Newcastle a big club ?

Surrounding all the speculation on the next Newcastle manager with names like Mourinho being mentioned and so on . Is it just me or does anybody else think Newcastle are not a big club. I mean they have great support although i did meet the fans on one occasion and they had nothing but bad things to say about the Irish (being polite)

But they seem to be in this illusion that they are one of the superclubs of the UK. When asked , what have they done ? Well nobody has an answer for that as they have done nothing . They have had some of the greatest strikers in the world play for them but they have done nothing .

If we are measuring by croud size Sunderland are up there also .

Personally i see them as a mid table team with delusions of grandeur.

What does anybody else think ?

Barlow07

Deleted User wrote: »

Surrounding all the speculation on the next Newcastle manager with names like Mourinho being mentioned and so on . Is it just me or does anybody else think Newcastle are not a big club. I mean they have great support although i did meet the fans on one occasion and they had nothing but bad things to say about the Irish (being polite)

But they seem to be in this illusion that they are one of the superclubs of the UK. When asked , what have they done ? Well nobody has an answer for that as they have done nothing . They have had some of the greatest strikers in the world play for them but they have done nothing .

If we are measuring by croud size Sunderland are up there also .

Personally i see them as a mid table team with delusions of grandeur.

What does anybody else think ?

I agree there nothing more then a midtable team, how they can consider themselfs one the BIG clubs is actually funny. I know a couple of newcastle fans who go over a few times and they go on and on, until you ask them to explain why and what they have won in the past? If i'm being honest, history of a football club in my eyes tell you how big a club you are.

Talk of kevin keegan going back, i think that would be a massive mistake. I also heard a newcastle fan say that he doesnt rate Mark Hughes, another Allardyce, i hope they get Alan Shearer, what a laugh that would be to see them fail yet again.

DSB

Pointless thread but agreed nonetheless.

ShiverinEskimo

They are a big club because of their fan base - what is hardly ever mentioned is that they are also the only club within one of England's biggest cities. All other major cities have 2+ clubs to fan base but they have all the Newcastle population to themselves.

They are a terrible team whose fans think they deserve a European place by default. I would like nothing more than for Shearer to get the job so he can turn his over-rated persona into another failing north-east manager. They love him so much he is bound to nose-dive into oblivion and i would love to see it happen. He was an over-rated player at an over-rated team, and being and over-rated manager would complete it.

Edit/
As a Man U fan this 6-0 was one of the best results this season. For some reason I love it when United murder Newcastle. Ever since O'Shea thundered the cross bar at 2-6 about 4 years ago. It provides proof to the fans that they are not a big club and are a long way off from ever being/beating a big club.

cson

In theory they should be up there with the best of them - they have solid foundations, a 52,000 Stadium a whole city to themselves as someone mentioned and a rich owner, Mike Ashley.

They buy the wrong type of player however and the managers seat is a poisoned chalice. Impossible job - you've got to get them into the champions league in less than a year or its the boot.

smog

jsut another thread to take a pop at newcastle .. sigh

kinaldo

Newcastle are sleeping giants.

England's 8th most successful team, with Chelsea overtaking us only last year.

5th in the overall Premiership table (less one season for Newcastle) having qualified for Europe on a regular basis.

Of all the teams not to have won the Premiership, including Liverpool, Newcastle have come the closest.

Forgive the fans for expecting a trophy less than every 40 years.

BaZmO*

Dre as in Dray wrote:

But they seem to be in this illusion that they are one of the superclubs of the UK.

Surely you mean Delusion?

smog wrote: »

jsut another thread to take a pop at newcastle .. sigh

If Newcastle really were a big club you'd be used to people taking a pop.....

ciaran76

kinaldo wrote: »

5th in the overall Premiership table (less one season for Newcastle) having qualified for Europe on a regular basis.

Of all the teams not to have won the Premiership, including Liverpool, Newcastle have come the closest.

.

Football existed before the Prem league. The above statement is like saying Chelsea are the top team in England based on the last 3 seasons results.

kinaldo

kinaldo wrote: »

Newcastle are sleeping giants.

England's 8th most successful team, with Chelsea overtaking us only last year.

