Only 48,000 today?

[Baggio]

the inter-city fairs cup replaced the uefa cup in the 70's (i think) so if you won the competition in the 60's how the hell have you won the uefa cup? tell the loser to tell the truth next time. Face it the guy was embarrased to call it 'inter city fairs cup', cant blame him though.

 

 

The Inter City Fairs cup evolved into the Uefa cup 2 years after we won it, Similar to how the European cup evolved into the Champions League.

 

Any other questions you fucking mongoloid?

[Dokko]

the inter-city fairs cup replaced the uefa cup in the 70's (i think) so if you won the competition in the 60's how the hell have you won the uefa cup? tell the loser to tell the truth next time. Face it the guy was embarrased to call it 'inter city fairs cup', cant blame him though.

 

ICF cup was replaced by the now known UEFA cup in 1971, Spuds were the 1st to win it under the new name.

 

The difference between the two was simply the regulation was handed over to UEFA from ICF.

 

So the difference is a governing body change, the format when we won it, and when you won it, was exactly the same.

 

 

[Guest kingdawson]

seeing as you guys are still in denial ill be off again. Got places to go, people to see. Will be back tomorrow though. Goodbye Geordie nation, and godbless.

[peasepud]

seeing as you guys are still in denial ill be off again. Got places to go, people to see. Will be back tomorrow though. Goodbye Geordie nation, and godbless.

Care in the community has a lot to answer for.

[Baggio]

seeing as you guys are still in denial ill be off again.

 

Which translates as "I've come on here, made an arse of myself so I'm off, hopefully I'll have more success tomorrow"

[madras]

BTW I wonder if the average Spurs fan finds Kingdawson embarrassing?

 

I know I would if a Newcastle fan went around spouting shite like he does.

 

Not embarrassed by his comments but doesn't mean to say I agree with them either.  Both Newcastle and Spurs' attendances dived in their bleak years, both are currently getting near capacity attendances currently.  I would be more embarrassed if I was a Blackburn or Boro fans who in the past couple of years have been playing Uefa cup football to half empty stadia in spite of concessionary ticket prices to attract a half decent team.  That's embarrassing imho.

 

How's it embarrassing?  The UEFA Cup is shite, and boring, we're shite, have been for 3 years yet we've had two UEFA QF appearances, and one semi final appearance in that time.  We're in the so called hardest group and we've pissed it.  It's a joke cup for sides like Tottenham and Boro to get all giddy about, but we've fucked up so badly, we have no hope of CL football for a while.  Hand on heart if we were rich enough to do without being in the UEFA Cup I'd be delighted if we weren't in it.  It's a complete joke competition.  In the UEFA Cup we've played about 40 odd games in 3 years, and lost two, us yes, only two.  The fact is your smaller clubs your Tottenham's get all emotional about it as they never get in Europe anyway.

 

What is embarrassing is a club taking only 400 to St James' Park for an FA Cup replay in 1999, and getting 17,000 in the Premiership one week against the likes of Villa and Wimbledon, and when a proper club plays you, there's 30 odd thousand at the Lane (4/12/93).

 

 

The Uefa Cup a joke competition?  Suppose Newcastle got fed up winning it? :roll:

In the unlikely event that we win it, I will say exactly the same.  It's been pure shite since 1997/1998 when they started ****ing on with letting second placed teams in the CL.  We benefitted in 97/98 as it happens with CL football but so ****.  When you've played in the UEFA Cup as much as we have, you will know, which is why I said the UEFA Cup is a tournament for nothing clubs like Spurs, Villa, Boro, Fulham to get all giddy about.  We're 17th in the League, we end up in the group of death, and we win all our games with our reserves.  You can kid yourselves all you like that beating the likes of Club Bruges is an achievement but it's not.  Under-achievement for Newcastle in the UEFA Cup based on our turnover and transfer expenditure is not winning it.  That sounds arrogant but it's true.  Hand on heart of the sides in it right now, with the strongest XI's, only Sevilla are clearly a better side than us, which emphasises my point on what a true joke cup this is.  Even Spurs are capable of the last 8 I feel which underlines all the above points.

the champions league did have to change though,quite often the teams in the uefa cup were out performing the previous years chmaps in their domestic leagues.the uefa cup isn't a joke,it just isn't top quality.

