View from The Sky Blues

[Darren]

The usual Bladey Blade inverted snobbery vastly underestimates our club. I was one of over 40,000 who saw us play Cardiff and Watford in the second division. We are a bigger club than many in the Premiership and recent departures: Fulham, Wigan, WBA, Bolton, Blackburn, Swansea, Cardiff, Soton, Norwich, Palace, Hull, Stoke.

We'll need to extend the stadium to accommodate the crowds when we return to the Premiership.

Football has a history before Sky Sports and Coca Cola!

If we are doing anecdotes, I am one of the 7,000 - 8000 who watched United in the Second Division in the mid 80's; on that basis we must be a tiny club.

The reality is that post WWII up until the mid 70's United were either a top second tier team or a poor to middling first tier team.

Since the mid 70's we have generally been a middling 2nd tier team with occasional forays into the first and third tiers.

 

[Trigger Blade]

Do China play cricket?

Some of them do, certainly in Hong Kong. I had a fantastic crispy duck when dining at the HK Cricket Club many years ago.I doubt that will be significant in their attempt for cricketing world glory, but it was memorable

 

[oldblade]

Coventry were overwhelmingly more successful than United between 1967 and 2001. They were in a higher division than us in 25 out of 34 seasons. You'd have to be pushing 60 to remember Coventry as being "nowhere near" United.

When in the same division In think you have to go back about 40 years to find a time when Coventry actually managed to average a higher attendance than us. Considering their relative success over us in terms of league placing during that time I think that says all you need to know about the relative sizes of the two clubs.

 

[stringjunior]

The grunters are massive. We're not. End of.

 

[Pinchy]

The grunters are massive. We're not. End of.

Sadly, yes. You only have to compare our Walk of Thanks to their Amble of Embarrassment.

 

[metalblade]

There is no reason that both Sheffield clubs couldn't grace the top half of the premiership much like Liverpool and Everton do, we have a similar sized population to draw our fan base from. Given any sort of sustained success both us and the pigs would pull in just as many fans, it really pisses me off when Blades fans belittle the club they support. Maybe the piggies take this massive business to deluded extremes but you can never say they play down their clubs potential sadly all too often half our support do, to hear some we may as well pack in now as we will never win owt or we are just too small to compete ................ utter tosh and bollocks

 

[oldblade]

If we are doing anecdotes, I am one of the 7,000 - 8000 who watched United in the Second Division in the mid 80's; on that basis we must be a tiny club.

The reality is that post WWII up until the mid 70's United were either a top second tier team or a poor to middling first tier team.

Since the mid 70's we have generally been a middling 2nd tier team with occasional forays into the first and third tiers.

!986-7 was the lowest our attendances ever got and we averaged a tiny bit under 10,000. But as you well know Darren, football attendances in general were very low at that time. Not just our's. We were averaging more than the second division average for that season. This was a time when few first division (ie premier league) clubs got more than 20,000.

 

[blade too long]

Wednesdays average div 3 gates
gates show how poor gates were during the wilderness years (pre sky)
1980 18.288
1979 10.860
1978 11.592
1977 13.688
1976 11.219
1975 13.453
1974 14.645 lge 2 relegtion year

 

[Silent Blade]

There is no reason that both Sheffield clubs couldn't grace the top half of the premiership much like Liverpool and Everton do, we have a similar sized population to draw our fan base from. Given any sort of sustained success both us and the pigs would pull in just as many fans, it really pisses me off when Blades fans belittle the club they support. Maybe the piggies take this massive business to deluded extremes but you can never say they play down their clubs potential sadly all too often half our support do, to hear some we may as well pack in now as we will never win owt or we are just too small to compete ................ utter tosh and bollocks

I hate it too when ex-players with big egos try to belittle us. Vinny Jones claimed in his autobiography that he won the man of the match award in every game for us. What utter rubbish! It was Hodges and Deano who often were man of the match during Vinny's spell at SUFC and I do not remember him being outstanding in any of the matches for us

 

[JohnDenver]

I hate it too when ex-players with big egos try to belittle us. Vinny Jones claimed in his autobiography that he won the man of the match award in every game for us. What utter rubbish! It was Hodges and Deano who often were man of the match during Vinny's spell at SUFC and I do not remember him being outstanding in any of the matches for us

The fact we sold him after a relatively short time here (for once not due to finances), does suggest he was rather ordinary.

And unless my relatively young eyes were deceiving me, he was.

 

[oldblade]

Wednesdays average gates show how poor gates were during the wildeness years (pre sky)
1980334718.2882722
19791435810.8603632
19781435811.5923324
1977835213.6883214
19762036411.2193631
19752224413.4533231
19741924114.6452933

In 1974-5 season, Wednesday managed to do something we have never ever done. They managed to get 5 consecutive attendances fewer than 8,600. Two of those were actually fewer than 7,500.

