. So it would be a real dilemna. I actually think that even Keegan - despite his ambition which makes him what he is - would be sensible about that and realise it is bordering on the ridiculous.

 

Hopefully.

 

 

 

Cheers.

[Dokko]

I think 200k per week for Ronaldinho would pay for itself in no time. He's a marketing man's dream, as well as the additional shirt sales (not just for supporters of Man City) but also the amount of increased advertiseing revenue, TV money, corporate sales and of course ticket sales, he would bring in.

 

Ronaldinho is a huge pull as well for prospective signings, raises a clubs profile way more than qualifying for the UEFA cup.

 

There are only a few players in the world that can have this effect: Brand Beckham is way out in front of course. But Brand Ronaldinho is still very much 2nd in the world. Brands Kaka and C Ronaldo probably make up the top tier which I talk about. Brands Messi, Rooney, Henry and Sheva aren't far behind but wouldn't have the same impact on clubs like ManShitty.

 

Could you imagine the Ronaldinho roadshow that would take place as I say a marketing man's dream, especially if he's a big fish in a small pond.

 

Should we be interested? From a marketing point of view a no brainer. From a footballing point of view, as long as we could control the circus, and the hooplah doesn't become a distraction, then it could be an excellent signing. You don't go from the World's best player to a donkey over night, so I'm fairly convinced he would improve our team, he'll also help hugely in attracting others.

 

The more I think about it the more I envy ManShitty, Ronaldinho would be a perfect fit for us, and in KK he may of had a great manager to play for.

 

 

I'd reckon he'd have most of the royalties and image rights sewn up, so really only ST sales and club merchandise would be the added income from him.

 

The fact that LJ stated that Citeh are flying out to Brazil to offer more money is quite frankly madness.

 

He could be a huge pull though for sure, but not the pull he once was, didn't the Brazilians tear down a statue of him back home after his poor WC? How dramatic and far is this fall from grace? Where is the bottom and when does he start to climb back up? I don't think he's got it in him, like Kluivert football really isn't a passion anymore, just a job and it tells in their level of performances. If he cannot motivate his goofy hide for one of the greatest clubs in the world living in a beautiful City, then what's he going to be like at Man City living in Manchester? For £250k a week, plus fee, he's a massive gamble, and i don't think Hughes really has it in him to handle such a star, to keep him motivated and playing well, he's a tough cookie Hughes and won't take his shite on and off the pitch, recipe for disaster imo.

[afar]

I think 200k per week for Ronaldinho would pay for itself in no time. He's a marketing man's dream, as well as the additional shirt sales (not just for supporters of Man City) but also the amount of increased advertiseing revenue, TV money, corporate sales and of course ticket sales, he would bring in.

 

Ronaldinho is a huge pull as well for prospective signings, raises a clubs profile way more than qualifying for the UEFA cup.

 

There are only a few players in the world that can have this effect: Brand Beckham is way out in front of course. But Brand Ronaldinho is still very much 2nd in the world. Brands Kaka and C Ronaldo probably make up the top tier which I talk about. Brands Messi, Rooney, Henry and Sheva aren't far behind but wouldn't have the same impact on clubs like ManShitty.

 

Could you imagine the Ronaldinho roadshow that would take place as I say a marketing man's dream, especially if he's a big fish in a small pond.

 

Should we be interested? From a marketing point of view a no brainer. From a footballing point of view, as long as we could control the circus, and the hooplah doesn't become a distraction, then it could be an excellent signing. You don't go from the World's best player to a donkey over night, so I'm fairly convinced he would improve our team, he'll also help hugely in attracting others.

 

The more I think about it the more I envy ManShitty, Ronaldinho would be a perfect fit for us, and in KK he may of had a great manager to play for.

 

 

I'd reckon he'd have most of the royalties and image rights sewn up, so really only ST sales and club merchandise would be the added income from him.

 

His personal image rights, yes, of course they are but sponsors and advertisers would be much more inclined to invest in a club where Ronaldinho plays. The money his sigining (if it happens) would generate for Shitty would be hard to quantify but it would be huge and more than justify his salary cost, IMO. If they can keep the transfer fee reasonable, then they'll be laughing all the way to the bank.

