A little perspective following Boro

[Champagneblade]

Setting aside the tear-inducing wages, the fees alone for their forwards is just otherworldly.

And fan base-wise they aren't even as big as us.

Bamford 5.5m
Assombalonga 14m
Fletcher 6.5m
Gestede 6m

32m on 4 players. Meanwhile we've spent 5% of this!

 

[Gimli]

I'm very pleased with the start we've had. We've beaten a side that has finished in the top 10 for 3 consecutive seasons and very nearly claimed a point away from home against a side that will almost certainly be challenging for automatic promotion at the end of the season.
I completely agree with the OP, perspective is needed. Hopeful of a point tonight and confident of 3 at the weekend - 6/7 points after 4 games would be a very good start given we are attempting to stay in this division as a number 1 target.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

Look i am no finance expert,but is it true that the team what end's up bottom of the prem this year get's 100 million.FFS how is that right and it is getting worse but who do we blame,sky for me

SUFC voted for it and joined it only got ourselves to blame.

 

[Jehovah]

Think they are getting too bigged up because we lost. Do people really think they will be our hardest test? A team that hardly troubled our keeper at all?

 

[SwissBlade]

The premier league is not the fa is it? It's an fa endorsed league of greed.

Parachute payments were supposed to help the relegated sides but now they do far more damage than that.

FFP is a complete waste of time and if anything it's just ridiculous. Pigs for example will splash the cash if they're in the play off zone in jan. It's a gamble they think will pay off.

Personally though I'd hate for us to be in the position of Boro I don't like it. I love the way that we're spending wisely and trying to do things the correct way

Boro may have spent a lot but they've bought up overpriced championship players on the whole, not premier league ready players

 

[super_pig]

Setting aside the tear-inducing wages, the fees alone for their forwards is just otherworldly.

And fan base-wise they aren't even as big as us.

Bamford 5.5m
Assombalonga 14m
Fletcher 6.5m
Gestede 6m

32m on 4 players. Meanwhile we've spent 5% of this!

not one of them prem quality!

 

[Liverpool blade]

I'm very pleased with the start we've had. We've beaten a side that has finished in the top 10 for 3 consecutive seasons and very nearly claimed a point away from home against a side that will almost certainly be challenging for automatic promotion at the end of the season.
I completely agree with the OP, perspective is needed. Hopeful of a point tonight and confident of 3 at the weekend - 6/7 points after 4 games would be a very good start given we are attempting to stay in this division as a number 1 target.

Agreed entirely.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Think they are getting too bigged up because we lost. Do people really think they will be our hardest test? A team that hardly troubled our keeper at all?

I think on paper, they are one of the best sides. But on a given day, a side like Wolves, Cardiff (brimming with confidence) might cause us more problems.


We’ll probably lose games by heavier margins and sides will play better than Boro did. But I fully expect Boro to be top 6 and probably top 2 come the end of the season. They’re one of the biggest spenders in the division, have bags of quality and we ran them very close. We can take positives from that. Saying that, if they were brimming with confidence and feel-good factor like Cardiff are, we might well have lost by more. I suspect we might tonight. All about games like Saturday for me. We need to win a good share of those games to steer clear of relegation, build confidence and momentum and then see if we can trouble some of the bigger hitters and pinch a few scalps along the way to secure a mid-table finish.

 

[grafikhaus]

FFP is a complete waste of time and if anything it's just ridiculous. Pigs for example will splash the cash if they're in the play off zone in jan. It's a gamble they think will pay off.

Where there's money, there's fiddle. Always has been ,always will be.

Get ready for PSG v UEFA in court

Fatboy Samuels , when he's not pursuing his irrational hatred of all things SUFC, occasionally hits the nail on the head. In this article ^^^, he explodes the myth about British Athletics and the inherent corruption of 'Lord' Coe - who is to athletics what Sepp Blatter was to football.

'At the time the 2021 host city was being debated, Lord Coe was on the IAAF Council and the payroll at Nike. He made plain his support for Eugene to a senior Nike executive, Craig Masback, a fact revealed by the BBC. Maybe those in front of camera don't watch their own channel.'

