View from The Sky Blues

[JJBlade]

The owners of Sheffield United past and probably present and future have always been about limitations.
Not one of them has tested the clubs potential.
In spite of this SUFC has beared up well and is comparable with any club outside of the top ten.
I consider the top ten to be Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham, Liverpool, Everton, Newcastle and Villa and Leeds.
These clubs if they are on the crest of a wave are the untouchables in the English game except by each other.

They are the top ten in my opinion and they are the top ten in terms of being the most commercial and marketable clubs, not necessarily in terms of league standing (in Leeds case).
These are the clubs that will always eventually have a period of time when they challenge for serious honours and we couldn't live with any of them if they are in this particular period, even if we were doing well ourselves.

Anybody else and we could.

 

[WorkingtonBlade]

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.

You're right that the figure for Greater Manchester is irrelevant to the size of Manchester. The problem is that the figure being quoted as 'Manchester' is the figure for the metropolitan borough of Manchester, which, for historical reasons, excludes a large part of the actual city of Manchester. A lot of the city of Manchester is in Trafford metropolitan borough, and therefore gets excluded from population stats. Sheffield metropolitan borough, on the other hand, genuinely includes the whole of Sheffield - and a few other places as well!

 

[WorkingtonBlade]

The owners of Sheffield United past and probably present and future have always been about limitations.
Not one of them has tested the clubs potential.
In spite of this SUFC has beared up well and is comparable with any club outside of the top ten.
I consider the top ten to be Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham, Liverpool, Everton, Newcastle and Villa and Leeds.
These clubs if they are on the crest of a wave are the untouchables in the English game except by each other.

They are the top ten in my opinion and they are the top ten in terms of being the most commercial and marketable clubs, not necessarily in terms of league standing (in Leeds case).
These are the clubs that will always eventually have a period of time when they challenge for serious honours and we couldn't live with any of them if they are in this particular period, even if we were doing well ourselves.

Anybody else and we could.

Interesting post and a brave claim!

In terms of clubs which would remain significantly 'bigger' than us, even if we matched them on the field for a period, I would add Sunderland (averaged about 40,000 in a relegation battle this season - we wouldn't do anything like that even if our ground was big enough), West Ham (difficult to tell their true support because their ground only hold 35,000, but I bet when they move to the Olympic stadium they'll get a lot more than we could).

There are quite a few others which I think are a bit bigger than us (including Forest and Wednesday) but there's not much in it, and a decade or so of United having greater success on the field could turn it around.

That's the interesting thing, of course - these things change. They don't change as quickly as a team's league position, but over a few decades of relative success or failure, a club's 'size' (potential crowds, commercial potential, marketability, however you want to measure it) usually begins to be affected. Wigan may not be as big a club as United, but they are genuinely bigger than before Dave Whelan arrived. They are getting 14,000-15,000 in the Championship now - a lot more than last time they were there. Similarly, too long in the lower echelons, with the potential new fans going elsewhere, and the club's potential support gradually seeps away.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

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

He once took a throwing.

 

[Darren]

Interesting post and a brave claim!

In terms of clubs which would remain significantly 'bigger' than us, even if we matched them on the field for a period, I would add Sunderland (averaged about 40,000 in a relegation battle this season - we wouldn't do anything like that even if our ground was big enough), West Ham (difficult to tell their true support because their ground only hold 35,000, but I bet when they move to the Olympic stadium they'll get a lot more than we could).

There are quite a few others which I think are a bit bigger than us (including Forest and Wednesday) but there's not much in it, and a decade or so of United having greater success on the field could turn it around.

That's the interesting thing, of course - these things change. They don't change as quickly as a team's league position, but over a few decades of relative success or failure, a club's 'size' (potential crowds, commercial potential, marketability, however you want to measure it) usually begins to be affected. Wigan may not be as big a club as United, but they are genuinely bigger than before Dave Whelan arrived. They are getting 14,000-15,000 in the Championship now - a lot more than last time they were there. Similarly, too long in the lower echelons, with the potential new fans going elsewhere, and the club's potential support gradually seeps away.