 

Your point about, whether his heart is in it anymore is very valid. It's probably the biggest question mark about him for me. I think he feels a little stale at Barca, strangely a move to a much less high profile club but in a more high profile league, may energize him once more.

 

One thing I think for sure though, is that if they do sign him, we are going to have a hard time competing with them in the transfer market, which I guess was the original question being asked in this thread.

[Guest optimistic nit]

rohnaldinho was one of those players who played football for the love of the game and with a smile on his face.

 

if he's asking for over 250K a week from citeh, then that player is gone imo, and so is a large chunk of his skill.

[Wullie]

rohnaldinho was one of those players who played football for the love of the game and with a smile on his face.

 

if he's asking for over 250K a week from citeh, then that player is gone imo, and so is a large chunk of his skill.

 

Very well put imo. I loved watching him when he was just enjoying it like he was in the park with his mates. £250k a week ffs.

[mrmojorisin75]

Laughable as it may seem, according to the BBC (Radio Five Live are running it on their sport bulletins) Man City have been given permission by Barcelona to open talks with Ronaldinho.

 

Now supposing this is true, and they stand any chance of getting him, should we be in for him? And if so, could we beat City to his signature?

 

Nobody seems to be laughing at their attempts like they certainly would be if it were us, why is that?

 

Think about it; it'd be trophy-signingtastic but it'd stun the fans (could there be a bigger statement of intent?), satisfy the board (shirt sales aplenty, baby) and surely be a dream for any manager, let alone the attack-minded Keegan.

 

The world would sit up and listen. Season ticket sales would go through the roof. Hell, even MaethiS and NE5 might shut up for a day or two.

 

On his own, not a chance.  On his own its pretty much what you would call the ultimate "trophy" signing.

 

Their ticket sales etc would go through the roof, naturally and rightly so. But what really matters is they follow it up with 2 or 3 really top quality younger signings. Such as Bentley, for one.  Persuading one or two players like Hart, Richards, Dunne and Johnson to sign longer deals. Now THAT would really convince me.

 

As for Newcastle United, and people saying that our new way of searching for bargains and kids is the way to go Would anybody on this message board not be delighted if Newcastle United did the above ?

 

Your point in bold is excellent Dave

 

 

 

we kind of discussed this on another thread but never got down to brass tacks regarding ambition for NUFC - what do you think is a realistic summer ambition for us?  as you say here man city already have a better squad than us so if they sign ronaldinho and YOU still reckon they need another 3-4 bentley-esque signings, what is realistic for us this summer?

 

given the amount of players we need rid of 'cause they're s***, plus the ones we've already let go we would need some amount of rebuilding huh?

 

suppose i'm trying to pin you down on details that i might not get, but in your posts there's always an undercurrent of impatience, if you like; if we're ambitious enough to crack the top four we'll spend money and that's about it...do you think we could have a such a summer to leave us in a position to have a go at the top four next season?  if not when do you think we should be aiming for that by? 

 

i'm genuinely interested mind, this is not a fishing expedition 'cause i reckon we agree on the basics - buying the best players makes the best teams!

 

for my part i honestly, honestly think it would take an investment of 100m+ to get us anywhere near europe again and as that's never happened in football apart from the one obvious exception & consider it unrealistic for us, or indeed anyone else...as for 2-3 consecutive 50m spending summers that's a different matter - it's what i think we should be expecting a minimum personally if you consider nothing else bar the increased TV revenue each club gets, spending anything less than that is akin to f***ing the fans over IMO

 

Impatient ? I've always been like this mate. I've never understood why we buy 2nd rate players ie not through bad judgement as in the likes of Boumsong, but in setting 2nd rate standards. There's a difference.

 

In terms of money, I don't know what to expect/demand. But I expect/demand standards . If they make a few good signings who are quality, and setting out the standards they should, I'll be happy, and see from that that they have the right idea and so are moving forward. I suppose what I'm saying is if they are going to spend 30m quid I would rather see 2 quality players for 15m quid each than 6 for 5m quid. Thats always been my view.