Pity he didn't mention the corruption of handing his beloved Spammers the London Stadium, but that would have been too much to ask...

 

[I should coco]

Lord' Coe - who is to athletics what Sepp Blatter was to football.

Ah yes; "I see no drugs".

Tory lickspittle wanker.

 

[SwissBlade]

Ah yes; "I see no drugs".

Tory lickspittle wanker.

And this is the thing... happy to condemn an American runner for winning gold in then IAAF world championships, but not remove him from the competition... unless of course they happen to be Russian

 

[granata-korps]

Financial fair play ey. Much smaller clubs than us, Brighton, Watford, Bournemouth, Huddersfield, Stoke, Middlesbrough etc are way ahead of us and will be for the forseeable future courtesy of SKY.

Why do you think big traditional clubs like us, pigs, Forest, Leeds etc can't get back in there. Simple, financially cut adrift and not just by the odd few million.

Can you enlighten me as to how you consider yourself way Bigger than Boro. All time average 17-18K Blades almost 20k Boro
Top 1 season average 35k Blades ? 36K Boro. You may have won a few trophies when Dino's roamed, but what have you won this century? how many Euro matches or Finals have you been too? If anything we are almost mirror images of each other. Your certainly in no way Way bigger.

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

Well I remember Ayresome park pulling in gates of 5/6k in the 80s.

It's only the Premier League and Steve Gibson that has pulled the fans in.

 

[robbiez666]

We're certainly not bigger than Boro in any way, shape or form.

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

We're certainly not bigger than Boro in any way, shape or form.

Depends how you measure size. For me it's support. Stick boro in the third tier and see how many they get at the Riverside. Like I said, within my lifetime they have gone years getting 5/6k for home games. It's only since Gibson has thrown money at them that fans have come out of the woodwork.

If we're talking wealth, assets etc, then yeah, we're nowhere near them.

But then again, Leeds and Forest are nowhere near Bournemouth, are they smaller?

 

[robbiez666]

Depends how you measure size. For me it's support. Stick boro in the third tier and see how many they get at the Riverside. Like I said, within my lifetime they have gone years getting 5/6k for home games. It's only since Gibson has thrown money at them that fans have come out of the woodwork.

If we're talking wealth, assets etc, then yeah, we're nowhere near them.

But then again, Leeds and Forest are nowhere near Bournemouth, are they smaller?

This whole attendance argument is the same shit we've been slating Wednesday for peddling. It basically is flawed if you consider much to do with attendance relies on population, demographics, performance and proximity to other large clubs.

That argument basically states that we can never be bigger than Leeds by dint of the fact they're a huge city which only have one football team.

By the same logic, Bristol Rovers is probably a bigger team than half of the premiership.

Surely the size of the club is largely down to success? Clubs with a large support base have bigger potential. Potential doesn't equal success.

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

This whole attendance argument is the same shit we've been slating Wednesday for peddling. It basically is flawed if you consider much to do with attendance relies on population, demographics, performance and proximity to other large clubs.

That argument basically states that we can never be bigger than Leeds by dint of the fact they're a huge city which only have one football team.

By the same logic, Bristol Rovers is probably a bigger team than half of the premiership.

Surely the size of the club is largely down to success? Clubs with a large support base have bigger potential. Potential doesn't equal success.

Yeah, hence we think we're of similar size to the Pigs, because historically there's not much difference.

Success brings fans in, so of course there's scope to be bigger than other clubs. But fact is, until the Premier League and their filthy rich investor, they were a non-entity. Even since, 6/7 years in the Championship getting 15-16k whilst we're scrapping around in the third tier averaging 20k.

I think we're a bigger club, but that's just my opinion.

 

[granata-korps]

Well I remember Ayresome park pulling in gates of 5/6k in the 80s.

