Guest Invicta_Toon Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 let's take a trip down memory lane and see who was touted for the job... Martin O'Neill - Managing a massive Premiership club with a huge potential fanbase and shiny new chairman. 15th, 34 points. Lower than Newcastle. Much lower. Ottmar Ze German - Obviously not interested. Only tempted back to management by his hometown club Sam Allardyce - The new alan curbishly, obviously got some serious skeletons to hide in his shiny plastic stadium's closet. Obviously happy to be king of the castle with the chairman as his bitch Gus Hiddink - As was completely obvious at the time, was holding out for a national job. Now happy to take the piss out of Steve McLaren rather than play around with a Premiership club Louis Van Gaal - Happy to act the celebrity cunt in a dutch club rather than take on the challenge of the Premiership Paul Le Guen - Went to an arguably equivalent mid-table Premiership side and tried to change them with his fancy continental ways. Hounded out by pressure from the fans and top players. Ring any bells? Claudio Ranieri - Whored himself around the place for 24 months. Finally found employment with Parma, a club sold at auction in Januray and currently second bottom of Serie A. Previously signed Damien Duff and Scott Parker. Steve Bruce - Apparently would rather mess around in the championship with Emile Heskey than manage his hometown club infront of 50,000 geordies for Fat Fred Alan Curbishly - Taking Alan Pardew's team down Alan Pardew - Taking Alan Curbishly's team down Sven - pft. The statistically most succesfull England manager has not found, and arguably doesn't even need, gainfull employment Alan Shearer - Apparently not even a qualified manager yet Only two things wrong with this club. One of them is Fat Fred. So your point is what? That based on your (not particularly strong) analysis of the situaiton, Roeder was the best man for the job? no as explained earlier that isn't my point the fact that most don't get the point is why we are stuck where we are, that contrasted with the existence of people like stevie claiming we are bigger than everton and villa on the back of one permed twat riding into town and raising 'expectations' while actually producing the precise sum of fuck all Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Anyway all I was saying was, the potential of Aston Villa's fanbase at it's peak isn't greater than the potential of Portsmouth or Crystal Palace. 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 All this big club/little club bollocks is fucking irrelevant, I couldn't give a shit about being a "big club", I'd much prefer to be a "successful club", arguing about who gets the biggest crowds is sad, not only that, it's fucking pointless. Jesus, you can tell we've not won anything for donkey's years, if we have to resort to banging on about how many people let this club take them to hell and back every Saturday afternoon to try and salvage some pride. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightrider Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 the fact that most don't get the point is why we are stuck where we are, So because some people don't get some gonk's point on a message board, we are where we are!? Fans' fault tbh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Newcastle's all-time average attendance record: 30,675 Villa's: 28,806 Hardly a huge difference is it? Also... above us in the all-time table are Spurs and Everton. I don't know why we crow about our attendances or the percieved size of the club, because since when have attendances or size correlated with anything? If they did we'd have chalked up a lot more success than we have. Villa have won 10 more trophies than we have BTW... 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, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Anyway all I was saying was, the potential of Aston Villa's fanbase at it's peak isn't greater than the potential of Portsmouth or Crystal Palace. 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Like moths to a flame. Vic showing signs of having been working on his act. blueyes.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightrider Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Newcastle's all-time average attendance record: 30,675 Villa's: 28,806 Hardly a huge difference is it? Also... above us in the all-time table are Spurs and Everton. I don't know why we crow about our attendances or the percieved size of the club, because since when have attendances or size correlated with anything? If they did we'd have chalked up a lot more success than we have. Villa have won 10 more trophies than we have BTW... 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, You can shift the goalposts any which way to suit any kind of argument Stevie, the truth of the matter is attendances or the size of a club mean fuck all to anyone, or shouldn't because as Indi correctly states, they mean fuck all. For all our amazing attendances and how big we supposedly are, it hasn't done us a great deal of good has it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Newcastle's all-time average attendance record: 30,675 Villa's: 28,806 Hardly a huge difference is it? Also... above us in the all-time table are Spurs and Everton. I don't know why we crow about our attendances or the percieved size of the club, because since when have attendances or size correlated with anything? If they did we'd have chalked up a lot more success than we have. Villa have won 10 more trophies than we have BTW... 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Anyway all I was saying was, the potential of Aston Villa's fanbase at it's peak isn't greater than the potential of Portsmouth or Crystal Palace. 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Newcastle's all-time average attendance record: 30,675 Villa's: 28,806 Hardly a huge difference is it? Also... above us in the all-time table are Spurs and Everton. I don't know why we crow about our attendances or the percieved size of the club, because since when have attendances or size correlated with anything? If they did we'd have chalked up a lot more success than we have. Villa have won 10 more trophies than we have BTW... 