 

There is no problem with scouting around the lower leagues looking for the next Rob Lee, but people have to get this sort of thing into context. It just doesn't work like that. Sign 20 players from that sort of department, and only about 4 would be what you want, at the most. So you've paid the money for 20 players, and still need another 7.

 

Every top team has 3 or 4 players who are absolutely top drawer, otherwise they wouldn't be in the top 4. You have to pay the money when these players are available.

 

I would never criticise a board of directors for trying to bring quality footballers into the football club, thats what you want from them !!!!!

 

I agree with the short post by UV. We have to compete with our rivals, at the time, thats what its all about.

 

I don't think there is much between us and a top 6 place if we do, its all about which managers show the best judgement ie between us, Spuds, Man City and Villa now probably, being the clubs with the biggest support. Getting higher than that is a taller order as you say, but over a few years any of these teams could do it and in time one or more will. Do you think anybody else could do it ?

 

 

Cheers, not 100% with you but almost; I'm just of the opinion that at this point in time 2 x 15m players isn't what we need to take us on.  We need a better squad as a priority THEN those players.  If we could do it all at once then fantastic but considering Modric is what you get for 15m these days, or Darren Bent, I just couldn't see them making the impact we need with the current squad.

 

Can't disagree with any of it fundamentally though.

[NE5]

Laughable as it may seem, according to the BBC (Radio Five Live are running it on their sport bulletins) Man City have been given permission by Barcelona to open talks with Ronaldinho.

 

Now supposing this is true, and they stand any chance of getting him, should we be in for him? And if so, could we beat City to his signature?

 

Nobody seems to be laughing at their attempts like they certainly would be if it were us, why is that?

 

Think about it; it'd be trophy-signingtastic but it'd stun the fans (could there be a bigger statement of intent?), satisfy the board (shirt sales aplenty, baby) and surely be a dream for any manager, let alone the attack-minded Keegan.

 

The world would sit up and listen. Season ticket sales would go through the roof. Hell, even MaethiS and NE5 might shut up for a day or two.

 

On his own, not a chance.  On his own its pretty much what you would call the ultimate "trophy" signing.

 

Their ticket sales etc would go through the roof, naturally and rightly so. But what really matters is they follow it up with 2 or 3 really top quality younger signings. Such as Bentley, for one.  Persuading one or two players like Hart, Richards, Dunne and Johnson to sign longer deals. Now THAT would really convince me.

 

As for Newcastle United, and people saying that our new way of searching for bargains and kids is the way to go Would anybody on this message board not be delighted if Newcastle United did the above ?

 

Your point in bold is excellent Dave

 

 

 

we kind of discussed this on another thread but never got down to brass tacks regarding ambition for NUFC - what do you think is a realistic summer ambition for us?  as you say here man city already have a better squad than us so if they sign ronaldinho and YOU still reckon they need another 3-4 bentley-esque signings, what is realistic for us this summer?

 

given the amount of players we need rid of 'cause they're s***, plus the ones we've already let go we would need some amount of rebuilding huh?

 

suppose i'm trying to pin you down on details that i might not get, but in your posts there's always an undercurrent of impatience, if you like; if we're ambitious enough to crack the top four we'll spend money and that's about it...do you think we could have a such a summer to leave us in a position to have a go at the top four next season?  if not when do you think we should be aiming for that by? 

 

i'm genuinely interested mind, this is not a fishing expedition 'cause i reckon we agree on the basics - buying the best players makes the best teams!

 

for my part i honestly, honestly think it would take an investment of 100m+ to get us anywhere near europe again and as that's never happened in football apart from the one obvious exception & consider it unrealistic for us, or indeed anyone else...as for 2-3 consecutive 50m spending summers that's a different matter - it's what i think we should be expecting a minimum personally if you consider nothing else bar the increased TV revenue each club gets, spending anything less than that is akin to f***ing the fans over IMO

 

Impatient ? I've always been like this mate. I've never understood why we buy 2nd rate players ie not through bad judgement as in the likes of Boumsong, but in setting 2nd rate standards. There's a difference.

