McLaughlin signs for Sunderland ( updated )

[DVB]

When I was Sunderland half the crowd had left by the 80th minute.

[Bazzas right boot]

47 minutes ago, SwindonJambo said:

 

If Sunderland played in the Scottish League, they’d be the next biggest club behind the OF by a country mile and be able to compete with them and no mistake. Ludicrous comparisons here. Football is a short career. If McLoughlin can triple his wages by going to Sunderland, even  in the 3rd tier of the English League, he’d be daft not to go. He has a family.

 

 

Sunderland are dug meat. 

 

Ofc Jon can do what is best for him, and because of sky, a club in England's 3rd tier can out bid us, much like Bournemouth could do with Celtic. 

 

Still doesn't mean the likes of  Bournemouth and Sunderland are utter pish. 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by WeeChuck'sHeed

[Bazzas right boot]

6 hours ago, Maroon Sailor said:

 

If Sunderland played in the Scottish League they would win trophies as well

 

No Scottish club would win an English trophy

 

 

Aye, great stuff. 

Sunderland don't play in the Scottish league  so it's a pointless argument. 

 

They are pish. 

Not even the best in the North East. 

 

Sky allows them to pay more, they are still shite. 

[luckydug]

13 minutes ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

 

 

Aye, great stuff. 

Sunderland don't play in the Scottish league  so it's a pointless argument. 

 

They are pish. 

Not even the best in the North East. 

 

Sky allows them to pay more, they are still shite. 

I think their 23000 ST holders probably help as well.

[Bazzas right boot]

1 minute ago, luckydug said:

I think their 23000 ST holders probably help as well.

 

Not in any European football for I don't know how long. 

Not been in tbe top two of their league since the 30's.

How many times even top 6 or 8?

2 Cup wins 

Never won a lc Cup. 

Last final? 

In their countries 3rd tier. 

 

 

Aye, but its a better place to play football as they are a bigger club? 

 

I call Bull shite. 

 

For Jon, money- yes. For football reasons, no ****ing way. 

[SwindonJambo]

29 minutes ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

 

Not in any European football for I don't know how long. 

Not been in tbe top two of their league since the 30's.

How many times even top 6 or 8?

2 Cup wins 

Never won a lc Cup. 

Last final? 

In their countries 3rd tier. 

 

 

Aye, but its a better place to play football as they are a bigger club? 

 

I call Bull shite. 

 

For Jon, money- yes. For football reasons, no ****ing way. 

 

To compare Sunderland’s inability to qualify for European Football with the likes of St Johnstone and ICT qualifying from a much weaker league is just daft. The latter 2 would struggle to survive in the Conference.  Take the OF and the Sheep out of the Scottish Premiership and League 1 in England would be stronger and much more competitive. I don’t like it any more than you do but only a fool would deny it. Absolutely no Point in getting bitter about the Sky money, it is what it is and there’s bugger all we can do.

[shaun.lawson]

On 6/22/2018 at 11:38, PeterintheRain said:

 

    He and his wife could always go out and work instead of screwing the fans.  I certainly can blame him for it.  The greed and self entitlement of professional sportspersons is exactly the same as the greed and self entitlement of the bankers who wrecked the economy.  "It's a short career so we have to make as much money as we can".  If it's wrong in one case then it's wrong in every case.   Stop being an apologist for the people shitting on you.     

 

     10 years of austerity and pay freezes for us but they still have to get millions a year or they'll go off and play in an Islamic Dictatorship.  There's no defence for that atitude. He can **** the **** off.
   

 

 

If you had a single braincell Peter, it'd die of loneliness.

 

 

1 hour ago, SwindonJambo said:

 

If Sunderland played in the Scottish League, they’d be the next biggest club behind the OF by a country mile and be able to compete with them and no mistake. 

 

Correct. The very definition of a sleeping giant - and the kind of club where, if they can generate momentum, a bandwagon effect could take them back to the Prem pretty quickly.

 

I wish Jack Ross all the best there. I think he's a good appointment and his signings, including McLaughlin, are exactly the sort of players they need.

[SwindonJambo]

2 hours ago, Des Lynam said:

I’d rather live in Azerbaijan than Sunderland! 

 

He doesn’t have to live there. Just work there.