They may have averaged a few thousand more than us over the years, but when things got really bad they were nowhere to be seen.

 

[blade too long]

hard to believe Chelsea in 1982/3 averaged 13000

 

[oldblade]

hard to believe Chelsea in 1982/3 averaged 13000

A season in which we averaged 11,764 whilst finishing mid table in the third division.

During the previous season we were in the fourth division but still averaged 1700 more than Chelsea even though they were two divisions higher than us. But hey, we are such a small and insignificant club..........

 

[metalblade]

In 1974-5 season, Wednesday managed to do something we have never ever done. They managed to get 5 consecutive attendances fewer than 8,600. Two of those were actually fewer than 7,500.

They may have averaged a few thousand more than us over the years, but when things got really bad they were nowhere to be seen.

Always been the same with the pigs if they aren't winning they don't want to know. My old dad always used to say if the pigs win 3 on the trot put 5000 on there next gate, usually to see them lose LOL

 

[blade too long]

Sunderland got 14000 average in 84/5 as a top division club , they still are fickle

 

[yorkshirecoast]

I was living in London in the early 90s and went to a few Chelsea games with a Chelsea supporting colleague. Even though they were in the old Div 1 - now premiership - they got several gates around 10k and I'm sure they got around 7k in one. I was shocked how poor their support was. The fans did not even clap or cheer when the teams came out at the start! Of course they now how 40k die hard fans who have not missed a game in 40 years....

 

[Darren]

!986-7 was the lowest our attendances ever got and we averaged a tiny bit under 10,000. But as you well know Darren, football attendances in general were very low at that time. Not just our's. We were averaging more than the second division average for that season. This was a time when few first division (ie premier league) clubs got more than 20,000.

Indeed. My point was that you can't take the abberation of our very high attendances in the early 70's to prove that United are a "big club", any more than you can the abberation of the low attendances in the mid 80's to prove they are a "small club"

 

[JohnDenver]

I'm sure they got around 7k in one.

Against Wimbledon I think?

They're a nothing outfit with stolen money propping them up.

 

[oldblade]

I was living in London in the early 90s and went to a few Chelsea games with a Chelsea supporting colleague. Even though they were in the old Div 1 - now premiership - they got several gates around 10k and I'm sure they got around 7k in one. I was shocked how poor their support was. The fans did not even clap or cheer when the teams came out at the start! Of course they now how 40k die hard fans who have not missed a game in 40 years....

During our 4 season stay in the top flight from 1990-1 season to 1993-4 season we averaged more than Chelsea in every one of those seasons, but hey, we're smaller than Coventry, Blackburn, Fulham..............................

 

[oldblade]

Indeed. My point was that you can't take the abberation of our very high attendances in the early 70's to prove that United are a "big club", any more than you can the abberation of the low attendances in the mid 80's to prove they are a "small club"

Yes you can when you compare them to the attendances of others.

Our low attendances in the 1980s were not an aberration. They were in line with a general falling off of attendances at that time. And whilst our attendances fell off along with everybody else's, we still got more than the average for our league position.

I think you are on a stonewall loser if you try and argue that clubs like Coventry and Fulham are bigger than us. They aren't and never ever have been.

 

[yorkshirecoast]

Against Wimbledon I think?

They're a nothing outfit with stolen money propping them up.

Just checked wiki....7,148 v Southampton 12/02/92 Div 1 (old)

 

[yorkshirecoast]

During our 4 season stay in the top flight from 1990-1 season to 1993-4 season we averaged more than Chelsea in every one of those seasons, but hey, we're smaller than Coventry, Blackburn, Fulham..............................

We are certainly far better supported than all 3 of those clubs - that's indisputable

 

[Darren]

Yes you can when you compare them to the attendances of others.

Our low attendances in the 1980s were not an aberration. They were in line with a general falling off of attendances at that time. And whilst our attendances fell off along with everybody else's, we still got more than the average for our league position.

I think you are on a stonewall loser if you try and argue that clubs like Coventry and Fulham are bigger than us. They aren't and never ever have been.

As I say all depends that you mean by "bigger". If you mean "larger support base" you are correct, if you mean "long periods in the top division and a realistic likelihood of winning trophies within the last 50 years", then not.

On the crowd figure, I accept my argument was slightly disingenuous, but then so was Pinchy's citing of early 70's crowds. From the 60's we generally averaged high teens/low twenties crowds in the top division. The only exceptions being 71-2 and 06-07.

 

[oldblade]

As I say all depends that you mean by "bigger". If you mean "larger support base" you are correct, if you mean "long periods in the top division and a realistic likelihood of winning trophies within the last 50 years", then not.

On the crowd figure, I accept my argument was slightly disingenuous, but then so was Pinchy's citing of early 70's crowds. From the 60's we generally averaged high teens/low twenties crowds in the top division. The only exceptions being 71-2 and 06-07.