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, You can shift the goalposts any which way to suit any kind of argument Stevie, the truth of the matter is attendances or the size of a club mean f*** all to anyone, or shouldn't because as Indi correctly states, they mean f*** all. For all our amazing attendances and how big we supposedly are, it hasn't done us a great deal of good has it? NO, but all I was doing was querying Victoria's point that Villa have a potentially MASSIVE fanbase, and as usual these things go off at a tangent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightrider Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Anyway all I was saying was, the potential of Aston Villa's fanbase at it's peak isn't greater than the potential of Portsmouth or Crystal Palace. 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. And what exatly does that prove? That NUFC have a bigger fanbase or more potential? I don't think anyone would dispute that, it still wouldn't mean anything though and to be fair to Villa, they share their City with many clubs, we share ours with none which often gets overlooked and is without a doubt a huge contributing factor towards our abnormally high in preportion to success, attendances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Anyway all I was saying was, the potential of Aston Villa's fanbase at it's peak isn't greater than the potential of Portsmouth or Crystal Palace. 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. Man Utd would've done in the early 80's if Old Trafford was bigger, that was predominantly local fans and based on only coming in the top four. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 the fact that most don't get the point is why we are stuck where we are, So because some people don't get some gonk's point on a message board, we are where we are!? Fans' fault tbh not one of those names above would have either wanted come here, been asked to come here, or lasted here for more than a season, for 2 reasons 1 of those is Freddy Shepherd Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightrider Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Newcastle's all-time average attendance record: 30,675 Villa's: 28,806 Hardly a huge difference is it? Also... above us in the all-time table are Spurs and Everton. I don't know why we crow about our attendances or the percieved size of the club, because since when have attendances or size correlated with anything? If they did we'd have chalked up a lot more success than we have. Villa have won 10 more trophies than we have BTW... 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, You can shift the goalposts any which way to suit any kind of argument Stevie, the truth of the matter is attendances or the size of a club mean f*** all to anyone, or shouldn't because as Indi correctly states, they mean f*** all. For all our amazing attendances and how big we supposedly are, it hasn't done us a great deal of good has it? NO, but all I was doing was querying Victoria's point that Villa have a potentially MASSIVE fanbase, and as usual these things go off at a tangent. Ah, you needen't have bothered then mate, he doesn't have a club about anything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Why are we even wasting our time talking about a club like Villa anyway? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightrider Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Why are we even wasting our time talking about a club like Villa anyway? Aye, lets talk about Spurs and Directors of Football Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Anyway all I was saying was, the potential of Aston Villa's fanbase at it's peak isn't greater than the potential of Portsmouth or Crystal Palace. 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. And what exatly does that prove? That NUFC have a bigger fanbase or more potential? I don't think anyone would dispute that, it still wouldn't mean anything though and to be fair to Villa, they share their City with many clubs, we share ours with none which often gets overlooked and is without a doubt a huge contributing factor towards our abnormally high in preportion to success, attendances. They share their city with one club, West Bromwich isn't in Birmingham. They play in an area which is the second most densely populated metropolitan area in Britain. There are five clubs within 15 miles, which contributes to the reason why they'll never have a truely massive fanbase. No disrespect to brummies, and I've seen Brummies admit this, but they're seen as backward, as a backwater, forgotten by the media. For this reason they'd never have national appeal neither. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Newcastle's all-time average attendance record: 30,675 Villa's: 28,806 Hardly a huge difference is it? Also... above us in the all-time table are Spurs and Everton. I don't know why we crow about our attendances or the percieved size of the club, because since when have attendances or size correlated with anything? If they did we'd have chalked up a lot more success than we have. Villa have won 10 more trophies than we have BTW... 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, You can shift the goalposts any which way to suit any kind of argument Stevie, the truth of the matter is attendances or the size of a club mean f*** all to anyone, or shouldn't because as Indi correctly states, they mean f*** all. For all our amazing attendances and how big we supposedly are, it hasn't done us a great deal of good has it? NO, but all I was doing was querying Victoria's point that Villa have a potentially MASSIVE fanbase, and as usual these things go off at a tangent. the statment was actually meant to illustrate MON going to Villa was a comparable environment to that which he could have found here but it is funny to see what meaning you took from it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Why are we even wasting our time talking about a club like Villa anyway? Aren't you the one with 10,000 plus posts on gg-chat.net? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Newcastle's all-time average attendance record: 30,675 Villa's: 28,806 Hardly a huge difference is it? Also... above us in the all-time table are Spurs and Everton. I don't know why we crow about our attendances or the percieved size of the club, because since when have attendances or size correlated with anything? If they did we'd have chalked up a lot more success than we have. Villa have won 10 more trophies than we have BTW... 