[Cade]

Sunderland and Newcastle have been "sleeping giants" for so long that they're both in a fecking coma.

 

They're clubs ran by arseholes who take advantage of the most tragically loyal fanbases in the nation.

The sad northerners keep paying to see their teams in large numbers even when every chairman they get takes turns in robbing them blind and wrecking their clubs.

[SwindonJambo]

32 minutes ago, Cade said:

Sunderland and Newcastle have been "sleeping giants" for so long that they're both in a fecking coma.

 

They're clubs ran by arseholes who take advantage of the most tragically loyal fanbases in the nation.

The sad northerners keep paying to see their teams in large numbers even when every chairman they get takes turns in robbing them blind and wrecking their clubs.

 

If they just happen to love their clubs then what should they do instead? Become Sky Fanboys and follow Chelsea or Man City from their armchairs?

[A_A wehatethehibs]

Good luck to him. I hope Jack Ross does well in league 1 and is given the time to build a proper team at Sunderland. He has certainly got the absolute best goalkeeper he could possibly get at that level.

 

They have needed this clear out for about 10 years. 

[Bazzas right boot]

8 hours ago, SwindonJambo said:

 

To compare Sunderland’s inability to qualify for European Football with the likes of St Johnstone and ICT qualifying from a much weaker league is just daft. The latter 2 would struggle to survive in the Conference.  Take the OF and the Sheep out of the Scottish Premiership and League 1 in England would be stronger and much more competitive. I don’t like it any more than you do but only a fool would deny it. Absolutely no Point in getting bitter about the Sky money, it is what it is and there’s bugger all we can do.

 

Sunderland are shite, done one thing of note in 50 years. 

 

They are on a giant slide, although, maybe they can rise again(to boot om half epl) 

 

Sky are the reason why folk think clubs are "big" as they can pay more, that is why I don't like it. I don't have or pay for sky so there is something I can do?

 

Folk banging on about 50k crowds, and based on that they are big and would be successful. 

 

Would Sunderland be better than Juventus if in Italy or PSV in Holland? 

 

Lots of well supported clubs in England, Sunderland are from a big football region in a big football country, backed by big money. They are still shite. 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

 

If you had a single braincell Peter, it'd die of loneliness.

 

 

 

Correct. The very definition of a sleeping giant - and the kind of club where, if they can generate momentum, a bandwagon effect could take them back to the Prem pretty quickly.

 

I wish Jack Ross all the best there. I think he's a good appointment and his signings, including McLaughlin, are exactly the sort of players they need.

 

 

Sleeping giant, like Newcastle, Leeds, villa, wolves, Notts forrest, Derby, even Everton...  Its like land of the giants down there. 

 

They might make it to the EPL again, we're they'll battle to stay up, before going down again. 

Exciting. 

7 hours ago, Cade said:

Sunderland and Newcastle have been "sleeping giants" for so long that they're both in a fecking coma.

 

They're clubs ran by arseholes who take advantage of the most tragically loyal fanbases in the nation.

The sad northerners keep paying to see their teams in large numbers even when every chairman they get takes turns in robbing them blind and wrecking their clubs.

 

Yip, and as above there are lots of sleeping giants down there. 

Imo there are well supported clubs and clubs who were successful in the past, you can't be a sleeping giant for 30, 40, 50 years.... 

That's called being deeeed, not sleeping. 

 

 

Jon went for the money, fair enough but Sunderland are a shitty, but we'll supported club that is about it. 

Edited June 27, 2018 by WeeChuck'sHeed

[Bazzas right boot]

7 hours ago, SwindonJambo said:

 

If they just happen to love their clubs then what should they do instead? Become Sky Fanboys and follow Chelsea or Man City from their armchairs?

 

Think it was more of a dig at the chairman of the clubs tbh and maybe the fans lack of action to change them. 

[SwindonJambo]

28 minutes ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

 

Think it was more of a dig at the chairman of the clubs tbh and maybe the fans lack of action to change them. 

 

 

I’m pretty sure the fans HAVE tried to oust their respective owners. Unfortunately the owners in question have too much of a stranglehold on the clubs. Also, they live elsewhere so don’t have to endure the stick they get day to Day. They’re brazen and thick skinned anyway and don’t give a toss. England is a big competitive league with much more depth to it than Scotland. Only a finite number of clubs can ever be successful and many who are not are very well supported are in the doldrums.

