Still a far better club than Tottenham even if we are having a tough time.
If i were you, I would get back on the spu(d)s board as at the moment you need to discuss how to stop the current freefall you are in
UTV
Still a far better club than Tottenham even if we are having a tough time.
---------
dont be so stupid!
We are.
No delusions of grandeur and thats why we don't mind West Ham Shambles or not
UTV
charisma you are an absolute clown if you think villa are in any way bigger or better than tottenham.
there is only so far that a european trophy won ages ago will get you!
My opinion, and Chronic I could raise same issue on your board and get same response as you have.
Grow up
the issues you raise would be taken seriously if they are valid.
my issue is that you should all get off mcleish's back and start looking at your players who are letting you down, and none of you seem intelligent enough to take it on board.
Chronic, to fair the only bit of sense you have spoken is when you say, that some of the players have let us down; yes your right, but it's McLose who sends them out, decides on systems, and so forth. Now you have had a pop at us for being boring earlier, so who's fault is this then? . And Chronic how old are you? cuz if you really believe Spurs are bigger than villa, you ain't been a footie fan for long. Listen me, old cockney sparra! there is nothing between clubs like villa, spurs, leeds, everton, newcastle, were all chasing the dream, in all honesty it's your time right now, but we'll come again as will the others, this is how football rolls old shoe.
McLose
-----
i am 25... been watching spurs for 17 years.. football for about 18 or 19.
now in that time spurs have been absolutely rubbish and i have unfortunately grown up watchin spurs through the worst spells in our history... but regardless we are one of the traditional big 5 in the country,
at this moment in time, we are still one of the biggest 5 clubs, and also one of the 5 best,
we have a bigger trophy haul than aston villa.. indicating a richer history.
we have a bigger fan base for sure, we may even have bigger attendances at the moment, but if we dont then its only down to us having a stadium which is much smaller than we need.
whatever criteria there is for being a big club, we outperform aston villa, on and off the pitch.
thats just the way it is.
much as the same way that arsenal are bigger than spurs, spurs are bigger than aston villa
infact.... just trophies all round.. i just had a look.... and of your 7 title wins... 5 came in the 1800's....
its embarassing that you even claim those.
Chronic admitting that arsenal are bigger than spurs
Trust me chronic, i am nearly 50 and your not bigger than Aston Villa in any way shape or form, but then again in all honesty i would not claim to be bigger than you. We are equal, now as much as you clearly do not like it my advice is deal with it!
Villa are definitely bigger than spurs, not even joking or wumming.
http://www.aboutaball.co.uk/aboutaball-historical-football-rankings/historical-ranking-of-english-football-clubs
Trust me chronic, i am nearly 50 and your not bigger than Aston Villa in any way shape or form, but then again in all honesty i would not claim to be bigger than you. We are equal, now as much as you clearly do not like it my advice is deal with it!
------
this who is bigger stuff is rubbish anyway.. not sure who started it but it wasnt me...
and verminator... yes arsenal are bigger than spurs.. its not even debateable.. i just wish you could be bigger than us somewhere else instead of encrouching on our patch you squatters.
as for villa... try attacking... its fun.
Villa are definitely bigger than spurs, not even joking or wumming.
http://www.aboutaball.co.uk/aboutaball-historical-football-rankings/historical-ranking-of-english-football-clubs
----
this looks like a reliable source
chelsea above spurs !!
as for villa they have won the league 7 times.. but 5 in the 1800's . i am sure that is what is contributing to that big points haul.
apart from a little flourish in the early 80s, villa have actually done virtually fack all.
Chronic, but chelsea ARE bigger than spurs.
Sure they have BOUGHT success but buy buying it they are making history.
They have more league titles than you.
More european pedigree.
Bigger fan base (although most of them only became fans after the oil money came in)
Bigger stadium.
More european pedigree.
----
i would like to point out that spurs have more european trophies than both arsenal and chelsea.
Chronic, you and I both know that arsenal and Chelsea have more European pedigree than spurs. Winning a cup winners cup all those years ago is not pedigree
qualifying for CL 16 times in a row, reaching semis and finals IS some sort of pedigree, whether u like it or not.