It's the biggest joke in football.  Palermo, who are no where near the size of us, have never been in it in their history yet their chairman is on record as saying he'd be quite content if they get knocked out so they can concentrate on the league.  When small clubs are showing this much contempt towards the competition, it just goes to show the people across Europe are sharing my sentiments.

 

As for teams in the UEFA Cup out performing teams in the European Cup....so ****.  It has always been the competition for the individual Champions of Europe, that's why it was initially called the European Champions Cup, which became the UEFA Champions League in 1992.  It's never called the European Champions and 2nd, 3rd and 4th placed League.  The reason all of Liverpool's, Madrid's, AFC Ajax, FC Bayern Munchen's successes were so special is, they not only proved they were the best side in their domestic competition but also against all the other Champions from the previous season.  Say in 1985, when Everton won the league, (I'm not having a dig at Heysel here), but if that event hadn't of occured you think Liverpool should've been involved in the European Cup for the 85/86 season, because they were a better side?  It's a joke argument.

 

Rafa is right to point out in 2001 and 2004, the last 16 got a bit interesting, but that shit is few and far between.  Look when we were in it after our 16 year absence it was class, we got on paper a tough Belgian side even though we pissed them, and in the SECOND ROUND end up against one of Spain's strongest sides, who eventually put us out on away goals, and if we'd won that we'd have had Parma, who were 2nd in Serie A, in the THIRD ROUND!  That's the way it was always meant to be.  Contrast that to our three opening opponents in 2004/2005, some suicide bombers from Palestine, Bnei Sakhnin, a side full of real life Borat Sagidyev's but with less talent, Tblisi and fuckin a side full of Greek waiters, Panionios, who ended up relegated!!  Yet you can sit there and tell me the European format in it's present state is working??!?!?!!?

 

Greed has killed it.  It's been shite since 1999 on the whole, which also coiincided with the bigger nations have four CL sides instead of four.  UEFA killed it, greed killed it, and to me anyone that says the CL should be for the best four sides in a country has no appreciation for how football was, and is a product of UEFA and Rupert Murdoch's greed.

only saying that the competition,the old european cup was sometimes not as good as the uefa cup.putting in 2nd and 3rd placed teams was alright,surely playing italy's runners up is going to be better class than estonias champs.

 

the league system doesn't add anything to the comp(either comop for that matter) and it should return to the 2-legged format.true enough that greed ruined it,but it's also true that that greed will help those teams pull away from us.

[madras]

the inter-city fairs cup replaced the uefa cup in the 70's (i think) so if you won the competition in the 60's how the hell have you won the uefa cup? tell the loser to tell the truth next time. Face it the guy was embarrased to call it 'inter city fairs cup', cant blame him though.

 

ICF cup was replaced by the now known UEFA cup in 1971, Spuds were the 1st to win it under the new name.

 

The difference between the two was simply the regulation was handed over to UEFA from ICF.

 

So the difference is a governing body change, the format when we won it, and when you won it, was exactly the same.

 

 

there were some other slight differences,qualification for example was limited to one-city-one club for the fairs cup(we qualified in 10th place,i think everton,man citeh and some london clubfell foul of this rule)

 

at the time we won it a lot of people (revie and clough included)rated ujpest as the best team in europe.

[Guest alex]

Spurs are hardly doing anything decent in the league, with that "amazing" line up....

 

True, but still better to be in the top half of the league than not.

You should be on the telly or something with insightful comments like that.

I find it amusing they're having a go at us for 48,000 - only THIRTEEN thousand more than they got !!!!

We're p*ssed off at Shepherd and Roeder, and on the verge of outright boycott of the club in protest, 9 goals in 14 games, in relegation bother, yet STILL get THIRTEEN THOUSAND (I think it worth the capitals) more than they get.

Both visiting sides - Wigan and Portsmouth - were hardly big draws - neither take many with them.So if we're bad - WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MAKE SPUD FANS ??