It's only the Premier League and Steve Gibson that has pulled the fans in.

yeah and in the 50's ayresome had regular crowds of 40 occasional 50 thousand crowds. Crowds fall and rise with success. the 80's for us were
particularly grim. the club was dying on its arse. Crowds were down all over the place, but granted ours were really bad. What you can not do is take a few seasons in isolation good or bad and say this is the standing of a club. the long term is the only way.
for example We play tonight against Burton and I predict a sub 25k crowd. Why?
1 We have just been relegated the prem prawn sarni crew won't be interested.
2 It's a minimum of 30 quid, which is a lot for a cash strapped area like Teesside.
3 Burton are not much of a draw.
4 Burton wont bring anywhere near the amount you did last Saturday.
so yes its going to be a pretty bad crowd but you can not judge a club by one crowd, there are always many factors
that dictate any given attendance,

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

yeah and in the 50's ayresome had regular crowds of 40 occasional 50 thousand crowds. Crowds fall and rise with success. the 80's for us were
particularly grim. the club was dying on its arse. Crowds were down all over the place, but granted ours were really bad. What you can not do is take a few seasons in isolation good or bad and say this is the standing of a club. the long term is the only way.
for example We play tonight against Burton and I predict a sub 25k crowd. Why?
1 We have just been relegated the prem prawn sarni crew won't be interested.
2 It's a minimum of 30 quid, which is a lot for a cash strapped area like Teesside.
3 Burton are not much of a draw.
4 Burton wont bring anywhere near the amount you did last Saturday.
so yes its going to be a pretty bad crowd but you can not judge a club by one crowd, there are always many factors
that dictate any given attendance,

Agree with a lot of what you say and we also suffered in the last 90's with the odd sub 10k crowd. Perhaps Boro (particularly being the last club mentioned) was clutching at straws, but i'd stick with the others. Stoke would surprise many, they're an established Premiership club with internationals galore and have been for well over a decade.

I'd still consider them a smaller club.

 

[Yellarbellyblade]

yeah and in the 50's ayresome had regular crowds of 40 occasional 50 thousand crowds. Crowds fall and rise with success. the 80's for us were
particularly grim. the club was dying on its arse. Crowds were down all over the place, but granted ours were really bad. What you can not do is take a few seasons in isolation good or bad and say this is the standing of a club. the long term is the only way.
for example We play tonight against Burton and I predict a sub 25k crowd. Why?
1 We have just been relegated the prem prawn sarni crew won't be interested.
2 It's a minimum of 30 quid, which is a lot for a cash strapped area like Teesside.
3 Burton are not much of a draw.
4 Burton wont bring anywhere near the amount you did last Saturday.
so yes its going to be a pretty bad crowd but you can not judge a club by one crowd, there are always many factors
that dictate any given attendance,

WHO CARES!!!!!

It's bad enough getting into bloody crowd "bigger bollocks than you lot" with the porcine fraternity without starting with the smoggies et al!!

Can we just agree we are both reasonably well supported and reasonably large clubs who historically have probably underachieved. A few hundred on the attendances here or there is really not a big deal

 

[oldblade]

This whole attendance argument is the same shit we've been slating Wednesday for peddling. It basically is flawed if you consider much to do with attendance relies on population, demographics, performance and proximity to other large clubs.

That argument basically states that we can never be bigger than Leeds by dint of the fact they're a huge city which only have one football team.

By the same logic, Bristol Rovers is probably a bigger team than half of the premiership.

Surely the size of the club is largely down to success? Clubs with a large support base have bigger potential. Potential doesn't equal success.

The size of club is pretty irrelevant if you are a supporter of that club.

If your stomach turns over with anxiety every Saturday afternoon and several Tuesday evenings from August till May, then the club is big in your life and that's all that really matters.