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, You can shift the goalposts any which way to suit any kind of argument Stevie, the truth of the matter is attendances or the size of a club mean f*** all to anyone, or shouldn't because as Indi correctly states, they mean f*** all. For all our amazing attendances and how big we supposedly are, it hasn't done us a great deal of good has it? NO, but all I was doing was querying Victoria's point that Villa have a potentially MASSIVE fanbase, and as usual these things go off at a tangent. Ah, you needen't have bothered then mate, he doesn't have a club about anything. I have a club HTT. A massive one. With millions of fans and huge resources That's why I think we are better than every other club that has ever existed and that we have a divine right to success, and is also why I act like a whiney little bitchcunt when my team is found out for what they really are Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightrider Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Why are we even wasting our time talking about a club like Villa anyway? Aren't you the one with 10,000 plus posts on gg-chat.net? Just type in "DOF" tbh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Anyway all I was saying was, the potential of Aston Villa's fanbase at it's peak isn't greater than the potential of Portsmouth or Crystal Palace. 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. And what exatly does that prove? That NUFC have a bigger fanbase or more potential? I don't think anyone would dispute that, it still wouldn't mean anything though and to be fair to Villa, they share their City with many clubs, we share ours with none which often gets overlooked and is without a doubt a huge contributing factor towards our abnormally high in preportion to success, attendances. They share their city with one club, West Bromwich isn't in Birmingham. They play in an area which is the second most densely populated metropolitan area in Britain. There are five clubs within 15 miles, which contributes to the reason why they'll never have a truely massive fanbase. No disrespect to brummies, and I've seen Brummies admit this, but they're seen as backward, as a backwater, forgotten by the media. For this reason they'd never have national appeal neither. Villa's traditional local rivals were always Albion, and the ground IS in the city, the city border crosses the pitch. More importantly, they draw a lot of their support from North Birmingham. I've even got some *spit* in my family. you appear to be contradicting yourself by saying that it is the second most densely populated area in the country, but then that we'll never have a big fanbase because there are other clubs in the area (despite initially having said there is only one other club in the city). Make your mind up. Oh, and as for the comment about Birmingham being seen as a backwater (despite having just pointed out it is the second most densely populated part of the country, and slap bang in the middle of it), well, really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Monkey Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 let's take a trip down memory lane and see who was touted for the job... Martin O'Neill - Managing a massive Premiership club with a huge potential fanbase and shiny new chairman. 15th, 34 points. Lower than Newcastle. Much lower. Ottmar Ze German - Obviously not interested. Only tempted back to management by his hometown club Sam Allardyce - The new alan curbishly, obviously got some serious skeletons to hide in his shiny plastic stadium's closet. Obviously happy to be king of the castle with the chairman as his bitch Gus Hiddink - As was completely obvious at the time, was holding out for a national job. Now happy to take the piss out of Steve McLaren rather than play around with a Premiership club Louis Van Gaal - Happy to act the celebrity cunt in a dutch club rather than take on the challenge of the Premiership Paul Le Guen - Went to an arguably equivalent mid-table Premiership side and tried to change them with his fancy continental ways. Hounded out by pressure from the fans and top players. Ring any bells? Claudio Ranieri - Whored himself around the place for 24 months. Finally found employment with Parma, a club sold at auction in Januray and currently second bottom of Serie A. Previously signed Damien Duff and Scott Parker. Steve Bruce - Apparently would rather mess around in the championship with Emile Heskey than manage his hometown club infront of 50,000 geordies for Fat Fred Alan Curbishly - Taking Alan Pardew's team down Alan Pardew - Taking Alan Curbishly's team down Sven - pft. The statistically most succesfull England manager has not found, and arguably doesn't even need, gainfull employment Alan Shearer - Apparently not even a qualified manager yet Only two things wrong with this club. One of them is Fat Fred. So your point is what? That based on your (not particularly strong) analysis of the situaiton, Roeder was the best man for the job? no as explained earlier that isn't my point the fact that most don't get the point is why we are stuck where we are, that contrasted with the existence of people like stevie claiming we are bigger than everton and villa on the back of one permed twat riding into town and raising 'expectations' while actually producing the precise sum of fuck all We aren't "stuck" where we are. We could - and 100% should - sack Roeder now, and free ourselves from the wanker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest geordieracer Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 To say Aston Villa potentially have a MASSIVE FANBASE, is the same as saying Crystal Palace potentially have a massive fanbase. surely villa have the same potential as either arsenal or chelsea? both are the two biggest clubs in london, yet there are a lot of smaller clubs like watford etc villa are the biggest club in the midlands but have a lot of smaller clubs surrounding i.e birmingham, wolves, west brom surely if they invest and become quite successful they will get attendances like chelsea and then if they sutain that over 10 years they could get attendances like arsenal Link to post 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