 

Not me if you read my posts again.  Spurs' home ticket allocation was sold out and Newcastle's was about 1000 shy of doing the same.  I don't see any reason to have a pop about this as there's very little difference in my book.  The fact that Newcastle's attendance was 13000 more is down to the size of the stadium, not the support in it.

Easy to say when you have a much smaller stadium. Impossible to prove though.

[Martin Lol]

Spurs are hardly doing anything decent in the league, with that "amazing" line up....

 

True, but still better to be in the top half of the league than not.

You should be on the telly or something with insightful comments like that.

I find it amusing they're having a go at us for 48,000 - only THIRTEEN thousand more than they got !!!!

We're p*ssed off at Shepherd and Roeder, and on the verge of outright boycott of the club in protest, 9 goals in 14 games, in relegation bother, yet STILL get THIRTEEN THOUSAND (I think it worth the capitals) more than they get.

Both visiting sides - Wigan and Portsmouth - were hardly big draws - neither take many with them.So if we're bad - WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MAKE SPUD FANS ??

 

Not me if you read my posts again.  Spurs' home ticket allocation was sold out and Newcastle's was about 1000 shy of doing the same.  I don't see any reason to have a pop about this as there's very little difference in my book.  The fact that Newcastle's attendance was 13000 more is down to the size of the stadium, not the support in it.

Easy to say when you have a much smaller stadium. Impossible to prove though.

 

True, especially when Newcastle is a one team city, which is an advantage that Newcastle will always enjoy.  With fingers crossed, maybe we'll be able to see if Spurs are capable of filling a 48k stadium in 5 or 6 years.

[Stevie]

Spurs are hardly doing anything decent in the league, with that "amazing" line up....

 

True, but still better to be in the top half of the league than not.

You should be on the telly or something with insightful comments like that.

I find it amusing they're having a go at us for 48,000 - only THIRTEEN thousand more than they got !!!!

We're p*ssed off at Shepherd and Roeder, and on the verge of outright boycott of the club in protest, 9 goals in 14 games, in relegation bother, yet STILL get THIRTEEN THOUSAND (I think it worth the capitals) more than they get.

Both visiting sides - Wigan and Portsmouth - were hardly big draws - neither take many with them.So if we're bad - WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MAKE SPUD FANS ??

 

Not me if you read my posts again.  Spurs' home ticket allocation was sold out and Newcastle's was about 1000 shy of doing the same.  I don't see any reason to have a pop about this as there's very little difference in my book.  The fact that Newcastle's attendance was 13000 more is down to the size of the stadium, not the support in it.

Easy to say when you have a much smaller stadium. Impossible to prove though.

He knows fine well they'd struggle to sell 45,000 tickets even against the likes of us and Arsenal.  I have to emphasise what a nothing club they are.  That Semi Final we had against them at Old Trafford, in true Boro style they only sold out their allocation 2 days before the game on general sale, and there was even talk of them sending us some for the Stretford End.  To me there are AT LEAST 12 "bigger clubs" than Tottenham.  We're only looking at 2003/2004 when they only had 7 sell outs in the one season, with 33,000 being the norm, including one gate of SIXTEEN over 30,000 against Birmingham, SIX THOUSAND EMPTY SEATS, and 22,000 less than our average gate for the season.

 

When Danny Murphy signed for Charlton he described Charlton as a bigger club with a bigger fanbase, and it's not hard to agree, in essence a mickey mouse club.  I mean 4fs 17,000 in the Premiership years in 92, 93 and 95.

 

Till the last 18 months, no ones ever noticed Spurs they've always known their place, they've been there but nobody cared, one half decent season and they're all mouthy.  They remind me of Ipswich.

 

http://www.mousestars.com/images/mmclogo.jpg

An appropriate new badge for THFC

[Stevie]

Spurs are hardly doing anything decent in the league, with that "amazing" line up....

 

True, but still better to be in the top half of the league than not.

You should be on the telly or something with insightful comments like that.

I find it amusing they're having a go at us for 48,000 - only THIRTEEN thousand more than they got !!!!

We're p*ssed off at Shepherd and Roeder, and on the verge of outright boycott of the club in protest, 9 goals in 14 games, in relegation bother, yet STILL get THIRTEEN THOUSAND (I think it worth the capitals) more than they get.