If we define a big club as clubs who could attract an average of 30,000 at least in the PL (if they had the capacity) my list would be:

Arsenal
Tottenham
West Ham
Chelsea
Southampton
Birmingham
Villa
Wolves
WBA
Forest
Derby
Leicester
SWFC
SUFC
Leeds
Man City
Man Utd
Liverpool
Everton
Middlesbrough
Newcastle
Sunderland

Which gives us 22 teams and might be thought to comprise a "natural" old First Division.

I include United given our last PL season, but I do wonder if we were in the PL for 3-4 seasons and spent our time in relegation struggles and/or mid table mediocrity that the novelty would wear off and the attendances would dip below 30,000

I include United

 

[Cheets]

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

We played there in the 5th round of the cup the following Saturday in front of 33,000 and our fans were chanting "Where were you on Tuesday night?"

 

[oldblade]

If we define a big club as clubs who could attract an average of 30,000 at least in the PL (if they had the capacity) my list would be:

Arsenal
Tottenham
West Ham
Chelsea
Southampton
Birmingham
Villa
Wolves
WBA
Forest
Derby
Leicester
SWFC
SUFC
Leeds
Man City
Man Utd
Liverpool
Everton
Middlesbrough
Newcastle
Sunderland

Which gives us 22 teams and might be thought to comprise a "natural" old First Division.

I include United given our last PL season, but I do wonder if we were in the PL for 3-4 seasons and spent our time in relegation struggles and/or mid table mediocrity that the novelty would wear off and the attendances would dip below 30,000

I think you could say that of a few others on that list as well.

I think if Portsmouth had the capacity they would also attract 30,000 on a regular basis in the premier league.

 

[WorkingtonBlade]

I think you could say that of a few others on that list as well.

I think if Portsmouth had the capacity they would also attract 30,000 on a regular basis in the premier league.

I'm not convinced about Portsmouth - their ground holds 21,000 and in their last season in the top division they were struggling to sell out (averaged 18,000 over the season)

I'd add Norwich to the list. They are often overlooked because their ground only holds 26,800, but they were selling out those 26,800 tickets on a regular basis in League One. They've done a huge amount to build up support across East Anglia and have turned themselves - I think - into a club with bigger support than United.

 

[sitwell]

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.

Due to the City Clipper as I remember.

 

[PeterNdlovu081]

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.

So would you say that Wednesday are bigger than us then?

I'd say we're bigger than Coventry but not by a huge margin. We've won a lot more than them and have had more seasons in the top flight. If we were both mid table in the Premier League now we'd probably be averaging a few thousand more.

 

[ZoneManWilf]

As well as Norwich, I think I'd add Brighton to that list as well. They have seen a big increased support recently and have a very large catchment area. Highest avg in the Championship this season, beating Leicester, Derby, Leeds Forest and the massive.

Others I would add in a similar bracket to us are Cardiff, Palace and maybe Stoke.

 

[axel smeets]

I'm not convinced about Portsmouth - their ground holds 21,000 and in their last season in the top division they were struggling to sell out (averaged 18,000 over the season)

I'd add Norwich to the list. They are often overlooked because their ground only holds 26,800, but they were selling out those 26,800 tickets on a regular basis in League One. They've done a huge amount to build up support across East Anglia and have turned themselves - I think - into a club with bigger support than United.

Can't agree about Norwich. It's a wealthier city than Sheffield, but its surrounded by hundreds of miles of agricultural nothingness. Its nearest 'rival' is 60 miles away and the catchment area is huge. United on the other hand, are surrounded by about 4 different clubs with whom we have to compete with for support.

 

[Maidenhead]

We played there in the 5th round of the cup the following Saturday in front of 33,000 and our fans were chanting "Where were you on Tuesday night?"

Yep, I remember it well and always remind any Chelsea glory hunter I happen to meet

 

[WorkingtonBlade]

Can't agree about Norwich. It's a wealthier city than Sheffield, but its surrounded by hundreds of miles of agricultural nothingness. Its nearest 'rival' is 60 miles away and the catchment area is huge. United on the other hand, are surrounded by about 4 different clubs with whom we have to compete with for support.