 

Take away the OF and probably only 3 or 4  Scottish Clubs would survive long term in any of the 4 English divisions and most of them would find their level in the lower leagues. Outside the OF, Sheep, ourselves and Hibs, the rest could easily fall off a cliff into oblivion.

[Saint Jambo]

10 hours ago, StanLaurel said:

Good luck to him but I can't help thinking he's just ended his international career with that move. A player in the English third division is unlikely to be playing at a high enough level every week to make the step up to an important qualifier for his country. 

 

I'm not so sure. As we've seen from recent squads, Scotland are short on decent keepers. Gordon and McGregor will be the top two picks but who else do you pick as the third choice? Scot Bain has just signed up for reserve team football for the foreseeable future. Jordan Archer is not very good. It wasn't that long ago the Jack Hamilton was in the squad.

 

Charlie Mulgrew was in League 1 last season and a regular for Scotland. We have had players in the Scottish Championship in the squad and that is a considerably lower standard. For a 3rd choice keeper I don't think it is that big an issue when you look at the potential longer term benefit.

 

Gordon and McGregor are now 35 and 36, whilst McLaughlin is 30. If Sunderland get promoted this season you would have a player ready to step into the number 1 role as Gordon and McGregor's careers wind down.

[Bazzas right boot]

7 minutes ago, SwindonJambo said:

 

 

I’m pretty sure the fans HAVE tried to oust their respective owners. Unfortunately the owners in question have too much of a stranglehold on the clubs. Also, they live elsewhere so don’t have to endure the stick they get day to Day. They’re brazen and thick skinned anyway and don’t give a toss. England is a big competitive league with much more depth to it than Scotland. Only a finite number of clubs can ever be successful and many who are not are very well supported are in the doldrums.

 

Take away the OF and probably only 3 or 4  Scottish Clubs would survive long term in any of the 4 English divisions and most of them would find their level in the lower leagues. Outside the OF, Sheep, ourselves and Hibs, the rest could easily fall off a cliff into oblivion.

 

Maybe aye, maybe naw. 

 

All irelevent in regards to Sunderland being a pish club, albeit with sky money and big crowds. 

[luckydug]

8 hours ago, Cade said:

Sunderland and Newcastle have been "sleeping giants" for so long that they're both in a fecking coma.

 

They're clubs ran by arseholes who take advantage of the most tragically loyal fanbases in the nation.

The sad northerners keep paying to see their teams in large numbers even when every chairman they get takes turns in robbing them blind and wrecking their clubs.

That is much the same as what Hibs fans say about us.

Nothing wrong with being loyal to your club btw it's what kept us in business. 

Fanbases like ourselves and the NE England clubs are what the sport is all about. We will be here long after the TV companies gave ****ed off.

[Nookie Bear]

14 minutes ago, luckydug said:

That is much the same as what Hibs fans say about us.

Nothing wrong with being loyal to your club btw it's what kept us in business. 

Fanbases like ourselves and the NE England clubs are what the sport is all about. We will be here long after the TV companies gave ****ed off.

 

Well said.

 

 

[maroonnicky63]

17 hours ago, Maroon Sailor said:

 

If Sunderland played in the Scottish League they would win trophies as well

 

No Scottish club would win an English trophy

My god I have found something that I agree with you on, Celtic would struggle IMO, good here but would win nothing in England

[Samuel Camazzola]

18 hours ago, Maroon Sailor said:

 

If Sunderland played in the Scottish League they would win trophies as well

 

No Scottish club would win an English trophy

Wigan, Pompey and Swansea have won major trophies in recent years. If Scottish clubs were in the same market, they'd easily compete for the signature of players who picked up medals for these sides. 

[jacklivi1874]

I'm sure if Edinburgh only had one team who were playing in the EPL we would have 50k at homes games, just a train of thought likes or more like a flight of fancy 

[Rocky jamboa]

Can't blame Jon for going for what is likely his last big pay deal and no doubt double what we've offered him. If he'd had a crap season with us, we would have ditched him quick enough. That's football. Some you won, some you lose. 

 

Jack Ross making some good signings down there and signing players he'll be aware off, plus knowing he'll be able to get them cheap, plud offer them more than hearts and hibs etc

[SwindonJambo]

3 hours ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

 

Maybe aye, maybe naw. 

