Renz
An Army of One
Robinho cost City £32 million and then he was sold to AC Milan for £18 million. I don't know how you figure Gyan cost more.
Sunderland AFC
- Thread starter EnglishCardinal
- Start date
Robinho cost City £32 million and then he was sold to AC Milan for £18 million. I don't know how you figure Gyan cost more.
English on tour
Eng-gur-land Eng-gur-land
Gerrin there Benty lad!!! 
You must be registered for see images attach
English on tour
Eng-gur-land Eng-gur-land
Nailed on win today......for Wigan!
just read an awful fact for Sunderland fans - in our last 6 years of Premier League football we have won a massise 9 away games
just read an awful fact for Sunderland fans - in our last 6 years of Premier League football we have won a massise 9 away games
English on tour
Eng-gur-land Eng-gur-land
Aresenal at home today.
slightly later kick off so more time for a few beers before hand to ease the (porbable) pain
slightly later kick off so more time for a few beers before hand to ease the (porbable) pain
English on tour
Eng-gur-land Eng-gur-land
Really pleased we got what we deserved yesterday. Thought we were the better side all day and there goal was a joke.
In truth we played better 11 v 11 and they just kept the ball and passed and moved when song went off.
Overall if ever there was a winning draw that was it.
In truth we played better 11 v 11 and they just kept the ball and passed and moved when song went off.
Overall if ever there was a winning draw that was it.
Chaplin
Better off silent
This was almost as bad as a loss for us. But got to hand it to Sunderland, they played better than us all game. The Song send-off was another in a long line of horrible soccer officiating calls.
English on tour
Eng-gur-land Eng-gur-land
has anyone seen Liverpool's first goal from the weekend yet?
what a joke
what a joke
English on tour
Eng-gur-land Eng-gur-land
10 days from the big one, so i thought i would pop this up. It was filmed a few years ago about the Sunderland v Newcastle derby game and the fans of both clubs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KrlnM0YuKw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-ILeM00p9Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4FkXzRtVp8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KrlnM0YuKw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-ILeM00p9Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4FkXzRtVp8
Stout
Hold onto the ball, Murray!
English on tour
Eng-gur-land Eng-gur-land
Bring it on, Sunderpukes
I havent been able to sleep all week mate.
Down to London on Sat morning for the Niners/Broncos game on sunday so will be trying to find a boozer to watch this in first...dont know why as i am convinced we will lose
Stout
Hold onto the ball, Murray!
I havent been able to sleep all week mate.
Down to London on Sat morning for the Niners/Broncos game on sunday so will be trying to find a boozer to watch this in first...dont know why as i am convinced we will lose
Because you will
Renz
An Army of One
I haven't been able to sleep all week mate.
Down to London on Sat. morning for the Niners/Broncos game on Sunday so will be trying to find a boozer to watch this in first...dont know why as I am convinced we will lose
Sunderland > Mags, IMO.
Our away form has been better this season so I feel more confident. Plus the Mags lost at home to Blackpool, so they can be had at Sid James.
The play of Mignolet and our back four has been stellar.
Prediction: Sunderland 1-0 Scum
English on tour
Eng-gur-land Eng-gur-land
A rivalry with roots in kings and coal
Richard Stonehouse traces a great enmity between fans that predates football
The Observer
At 1.30 about one million people in Tyne and Wear and an additional million more from the North-East's diaspora, will watch and listen to what they consider to be the most important match of the season. Yet, to the rest of the watching world, the outcome will be observed with indifference.
The Tyne-Wear derby may be perceived by the uninitiated as parochial and unsophisticated, but like the world's greatest derbies it has a historical conflict as its bedrock. And if anything, as a basis for a rivalry, the Sunderland-Newcastle derby is the most legitimate conflict anywhere.
Some of the great derbies are based on issues that are trite and irrational. The historical class difference, for example, between the Milan clubs - Milan traditionally unionist and working-class, Inter upper-class and conservative - is now moot, given the chairmanship of the right-wing Silvio Berlusconi at Milan. Their historical reason for difference has dissipated, as it arguably has for Juventus-Torino, Real Madrid-Atletico, and Panathinaikos-Olympiakos.
The Celtic-Rangers rivalry has been written about extensively, and needs no elaboration. Other than to say that if football can act as a metaphor for international and jingoistic warfare, then the Old Firm is the most articulate. But the Tyne-Wear derby wins in its secular and concise regional conflict.
It does, after all, predate football by 226 years. It is a conflict that has divided two cities, 12 miles apart, for more than three centuries.
