That lot Again v Jawdies Pre-Match thread

[PeterWithesShin]

Well I am surprised you wouldn't post those 20 attendance figures.

[The Fish]

Well I am surprised you wouldn't post those 20 attendance figures.

Did you read why? 

[PeterWithesShin]

Yes, it was you doing your usual trick.

You could always post the numbers i've asked for so as it doesn't look like you are avoiding it but we all know you won't.

[peter w]

Does it matter? The point being that they've got attendances that are pretty much the envy or everyone bar a few teams. Even man City with their billions can't attract the same crowds. I really have never got this argument - it was the same when the Shit or the Albion fans saying we were only as good as were were because we had Benteke. Well, yes, but we did have him. That was the point. Same for their attendances. Whether they were crap before Keegan or after Keegan it's irrelevant. They do get good attendances.

Sunderland used to come down in far larger numbers than Newcastle. But whatever you may accuse them of - and they are fannies (Sorry Fish) who go on a bit, it's just as tiresome hearing the same old 'Yes you have got fantastic support. But only in the last 20 years so it doesn't count'.

Where I disagree with Fish - and this is very much with villa eyes. But I'd put us, Everton, and Tottenham in the same bracket. man City until their money were in there. Newcastle just under there with Sunderland and Leeds. But, its arguable and they would see it differently. Oh, and while we're at it it was funny when we helped relegate Newcastle twice, and yes they do take themselves far too seriously, and no the rest of the country aren't easily impressed by the shiny stadium (bit grey though innit) but I quite like them. (Well the Newcastle they were, not are).

[PeterWithesShin]

No one has said they haven't hadn't good support in the past or now. They have and they do. My issue with him is that he claims this is some kind of cliche when anyone around in those days knows it's true. The numbers exist to prove it. As I said in this post, they'll do anything but admit it, and it gets tedious how they'll try anything to avoiding admitting it, which is exactly what he keeps doing.

Newcastle have always had decent support for a Scottish club but their blind refusal to admit how much it was dropping until Keegan was appointed gets a bit tedious. Ground held less than 30K and was rarely two thirds full.

[dave.woodhall]

If you want to dispel the 'myths' or 'clichés' there's a very very easy way to prove i'm wrong. Post the last 10 league attendances before Keegan was manager, and the first 10 after his appointment.

No graph bollocks, no excuses, nothing but those 20 attendance figures.

Have you ever heard of the term "Logical Fallacy". If not here's a helpful guide. I've linked to the problem with any reply to your question.  https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter

When did the truth become a tiresome cliché?

So let's have a discussion. Villa or Newcastle - which is the bigger club,  and why?

When it's not the whole truth and it's a cherry picked argument to win those oh-so-precious internet points.

Big club debates are as boring as they are futile.
What makes a big club?
It's trophies, ok but only "major" cups, ok but actually only FA Cups not League cups, ok not cups only league titles, ok but only English league titles. Actually it's turnover, no actually it's profit, no wait it's net profit. Actually it's fanbase, no it's fanbase within the uk, per capita of metropolitan area, divided by number of clubs. Actually it's attendance, but away attendance not home attendance, away attendance in the cups. Surely it's social media footprint, but only twitter, not facebook.

Pointless and boring.

Everyone knows there are truly elite clubs like Barcelona, Man Utd etc. then there's another group like Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man City et al, then there's another group including Everton, Newcastle, Spurs and Villa, and so on and so forth. The arbitrary criteria for each tier can change within a season, the gaps between tiers blur, and the importance of being seen as a big club waxes and wanes as on-field performances falter and improve. Last season no Spurs fan cared if they were considered a big club, and yet it's all that's mattered to Leeds fans for over a decade.

You can argue til you're blue in the face whether Everton are bigger than Spurs, but it will never be resolved and the people who fixate on it (and there are guilty parties at every club) are the lads you avoid in the pub.

And that's your idea of a discussion? Facts are tiresome cliches and everything else is pointless and boring.

[cheltenhamlion]

Fucking hell, I have only just noticed this is still going. Has he answered about the pavement dancing idiots yet?