5th in the overall Premiership table (less one season for Newcastle) having qualified for Europe on a regular basis.

Of all the teams not to have won the Premiership, including Liverpool, Newcastle have come the closest.

Forgive the fans for expecting a trophy less than every 40 years.

Wouldnt Nottingham Forrest overtake them also for winning a european Trophy , and what about Ipswich .

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Wouldnt Nottingham Forrest overtake them also for winning a european Trophy , and what about Ipswich .

Exactly. The only thing Newcastle fans have to supposrt the big argument is the support factor, and they forget that they are some of the worst fans goin in terms of getting behind the team. Ive lost track of how many tiems Ive seen them boo their own team off the pitch.



The other argument they use is that they NEARLY won the premiership once!!

eZe^

Come on lads, this isnt fair. Dont forget about that movie 'goal'.... :D

secman

Amazing fans though, was at the game on sat last and they never stopped singing, even at 6 nil down ! I also remember the 99 Fa cup final and again I thought that day that they were amazingly supportive of their team even though they were well beaten 2 nil. Pity they have a mediocre team to support. Mind you i supported mediocre United teams for 20 odd years till 92/93! Used to offer up holy communion for a title, a cup but he (God) never listened back then !

Secman

AnCapaillMor

In all fairness the blue london fella were far from a big club a few years ago, look at them now.

Keano

Not too often Nottingham Forest get a mention around here. Being a Forest fan all my life I think Newcastle fans need to get a reality check.

Forest are supposedly still a big club but you talk to the majority of Forest fans and they hate that tag.

To be a big club you need to have something to show at the end of the season. Big attendances and loyal support doesn't entitle any club to call themselves big! You earn that title by being consistent and winning trophies

BaZmO*

AnCapaillMor wrote: »

In all fairness the blue london fella were far from a big club a few years ago, look at them now.

The difference with Chelsea is that they're London based. It's very easy to attract top class Managers and Players to your club if it's based in London if you're a Billionaire.

Raekwon

Just because they have a big stadium it doesn't make them a big club. The last meaningful trophy Newcastle won was the old Fairs Cup back in 1969. That alone should answer your question.

therecklessone

Is this like the world class debate?

IMHO, there are four big clubs in England right now, ManYoo/Dial Square/Chelsea/Liverpool.

There are a number of clubs with potential to make the step up, not all meet the same requirements but all have a good fanbase which is a major foundation...Everton, Villa, Man Cty, Spurs, and of course Newcastle.

There are a couple of through an accident of geography will always be playing catch-up, Blackburn the most obvious.

There are those with huge fanbases who are light years away from that status...Sunderland and Leeds are two examples.

Having a history is not a pre-requisite (look at Chelsea) but it helps. Nearly 40 years without a trophy doesn't help.

invincibleirish

its weird when i was a kid everyone liked NUFC because they came from nowhere and were exciting to watch, their title run ins in the mid 90s were classic run ins witch first showed football through the sky sports hype machine.

but they've struggled in recent times to match the keegen period despite spending crazy money (crazy signings) but this does make them a big club? i think not, a big club is a club that not only have a lot of money but also have a lot of success. arsenal(until they moved to the emirates) chelsea & liverpool have smaller crowds then NUFC but have had a lot more success(more liverpool/arsenal admittedly), as newcastle have declined from the mid/late 90s pinnacle the more we seem to hear about how they are a big club!

tbh, i would not even consider newcastle to be be as big a club as villa, spurs or everton (im a villa fan). with those 3 in the past few decades there has been considerable success (european cup, league championships, finishing in and near the top of first division/PL) and more importantly these achievements are still within peoples memory(im 22 i can just about remember villa in 1992/3 nearly winning the PL!)


newcastle on the otherhand have won nothing of note in years, 1955 was the last time they won the league, 1927 was the last time they won the league, their most recent domestic honour was the old second division title!

jesus_thats_gre

I have always had a soft spot for Newcy to be honest.

Newcastle are without doubt a big club.