In the epoch before the 1600s, King Charles I had consistently awarded the East of England Coal Trade Rights (try to contain your excitement) to Newcastle's traders, which rendered the Wearside coal merchants redundant. People died because of it. Coal and ships were Sunderland's raison d'etre.
But when, in 1642, the English Civil War started, and Newcastle, with good reason, supported the Crown, Sunderland, because of the trading inequalities, sided with Cromwell's Parliamentarians, and the division began.
It became a conflict between Sunderland's socialist republicanism, against Newcastle's loyalist self-interest. A purposeful enmity if ever there was one. Unlike rivalries between other clubs, the differences between Newcastle and Sunderland date back to fighting based on the necessity to live and feed one's children, and benefit one's city.
The political differences between the two culminated with the battle of Boldon Hill. A loyalist army from Newcastle and County Durham gathered to fight an anti-monarchist Sunderland and Scottish army at a field equidistant between the two towns.
The joint Scottish and Sunderland army won - and Newcastle was colonised by the Scottish. It was subsequently used as a Republican military base for the rest of war.
And while this is a lucid basis for two cities hating each other, it has, like every other modern-day derby, developed profoundly irrational manifestations.
It has been noted that some Newcastle fans refuse to buy bacon, because of its 'red-and-white appearance' - the pinnacle, regardless of any jovial flippancy, of irrational behaviour. Likewise the past Mackem boycott of a particular breakfast cereal, because of the Newcastle-orientated marketing of its brand, is silly beyond words. However, these are benign occurrences.
In March 2000, more than 70 Sunderland and Newcastle hooligans took part in some of the worst football-related violence ever seen in Britain. It was not even a match day. What the police called 'usually respectable men and fathers' had decided to meet in mutual territory with their enemies, to fight with knives, bats and bricks.
Sunderland fans boarded a ferry towards Tyneside, found the awaiting 'army', and fought. One man was left permanently brain-damaged. Dozens of people were arrested, and years upon years of prison-time was sentenced.
The continuation of tension involves a new sense of injustice. For well over a decade, Sunderland's population has bemoaned that they have been paying their local taxes to finance both the Newcastle Metro and airport.
A perceived bias towards Tyneside in the regional and national media further compounds a feeling of inequality. It seems that history is repeating itself for the people of Sunderland, albeit in a less livelihood-threatening sort of way. Perhaps a more trivial, city-image sort of way.
But this makes little sense. Let's just hope that despite the hijacking of the game by the corporate class, and the working-class ostracising that comes with it, there remain terraces from which Mackems and Geordies can vent their invariably abusive opinions of each other without violence and civil war.
Why Mackems and Geordies?
The derivations are uncertain, but both have theories based in historical political allegiances. 'Geordie' because of Tyneside's staunch support of the Hanoverian King George II during the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion - 'Geordie' is a common diminutive of 'George'; and Mackem because of Wearside's accommodation of the Scottish 'Blue Mac' army during the civil war.
It is more likely, however, that the origins stem from aspects of the shipbuilding and coalmining industries. The Tyneside coalminers preferred George Stephenson's 'Geordie' safety lamp over the more widely used Humphry Davy lamp. And it has been accepted almost universally that Mackem is derived from the phrase Mak(e)'em and Tak(e)'em, coined by Tyneside shipbuilders to insult their counterparts on the River Wear, who would build the ships and have them taken away by the richer classes
Richard Stonehouse traces a great enmity between fans that predates football
The Observer
At 1.30 about one million people in Tyne and Wear and an additional million more from the North-East's diaspora, will watch and listen to what they consider to be the most important match of the season. Yet, to the rest of the watching world, the outcome will be observed with indifference.
The Tyne-Wear derby may be perceived by the uninitiated as parochial and unsophisticated, but like the world's greatest derbies it has a historical conflict as its bedrock. And if anything, as a basis for a rivalry, the Sunderland-Newcastle derby is the most legitimate conflict anywhere.
Some of the great derbies are based on issues that are trite and irrational. The historical class difference, for example, between the Milan clubs - Milan traditionally unionist and working-class, Inter upper-class and conservative - is now moot, given the chairmanship of the right-wing Silvio Berlusconi at Milan. Their historical reason for difference has dissipated, as it arguably has for Juventus-Torino, Real Madrid-Atletico, and Panathinaikos-Olympiakos.
The Celtic-Rangers rivalry has been written about extensively, and needs no elaboration. Other than to say that if football can act as a metaphor for international and jingoistic warfare, then the Old Firm is the most articulate. But the Tyne-Wear derby wins in its secular and concise regional conflict.
It does, after all, predate football by 226 years. It is a conflict that has divided two cities, 12 miles apart, for more than three centuries.