I agree - I think the relative wealth and lack of competition from other clubs is part of the reason why I believe they are now capable of sustaining bigger crowds than we are.

I come from the area, and there are Norwich City flags all over the towns and villages of East Anglia. Just as, when you're in the regions around Newcastle, you see black and white everywhere you look, in East Anglia everything's yellow and green. It's achievable in large areas with only one club. Even local businesses etc can safely get involved and show their support for the club, without fear of alienating half their customers. Showing the Norwich City colours, or flying the flag, has almost become a symbol of pride in - and affinity with - the area itself.

In United's position it's very difficult to recreate that.

 

[boo radley]

If we define a big club as clubs who could attract an average of 30,000 at least in the PL (if they had the capacity) my list would be:

Arsenal
Tottenham
West Ham
Chelsea
Southampton
Birmingham
Villa
Wolves
WBA
Forest
Derby
Leicester
SWFC
SUFC
Leeds
Man City
Man Utd
Liverpool
Everton
Middlesbrough
Newcastle
Sunderland

Which gives us 22 teams and might be thought to comprise a "natural" old First Division.

I include United given our last PL season, but I do wonder if we were in the PL for 3-4 seasons and spent our time in relegation struggles and/or mid table mediocrity that the novelty would wear off and the attendances would dip below 30,000

I include United

BIrmingham??
With reference to the last bit, that would apply to many on your list. Further consider the fact that we have probably been the most unsuccessful on that list, our support is remarkably high. Imagine if we had a long sustained spell of success like say Chelsea?
I never really considered them 'bigger' than us till they got investment. Then the improved capacity envisaged in that video a few years ago would probably not be big enough.
Leicester Derby West Brom and others would also have lower crowds than us in that same 4 year period of relegation battles if all involved.

 

[oldblade]

So would you say that Wednesday are bigger than us then?

I'd say we're bigger than Coventry but not by a huge margin. We've won a lot more than them and have had more seasons in the top flight. If we were both mid table in the Premier League now we'd probably be averaging a few thousand more.

Yes I would and as has already been mentioned in this thread most of the footballing world would regard them as being bigger than us. Not that I give a flying fig about that. Sheffield United is what matters to me, not Sheffield Wednesday unless they are beating us in a football match of course. Then it matters a lot.

I disagree about Coventry getting only a few thousand fewer than us if we were both mid table premier league clubs.. The last time we were both in the premier league at the same time was for four seasons between 1990-1 season and 1993-4 season.
Their average attendances for those four seasons were: 13794; 13876; 14951;13352.
Our average attendances were: 21461; 22097; 18801; 19562.
Only once did Coventry get within 6000 of us. Most of the time we were averaging gates 50% higher than their's

Over the years their support has been quite poor considering the size of the city, that it has only one football club and they have actually won a trophy in the not too distant past. But even during the season that ended with them winning the FA Cup they only averaged 16120.

We would get 30,000 or pretty close to it in the premier league. They wouldn't.

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

If we define a big club as clubs who could attract an average of 30,000 at least in the PL (if they had the capacity) my list would be:

Arsenal
Tottenham
West Ham
Chelsea
Southampton
Birmingham
Villa
Wolves
WBA
Forest
Derby
Leicester
SWFC
SUFC
Leeds
Man City
Man Utd
Liverpool
Everton
Middlesbrough
Newcastle
Sunderland

Which gives us 22 teams and might be thought to comprise a "natural" old First Division.

I include United given our last PL season, but I do wonder if we were in the PL for 3-4 seasons and spent our time in relegation struggles and/or mid table mediocrity that the novelty would wear off and the attendances would dip below 30,000

I include United

What that list shows is how Northern the game is, despite what the FA pillocks think. 5 London or Southern teams, the rest midlands and north!