 

In terms of money, I don't know what to expect/demand. But I expect/demand standards . If they make a few good signings who are quality, and setting out the standards they should, I'll be happy, and see from that that they have the right idea and so are moving forward. I suppose what I'm saying is if they are going to spend 30m quid I would rather see 2 quality players for 15m quid each than 6 for 5m quid. Thats always been my view.

 

There is no problem with scouting around the lower leagues looking for the next Rob Lee, but people have to get this sort of thing into context. It just doesn't work like that. Sign 20 players from that sort of department, and only about 4 would be what you want, at the most. So you've paid the money for 20 players, and still need another 7.

 

Every top team has 3 or 4 players who are absolutely top drawer, otherwise they wouldn't be in the top 4. You have to pay the money when these players are available.

 

I would never criticise a board of directors for trying to bring quality footballers into the football club, thats what you want from them !!!!!

 

I agree with the short post by UV. We have to compete with our rivals, at the time, thats what its all about.

 

I don't think there is much between us and a top 6 place if we do, its all about which managers show the best judgement ie between us, Spuds, Man City and Villa now probably, being the clubs with the biggest support. Getting higher than that is a taller order as you say, but over a few years any of these teams could do it and in time one or more will. Do you think anybody else could do it ?

 

 

Cheers, not 100% with you but almost; I'm just of the opinion that at this point in time 2 x 15m players isn't what we need to take us on.  We need a better squad as a priority THEN those players.  If we could do it all at once then fantastic but considering Modric is what you get for 15m these days, or Darren Bent, I just couldn't see them making the impact we need with the current squad.

 

Can't disagree with any of it fundamentally though.

 

actually I hate to say this but the mackems are more than capable of joining that list, in fact they have a bigger and better support than Villa and Spuds for starters.

 

 

[Ericz]

actually I hate to say this but the mackems are more than capable of joining that list, in fact they have a bigger and better support than Villa and Spuds for starters.

 

The Mackems have a bigger and better support than Villa and Spuds?

 

I'm genuinely a bit lost. Are you being sarcastic or for real? Mmmmm how so do they have a bigger and better support?

[geordieglory]

actually I hate to say this but the mackems are more than capable of joining that list, in fact they have a bigger and better support than Villa and Spuds for starters.

 

The Mackems have a bigger and better support than Villa and Spuds?

 

I'm genuinely a bit lost. Are you being sarcastic or for real? Mmmmm how so do they have a bigger and better support?

 

NE5 thinks that a bigger stadium = more supporters nation-/world-wide, regardless of the fact that some bigger/better supported teams merely have smaller (but always full) stadia than teams who are definitely 'smaller' clubs.  Hence he thinks that NUFC are a bigger club than Liverpool ("only Man Utd are bigger than us", or some such bunk), and that the M*ck*ms have a bigger support than Spurs and Villa.    No, they just have a big stadium (of shite), you nit!

[Guest optimistic nit]

actually I hate to say this but the mackems are more than capable of joining that list, in fact they have a bigger and better support than Villa and Spuds for starters.

 

The Mackems have a bigger and better support than Villa and Spuds?

 

I'm genuinely a bit lost. Are you being sarcastic or for real? Mmmmm how so do they have a bigger and better support?

 

i think they had the 4th or 5th biggest attendance last season, despite finishing where they did, so yes, they do have a bigger and better support, in terms of attendances, which is one of the most important aspects of your support base shirely?

 

[NE5]

actually I hate to say this but the mackems are more than capable of joining that list, in fact they have a bigger and better support than Villa and Spuds for starters.

 

The Mackems have a bigger and better support than Villa and Spuds?

 

I'm genuinely a bit lost. Are you being sarcastic or for real? Mmmmm how so do they have a bigger and better support?

 

don't know what you mean mate.

 

Saying the mackems have been less successful [obviously true] is different to saying they are a smaller club. Because I don't think so. If they got their act together they have the support. People go on about Leeds getting big crowds for the lower divisions but they actually piss all over Leeds in the support stakes too.

