You will note that I have not made any observations on that point. But if I had time, which I currently don't, I'd tell you that you were wrong and then explain why.
There's no point going back in history cos it's completely irrelevant! Villa won the league in 1981 but the last time before that was 1910! Since going up in 93 we've regularly been a more successful team than Villa. We finished higher than Villa last season and got into CL, which immediately invalidates your point about them being more advanced with their project. Plus our ground is over 10,000 bigger. How are you quantifying that their a bigger crowd?
Because it will show the impressive and far superior trophy haul. The grounds 10k bigger though we can use that. come on mate ffs.
League titles Aston Villa 7 Newcastle 4 Fa Cups Aston Villa 7 Newcastle 6 League cups Aston Villa 5 Newcastle 0 European Cups Aston Villa 1 Newcastle 0 Super cups Aston Villa 1 Newcastle 0
Oh FFS you clown Citing history from the dawn of time means **** all as time changes and so do clubs, of those 7 Villa titles you just cited, 5 of those 7 were in the 1800s Are Preston, Huddersfield, Sheffield Wednesday and Blackburn all therefore bigger than Spurs, as they've all won the title 3 times as opposed to Spurs's 2?
I'm not sure what your understanding of history or success is, but you're claiming it counts for nothing which is bewildering and then thinking having a few more seats matters.
You really are a thick **** at times. Bigger turn over Bigger bank balance Bigger attendances Bigger fan base yet the one thing you want to argue is who has a bigger tin of brasso
The biggest clubs are the most successful clubs and your list is irrelevant. While you jump to playschool outbursts I would like to let you know that the majority of football fans in this country agree with me unless of course they don't know their history. Essentially you guys can't just accept it.
You're not getting this are you? Winning titles over a hundred years ago doesn't cement your place today as a "big" club. Sunderland have won the title 6 times as opposed to our 4, but in terms of who is a bigger club, we look down on them like a Tyrannosaurus looking at an ant. Also Sheffield Wednesday have won the title 4 times, doesn't mean they're a bigger club than us. Villa have been nothing in the last 40 years, and your argument that they're bigger than us based on titles from over a hundred years ago is ludicrous.
You started talking business plans. Got out your depth, smacked about then changed your direction of argument. Started citing better squad and transfers, got out your depth again, smacked about and proved wrong again then changed your argument to biggest club, git out your depth yet again, smacked about yet again, proved wrong yet again, then changed it to most successful, historically.
Oh I am getting it you're simply unable to acknowledge that vast difference in the success of both clubs and how successful they have been in their entirety I've noticed you're now whimpering on about the last 40 years, but Newcastle haven't won anything for alot longer haven't they ? How about you explain why Newcastle are a bigger club rather than spending time trying to disregard Aston Villas far superior awards list.?
No the two things are separate and both I'm correct about and because you're unable to accept something you're lashing out rather than presenting a case. Which argument are you here for. 1. The villa takeover took place years before Newcastles Or 2. Aston Villa are a bigger club.
You seem to have a massive hard on for Villa right now, why not potter off and support them instead if they are so superior ?