Both visiting sides - Wigan and Portsmouth - were hardly big draws - neither take many with them.So if we're bad - WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MAKE SPUD FANS ??

 

Not me if you read my posts again.  Spurs' home ticket allocation was sold out and Newcastle's was about 1000 shy of doing the same.  I don't see any reason to have a pop about this as there's very little difference in my book.  The fact that Newcastle's attendance was 13000 more is down to the size of the stadium, not the support in it.

Easy to say when you have a much smaller stadium. Impossible to prove though.

 

True, especially when Newcastle is a one team city, which is an advantage that Newcastle will always enjoy.  With fingers crossed, maybe we'll be able to see if Spurs are capable of filling a 48k stadium in 5 or 6 years.

This one team city bollocks yet again.

 

Within 10 miles of Newcastle there are maybe 1m people and some of them are in Sunderland territory like Washington etc....

 

Within 10 mile of WHL you have maybe 8m people, with 2 large clubs, 2 medium sized clubs and 6 small clubs.

[Guest alex]

Spurs are hardly doing anything decent in the league, with that "amazing" line up....

 

True, but still better to be in the top half of the league than not.

You should be on the telly or something with insightful comments like that.

I find it amusing they're having a go at us for 48,000 - only THIRTEEN thousand more than they got !!!!

We're p*ssed off at Shepherd and Roeder, and on the verge of outright boycott of the club in protest, 9 goals in 14 games, in relegation bother, yet STILL get THIRTEEN THOUSAND (I think it worth the capitals) more than they get.

Both visiting sides - Wigan and Portsmouth - were hardly big draws - neither take many with them.So if we're bad - WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MAKE SPUD FANS ??

 

Not me if you read my posts again.  Spurs' home ticket allocation was sold out and Newcastle's was about 1000 shy of doing the same.  I don't see any reason to have a pop about this as there's very little difference in my book.  The fact that Newcastle's attendance was 13000 more is down to the size of the stadium, not the support in it.

Easy to say when you have a much smaller stadium. Impossible to prove though.

 

True, especially when Newcastle is a one team city, which is an advantage that Newcastle will always enjoy.   With fingers crossed, maybe we'll be able to see if Spurs are capable of filling a 48k stadium in 5 or 6 years.

I'm struggling to see how being a one team city is an advantage in relation to our stadium size or our ability to attract fans when compared with Spurs who are one of the 'big three' in one of the biggest cities in the world. You also attract fans from areas like the Home Counties, some of whom are relatives of mine. I can't really be arsed with this 'who's the biggest club' bollocks as it's success on the pitch that counts though. I think it's fair to say we are very well supported and have been historically when you consider all the factors though. Spurs are pretty well supported too but if I was you I would be embarrassed by the shite that numpty Kingdawson spouts.

[Stevie]

Spurs are hardly doing anything decent in the league, with that "amazing" line up....

 

True, but still better to be in the top half of the league than not.

You should be on the telly or something with insightful comments like that.

I find it amusing they're having a go at us for 48,000 - only THIRTEEN thousand more than they got !!!!

We're p*ssed off at Shepherd and Roeder, and on the verge of outright boycott of the club in protest, 9 goals in 14 games, in relegation bother, yet STILL get THIRTEEN THOUSAND (I think it worth the capitals) more than they get.

Both visiting sides - Wigan and Portsmouth - were hardly big draws - neither take many with them.So if we're bad - WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MAKE SPUD FANS ??

 

Not me if you read my posts again.  Spurs' home ticket allocation was sold out and Newcastle's was about 1000 shy of doing the same.  I don't see any reason to have a pop about this as there's very little difference in my book.  The fact that Newcastle's attendance was 13000 more is down to the size of the stadium, not the support in it.

Easy to say when you have a much smaller stadium. Impossible to prove though.

 

True, especially when Newcastle is a one team city, which is an advantage that Newcastle will always enjoy.   With fingers crossed, maybe we'll be able to see if Spurs are capable of filling a 48k stadium in 5 or 6 years.