 

I can see this going down a particular road here, but suffice to say the mackems have been run like a corner shop for 40 years otherwise this wouldn't even be an issue.

[NE5]

actually I hate to say this but the mackems are more than capable of joining that list, in fact they have a bigger and better support than Villa and Spuds for starters.

 

The Mackems have a bigger and better support than Villa and Spuds?

 

I'm genuinely a bit lost. Are you being sarcastic or for real? Mmmmm how so do they have a bigger and better support?

 

NE5 thinks that a bigger stadium = more supporters nation-/world-wide, regardless of the fact that some bigger/better supported teams merely have smaller (but always full) stadia than teams who are definitely 'smaller' clubs.   Hence he thinks that NUFC are a bigger club than Liverpool ("only Man Utd are bigger than us", or some such bunk), and that the M*ck*ms have a bigger support than Spurs and Villa.    No, they just have a big stadium (of shite), you nit!

 

and you, son, are talking absolute garbage.

 

If your view of things is restricted to the last 10 or even 20 years, its your problem.

 

Give the mackems a sniff of success and they would piss all over the likes of Villa, Spurs and Leeds. Just like we did, which we didn't for years, just like them.

 

Come back when you learn the difference between "bigger" and "more successful"

 

 

[geordieglory]

actually I hate to say this but the mackems are more than capable of joining that list, in fact they have a bigger and better support than Villa and Spuds for starters.

 

The Mackems have a bigger and better support than Villa and Spuds?

 

I'm genuinely a bit lost. Are you being sarcastic or for real? Mmmmm how so do they have a bigger and better support?

 

NE5 thinks that a bigger stadium = more supporters nation-/world-wide, regardless of the fact that some bigger/better supported teams merely have smaller (but always full) stadia than teams who are definitely 'smaller' clubs.   Hence he thinks that NUFC are a bigger club than Liverpool ("only Man Utd are bigger than us", or some such bunk), and that the M*ck*ms have a bigger support than Spurs and Villa.    No, they just have a big stadium (of s****), you nit!

 

and you, son, are talking absolute garbage.

 

If your view of things is restricted to the last 10 or even 20 years, its your problem.

 

Give the mackems a sniff of success and they would piss all over the likes of Villa, Spurs and Leeds. Just like we did, which we didn't for years, just like them.

 

Come back when you learn the difference between "bigger" and "more successful"

 

 

 

Leaving aside the debate concerning what concerns a big club (success, fanbase, history etc) [btw, a debate I never brought up and am not interested in discussing], in PURELY FANBASE TERMS (I've put it in caps so you don't think I'm talking about trophies/other stuff), if you think that there are more Sunderland (or even *potential* Sunderland) fans in the UK (or the world, for that matter) than there are Tottenham/Villa/Leeds fans/potential fans, then you're out of your tree.

 

The fact that they can get more in through the doors does not mean they have a bigger fanbase than any of those clubs; it just means that the other club have many thousands more fans OUTSIDE the stadium on matchdays than Sunderland.

 

Likewise, suggesting that Newcastle has a bigger fanbase than, say, Liverpool is ridiculous.  Yes, we have a great fanbase and get great attendances at SJP, but if Liverpool had a bigger stadium than us they would get more fans through the turnstiles every week, and still have more 'in reserve' than we do.

[NE5]

actually I hate to say this but the mackems are more than capable of joining that list, in fact they have a bigger and better support than Villa and Spuds for starters.

 

The Mackems have a bigger and better support than Villa and Spuds?

 

I'm genuinely a bit lost. Are you being sarcastic or for real? Mmmmm how so do they have a bigger and better support?

 

NE5 thinks that a bigger stadium = more supporters nation-/world-wide, regardless of the fact that some bigger/better supported teams merely have smaller (but always full) stadia than teams who are definitely 'smaller' clubs.   Hence he thinks that NUFC are a bigger club than Liverpool ("only Man Utd are bigger than us", or some such bunk), and that the M*ck*ms have a bigger support than Spurs and Villa.    No, they just have a big stadium (of s****), you nit!