Jazzy

therecklessone wrote: »

There are a number of clubs with potential to make the step up, not all meet the same requirements but all have a good fanbase which is a major foundation...Everton, Villa, Man City, Spurs

those are the 3 clubs that deserve to make the "step up" imo. even tho im a pool fan, ill still give everton credit where its due (still a small club tho ). i even reckon portsmouth are in a better position to make that step then the toon (football wise anyway).

toon are gifted with so many things (stadium, billionaire, only big club in the city, loyal fans) but still manage to get their tits twisted every season. almost beating utd to the title is no big deal and happend far too long ago to matter.
they were "everyones second favorite club" but over the past 8/9 years they have just become a bit of a premier league in-joke.
with the right manager and no interference from the chairman (aside from $$$) they can reach the promised land of the champions league. the chances of that happening are around the same that the annual snowball fight going ahead in hell this year

kinaldo

ciaran76 wrote: »

Football existed before the Prem league. The above statement is like saying Chelsea are the top team in England based on the last 3 seasons results.

Are u for ****ing real? I said Newcastle are "sleeping giants" and quoted their position in the overall history of English football before mentioning the Premiership.

Nice of you to ignore that though.

What a stupid lazy ****ing thread.

kinaldo

For the record, Newcastle's most recent major trophy was the Uefa Cup back in 1969. They have won the English Championship 4 times and FA Cup 6 times as well. Yes, football did exist before the Premiership.

ciaran76

kinaldo wrote: »

Are u for ****ing real? I said Newcastle are "sleeping giants" and quoted their position in the overall history of English football before mentioning the Premiership.

Nice of you to ignore that though.

What a stupid lazy ****ing thread.

I just found it strange you decided only to look at the Prem. league and not the football league stats too.

I didn't ignore anything.

I mean if you chose the league since it started I think Newcastle would be miles ahead of the likes of Chelsea etc etc.

kinaldo

ciaran76 wrote: »

I didn't ignore anything.

Then why did you cut out this part of my quote

Newcastle are sleeping giants.

England's 8th most successful team, with Chelsea overtaking us only last year.

?

ciaran76 wrote:

I just found it strange you decided only to look at the Prem. league and not the football league stats too.

To clarify, 8th most successful team in English football history, based on England's all time trophy winners list.

kinaldo

Deleted User wrote: »

Wouldnt Nottingham Forrest overtake them also for winning a european Trophy , and what about Ipswich .

What about them?

TOT LEAGUE FA CUP LGE CUP EUROPE TEAM
40 18 7 7 8 LIVERPOOL
32 16 11 2 3 MANCHESTER UNITED
27 13 10 2 2 ARSENAL
20 7 7 5 1 ASTON VILLA
16 2 8 3 3 TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR
15 9 5 0 1 EVERTON
13 3 4 4 2 CHELSEA
11 4 6 0 1 NEWCASTLE UNITED
10 3 6 1 0 BLACKBURN ROVERS
9 3 4 2 0 WOLVERHAMPTON WANDERERS
9 2 4 2 1 MANCHESTER CITY
9 1 2 4 2 NOTTINGHAM FOREST
8 6 2 0 0 SUNDERLAND
8 4 3 1 0 SHEFFIELD WEDNESDAY
7 3 1 1 2 LEEDS UNITED
7 1 5 1 0 WEST BROMWICH ALBION
5 1 4 0 0 SHEFFIELD UNITED
5 0 5 0 0 THE WANDERERS
4 3 1 0 0 HUDDERSFIELD TOWN
4 2 2 0 0 PRESTON NORTH END
4 0 4 0 0 BOLTON WANDERERS
4 0 3 0 1 WEST HAM UNITED
3 2 1 0 0 BURNLEY
3 2 1 0 0 PORTSMOUTH
3 2 1 0 0 DERBY COUNTY
3 1 1 0 1 IPSWICH TOWN
3 0 0 3 0 LEICESTER CITY
2 0 2 0 0 BURY
2 0 2 0 0 OLD ETONIANS
2 0 0 2 0 NORWICH CITY
1 0 1 0 0 BARNSLEY
1 0 1 0 0 BLACKBURN OLYMPIC
1 0 1 0 0 BRADFORD CITY
1 0 1 0 0 CARDIFF CITY
1 0 1 0 0 CLAPHAM ROVERS
1 0 1 0 0 NOTTS COUNTY
1 0 1 0 0 OLD CARTHUSIANS
1 0 1 0 0 OXFORD UNIVERSITY
1 0 1 0 0 ROYAL ENGINEERS
1 0 1 0 0 BLACKPOOL
1 0 1 0 0 CHARLTON ATHLETIC
1 0 1 0 0 COVENTRY CITY
1 0 1 0 0 SOUTHAMPTON
1 0 1 0 0 WIMBLEDON
1 0 0 1 0 BIRMINGHAM CITY
1 0 0 1 0 LUTON TOWN
1 0 0 1 0 MIDDLESBROUGH
1 0 0 1 0 OXFORD UNITED
1 0 0 1 0 QUEENS PARK RANGERS
1 0 0 1 0 STOKE CITY
1 0 0 1 0 SWINDON TOWN
307 107 125 46 28 TOTALS

