The Snowman
Central Defender
well this thread has certainly flushed a few covert mags out
-
The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.
Newcastle fc
- Thread starter Fulwellmackem
- Start date
- Status
Tin Soldier
Striker
They are a bunch of self entitled, deluded, arrogant ***** who attack their own city (that they love) when they lose to us. They believe football began in 1992 and have many fans who's 'devout' support began then. Their grip on reality is fragile. We on the other hand have a massive regard for history and are completely at ease with our place in football and are pragmatic in where we are at the moment.
Name names!
The Lads
Central Defender
I suppose it depends on the definition of bigger.
One element I took was more well known.
I regularly go overseas for work and nearly always talk about football and in most cases have to explain there's two main clubs where I live. A lot more know of the Mags than us , despite our ten year run in the Premier League
The Snowman
Central Defender
every one that said you are bigger, its shite
Most neutral people would agree imo.
Hardly gonna get a balanced opinion on here though.
The Snowman
Central Defender
The only thing they have to claim they are bigger are bigger crowds, but that means nowt, are they bigger than juventus? If milton keynes dons built a new 70k seater stadium and filled it, does that make them bigger?
Have some pride ffs and stand up for your club and its proud history
Have some pride ffs and stand up for your club and its proud history
Binxy
Striker
The resason most neutrals think you're bigger (not saying you are or aren't btw) is because the media (mostly mags) ram it down people's throats constantly with bullshit like famous numbers and 52, 54 and even 55k crowds (no mention of 49k against Watford though)
There's a thread near the top of the page discussing an article by chief propaganda minister Lee Ryder. The article is about 49k vs Watford.
T
TAFKARLC
Guest
We're not bigger or better
Hope this helps...
Hope this helps...
Even that one contains massive lies about us to be fair.
Binxy
Striker
Was referring to arseholes in the national media like fatty Quinn and that **** Custis. "55k every game regardless of the league they're in"
No mention of 36k against Fulham first game back in the Championship.
If you are referring to the 27k, that has been ammended.
But the lad says no mention of 49k vs Watford yet the clubs main media mouthpiece is running an article on it.
I wouldn't consider West Ham that big a club at all, but have been promoted as being one by Sky etc.
We played Fulham away in the first game back in the championship in 2016.
I think you are on about Reading in 2009. That season was an average of 43k. Reading was the lowest of the season, midweek games were usually around 38k, 44-46k for the weekend games then towards the end up the season it was nudging up towards 50k.
I don't mind the way the media talks about your fans tbh, the numbers are good. And tbf we're equally as sensitive about our crowds. But it's sonetimes funny when they start just making things up like '55k every week', why is the 50-52k not good enough? They have to go further.
West Ham are basically the same as us and the mags, minus the history.
Tell him that he talks like a pirate.
Agree with both points.
johnnyat87
Winger
It's more complicated than that though isn't it. My point was that recent history alone isn't enough. Neither is just saying they won titles years ago IF other teams have had more recent success.
Us and Newcastle to be far bigger than West Ham.
- Status