In the epoch before the 1600s, King Charles I had consistently awarded the East of England Coal Trade Rights (try to contain your excitement) to Newcastle's traders, which rendered the Wearside coal merchants redundant. People died because of it. Coal and ships were Sunderland's raison d'etre.
But when, in 1642, the English Civil War started, and Newcastle, with good reason, supported the Crown, Sunderland, because of the trading inequalities, sided with Cromwell's Parliamentarians, and the division began.
It became a conflict between Sunderland's socialist republicanism, against Newcastle's loyalist self-interest. A purposeful enmity if ever there was one. Unlike rivalries between other clubs, the differences between Newcastle and Sunderland date back to fighting based on the necessity to live and feed one's children, and benefit one's city.
The political differences between the two culminated with the battle of Boldon Hill. A loyalist army from Newcastle and County Durham gathered to fight an anti-monarchist Sunderland and Scottish army at a field equidistant between the two towns.
The joint Scottish and Sunderland army won - and Newcastle was colonised by the Scottish. It was subsequently used as a Republican military base for the rest of war.
And while this is a lucid basis for two cities hating each other, it has, like every other modern-day derby, developed profoundly irrational manifestations.
It has been noted that some Newcastle fans refuse to buy bacon, because of its 'red-and-white appearance' - the pinnacle, regardless of any jovial flippancy, of irrational behaviour. Likewise the past Mackem boycott of a particular breakfast cereal, because of the Newcastle-orientated marketing of its brand, is silly beyond words. However, these are benign occurrences.
In March 2000, more than 70 Sunderland and Newcastle hooligans took part in some of the worst football-related violence ever seen in Britain. It was not even a match day. What the police called 'usually respectable men and fathers' had decided to meet in mutual territory with their enemies, to fight with knives, bats and bricks.
Sunderland fans boarded a ferry towards Tyneside, found the awaiting 'army', and fought. One man was left permanently brain-damaged. Dozens of people were arrested, and years upon years of prison-time was sentenced.
The continuation of tension involves a new sense of injustice. For well over a decade, Sunderland's population has bemoaned that they have been paying their local taxes to finance both the Newcastle Metro and airport.
A perceived bias towards Tyneside in the regional and national media further compounds a feeling of inequality. It seems that history is repeating itself for the people of Sunderland, albeit in a less livelihood-threatening sort of way. Perhaps a more trivial, city-image sort of way.
But this makes little sense. Let's just hope that despite the hijacking of the game by the corporate class, and the working-class ostracising that comes with it, there remain terraces from which Mackems and Geordies can vent their invariably abusive opinions of each other without violence and civil war.
Why Mackems and Geordies?
The derivations are uncertain, but both have theories based in historical political allegiances. 'Geordie' because of Tyneside's staunch support of the Hanoverian King George II during the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion - 'Geordie' is a common diminutive of 'George'; and Mackem because of Wearside's accommodation of the Scottish 'Blue Mac' army during the civil war.
It is more likely, however, that the origins stem from aspects of the shipbuilding and coalmining industries. The Tyneside coalminers preferred George Stephenson's 'Geordie' safety lamp over the more widely used Humphry Davy lamp. And it has been accepted almost universally that Mackem is derived from the phrase Mak(e)'em and Tak(e)'em, coined by Tyneside shipbuilders to insult their counterparts on the River Wear, who would build the ships and have them taken away by the richer classes
Stout
Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Great arricle, English. Nice find.
Milgod
Hall of Famer
Civil war rivalries are for losers. War of the Roses is where it's at!
White Rose of York over the Lancastrian scum!
White Rose of York over the Lancastrian scum!
Renz
An Army of One
Black Cats have recorded 3 consecutive clean sheets and haven't conceded a goal in more than 5 hours.
Chaplin
Better off silent
And I'm sure Sunderland fans are happy that Arsenal killed Newcastle today.
Stout
Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Eh, that's a who cares game. Newcastle isn't winning the Carling Cup, and they had a game at the end of the week. They weren't focusing on Arsenal I don't think.
Stout
Hold onto the ball, Murray!
I'm with you in support of York there!
Chaplin
Better off silent
Yeah, why would they? Carling Cup or EPL, there's no way they're going to compete with Arsenal.
Stout
Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Yeah, why would they? Carling Cup or EPL, there's no way they're going to compete with Arsenal.
Agreed
English on tour
Eng-gur-land Eng-gur-land
Agreed
right thats me for a few day...off to London for Broncos/Niners.
i have not slept well this week....bloody Mags
I need a new team.
Stout
Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Similar threads
Staff online
-
ShaneComin for you! -
Brian in MesaAdvocatus Diaboli -
Dback JonDoing it My Way