[The Fish]

No one has said they haven't hadn't good support in the past or now. They have and they do. My issue with him is that he claims this is some kind of cliche when anyone around in those days knows it's true. The numbers exist to prove it. As I said in this post, they'll do anything but admit it, and it gets tedious how they'll try anything to avoiding admitting it, which is exactly what he keeps doing.

Newcastle have always had decent support for a Scottish club but their blind refusal to admit how much it was dropping until Keegan was appointed gets a bit tedious. Ground held less than 30K and was rarely two thirds full.

There isn't a blind refusal to admit it, I even posted a handy little graph to prove that attendances fluctuated. The cliche is to suggest that Newcastle are alone in experiencing peaks and troughs in attendances because of on and off-field matters. Literally every club sees the same, even Aston Villa.



See? peaks and troughs.

[The Fish]

And that's your idea of a discussion? Facts are tiresome cliches and everything else is pointless and boring.

My idea of a discussion? No, it's highlighting the total futility of the discussion. You will have an entrenched idea about what makes a big club and there isn't anything that anyone can do to dissuade you from that view, ergo pointless and boring.

cliches are cliches, to demand someone answer a point without allowing full explanation is because the whole truth ruins/dilutes your argument, to engage in discussions where a subjective view is seen as an absolute is pointless and boring. It's like trying to argue science v religion.

[PeterWithesShin]

No one has said they are unique with peaks and troughs. Most clubs had the troughs in the mid 80s and then had a constant and steady increase over the next decade or so.
Where Newcastle differ is attendances doubling overnight because a manager is appointed. Which they did. But you won't admit it. As I predicted 2 weeks ago in my first post on the subject.

[dave.woodhall]

You've not answered anything,  you've dodged every question, come up with some unfathomable nonsense and generally acted like a typical Newcastle 'world revolves around us'  clown.  You've been good to laugh at but your usefulness has been outlived so go and bone somewhere else.  I promise you can come back when Newcastle have won a trophy.

[Weedy]

For the statistically inclined:

Attendance (average) records per club

http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub

Villa:
http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub/astv.htm

Newcastle:
http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub/newu.htm

[The Fish]

No one has said they are unique with peaks and troughs. Most clubs had the troughs in the mid 80s and then had a constant and steady increase over the next decade or so.
Where Newcastle differ is attendances doubling overnight because a manager is appointed. Which they did. But you won't admit it. As I predicted 2 weeks ago in my first post on the subject.

Our spike in attendances in the 90s coincided with a few things (Keegan and Sir John Hall rescuing our club, rebirth of national interest in the game post-hooliganism, Sky, etc.) and looks almost identical to your own (using the stats that Weedy helpfully links to above). Was your own increase due to only one variable? Or was it because of a host of reasons?

It's churlish to imply that Newcastle fans only returned because their on-field fortunes improved. That suggests that pre-Keegan we weren't well attended. Also, if our attendances were intrinsically linked to "success", wouldn't we have seen a drop off in the years of decline after he left?

[PeterWithesShin]

Ours was a gradual increase over the course of approx a decade from the low of the mid 80s to the mid 90s, same as a lot of other clubs, mostly for the reasons you have given, I don't disagree with any of that. But they didn't double overnight which was my point. Whether it was old fans returning or new fans starting, overnight Newcastle went from around 13-17K every week to 28-29K every week. We went from 13-17K to 29K+ over the course of 7 years.

It's not a cliche or anything else you've spent a couple of weeks claiming, it wasn't because of Sky (it was 18 months before them), or post hooliganism or the national interest increasing as the rise i'm talking about was instantaneous not a gradual increase like us or other clubs. It was purely because of one thing, Keegan (and Hall if you like) turned up.

I just don't get why it's so hard for you, or other Newcastle fans, to admit.

Our attendances went to shit in the mid 80s and improved massively over the next decade. It really is easy to admit. If they'd doubled overnight because we appointed SGT or BFR i'd have no problem admitting that either.

[Richard E]

This thread is still going to be active in 2026, isn't it?

Looks like I was right.

2032.