 

All irelevent in regards to Sunderland being a pish club, albeit with sky money and big crowds. 

 

They've always been well supported, long before Sky arrived, when their ground was a dump and the team was crap. Good, loyal and passionate supporters and definitely not glory hunters. So what should they do instead?

[Jambo dans les Pyrenees]

1 hour ago, jacklivi1874 said:

I'm sure if Edinburgh only had one team who were playing in the EPL we would have 50k at homes games, just a train of thought likes or more like a flight of fancy 

 

Yep, I think with the EPL resources we'd do well.  Not sure about 50k, but I think we'd be giving Ann thoughts about whether the Wheatfield upper tier or filling in the cornerz should be brought forward a bit...:-)

[Bazzas right boot]

46 minutes ago, SwindonJambo said:

 

They've always been well supported, long before Sky arrived, when their ground was a dump and the team was crap. Good, loyal and passionate supporters and definitely not glory hunters. So what should they do instead?

 

Support their club. 

Hats off to them. 

 

The point is they are not bigger than Hearts. 

Bigger crowds do not mean, on it's own - bigger team. 

 

In relation to Jon going their, it is clearly for financial and non footballing reasons. 

Fair enough for him,but it's not a good football move for him. 

Hearts are the bigger stage. V Sunderland. 

[Adam_the_legend]

4 minutes ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

 

Support their club. 

Hats off to them. 

 

The point is they are not bigger than Hearts. 

Bigger crowds do not mean, on it's own - bigger team. 

 

In relation to Jon going their, it is clearly for financial and non footballing reasons. 

Fair enough for him,but it's not a good football move for him. 

Hearts are the bigger stage. V Sunderland. 

 

Im struggling to see the logic in your argument here. Sunderland are a bigger club than Hearts, don’t understand how you can say otherwise. 

[Mikey1874]

4 hours ago, maroonnicky63 said:

My god I have found something that I agree with you on, Celtic would struggle IMO, good here but would win nothing in England

 

You're forgetting the money in England. Give Celtic another £100 million plus (minus their Champions League money) and they could do okay in England. 

[Bazzas right boot]

11 minutes ago, Adam_the_legend said:

 

Im struggling to see the logic in your argument here. Sunderland are a bigger club than Hearts, don’t understand how you can say otherwise. 

 

Quite simply, Because they are shite and have been for 60/70 years. 

 

If going on crowds (50k)which seems to be the argument, they are bigger than psv and Juventus, every Belgium, Greek, Danish, Norwegian, Swiss team, Chelsea and Spurs to name a few. 

 

So that argument is bollocks. 

 

If it's the money argument, then the likes of Bournemouth are bigger than Celtic and probably 3/4 of European clubs, so again - thats shite. 

 

 

Can't be based on current league status, trophies, league finishes or European qualification or even location. 

 

So tbh, I'm struggling to see how Sunderland are bigger than us. 

[Hagar the Horrible]

10 minutes ago, Adam_the_legend said:

 

Im struggling to see the logic in your argument here. Sunderland are a bigger club than Hearts, don’t understand how you can say otherwise. 

It is relative, if we all merged leagues, most clubs up here would double in size over night?  Newcastle, Sunderland and Boro are big clubs with big fan bases, but their respecive towns are shiteholes it a shity part of the country, I admire their loyalty as it is undeserved but without football there is heehaw in the NE, other towns at least have cricket or Rugby League as their sport of choice.  But if we were in their league, with the Sky money, a lot of Scottish clubs would grow overnight, and if we were able with the Sky money to offer the same deal to any player as the three mentioned then any player would drive past them on the A1 to speak to us first....FACT

 

League 1 in England we would walk it with Sky money, If we got to the Premiership we would need to move to Murrayfield, Hibs, Dundee Utd and Aberdeen would all flourish too, The OF would become a behemoth the authorities would not be able to control, plus we would all be targets for oligarchs, prove me wrong????

[Juanjo15]

33 minutes ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

 

Support their club. 

Hats off to them. 

 

The point is they are not bigger than Hearts. 

Bigger crowds do not mean, on it's own - bigger team. 

 

In relation to Jon going their, it is clearly for financial and non footballing reasons. 