I'm struggling to see how being a one team city is an advantage in relation to our stadium size or our ability to attract fans when compared with Spurs who are one of the 'big three' in one of the biggest cities in the world. You also attract fans from areas like the Home Counties, some of whom are relatives of mine. I can't really be arsed with this 'who's the biggest club' bollocks as it's success on the pitch that counts though. I think it's fair to say we are very well supported and have been historically when you consider all the factors though. Spurs are pretty well supported too but if I was you I would be embarrassed by the shite that numpty Kingdawson spouts.

He talks complete, total and utter pish mate, no conviction in his views or fuck all.  I was the only one that could see it 9 months ago, it's nice to see other people are opening their eyes.

[Guest alex]

Aye people on turning on MJ now HTT isn't here to lick his arse all the time. For the record I've always had him down as a smug twat.

[Guest Gemmill]

His signature from self-appointed voice of the Geordie Nation, HTT, is hilarious:

 

If you have Geordie blood in you, you're an adopted Geordie and therefore welcome on wor board at any time, no-matter who you support.

 

[Guest alex]

His signature from self-appointed voice of the Geordie Nation, HTT, is hilarious:

 

If you have Geordie blood in you, you're an adopted Geordie and therefore welcome on wor board at any time, no-matter who you support.

 

Ironically the sort of shite HTT has a pop at Shepherd for.

[Stevie]

If you have geordie blood support the toon or fuck off!

[Guest]

and agree with the last 3 posts.

[Nobby]

Spurs are hardly doing anything decent in the league, with that "amazing" line up....

 

True, but still better to be in the top half of the league than not.

You should be on the telly or something with insightful comments like that.

I find it amusing they're having a go at us for 48,000 - only THIRTEEN thousand more than they got !!!!

We're p*ssed off at Shepherd and Roeder, and on the verge of outright boycott of the club in protest, 9 goals in 14 games, in relegation bother, yet STILL get THIRTEEN THOUSAND (I think it worth the capitals) more than they get.

Both visiting sides - Wigan and Portsmouth - were hardly big draws - neither take many with them.So if we're bad - WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MAKE SPUD FANS ??

 

Not me if you read my posts again.  Spurs' home ticket allocation was sold out and Newcastle's was about 1000 shy of doing the same.  I don't see any reason to have a pop about this as there's very little difference in my book.  The fact that Newcastle's attendance was 13000 more is down to the size of the stadium, not the support in it.

Easy to say when you have a much smaller stadium. Impossible to prove though.

 

True, especially when Newcastle is a one team city, which is an advantage that Newcastle will always enjoy.  With fingers crossed, maybe we'll be able to see if Spurs are capable of filling a 48k stadium in 5 or 6 years.

 

have you not read this thread?

----------

I can hear the cogs whirring in Spurs fans brains from here, looking for an excuse to this. One of the most common is "but Newcastle is a one club city whereas London has many clubs vying for a punters support". At first

glance that appears to make some sense, but lets look a little deeper at that theory. There are 5 other London clubs in the PL (Arsenal, Chelsea, Fulham, Charlton and West Ham), 3 in the championship (Crystal Palace, Luton & QPR) 2 in League 1 (Leyton Orient & Millwall) and none in league 2 . So 10 London Clubs in the PL + football league. London has a population of 7.5 Million whereas Newcastle has a population of approximately 275,000. Assuming each person in London is equally likely to support any London club each club has a potential fan base in their home city of 750,000, already nearly three time the entire population of Newcastle. Only 1/20th of that 750,000 (or 1 /200 of the population of London) is needed to fill White Hart Lane, however 1/5 of the population of the Newcastle is needed to fill St James Park, and unlike the Londoners they gladly oblige!!

----------

[Stevie]

Spurs are hardly doing anything decent in the league, with that "amazing" line up....

 

True, but still better to be in the top half of the league than not.

You should be on the telly or something with insightful comments like that.

I find it amusing they're having a go at us for 48,000 - only THIRTEEN thousand more than they got !!!!

We're p*ssed off at Shepherd and Roeder, and on the verge of outright boycott of the club in protest, 9 goals in 14 games, in relegation bother, yet STILL get THIRTEEN THOUSAND (I think it worth the capitals) more than they get.