To my mind the only way you can measure a club's size relative to another club is by it's attendances. That shows how much of a draw your club is - people making the effort to get up off their behinds and take the time and trouble to go to a match. Winning things does not show size. If it did Swindon would be bigger than us and in case anyone is wondering, they aren't.

 

[Darren]

To my mind the only way you can measure a club's size relative to another club is by it's attendances. That shows how much of a draw your club is - people making the effort to get up off their behinds and take the time and trouble to go to a match. Winning things does not show size. If it did Swindon would be bigger than us and in case anyone is wondering, they aren't.

To an extent. But with a nebulous concept like "bigger" the only true test is public opinion. Where clubs have long recent stays in the PL, I rather suspect most people would see them as "bigger" than a club that has rarely been in the PL. If you add into the mix winning stuff and appearing in cup finals within living memory, that adds to the generally conceived "bigness"

On that basis, I suspect if you asked the average fan who didn;t know a huge amount about football history who was bigger, United or Fulham, most would go for Fulham. That wouldn't have been the case 15 years ago and may not be the case in 15 years time, but I think it is now.

 

[Jonboy60]

Do China play cricket?

They probably eat them, crispy aromatically hopefully.

 

[oldblade]

To an extent. But with a nebulous concept like "bigger" the only true test is public opinion. Where clubs have long recent stays in the PL, I rather suspect most people would see them as "bigger" than a club that has rarely been in the PL. If you add into the mix winning stuff and appearing in cup finals within living memory, that adds to the generally conceived "bigness"

On that basis, I suspect if you asked the average fan who didn;t know a huge amount about football history who was bigger, United or Fulham, most would go for Fulham. That wouldn't have been the case 15 years ago and may not be the case in 15 years time, but I think it is now.

I do not know anyone who thinks Fulham or Blackburn or Coventry are bigger than us.

Surely attendances are public opinion. Attendances represent the number of people voting with their money and their time.

Attendances are the only logical measure of a football club's size. If no one goes there really is no point.

 

[Darren]

I do not know anyone who thinks Fulham or Blackburn or Coventry are bigger than us.

Surely attendances are public opinion. Attendances represent the number of people voting with their money and their time.

Attendances are the only logical measure of a football club's size. If no one goes there really is no point.

No, I meant that you and I can have our individual views as to who is "bigger", but that if there is a "fact" as to who is bigger or not, that must go on what the majority think.

Or it could just be a pointless concept overall and we can agree that SUFC have more supporters than Fulham but that Fulham have had more success over the last 15 years

 

[JJBlade]

Not a very useful list of city populations, as it doesn't compare like with like. Greater London's population is given as the population of London, which is like counting everyone in South Yorkshire as living in Sheffield. Manchester, on the other hand, is just the population of the city centre, which makes it look tiny. Manchester is much bigger than Sheffield.

I must admit though, I do struggle to understand the point the Coventry fan is making!

That's just it though. It is showing the actual populations of the "City Proper". Many of these charts show the Greater Metropolitan area of a city but then just show Sheffield as the "City Proper".
Manchester is only bigger by population if you include Greater Manchester.
Greater Manchester includes, Stockport, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Altrincham and Oldham. These places are not actually Manchester and the people that live in these places do not consider themselves Mancunians at all. Same as people from Watford do not consider themselves Londoners.
The Sheffield City Region has a population of 1.8 million but this figure includes Barnsley, Rotherham, Chesterfield, Worksop and Doncaster who don't consider themselves Sheffielders.
Sheffield is the 4th largest English City by "City Proper" but is only about 8th in terms of Metropolitan area.
To me Metropolitan areas mean nothing because they are just surrounding towns and villages that do not identify with the main city at all.

 

[oldblade]

No, I meant that you and I can have our individual views as to who is "bigger", but that if there is a "fact" as to who is bigger or not, that must go on what the majority think.

Or it could just be a pointless concept overall and we can agree that SUFC have more supporters than Fulham but that Fulham have had more success over the last 15 years

I think attendances are important because they show your natural place in the pecking order without outside assistance.

My local club Forest Green Rovers could get promoted to and win the premier league if a multi billionaire decided he wanted them to do so. But they would still be a small club incapable of supporting that kind of success without outside help.

If no clubs received any backing from rich supporters, companies etc and had to survive on income generated from their attendances and support base do you think we would be further up the tree than Blackburn, Fulham and Coventry? I think it's a no brainer.

We are bigger than Fulham, but yes they have had more success than us. Largely because they have had someone prepared to back them to a greater extent than we have. Their league position over the last 12 years or so has been somewhat artificial. It will be interesting to see what happens now they have finally been relegated. I think they may well slide down to a more 'natural' position.