Brand new modern fitba 2018-19 thread!! SEE YOU!!

So they deserve to be 'up there' based on:
a) some good players
b) lots of money

There's a reason they're way down on the list of 'successful' clubs.

Your and cdogg' s arguments hold no water: like or it not, Newcastle United are just another one of those mythical 'sleeping giants' who, as MTF pointed out in all honesty, "will not win a major trophy in my lifetime. Of that I am certain"
Ditto Everton, Villa, Leeds, etc

MTF's being objective, I'm being statistic and cdogg is being all 'romantic'.

 

Nobody said anything about "deserves", fuckwit

DIE (only after you liquidate your fucking family first, of course)

 

Obviously it'd take ages but an average of league placings over that period would be fascinating

 

Off the top of my head Portsmouth, Ipswich, Leicester and Derby would all be above Blackburn using Magus's shitty 'system'.

 

Nobody said 'deserved', in fact I'm one of those people who subscribe to the notion that the 'league table doesn't lie'. If you're not top at the end of the season then you didn't deserve to win it, end of.

The point we were making is that Newcastle are underachievers historically when you take into account the size of their support and catchment area, the players they've had in the past and the revenue they were generating. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

Take for example QPR, we are a small club, we are where you'd expect us to be. Somewhere in the top two divisions with the occasional relegation to the third tier (which will probably happen this season). We have three other clubs to compete with in just the part of the city we occupy, in London as a whole we have loads more to compete with. We have a small ground and we don't generate tons of revenue. Newcastle, in contrast, have all of these ingredients in place and are therefore underachievers.

 

Rodgers seething at our inability to secure john mcginn, this is the first time he's ever publicly broke ranks to criticise the board and the racour clearly spilled over to the pitch, Saturday. And it's hard to blame the guy because £4m for a fucking hibs player is hardly asking for the moon on a stick and the deal lay on a plate for months yet we dallied interminably, quibbling and faffing over 250k here and there until villa swooped in at the last minute and offered to quadruple the 20k a week we were offering him. Kelly/whyte biscuit tin mentality returns. Mcginn is celtic daft, but he's not turning down 80k a week. So far we've lost two first team regulars and signed precisely nobody this summer. If we're not gonna back Brendan we'll lose him.

 

This is where a team like Newcastle United score over Nottingham Forest in terms of consistency.
Forest's 1 League Championship, 3 League Cups, 2 European Cups were amassed in a short period (1977-81).
Newcastle United have only spent 18 seasons or so in Division 2 and have only two years where they weren't in the Premiership and seven of those were Top5 finishes.

 

He's mental. Sunderland above Newcastle since WW2? Sunderland have won one trophy since the second world war and qualified for Europe precisely zero times.

MTF

 

I'm biased, but I'd argue that NUFC are a 'bigger' club than Forest. Over the course of each club's respective history, NUFC has been more successful, had better players, won more trophies, attracted bigger crowds etc. Forest are basically a middling fitba club who had a remarkable purple patch for about fifteen years thanks to a genius manager.

However, there is no question whatsoever that Forest have been more successful than NUFC since about 1955 onwards. A lot more successful. They won more in that purple patch than NUFC have won in sixty years.

MTF

 

Aye Newcastle are clearly bigger than forrest

 

No.
As with Blackburn Rovers, I was working with multiple tables and reshuffling positions as and when.
Sunderland were in there as a result of their pre-war showings but also a healthy consistency of Division 1 and Premiership residency since WWII: only 24 seasons out of the top flight.
My mistake.

 

Blackburn discrepancy I've explained but please, feel free to display a different 'bottom-end' table.
Derby County, W.B.A., Sheffield United might be worth looking at.

 

I always relate club size to bouncebackability. If teams come back repeatedly decades apart it suggests an established intergenerational fanbase and catchment area. A smaller club can flair up and win a league or have a glory decade if a Brian clough or jack Walker arrives but where are they 30 years, 40 years, 50 years later? Newcastle are underachievers and inconsistent but they're always capable of coming again a couple decades later because the base is always there. Dare I say it, that's the basis on which I always tend to consider United and Arsenal slightly bigger clubs than Liverpool even if the latter managed such a prodigious trophy haul in their ~20 year heyday. Where were they in 1920 and where are they now

 

I get the point you're trying to make but surely you could lay a similar charge at United who had a similarly prodigious period under Ferguson? Look at it this way, Man United have more league titles than anybody else but have only had three league-title winning managers. Liverpool are also historically the strongest English team in Europe which you have to weigh into it.

 

Aye you might be right there. Liverpool actually won major honours Across more decades than United before the 60s- must admit I never knew that. Scouse powa!

 

Just me or does the MLS look pure beezing?

 

I've watched a few games this season, pretty entertaining I have to say. The quality isn't brilliant but it's nowhere near as bad as people like to make out. That's mainly down to the influx of aging European stars I guess, but it's fun to watch.

 

First you'll have to tell us what beezing means.

 

Of course but not more successful

 

Ach you know, chonking, stoating, brand new. Replete with beeze.

 

MLS is decent, depends on the match... some clubs have supporters who "get it" like Seattle; others are more like "GOOOOALSHOT!" (USAsoccerguy)

 

Liverpool is England's greatest club overall, IMO ... Manchester United is the only other one even in that conversation

 

Here's one for you. Would you rather have:

10 seasons finishing Top5 in Premiership

Or...

I Premiership title
1 League Cup title
2 seasons R16 in Champions League
Mid-table struggle for 2-3 years
Relegation after 7th season

 

The aim of any football club, ultimately, is to win things. 10 top-5 finishes are good for business, sure, but you don't get a trophy for that. Nobody decides to start supporting a football club because they balance the books really well and make decent profit.

 

Yeah I agree but if you ask any Forest fan now if they'd swap those 6 or so major titles they won during 1977-82 for a 25 year stint in the Premiership....

 

Forest were twice the kings of Europe ... and it wasn't in 1895 or whatever

 

Yes. I went to every home match during that 78-79 European Cup campaign.

 

I never believe these little anecdotes of yours

 

Unfortunately I can't fly back to England, go into my parents attic and get the ticket-stubs, programmes, etc so you'll just have to carry on disbelieving I guess...