Both visiting sides - Wigan and Portsmouth - were hardly big draws - neither take many with them.So if we're bad - WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MAKE SPUD FANS ??

 

Not me if you read my posts again.  Spurs' home ticket allocation was sold out and Newcastle's was about 1000 shy of doing the same.  I don't see any reason to have a pop about this as there's very little difference in my book.  The fact that Newcastle's attendance was 13000 more is down to the size of the stadium, not the support in it.

Easy to say when you have a much smaller stadium. Impossible to prove though.

 

True, especially when Newcastle is a one team city, which is an advantage that Newcastle will always enjoy.  With fingers crossed, maybe we'll be able to see if Spurs are capable of filling a 48k stadium in 5 or 6 years.

 

have you not read this thread?

----------

I can hear the cogs whirring in Spurs fans brains from here, looking for an excuse to this. One of the most common is "but Newcastle is a one club city whereas London has many clubs vying for a punters support". At first

glance that appears to make some sense, but lets look a little deeper at that theory. There are 5 other London clubs in the PL (Arsenal, Chelsea, Fulham, Charlton and West Ham), 3 in the championship (Crystal Palace,

Luton & QPR) 2 in League 1 (Leyton Orient & Millwall) and none in league 2 . So 10 London Clubs in the PL + football league. London has a population of 7.5 Million whereas Newcastle has a population of approximately

275,000. Assuming each person in London is equally likely to support any London club each club has a potential fan base in their home city of 750,000, already nearly three time the entire population of Newcastle. Only 1/20th

of that 750,000 (or 1 /200 of the population of London) is needed to fill White Hart Lane, however 1/5 of the population of the Newcastle is needed to fill St James Park, and unlike the Londoners they gladly oblige!!

----------

If your going to class as far out as Luton, as London Nobby, you're looking at a population of maybe 12 or 13m. 

 

Anyway I think we can draw a line under this, we all agree Spurs are f***ing nobodies with shite fans, their fan while being shite are also arseholes, kingdawson is one of the worst WUM's in life (granted I bit like), the UEFA Cup is shite and Martin Jol talks consistent utter pish.  Really I don't think there's much more to say on all the 168 above posts.

[Nobody]

Do we have any anti-spurs songs?

ps. Stevies sig is the most annoying sig I've ever seen

[Stevie]

Do we have any anti-spurs songs?

ps. Stevies sig is the most annoying sig I've ever seen

Aye but they were acceptable to many in the 1980's they're not now and I won't even tell you what they are because we have many nice jewish toon fans on here.

[Taylor Swift]

Coming back to the UEFA Cup, Sevilla have just put in a brilliant performance from them. Discounting the teams that will drop out of the CL, Sevilla have to be odds on favourites for a repeat.

[Baggio]

Spurs are hardly doing anything decent in the league, with that "amazing" line up....

 

True, but still better to be in the top half of the league than not.

You should be on the telly or something with insightful comments like that.

I find it amusing they're having a go at us for 48,000 - only THIRTEEN thousand more than they got !!!!

We're p*ssed off at Shepherd and Roeder, and on the verge of outright boycott of the club in protest, 9 goals in 14 games, in relegation bother, yet STILL get THIRTEEN THOUSAND (I think it worth the capitals) more than they get.

Both visiting sides - Wigan and Portsmouth - were hardly big draws - neither take many with them.So if we're bad - WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MAKE SPUD FANS ??

 

Not me if you read my posts again.  Spurs' home ticket allocation was sold out and Newcastle's was about 1000 shy of doing the same.  I don't see any reason to have a pop about this as there's very little difference in my book.  The fact that Newcastle's attendance was 13000 more is down to the size of the stadium, not the support in it.

Easy to say when you have a much smaller stadium. Impossible to prove though.

 

 

You've still got tickets available for your game tonight against Boro so to think you would sell anywhere near what we do is just wishful thinking.

[Stevie]

Only 48,000 live on SKY, awkward kick off time, just 1,000 away fans, yet Spurs in their best run of home performances in years, have 2,000 tickets on general sale for Boro in the League in their tiny ground tonight.

 

Pathetic cunts.  SMALL CLUB.