But i am not talking about the past , you were the one that brought it up.There are alot of teams out that that are in the middle its just the Newcastle fans that seem to think they are better then they actually are.

By this you proved my point

kinaldo

Deleted User wrote: »

But i am not talking about the past , you were the one that brought it up.There are alot of teams out that that are in the middle its just the Newcastle fans that seem to think they are better then they actually are.

By this you proved my point

You were the one who asked "what have they done?"

I answered that sufficiently.

invincibleirish

kinaldo wrote: »

What about them?

TOT LEAGUE FA CUP LGE CUP EUROPE TEAM
40 18 7 7 8 LIVERPOOL
32 16 11 2 3 MANCHESTER UNITED
27 13 10 2 2 ARSENAL
20 7 7 5 1 ASTON VILLA
16 2 8 3 3 TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR
15 9 5 0 1 EVERTON
13 3 4 4 2 CHELSEA
11 4 6 0 1 NEWCASTLE UNITED
10 3 6 1 0 BLACKBURN ROVERS
9 3 4 2 0 WOLVERHAMPTON WANDERERS
9 2 4 2 1 MANCHESTER CITY
9 1 2 4 2 NOTTINGHAM FOREST
8 6 2 0 0 SUNDERLAND
8 4 3 1 0 SHEFFIELD WEDNESDAY
7 3 1 1 2 LEEDS UNITED
7 1 5 1 0 WEST BROMWICH ALBION
5 1 4 0 0 SHEFFIELD UNITED
5 0 5 0 0 THE WANDERERS
4 3 1 0 0 HUDDERSFIELD TOWN
4 2 2 0 0 PRESTON NORTH END
4 0 4 0 0 BOLTON WANDERERS
4 0 3 0 1 WEST HAM UNITED
3 2 1 0 0 BURNLEY
3 2 1 0 0 PORTSMOUTH
3 2 1 0 0 DERBY COUNTY
3 1 1 0 1 IPSWICH TOWN
3 0 0 3 0 LEICESTER CITY
2 0 2 0 0 BURY
2 0 2 0 0 OLD ETONIANS
2 0 0 2 0 NORWICH CITY
1 0 1 0 0 BARNSLEY
1 0 1 0 0 BLACKBURN OLYMPIC
1 0 1 0 0 BRADFORD CITY
1 0 1 0 0 CARDIFF CITY
1 0 1 0 0 CLAPHAM ROVERS
1 0 1 0 0 NOTTS COUNTY
1 0 1 0 0 OLD CARTHUSIANS
1 0 1 0 0 OXFORD UNIVERSITY
1 0 1 0 0 ROYAL ENGINEERS
1 0 1 0 0 BLACKPOOL
1 0 1 0 0 CHARLTON ATHLETIC
1 0 1 0 0 COVENTRY CITY
1 0 1 0 0 SOUTHAMPTON
1 0 1 0 0 WIMBLEDON
1 0 0 1 0 BIRMINGHAM CITY
1 0 0 1 0 LUTON TOWN
1 0 0 1 0 MIDDLESBROUGH
1 0 0 1 0 OXFORD UNITED
1 0 0 1 0 QUEENS PARK RANGERS
1 0 0 1 0 STOKE CITY
1 0 0 1 0 SWINDON TOWN
307 107 125 46 28 TOTALS

gwan the Villa! thank goodness for all those victorian era league championships and FA cups, were coming for you Arsenal!

kryogen

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

I have always had a soft spot for Newcy to be honest.