 

and you, son, are talking absolute garbage.

 

If your view of things is restricted to the last 10 or even 20 years, its your problem.

 

Give the mackems a sniff of success and they would piss all over the likes of Villa, Spurs and Leeds. Just like we did, which we didn't for years, just like them.

 

Come back when you learn the difference between "bigger" and "more successful"

 

 

Leaving aside the debate concerning what concerns a big club (success, fanbase, history etc) [btw, a debate I never brought up and am not interested in discussing], in PURELY FANBASE TERMS (I've put it in caps so you don't think I'm talking about trophies/other stuff), if you think that there are more Sunderland (or even *potential* Sunderland) fans in the UK (or the world, for that matter) than there are Tottenham/Villa/Leeds fans/potential fans, then you're out of your tree.

 

The fact that they can get more in through the doors does not mean they have a bigger fanbase than any of those clubs; it just means that the other club have many thousands more fans OUTSIDE the stadium on matchdays than Sunderland.

 

Likewise, suggesting that Newcastle has a bigger fanbase than, say, Liverpool is ridiculous.  Yes, we have a great fanbase and get great attendances at SJP, but if Liverpool had a bigger stadium than us they would get more fans through the turnstiles every week, and still have more 'in reserve' than we do.

 

to repeat. The mackems with a whiff of success would piss all over the likes of Leeds, Spurs and Villa.

 

The only reason they have had the occasional better crowd is BECAUSE they have won a trophy or trophies.

 

I don't agree that if Liverpool and ourselves had similar success then they would still get bigger support, because they would not. They don't have supporters locked out of the ground for every game, I have no idea what hat you've pulled that observation from. And they have had less crowds ie an unfilled 44,000 stadium on occasions, than us despite their huge success.

 

There will no doubt be games they will fill if they build a bigger ground [in spite of the debt it would bring and as such must be a decision made by a shit board if they do incur such a debt] but so would we, and more. A large section of Liverpools supporters are only attached to the club through their success, give us even 5 years of what they have had and you wouldn't be disagreeing with this either.

 

Your proof is the first time Keegan was manager. Never mind your 50,000 or even 60,000 stadiums, with people from North Wales and Ireland travelling to watch the team,  which Liverpool would get. Half of Tyneside wanted to get into that ground.

 

I don't know where you get this idea of worldwide support for Villa and Spurs especially, because there sure as hell aren't too many of them come to watch their team play when they play at Newcastle or sunderland. Or Teeside for that matter. How often is Villa Park full ?

 

The mackems are a lot bigger than you and others think, just because they have been shit in your time [like we were too before when we also were run like a corner shop] doesn't change that.

 

 

[Guest K9]

I'd take him for any price, he's just world class and you don't just lose class

 

Maybe he needs a move and it'll help reignite his career. He should come to England to prove his doubters he's still one of the best in the world, he'll be loved at Newcastle.

[dustynrg]

I'd take him for any price, he's just world class and you don't just lose class

 

Maybe he needs a move and it'll help reignite his career. He should come to England to prove his doubters he's still one of the best in the world, he'll be loved at Newcastle.

 

There's more chance of Owen joining him at Man City than him ever coming here, he hardly fits in with the reduced wages policy does he?

 

 

[afar]

actually I hate to say this but the mackems are more than capable of joining that list, in fact they have a bigger and better support than Villa and Spuds for starters.

 

The Mackems have a bigger and better support than Villa and Spuds?

 

I'm genuinely a bit lost. Are you being sarcastic or for real? Mmmmm how so do they have a bigger and better support?

 

NE5 thinks that a bigger stadium = more supporters nation-/world-wide, regardless of the fact that some bigger/better supported teams merely have smaller (but always full) stadia than teams who are definitely 'smaller' clubs.   Hence he thinks that NUFC are a bigger club than Liverpool ("only Man Utd are bigger than us", or some such bunk), and that the M*ck*ms have a bigger support than Spurs and Villa.    No, they just have a big stadium (of s****), you nit!

 

and you, son, are talking absolute garbage.