 

[yorkshirecoast]

If we define a big club as clubs who could attract an average of 30,000 at least in the PL (if they had the capacity) my list would be:

Arsenal
Tottenham
West Ham
Chelsea
Southampton
Birmingham
Villa
Wolves
WBA
Forest
Derby
Leicester
SWFC
SUFC
Leeds
Man City
Man Utd
Liverpool
Everton
Middlesbrough
Newcastle
Sunderland

Which gives us 22 teams and might be thought to comprise a "natural" old First Division.

I include United given our last PL season, but I do wonder if we were in the PL for 3-4 seasons and spent our time in relegation struggles and/or mid table mediocrity that the novelty would wear off and the attendances would dip below 30,000

I include United

Odd that you question whether we would average 30,000 if we spent a few seasons in the PL - but you include the pigs without question even though they have not averaged 30,000 since the 60's. They could not even do it when they finished 3rd, playing fantastic football (allegedly), under Francis. We averaged over 30k despite being relegated.

 

[JJBlade]

There's a lot of clubs on that list who would dip well below 30,000 if they consistently struggled in the Premier League.
We are brought up on failure so I don't think our attendances would be affected too much if we struggled. After all we'd still be lining up against Man Utd, City, Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, Spurs every other week. And the smaller clubs such as Stoke, Southampton, West Ham, Hull City would sell their allocations as well.

Also don't agree with Wendy or Forest being bigger than us. West Ham will nowhere near sell out a bigger stadium than they currently have, they have no tradition of doing so before.
These clubs have also had a board of directors in the past that has pushed the club as far as it can possibly go, one bunch of Sheffield United directors after another for at least 50 years have held the club back as far as they possibly can to such a point at times that it has been cringeworthy and embarrassing.

There's many ways of looking at things, but my view is that the biggest clubs will maintain good support via the bad times because of a larger fan base, larger fan base means larger die hards, and there's not a club anywhere had more bad times than us.

 

[PeterNdlovu081]

There's many ways of looking at things, but my view is that the biggest clubs will maintain good support via the bad times because of a larger fan base, larger fan base means larger die hards, and there's not a club anywhere had more bad times than us.

We've had it pretty good compared to some clubs.

The phrase 'always the bridesmaid, never the bride' suits us to a T but there are some clubs who never even get invited to the wedding.

 

[JohnDenver]

We've had it pretty good compared to some clubs.

The phrase 'always the bridesmaid, never the bride' suits us to a T but there are some clubs who never even get invited to the wedding.

Who do you have in mind? I can name plenty of clubs who've outperformed us relative to their support, but very few who make us look like achievers.

 

[PeterNdlovu081]

Who do you have in mind? I can name plenty of clubs who've outperformed us relative to their support, but very few who make us look like achievers.

I was referring to all the League One and League Two stalwarts who have never had a sniff at anything, ever.

Take Notts County for example. Haven't won anything for 120 years, constantly living in the shadow of Forest and permanently entrenched in and around the third tier.

 

[Darren]

Odd that you question whether we would average 30,000 if we spent a few seasons in the PL - but you include the pigs without question even though they have not averaged 30,000 since the 60's. They could not even do it when they finished 3rd, playing fantastic football (allegedly), under Francis. We averaged over 30k despite being relegated.

Attendances have gone up quite a bit since Wednesday were last in the PL. Whenever United and Wednesday have both been in the top division, Wednesday have had higher attendances.

I realise it's a great heresy against the United religion, but the fact is that Wednesday do have more supporters than United; not many more, but still more.

 

[Darren]

I agree - I think the relative wealth and lack of competition from other clubs is part of the reason why I believe they are now capable of sustaining bigger crowds than we are.

I come from the area, and there are Norwich City flags all over the towns and villages of East Anglia. Just as, when you're in the regions around Newcastle, you see black and white everywhere you look, in East Anglia everything's yellow and green. It's achievable in large areas with only one club. Even local businesses etc can safely get involved and show their support for the club, without fear of alienating half their customers. Showing the Norwich City colours, or flying the flag, has almost become a symbol of pride in - and affinity with - the area itself.

In United's position it's very difficult to recreate that.

The population of Norfolk is about 850,000. You can reasonbly say United's catchment area is Notts, Derbys, S. Yorks and W Yorks: total population about 5.8 million. There are 13 league clubs in that area, so if you divide 5.8 million by 13, you get a potential United fan base of 446,000 - about half Norwich's.

