Might have been at 'random' the winnings of Premier League title, but unlike Newcastle, who won all their titles in 1910s, we have had a good squad back in 60-70.
I do not miss Newcastle being in top four in the last years and of course, they were great in my oppinion, but it happens the same to Tottenham. Few times in top four, then they dropped the positions until they got relegated. If I do not miss anything, dear Dunc, Newcastle was in CL for two times and they were not able to pass the groups not even once, unlike Tottenham, who beat Italian giants, Inter and AC Milan.
As for honours, I put all I own that Tottenham are above Newcastle in this case.
We still managed to do this:
[video=youtube;DPGe9OrT53Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPGe9OrT53Y[/video]
We were technically in it three times, but one of those times we only got into the qualifying round after being knocked out on pennos.
Anyway, it's true that Spurs have more silverware, the point I was trying to make, is that we have had a more widespread following over Europe due to our relative success in the 90's/early 00's, when football was becoming more widely available on the TV for foreign countries. While I wouldn't dispute at this day, if you measured the amount of new supporters being brought in by Spurs and Newcastle, I imagine Spurs would be well ahead of us in some areas, while we would excel above them in other areas. If the size of the club is determined on success, then teams like Man City and Chelsea (not so much), will obviously be seen as 'smaller' clubs, but with allot of potential to become massive clubs, obviously, with success you gain more support, but with being based in the capital, I imagine that would have a slightly detrimental effect on the capture of new fans, mainly because you have allot of other teams that people can choose from, while we at Newcastle, have a rather captured audience, although obviously the amount of people we can influence in Newcastle, is allot less then those in London.
Although, personally, I don't think that success can be determined by either success or fan base, but rather a mixture of the two. Also, it needs to be taken into consideration how recent the success has been, because by all accounts, while I appreciate that history is a big part of a club, I wouldn't take accomplishments over about 30 years into consideration when I am deciding how big I think a club is. I think it needs to mainly be based on recent (10-15 years) success mainly, with fan base a contributing factor.
Anyway, it is all subjective, and opinion, but at the end of the day, that's what a forum is for. I would still put Newcastle above Spurs, although not by much, but I think of recent history (since 90's), we have done more in Europe and in the league, and have had about 16K average higher attendances than Spurs, although I appreciate that is limited by stadium capacity, but tbh, having a nice stadium should also factor into the 'big club' debate, but I think that's common sense, but again, subjective.