Newcastle are without doubt a big club.

this is without a doubt, the stupidest, most untrue statement posted in this thread for obvious reasons

themont85

I would consider a 'big club' to be one which is regularly competing for honours, something which Newcastle fail to do. Nothing annoys me more than fans who call for the head of a manager after just 6 months, when the club are in little danger of relegation and the fans complain of a lack of 'good football' yet moan about their team never winning anything. Newcastle fans think they have a right to both just because there is so many fans in St James Park. Continuity and time breeds success and Newcastle will never be a 'big club' in my eyes until they start being a bit more patient and compete for something.

astrofool

kinaldo wrote: »

Yes, football did exist before the players in the Premiership were born.

Fixed that for you.

There's only 4 big clubs in Britain, Liverpool, Manu, Arsenal, Celtic. The rest aren't big (Rangers come closest imo). Spain only really have 2 (Barca, Real), Germany 1 (Bayern), Italy 3 (A.C., Juve, Inter), France and The Netherlands have 1 a piece (Lyon, Ajax).

therecklessone

astrofool wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

There's only 4 big clubs in Britain, Liverpool, Manu, Arsenal, Celtic. The rest aren't big (Rangers come closest imo). Spain only really have 2 (Barca, Real), Germany 1 (Bayern), Italy 3 (A.C., Juve, Inter), France and The Netherlands have 1 a piece (Lyon, Ajax).

Ajax the only Dutch team? PSV have won 6 of the last 8 Eredivisie titles, finishing 2nd to Ajax in the other 2.

Celtic are but Ranger aren't? Rangers have 51 league titles to Celtic's 41.

France's "big club" Lyon have won all of their titles in this decade...Saint-Étienne, Marseille, Nantes, and Monaco have all won more.

If we only count recent performances then Chelsea must rank ahead of Liverpool?

:rolleyes:

Mr.Nice Guy

No they're not a big club.

They like to think they are but their trophy cabinet suggests otherwise.

Big chip on their shoulder though...

astrofool

Celtic are the bigger club than Rangers, more support, and european success, Rangers are on the cusp of it though. Even through Rangers 9 in a row, Celtic were the bigger club, and would have more power on european football matters (I don't particularly like Celtic myself).

Ajax are the big dutch team, it would take many years of PSV staying ahead and growing their fanbase to compete with them.

Lyon, I'll give you, but they're the only french club thats mattering these days, esp. at a european level. If they aren't a big club, then France has none Marseille would have been if it wasn't for what happened at the start of the last decade.

Anyway, on recent or past performances, Newcastle aren't a big club, but they're more medium than most

Unearthly

This is like the worldclass argument. Everyone has a different definition of what a big club is so it's silly to debate it.

A big club is a club should be one that the likes of Sparta Prague or Anderlecht etc get excited about playing in a European game.....do Newcastle fall into that?

aidan24326

Unearthly wrote: »

This is like the worldclass argument. Everyone has a different definition of what a big club is so it's silly to debate it.

True. It's a relative term. Really there's only 3 'big' clubs in England- Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool. Chelsea have only joined that grouping in recent times but they don't have the same history of success and are only 'johhny-come-latelys' at the top table thanks to Roman's rubles. (though hiring Glenn Hoddle as manager and subsequently attracting Gullit to the club is what really kicked things off for Chelsea).

After that you've got Tottenham, Villa, Man City, Everton and Newcastle in a second tier (Chelsea could really be included in this group also).

Like many other posters here I think Newcastle fans do have delusions of grandeur and the level of expectation makes the manager's job impossible as success is demanded instantly.

I also agree with the poster who said that they've been buying the wrong type of players. This needs to change. Take Mark Viduka. A good player no doubt, but he shows all the signs of being the type of player who's just cashing the paychecks at this stage, and big fat paychecks at that.

A big club is a club should be one that the likes of Sparta Prague or Anderlecht etc get excited about playing in a European game.....do Newcastle fall into that?