Fair enough for him,but it's not a good football move for him. 

Hearts are the bigger stage. V Sunderland. 

 

Sunderland aren’t bigger than Hearts?   ffs. 

[Juanjo15]

10 minutes ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

 

Quite simply, Because they are shite and have been for 60/70 years. 

 

If going on crowds (50k)which seems to be the argument, they are bigger than psv and Juventus, every Belgium, Greek, Danish, Norwegian, Swiss team, Chelsea and Spurs to name a few. 

 

So that argument is bollocks. 

 

If it's the money argument, then the likes of Bournemouth are bigger than Celtic and probably 3/4 of European clubs, so again - thats shite. 

 

 

Can't be based on current league status, trophies, league finishes or European qualification or even location. 

 

So tbh, I'm struggling to see how Sunderland are bigger than us. 

 

They have a bigger support have a bigger stadium generally play in a better league and have better players than us.  

 

In what way are Hearts bigger than Sunderland?  They are much bigger than any club outside Glasgow. 

[Adam_the_legend]

8 minutes ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

 

Quite simply, Because they are shite and have been for 60/70 years. 

 

If going on crowds (50k)which seems to be the argument, they are bigger than psv and Juventus, every Belgium, Greek, Danish, Norwegian, Swiss team, Chelsea and Spurs to name a few. 

 

So that argument is bollocks. 

 

If it's the money argument, then the likes of Bournemouth are bigger than Celtic and probably 3/4 of European clubs, so again - thats shite. 

 

 

Can't be based on current league status, trophies, league finishes or European qualification or even location. 

 

So tbh, I'm struggling to see how Sunderland are bigger than us. 

 

3 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

It is relative, if we all merged leagues, most clubs up here would double in size over night?  Newcastle, Sunderland and Boro are big clubs with big fan bases, but their respecive towns are shiteholes it a shity part of the country, I admire their loyalty as it is undeserved but without football there is heehaw in the NE, other towns at least have cricket or Rugby League as their sport of choice.  But if we were in their league, with the Sky money, a lot of Scottish clubs would grow overnight, and if we were able with the Sky money to offer the same deal to any player as the three mentioned then any player would drive past them on the A1 to speak to us first....FACT

 

League 1 in England we would walk it with Sky money, If we got to the Premiership we would need to move to Murrayfield, Hibs, Dundee Utd and Aberdeen would all flourish too, The OF would become a behemoth the authorities would not be able to control, plus we would all be targets for oligarchs, prove me wrong????

 

Quite incredible, creating a fantasy to support an argument. 

 

None of what you say will happen so it’s pointless hypothesising. I suppose it comes down to how you define size. I would base how big a club is on their support both in terms of people that attend games and the wider base of people who will spend money on strips, watch them on tv...etc. 

 

If you compare league positions and cup wins it’s not an apples to apples comparison because of the different structure of the leagues. 

[Bazzas right boot]

1 minute ago, Juanjo15 said:

 

They have a bigger support have a bigger stadium generally play in a better league and have better players than us.  

 

In what way are Hearts bigger than Sunderland?  They are much bigger than any club outside Glasgow. 

 

Better players ( all of them?) , only if you buy the EPL hype. 

They are in the third tier. 

They haven't been in Europe for a long time. 

Not finished in the top 2 of the league for 70 years. When even in the top 8, which is our equivalent of 4th?)

Won 2 fa cups, last in the 70's

Won no league cups.

Not made a final for 40 plus years. 

 

They have a bigger support and a bigger stadium. If that's the criteria then they are bigger than all the teams I mentioned above and many more across Europe, in fact are they bigger than Rangers or on par then? 

 

Without sky, Hearts players atm wouldn't even look at them. 

Money is the driver, fair enough but imo it's not a football based decision. 

 

 

[Jambo dans les Pyrenees]

13 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

It is relative, if we all merged leagues, most clubs up here would double in size over night?  Newcastle, Sunderland and Boro are big clubs with big fan bases, but their respecive towns are shiteholes it a shity part of the country, I admire their loyalty as it is undeserved but without football there is heehaw in the NE, other towns at least have cricket or Rugby League as their sport of choice.  But if we were in their league, with the Sky money, a lot of Scottish clubs would grow overnight, and if we were able with the Sky money to offer the same deal to any player as the three mentioned then any player would drive past them on the A1 to speak to us first....FACT

 

League 1 in England we would walk it with Sky money, If we got to the Premiership we would need to move to Murrayfield, Hibs, Dundee Utd and Aberdeen would all flourish too, The OF would become a behemoth the authorities would not be able to control, plus we would all be targets for oligarchs, prove me wrong????