It's a bit like zenit claiming they have more European pedigree than arsenal because they won the super cup
Guys, all this is pointless. Claiming A is bigger than B has no meaning, and it's not what football is about (even though a lot of people think it is). Clubs which think they are a big club are 90% of the time ready for a fall.
Take Chelsea. In historic terms nobody would claim they were a big club. My dad would scoff when I went to their matches (a joke, he would say) because they were just down the road from where I was living at a time. They weren't a joke then; they played some highly entertaining football, they shocked the "big" guys quite often. They built themselves up gradually, and when Abramovich installed an outstanding manager on top of some already very good players, they were unbeatable for a while. It's the football which counts, not the history.
Take Spurs. I watched them when Bill Nicholson was manager. A "big" club then, so they and the pundits thought. The football was pretty grim. To see Jimmy Greaves reduced to being a cog in a machine was plain sad. The best thing he did was go to West Ham, not a big club but playing some of the best football around. Spurs downsized when Sugar became chairman, and it showed. Today they're doing fine; I'd much rather see Harry's brand of football than anything before, and it's nothing to do with how big Spurs are.
Take Liverpool. A BIG club, so they think. That's their problem. There's so much pressure on going out and crushing the opposition they crack when it doesn't happen. They won't improve until they start going back to basics and working out how to play football. Under a manager who knows how to do that.
Maybe Man U are an exception. Why? Because they have a manager who believes in playing football and won't compromise on that. It's what they do on the pitch rather than their history which makes them what they are.
So to Villa. The history doesn't matter. The assets do. The support, the ground, the facilities, the community. Valuable foundations which can be built on. Given the right manager, we'll do OK. Given some investment we'll do even better. MON might not have been the manager for the long term but he showed what could be done in the short. The future lies on the pitch, not in the past. Stuff how big a club is.
Sign in if you want to comment
Our situation
Page 2 of 2
posted on 25/3/12
Still a far better club than Tottenham even if we are having a tough time.
If i were you, I would get back on the spu(d)s board as at the moment you need to discuss how to stop the current freefall you are in
UTV
posted on 25/3/12
Still a far better club than Tottenham even if we are having a tough time.
---------
dont be so stupid!
posted on 25/3/12
We are.
No delusions of grandeur and thats why we don't mind West Ham Shambles or not
UTV
posted on 25/3/12
charisma you are an absolute clown if you think villa are in any way bigger or better than tottenham.
there is only so far that a european trophy won ages ago will get you!
posted on 25/3/12
My opinion, and Chronic I could raise same issue on your board and get same response as you have.
Grow up
posted on 25/3/12
the issues you raise would be taken seriously if they are valid.
my issue is that you should all get off mcleish's back and start looking at your players who are letting you down, and none of you seem intelligent enough to take it on board.
posted on 25/3/12
Chronic, to fair the only bit of sense you have spoken is when you say, that some of the players have let us down; yes your right, but it's McLose who sends them out, decides on systems, and so forth. Now you have had a pop at us for being boring earlier, so who's fault is this then? . And Chronic how old are you? cuz if you really believe Spurs are bigger than villa, you ain't been a footie fan for long. Listen me, old cockney sparra! there is nothing between clubs like villa, spurs, leeds, everton, newcastle, were all chasing the dream, in all honesty it's your time right now, but we'll come again as will the others, this is how football rolls old shoe.
posted on 25/3/12
McLose
-----
i am 25... been watching spurs for 17 years.. football for about 18 or 19.
now in that time spurs have been absolutely rubbish and i have unfortunately grown up watchin spurs through the worst spells in our history... but regardless we are one of the traditional big 5 in the country,
at this moment in time, we are still one of the biggest 5 clubs, and also one of the 5 best,
we have a bigger trophy haul than aston villa.. indicating a richer history.
we have a bigger fan base for sure, we may even have bigger attendances at the moment, but if we dont then its only down to us having a stadium which is much smaller than we need.
whatever criteria there is for being a big club, we outperform aston villa, on and off the pitch.
thats just the way it is.
much as the same way that arsenal are bigger than spurs, spurs are bigger than aston villa
posted on 25/3/12
*european trophies
posted on 25/3/12
infact.... just trophies all round.. i just had a look.... and of your 7 title wins... 5 came in the 1800's....