Good pont. Newcastle don't have any sort of history at all at that level. Even the likes of Everton and Villa would be more widely respected names on the continent.

therecklessone

astrofool wrote: »

Celtic are the bigger club than Rangers, more support, and european success, Rangers are on the cusp of it though. Even through Rangers 9 in a row, Celtic were the bigger club, and would have more power on european football matters (I don't particularly like Celtic myself).

]

Rangers' trophy haul:

51 League titles
31 Scottsh Cups
24 League Cups
1 Cup Winners Cup

Total - 107

Celtic's trophy haul:

41 League titles
34 Scottish Cups
13 League Cups
1 European Cup.

Total - 89

Their head to head record sees Rangers with 150 wins to Celtic's 135 out of a total of 377 meetings.

The most up to date Deloitte Football Money League puts Rangers in the top 20 but not Celtic link and Forbes puts Celtic's debt as % of value as much higher than Rangers link.

Celtic do beat them on attendances, mainly because they have a bigger stadium, though Rangers are examining options to extend Ibrox to a 70k capacity stadium IIRC.

As for fanbase, I suspect the two clubs enjoy similar levels of supports both in Scotland and abroad.

I couldn't give a fcuk about either club, but if you're gonna call one a big club you've gotta call the other.

astrofool wrote: »

Ajax are the big dutch team, it would take many years of PSV staying ahead and growing their fanbase to compete with them.

Lyon, I'll give you, but they're the only french club thats mattering these days, esp. at a european level. If they aren't a big club, then France has none Marseille would have been if it wasn't for what happened at the start of the last decade.

Hang on a second...despite being THE outstanding team in Dutch football since the turn of the century, they lag behind Ajax because of a smaller fanbase...yet Lyon, who's success is largely confined to the same period ARE a big club, despite their fanbase lagging behind at least Marseilles and PSG?

astrofool wrote: »

Anyway, on recent or past performances, Newcastle aren't a big club, but they're more medium than most

On that we are agreed...;)

homerjay2005

theres loads of ways to define a big club. you can take it on success or also,things like fan base and general club stature. in my opinion,newcastle are a big club. Clubs that have a history,are big clubs too. But that is just my opinion.

Big clubs,in rough order,please dont confuse Chelseas stature over last 4 years with greatness, but there have a decent history,dispite what all the songs say:D -

United
Liverpool
Arsenal
Newcaslte
Everton
Chelsea


after that,hmmm,

Villa are a biggish club,Birmingham are not.
Spurs are a biggish club, West ham are not.
etc etc.

Celtic and Rangers are both big clubs. i dont see much difference between them.

Mr Alan

homerjay2005 wrote: »

in rough order
United
Liverpool

rough order is right!

switch those two around and ya might be onto something!

homerjay2005

oh jaysus,here we go again!!!!!!

no,ill leave it as it is al....im sure there is something more topical and present to row over.

astrofool

Just on Celtic, Rangers, I actually had both in the original post, then thought about it and removed Rangers, despite the greater success in the past, they are not as big a club as Celtic at the moment, and on the European comment, most teams would be excited to play Celtic, but not Rangers.

However, if Rangers get their stadium sorted, and can start having more success in Europe, then there's no reason why they can't move up there.

Savman

Newcastle are not a big club, I can't believe it's even up for debate. It's not similar to the world class debate, this can actually be proven by simple facts that they haven't won enough silverware to be considered up there with the big boys.

So, toon boys, accept your mediocrity with the rest of us and get over it. You could be big one day, but so could anyone with the right stuff in place.

Top: ManU, Chelsea, Arse, Pool
Middle: ManC, Spurs, Villa, Newcastle, Everton
Perennial dark horses: Blackburn, Pompey, West Ham

I think that takes everything into consideration but nothing is set in stone, teams like Blackburn, West Ham and Pompey could very well be considered in that medium tier in years to come. It's also good to see City, Villa & Everton push the Top 4, it makes the premiership better as a competition and I think these are good times for the league itself, seems to be attracting a lot more top managers and players from abroad.

Brazilians in the premiership...they have what now?

Third_Echelon

homerjay2005 wrote: »

theres loads of ways to define a big club. you can take it on success or also,things like fan base and general club stature. in my opinion,newcastle are a big club. Clubs that have a history,are big clubs too. But that is just my opinion.