 

I don't think we would.  Expectation wise Tynecastle would fit rght in as an atmospheric stadium and at around 20k not out of place with the likes of Turf Moor, Vicarage Road etc.  Just googled to see that 6 of 20 EPL stadia are 25k and under.

 

Financially, when you get £100m from TV alone for finishing last, it doesn't matter a jot whether you sell 20k or 40k season tickets.

 

[Bazzas right boot]

5 minutes ago, Adam_the_legend said:

 

 

Quite incredible, creating a fantasy to support an argument. 

 

None of what you say will happen so it’s pointless hypothesising. I suppose it comes down to how you define size. I would base how big a club is on their support both in terms of people that attend games and the wider base of people who will spend money on strips, watch them on tv...etc. 

 

If you compare league positions and cup wins it’s not an apples to apples comparison because of the different structure of the leagues. 

 

It's a mixture of both. 

 

It wasn't me who mentioned the fantasy stuff, if Sunderland played in scotland, blah blah. 

They don't, they are in the third their. 

 

Sunderland are a well supported team. But quite simply put are shite, and been shite for 50 plus years so are not a bigger club than Hearts. 

 

Edited June 27, 2018 by WeeChuck'sHeed

[Juanjo15]

2 minutes ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

 

Better players ( all of them?) , only if you buy the EPL hype. 

They are in the third tier. 

They haven't been in Europe for a long time. 

Not finished in the top 2 of the league for 70 years. When even in the top 8, which is our equivalent of 4th?)

Won 2 fa cups, last in the 70's

Won no league cups.

Not made a final for 40 plus years. 

 

They have a bigger support and a bigger stadium. If that's the criteria then they are bigger than all the teams I mentioned above and many more across Europe, in fact are they bigger than Rangers or on par then? 

 

Without sky, Hearts players atm wouldn't even look at them. 

Money is the driver, fair enough but imo it's not a football based decision. 

 

 

 

Thats like saying TNS are bigger than Hearts because they win things and are in Europe every season in fact the Champions league.

 

Without Sky they would still have 40,000 fans going into an incredible stadium. So they will still be able to offer much more money to potentially play in a much better league.  Sunderland go up next year McLaughlin is going to be playing at big clubs with massive stadiums week in week out and make money doing so. 

 

Sunderland are a bigger club in every way apart from trophies they can’t pick up playing in Scotland as they are in a much harder country to win things. 

[Juanjo15]

2 minutes ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

 

It's a mixture of both. 

 

It wasn't me who mentioned the fantasy stuff, if Sunderland played in scotland, blah blah. 

They don't, they are in the third their. 

 

Sunderland are a well supported team. But quite simply put are shite, and been shite for 50 plus years so are not a bigger club than Hearts. 

 

 

 they’ve been playing mainly In the top tier of English football the best part of 30 years Mixing it with the biggest clubs in the world, not Partick Hamilton and Kilmarnock.  

[Bazzas right boot]

Just now, Juanjo15 said:

 

Thats like saying TNS are bigger than Hearts because they win things and are in Europe every season in fact the Champions league.

 

Without Sky they would still have 40,000 fans going into an incredible stadium. So they will still be able to offer much more money to potentially play in a much better league.  Sunderland go up next year McLaughlin is going to be playing at big clubs with massive stadiums week in week out and make money doing so. 

 

Sunderland are a bigger club in every way apart from trophies they can’t pick up playing in Scotland as they are in a much harder country to win things. 

 

Sunderland are shite. 

 

The sky money is the only thing that makes teams like them attractive, maybe a little harsh on them as they do have a big support, but many "big" English teams have done the square root of **** all for 30, 40, 50 years and counting. 

 

 

 

When do these clubs just become a well supported club ( because they are in a big footballing country) as opposed to a big club or a sleeping giant? 

[Juanjo15]

5 minutes ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

 

Sunderland are shite. 