its embarassing that you even claim those.
posted on 25/3/12
Chronic admitting that arsenal are bigger than spurs
posted on 25/3/12
Trust me chronic, i am nearly 50 and your not bigger than Aston Villa in any way shape or form, but then again in all honesty i would not claim to be bigger than you. We are equal, now as much as you clearly do not like it my advice is deal with it!
posted on 25/3/12
Villa are definitely bigger than spurs, not even joking or wumming.
http://www.aboutaball.co.uk/aboutaball-historical-football-rankings/historical-ranking-of-english-football-clubs
posted on 25/3/12
Trust me chronic, i am nearly 50 and your not bigger than Aston Villa in any way shape or form, but then again in all honesty i would not claim to be bigger than you. We are equal, now as much as you clearly do not like it my advice is deal with it!
------
this who is bigger stuff is rubbish anyway.. not sure who started it but it wasnt me...
and verminator... yes arsenal are bigger than spurs.. its not even debateable.. i just wish you could be bigger than us somewhere else instead of encrouching on our patch you squatters.
as for villa... try attacking... its fun.
posted on 25/3/12
Villa are definitely bigger than spurs, not even joking or wumming.
http://www.aboutaball.co.uk/aboutaball-historical-football-rankings/historical-ranking-of-english-football-clubs
----
this looks like a reliable source
chelsea above spurs !!
as for villa they have won the league 7 times.. but 5 in the 1800's . i am sure that is what is contributing to that big points haul.
apart from a little flourish in the early 80s, villa have actually done virtually fack all.
posted on 25/3/12
Chronic, but chelsea ARE bigger than spurs.
Sure they have BOUGHT success but buy buying it they are making history.
They have more league titles than you.
More european pedigree.
Bigger fan base (although most of them only became fans after the oil money came in)
Bigger stadium.
posted on 25/3/12
More european pedigree.
----
i would like to point out that spurs have more european trophies than both arsenal and chelsea.
posted on 25/3/12
Chronic, you and I both know that arsenal and Chelsea have more European pedigree than spurs. Winning a cup winners cup all those years ago is not pedigree
qualifying for CL 16 times in a row, reaching semis and finals IS some sort of pedigree, whether u like it or not.
posted on 25/3/12
It's a bit like zenit claiming they have more European pedigree than arsenal because they won the super cup
posted on 26/3/12
Guys, all this is pointless. Claiming A is bigger than B has no meaning, and it's not what football is about (even though a lot of people think it is). Clubs which think they are a big club are 90% of the time ready for a fall.
Take Chelsea. In historic terms nobody would claim they were a big club. My dad would scoff when I went to their matches (a joke, he would say) because they were just down the road from where I was living at a time. They weren't a joke then; they played some highly entertaining football, they shocked the "big" guys quite often. They built themselves up gradually, and when Abramovich installed an outstanding manager on top of some already very good players, they were unbeatable for a while. It's the football which counts, not the history.
Take Spurs. I watched them when Bill Nicholson was manager. A "big" club then, so they and the pundits thought. The football was pretty grim. To see Jimmy Greaves reduced to being a cog in a machine was plain sad. The best thing he did was go to West Ham, not a big club but playing some of the best football around. Spurs downsized when Sugar became chairman, and it showed. Today they're doing fine; I'd much rather see Harry's brand of football than anything before, and it's nothing to do with how big Spurs are.
Take Liverpool. A BIG club, so they think. That's their problem. There's so much pressure on going out and crushing the opposition they crack when it doesn't happen. They won't improve until they start going back to basics and working out how to play football. Under a manager who knows how to do that.
Maybe Man U are an exception. Why? Because they have a manager who believes in playing football and won't compromise on that. It's what they do on the pitch rather than their history which makes them what they are.
So to Villa. The history doesn't matter. The assets do. The support, the ground, the facilities, the community. Valuable foundations which can be built on. Given the right manager, we'll do OK. Given some investment we'll do even better. MON might not have been the manager for the long term but he showed what could be done in the short. The future lies on the pitch, not in the past. Stuff how big a club is.
Page 2 of 2