Big clubs,in rough order,please dont confuse Chelseas stature over last 4 years with greatness, but there have a decent history,dispite what all the songs say:D -

United
Liverpool
Arsenal
Newcaslte
Everton
Chelsea


after that,hmmm,

Villa are a biggish club,Birmingham are not.
Spurs are a biggish club, West ham are not.
etc etc.

Celtic and Rangers are both big clubs. i dont see much difference between them.

How can you have Everton below Newcastle?

Everton have had overall more success and have won 3 leagues, 2 FA cups and a European Cup Winners Cup since the last time Newcastle got their hands on silverware in 1969!!!!

The mind boggles :rolleyes:

Newcastle are not a big club. Having a big stadium filled with delusional muppets does not define a big club.

Success on the pitch is where it counts. End of...

Savman

Third_Echelon wrote: »

How can you have Everton below Newcastle?

homerjay2005 wrote:

in rough order,

homerjay2005 wrote:

after that,hmmm,

Villa are a biggish club

'scuse me, if we're gonna get nit picky then I demand inclusion in that list :eek:
biggish dickish

Third_Echelon

Savman wrote: »

'scuse me, if we're gonna get nit picky then I demand inclusion in that list :eek:
biggish dickish

very rough order it seems..

dc69

Savman wrote: »

Newcastle are not a big club, I can't believe it's even up for debate. It's not similar to the world class debate, this can actually be proven by simple facts that they haven't won enough silverware to be considered up there with the big boys.

So, toon boys, accept your mediocrity with the rest of us and get over it. You could be big one day, but so could anyone with the right stuff in place.

Top: ManU, Chelsea, Arse, Pool
Middle: ManC, Spurs, Villa, Newcastle, Everton
Perennial dark horses: Blackburn, Pompey, West Ham

I think that takes everything into consideration but nothing is set in stone, teams like Blackburn, West Ham and Pompey could very well be considered in that medium tier in years to come. It's also good to see City, Villa & Everton push the Top 4, it makes the premiership better as a competition and I think these are good times for the league itself, seems to be attracting a lot more top managers and players from abroad.

Brazilians in the premiership...they have what now?

how are liverpool 4th in your list of the top 4 and cheski,arse ahead of them,thats idiotic imo whatever about united i will say nothing but whoever is first,chlelski arent a big club as they have no history and should be with the likes of everton etc and arsenal arent as succesfull as the other 2

homerjay2005

lads, success does not mean a big club. celtic and rangers are on a par,current standings does not mean anything. in my opinion,is down to stature and fan base and overall club size,not honours. newcastle can still fill a ground despite not winning anything remotely major in 50 years. in my opinion, thats a big club.

sav,I rate villa as a big club,dont get me wrong....but clearly others on here wont.

success does not mean a big club. Monaco and a few others like leverkusen have had reasonable success lately, but are still not "big".

you need a history to be a big club, thats why i had chelsea towards the bottom of the list. they are now a big club,a reallybig club,a big turnover,but thats about it for me.

Savman

dc69 wrote: »

how are liverpool 4th in your list of the top 4 and cheski,arse ahead of them,thats idiotic imo whatever about united i will say nothing but whoever is first,chlelski arent a big club as they have no history and should be with the likes of everton etc and arsenal arent as succesfull as the other 2

Eh? Most incoherent babble I've read in a while.
I didn't post any "rankings", it was simply a list of what is now being called the "Top 4" in England, whatever order.
Chelsea aren't a big club....riiiiight. Have you been watching any football the last few years? There was this guy called Jose...in 3yrs at Chelsea he won the Premiership twice :eek:, League Cup twice and FA cup once. He even threw in a community shield for good measure.

I dunno, that's kind of big.

astrofool

dc69 wrote: »

how are liverpool 4th in your list of the top 4 and cheski,arse ahead of them,thats idiotic imo whatever about united i will say nothing but whoever is first,chlelski arent a big club as they have no history and should be with the likes of everton etc and arsenal arent as succesfull as the other 2

I don't think he has them in any order, just in groups? How twisted are those knickers?