 

The sky money is the only thing that makes teams like them attractive, maybe a little harsh on them as they do have a big support, but many "big" English teams have done the square root of **** all for 30, 40, 50 years and counting. 

 

 

 

When do these clubs just become a well supported club ( because they are in a big footballing country) as opposed to a big club or a sleeping giant? 

 

Shite in comparison to who exactly? 

 

For the record where would you place us in terms of English clubs then if bigger than Sunderland?  Newcastle? Spurs? 

[Bazzas right boot]

5 minutes ago, Juanjo15 said:

 

 they’ve been playing mainly In the top tier of English football the best part of 30 years Mixing it with the biggest clubs in the world, not Partick Hamilton and Kilmarnock.  

 

 

Aye, Luton, Wigan, Hull, Bradford, Charlton, qpr, Brighton, Ipswich, Oldham, Bournemouth. Swindon ( I could name dozens more over 30 years) etc are all ****ing great right enough. 

 

You're, I think a epl fan boy and everything in England is better, I'm a bit older, Hearts have far more tradition and culture, trophies, bigger games and imo have a better chance of doing these in the future than Sunderland. 

 

Sunderland, like villa, Notts forrest, Derby, Leeds even the likes of coventry, Ipswich etc are all well supported, but big clubs now? 

 

When do they just become historically big clubs but now just well supported clubs fighting for the sky pound so the can fight relegation in the top flight every year with no hope of doing, well anything of note? 

[Bazzas right boot]

1 minute ago, Juanjo15 said:

 

Shite in comparison to who exactly? 

 

For the record where would you place us in terms of English clubs then if bigger than Sunderland?  Newcastle? Spurs? 

 

 

No idea, far too many factors to consider. 

 

Had a chat with a Newcastle and a spurs fan about this very thing actually, quite recent. 

 

Both thought we'd be a decent epl side given the time and finances. 

 

I countered saying maybe, or we could be a Coventry or an Oldham. 

 

Both agreed that although exciting watching the top players play, they'd both die for 3 Cup wins in 20 years and especially the Newcastle fan who agreed being a good  team in a pish league is better than being a pish team in a good league. 

 

All agreed sky money has widened the gulf, (discussed Dave MacKay) and things are possible for even small clubs in England that big clubs, even including celtic can't touch. 

[Juanjo15]

6 minutes ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

 

 

No idea, far too many factors to consider. 

 

Had a chat with a Newcastle and a spurs fan about this very thing actually, quite recent. 

 

Both thought we'd be a decent epl side given the time and finances. 

 

I countered saying maybe, or we could be a Coventry or an Oldham. 

 

Both agreed that although exciting watching the top players play, they'd both die for 3 Cup wins in 20 years and especially the Newcastle fan who agreed being a good  team in a pish league is better than being a pish team in a good league. 

 

All agreed sky money has widened the gulf, (discussed Dave MacKay) and things are possible for even small clubs in England that big clubs, even including celtic can't touch. 

 

Given time and finances perhaps maybe.  But right now as you have said we are bigger than Sunderland in terms of god knows what what level of club down South would you say we are par with? 

[Juanjo15]

17 minutes ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

 

 

Aye, Luton, Wigan, Hull, Bradford, Charlton, qpr, Brighton, Ipswich, Oldham, Bournemouth. Swindon ( I could name dozens more over 30 years) etc are all ****ing great right enough. 

 

You're, I think a epl fan boy and everything in England is better, I'm a bit older, Hearts have far more tradition and culture, trophies, bigger games and imo have a better chance of doing these in the future than Sunderland. 

 

Sunderland, like villa, Notts forrest, Derby, Leeds even the likes of coventry, Ipswich etc are all well supported, but big clubs now? 

 

When do they just become historically big clubs but now just well supported clubs fighting for the sky pound so the can fight relegation in the top flight every year with no hope of doing, well anything of note? 

 

All they clubs mentioned in your first part are smaller than Sunderland.

 

The second bunch are about the same size of club as Sunderland and much bigger than any club in Scotland outside Glasgow.

 

Clubs become historically big clubs when they haven’t been in the top tier for a good amount of years which isn’t the case for Sunderland this time last year they had just been relegated from it. 

 

Im not an EPL fanboy either, trophies mean very little though in comparison to a massive country next door.  Bigger matches we are involved in? Where about?  I don’t see 50,000 packing into the Edinburgh derby or us going to Old Trafford or The Etihad very often? 