 

[oldblade]

Attendances have gone up quite a bit since Wednesday were last in the PL. Whenever United and Wednesday have both been in the top division, Wednesday have had higher attendances.

I realise it's a great heresy against the United religion, but the fact is that Wednesday do have more supporters than United; not many more, but still more.

But more recently when we were both in the championship we actually got higher attendances than them.

With the exception of the 1970-1 promotion season I think that is the first time we have outperformed them in attendances whilst being in the same division as them. And we did It for 3 seasons running Could have been a sign that we were becoming the dominant club both on and off the pitch. Except that in true United style we managed to mess it all up.

 

[Darren]

But more recently when we were both in the championship we actually got higher attendances than them.

With the exception of the 1970-1 promotion season I think that is the first time we have outperformed them in attendances whilst being in the same division as them. And we did It for 3 seasons running Could have been a sign that we were becoming the dominant club both on and off the pitch. Except that in true United style we managed to mess it all up.

Indeed. I think it shows the power of the PL that our season there saw us getting better attendances than SWFC for the first time since 78-79 and we retained some of that support until 2011-12 when they overtook us again.

Going back to the original point, I see no reason why Wednesday should not get a similar PL attendance bounce if they got there.

 

[grafikhaus]

I agree - I think the relative wealth and lack of competition from other clubs is part of the reason why I believe they are now capable of sustaining bigger crowds than we are.

I come from the area, and there are Norwich City flags all over the towns and villages of East Anglia. Just as, when you're in the regions around Newcastle, you see black and white everywhere you look, in East Anglia everything's yellow and green. It's achievable in large areas with only one club. Even local businesses etc can safely get involved and show their support for the club, without fear of alienating half their customers. Showing the Norwich City colours, or flying the flag, has almost become a symbol of pride in - and affinity with - the area itself.

In United's position it's very difficult to recreate that.

Ah but, if I recall in 2006/7 when we had our season in the PL, geographically we were the only top-flight team in the east of England, going from Middlesborough down to London. That was some catchment area. Pity it only lasted one season.

It's all a bit pointless, given how football changes over the years. When Wendy crow about beating Man. U in the Rumbelows Dishwasher Cup, that Man. U team bore no resemblance to the one a few years later.

Where I do think a club can be unexpectedly boosted is when they have a brand new stadium built for them. McCabe must sit there thinking 'That stand will need a new roof in X years' etc. and in United's case, it all comes off the bottom line. It's a hell of a leg up when that cost is removed from the balance sheet.

As we're talking Coventry, this is obviously a case where the 'free new ground' didn't do anything for them. Probably because the sheer size of it made it a white elephant. But there are plenty of examples where teams have gone on a 'growth spurt' - crowds improve and so do results - and it seems to coincide with a new ground. Rotherham, Chesterfield, Derby, Leicester, Brighton, Hull, Southampton (who used to get around 15k at The Dell). Even Arsenal gained 22k supporters when they moved into the Emirates.

 

[oldblade]

Indeed. I think it shows the power of the PL that our season there saw us getting better attendances than SWFC for the first time since 78-79 and we retained some of that support until 2011-12 when they overtook us again.

Going back to the original point, I see no reason why Wednesday should not get a similar PL attendance bounce if they got there.

I think it is almost certain that they would and anyone who says otherwise is allowing their partisanship to cloud their judgement.

However, I think that what those championship seasons show is that if we get beck to the premier league before them and manage to stay there, we would also probably stay ahead of them in terms of attendances even if they did join us there a few seasons down the line.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

The population of Norfolk is about 850,000. You can reasonbly say United's catchment area is Notts, Derbys, S. Yorks and W Yorks: total population about 5.8 million. There are 13 league clubs in that area, so if you divide 5.8 million by 13, you get a potential United fan base of 446,000 - about half Norwich's.

But 5.2m are pigs

 

[boo radley]

But 5.2m are pigs

you seem to have inserted a decimal point where there should be none!