 

If your view of things is restricted to the last 10 or even 20 years, its your problem.

 

Give the mackems a sniff of success and they would piss all over the likes of Villa, Spurs and Leeds. Just like we did, which we didn't for years, just like them.

 

Come back when you learn the difference between "bigger" and "more successful"

 

 

Leaving aside the debate concerning what concerns a big club (success, fanbase, history etc) [btw, a debate I never brought up and am not interested in discussing], in PURELY FANBASE TERMS (I've put it in caps so you don't think I'm talking about trophies/other stuff), if you think that there are more Sunderland (or even *potential* Sunderland) fans in the UK (or the world, for that matter) than there are Tottenham/Villa/Leeds fans/potential fans, then you're out of your tree.

 

The fact that they can get more in through the doors does not mean they have a bigger fanbase than any of those clubs; it just means that the other club have many thousands more fans OUTSIDE the stadium on matchdays than Sunderland.

 

Likewise, suggesting that Newcastle has a bigger fanbase than, say, Liverpool is ridiculous.  Yes, we have a great fanbase and get great attendances at SJP, but if Liverpool had a bigger stadium than us they would get more fans through the turnstiles every week, and still have more 'in reserve' than we do.

 

to repeat. The mackems with a whiff of success would piss all over the likes of Leeds, Spurs and Villa.

 

The only reason they have had the occasional better crowd is BECAUSE they have won a trophy or trophies.

 

I don't agree that if Liverpool and ourselves had similar success then they would still get bigger support, because they would not. They don't have supporters locked out of the ground for every game, I have no idea what hat you've pulled that observation from. And they have had less crowds ie an unfilled 44,000 stadium on occasions, than us despite their huge success.

 

There will no doubt be games they will fill if they build a bigger ground [in spite of the debt it would bring and as such must be a decision made by a s*** board if they do incur such a debt] but so would we, and more. A large section of Liverpools supporters are only attached to the club through their success, give us even 5 years of what they have had and you wouldn't be disagreeing with this either.

 

Your proof is the first time Keegan was manager. Never mind your 50,000 or even 60,000 stadiums, with people from North Wales and Ireland travelling to watch the team,  which Liverpool would get. Half of Tyneside wanted to get into that ground.

 

I don't know where you get this idea of worldwide support for Villa and Spurs especially, because there sure as hell aren't too many of them come to watch their team play when they play at Newcastle or sunderland. Or Teeside for that matter. How often is Villa Park full ?

 

The mackems are a lot bigger than you and others think, just because they have been s*** in your time [like we were too before when we also were run like a corner shop] doesn't change that.

 

 

 

You know what, if anyone cares, I agree with NE5 

However both Newcastle and Sunderland support is potentially based, until either or both have the same level of success as the other teams that were mentioned it's hard to prove.

 

But I think NE5 is right that both have the potential to be huge clubs clubs, if they were run coreectly and had a little bit of sustaned success.

[Guest Teed]

Cracking post, Gromit.

 

I'd take Ronaldinho in a flash, and do think we'd have a chance to sign him if we bid.

 

I like your user name!!

[Optimistic Nut]

And I like your mam.

[Keefaz]

And I use your mam.

[Optimistic Nut]

And I abuse your mam.

[Keefaz]

And I use your mam's name.

[madras]

And I abuse your mam.

i would abuse your mam if she wasnt your dad

[Optimistic Nut]

I would abuse your mam if she wasn't your dad's brother who is also his uncle.

[NE5]

actually I hate to say this but the mackems are more than capable of joining that list, in fact they have a bigger and better support than Villa and Spuds for starters.

 

The Mackems have a bigger and better support than Villa and Spuds?

 

I'm genuinely a bit lost. Are you being sarcastic or for real? Mmmmm how so do they have a bigger and better support?

 

NE5 thinks that a bigger stadium = more supporters nation-/world-wide, regardless of the fact that some bigger/better supported teams merely have smaller (but always full) stadia than teams who are definitely 'smaller' clubs.   Hence he thinks that NUFC are a bigger club than Liverpool ("only Man Utd are bigger than us", or some such bunk), and that the M*ck*ms have a bigger support than Spurs and Villa.    No, they just have a big stadium (of s****), you nit!