Edited June 27, 2018 by Juanjo15

[Bazzas right boot]

2 minutes ago, Juanjo15 said:

 

Given time and finances perhaps maybe.  But right now as you have said we are bigger than Sunderland in terms of god knows what what level of club down South would you say we are par with? 

 

No idea, but not a team in the third their. 

 

Jon chose them for the money. 

Fair enough. 

Nothing to do with them being bigger than us or for any football reasons. 

[Bazzas right boot]

2 minutes ago, Juanjo15 said:

 

All they clubs mentioned in your first part are smaller than Sunderland.

 

The second bunch are about the same size of club as Sunderland and much bigger than any club in Scotland outside Glasgow.

 

Clubs become historically big clubs when they haven’t been in the top tier for a good amount of years which isn’t the case for Sunderland this time last year they had just been relegated from it. 

 

If you are basing being big on support, then Sunderland are bigger. 

 

Also makes them bigger than Juventus and PSV and half the top clubs across the European leagues. 

 

You are also saying just simply being in the EPL makes you a big club. 

 

Tragic view to have. 

 

Also, out of all the clubs, the smallest on my list is the most recent to win a trophy, where does that fit? 

(recent, by about 25 years ( leeds/ Notts) and 40 plus on most of them)!

 

 

[Juanjo15]

6 minutes ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

 

If you are basing being big on support, then Sunderland are bigger. 

 

Also makes them bigger than Juventus and PSV and half the top clubs across the European leagues. 

 

You are also saying just simply being in the EPL makes you a big club. 

 

Tragic view to have. 

 

Also, out of all the clubs, the smallest on my list is the most recent to win a trophy, where does that fit? 

(recent, by about 25 years ( leeds/ Notts) and 40 plus on most of them)!

 

 

 

No I’m saying having a bigger support in a bigger stadium playing usually in the top league of one of the best in the world makes them a little bit bigger than the 3rd biggest in Scotland.  Are Sunderland bigger than PSV? I would say they are about the same size of club with more honours going to PSV. Does honours mean everything? No, just like TNS aren’t bigger than Tottenham. 

[Juanjo15]

16 minutes ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

 

No idea, but not a team in the third their. 

 

Jon chose them for the money. 

Fair enough. 

Nothing to do with them being bigger than us or for any football reasons. 

 

So our team that finished 6th in Scotland would have done no bad last year in the championship? 

 

Fair enough that’s your opinion, I hugely disagree. 

[Geoff the Mince]

1 hour ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

 

Quite simply, Because they are shite and have been for 60/70 years. 

 

If going on crowds (50k)which seems to be the argument, they are bigger than psv and Juventus, every Belgium, Greek, Danish, Norwegian, Swiss team, Chelsea and Spurs to name a few. 

 

So that argument is bollocks. 

 

If it's the money argument, then the likes of Bournemouth are bigger than Celtic and probably 3/4 of European clubs, so again - thats shite. 

 

 

Can't be based on current league status, trophies, league finishes or European qualification or even location. 

 

So tbh, I'm struggling to see how Sunderland are bigger than us. 

I agree with you, just cause they can get a decent support in a larger stadium does not make them a big club .

 

whats the criteria for this ? Anyone over 30k stadium with similar crowds make them a big club ?  Utter pish .

 

 

[Geoff the Mince]

1 hour ago, Juanjo15 said:

 

Sunderland aren’t bigger than Hearts?   ffs. 

Why are they ? 

 

What have they won ? 

 

What were thier crowds at Roker Park ? 

 

They are nomarks . 

[Bazzas right boot]

1 minute ago, Geoff the Mince said:

I agree with you, just cause they can get a decent support in a larger stadium does not make them a big club .

 

whats the criteria for this ? Anyone over 30k stadium with similar crowds make them a big club ?  Utter pish .

 

 

 

It's annoying, it obviously counts towards it. 

 

I used Juventus and psv as examples,  both don't get the biggest crowds In their league but are the biggest/ one of the biggest in the league they play in and both get less than Sunderland, but Monaco are most extreme. 

 

Aberdeen, US and Hibs are bigger than them  going on stadium and crowds, maybe even Coventry are?