 

and you, son, are talking absolute garbage.

 

If your view of things is restricted to the last 10 or even 20 years, its your problem.

 

Give the mackems a sniff of success and they would piss all over the likes of Villa, Spurs and Leeds. Just like we did, which we didn't for years, just like them.

 

Come back when you learn the difference between "bigger" and "more successful"

 

 

Leaving aside the debate concerning what concerns a big club (success, fanbase, history etc) [btw, a debate I never brought up and am not interested in discussing], in PURELY FANBASE TERMS (I've put it in caps so you don't think I'm talking about trophies/other stuff), if you think that there are more Sunderland (or even *potential* Sunderland) fans in the UK (or the world, for that matter) than there are Tottenham/Villa/Leeds fans/potential fans, then you're out of your tree.

 

The fact that they can get more in through the doors does not mean they have a bigger fanbase than any of those clubs; it just means that the other club have many thousands more fans OUTSIDE the stadium on matchdays than Sunderland.

 

Likewise, suggesting that Newcastle has a bigger fanbase than, say, Liverpool is ridiculous.  Yes, we have a great fanbase and get great attendances at SJP, but if Liverpool had a bigger stadium than us they would get more fans through the turnstiles every week, and still have more 'in reserve' than we do.

 

to repeat. The mackems with a whiff of success would piss all over the likes of Leeds, Spurs and Villa.

 

The only reason they have had the occasional better crowd is BECAUSE they have won a trophy or trophies.

 

I don't agree that if Liverpool and ourselves had similar success then they would still get bigger support, because they would not. They don't have supporters locked out of the ground for every game, I have no idea what hat you've pulled that observation from. And they have had less crowds ie an unfilled 44,000 stadium on occasions, than us despite their huge success.

 

There will no doubt be games they will fill if they build a bigger ground [in spite of the debt it would bring and as such must be a decision made by a s*** board if they do incur such a debt] but so would we, and more. A large section of Liverpools supporters are only attached to the club through their success, give us even 5 years of what they have had and you wouldn't be disagreeing with this either.

 

Your proof is the first time Keegan was manager. Never mind your 50,000 or even 60,000 stadiums, with people from North Wales and Ireland travelling to watch the team,  which Liverpool would get. Half of Tyneside wanted to get into that ground.

 

I don't know where you get this idea of worldwide support for Villa and Spurs especially, because there sure as hell aren't too many of them come to watch their team play when they play at Newcastle or sunderland. Or Teeside for that matter. How often is Villa Park full ?

 

The mackems are a lot bigger than you and others think, just because they have been s*** in your time [like we were too before when we also were run like a corner shop] doesn't change that.

 

 

You know what, if anyone cares, I agree with NE5 

 

However both Newcastle and Sunderland support is potentially based, until either or both have the same level of success as the other teams that were mentioned it's hard to prove.

 

But I think NE5 is right that both have the potential to be huge clubs clubs, if they were run coreectly and had a little bit of sustaned success.

 

oh, people care alright. Well some do anyway.

 

They just don't read it or acknowledge its right because it means giving some credit to the fat bastard [and the other major shareholder's son, because they called women dogs, went to a brothel, moved people from seats [ahem], increased prices, "embarrased" supporters for making silly comments in the press with the meaning of  "we aren't going to buy anybody in January however badly we are doing"] etc etc. despite never doing anything right and having more savvy than the current owner has shown so far.

 

Anybody but Fred and all of that.........which was the verdict of the majority not so long ago.

 

I'm not one of these people who say that all the clubs in the northeast doing well is good for the area or anything like that, but the mackems doing well would have a spin off that it would raise us to do better. Why people deny how big a club they are is beyond me.

 

However, the simple fact is that ourselves and the mackems are 2 of the biggest clubs in the country, and its only lack of relative success that prevents it being glaringly obvious and undeniable to even the biggest, fattest, and idiotic Martin Samuel apologist.