 

[oldblade]

yeah and in the 50's ayresome had regular crowds of 40 occasional 50 thousand crowds. Crowds fall and rise with success. the 80's for us were
particularly grim. the club was dying on its arse. Crowds were down all over the place, but granted ours were really bad. What you can not do is take a few seasons in isolation good or bad and say this is the standing of a club. the long term is the only way.
for example We play tonight against Burton and I predict a sub 25k crowd. Why?
1 We have just been relegated the prem prawn sarni crew won't be interested.
2 It's a minimum of 30 quid, which is a lot for a cash strapped area like Teesside.
3 Burton are not much of a draw.
4 Burton wont bring anywhere near the amount you did last Saturday.
so yes its going to be a pretty bad crowd but you can not judge a club by one crowd, there are always many factors
that dictate any given attendance,

Size is pretty irrelevant to most football supporters anyway.

If you are from Middlesbrough and you're interested in football, there's a pretty good chance that you're going to support Middlesbrough.

If you're from Sheffield and you're interested in football, there's a pretty good chance you're going to support United or Wednesday.

There are some that might choose Manchester United, Chelsea, Manchester City, Arsenal etc. But most choose a club that they have some significant connection with.

It doesn't matter how big or small we are, no one from Middlesbrough is going to support us and vice versa.

I remember that Wolves also had a very low season's average during one of their 1980s division 4 seasons. It might even have been lower than your lowest average. But it would be a bit silly to argue that they are a smaller club than both of us based on that!

 

[snootyfenooty]

Can't we stop once and for all with this bigger club nonsense. If you want to be objective rather than subjective (which is the supreme pig-trait we love to mock them for) then you can only compare on merit, i.e. which is the better club. granata-korps was pretty accurate in his initial assessment on another thread so for those arguing the toss please stop talking bollocks, it's embarrassing.

 

[Pinchy]

Can we stop the cap-doffing then, or does it work only one way?

We're massive.

 

[snootyfenooty]

Can we stop the cap-doffing then, or does it work only one way?

We're massive.

Yep, I'm up for that. The acclaim some were giving Brentford the previous match was fucking cringeworthy. Boro' were a different kettle of fish.

 

[Pinchy]

Agree with a lot of what you say and we also suffered in the last 90's with the odd sub 10k crowd. Perhaps Boro (particularly being the last club mentioned) was clutching at straws, but i'd stick with the others. Stoke would surprise many, they're an established Premiership club with internationals galore and have been for well over a decade.

I'd still consider them a smaller club.

Of course they are. Those who think there was no football before 1991 might disagree.

Our club, which deserves much more respect than some of our fans care to give it, has far greater potential than, not only Boro, but most of the Championship and more than a third of the Premiership.

 

[oldblade]

Can't we stop once and for all with this bigger club nonsense. If you want to be objective rather than subjective (which is the supreme pig-trait we love to mock them for) then you can only compare on merit, i.e. which is the better club. granata-korps was pretty accurate in his initial assessment on another thread so for those arguing the toss please stop talking bollocks, it's embarrassing.

To be honest, if Wednesday want to get all hung up on size and think they are bigger and better than us that suits me fine. It makes their overall record against us all the more difficult for them to take.

If they beat us, then they have achieved very little, because if they are so much bigger and better than us they have only done what they ought to be doing. If they fail to beat us they have under performed, because by their logic they should always beat us!

 

[Pinchy]

It won't be too long before the 3 what come down will be the 3 what go straight back up,imo parachute payments are rewarding failure and it's killing the championship.

Not this season mate. One only, at the most. Boro, I think, but football offers no certainties.

 

[oldblade]

Agree with a lot of what you say and we also suffered in the last 90's with the odd sub 10k crowd. Perhaps Boro (particularly being the last club mentioned) was clutching at straws, but i'd stick with the others. Stoke would surprise many, they're an established Premiership club with internationals galore and have been for well over a decade.

I'd still consider them a smaller club.

But we never had a sub 10,000 season's average in the 1990s. In fact, post WW2 we have only ever averaged under 10,000 once, and then we were only 8 short.

Even in the fourth division in 1981-2 (when football attendances were very low and unemployment very high) we still averaged nearly 15,000. We did not get one home league attendance below 11,000 that season.

 

[Grizzly blade]

Financial fair play ey. Much smaller clubs than us, Brighton, Watford, Bournemouth, Huddersfield, Stoke, Middlesbrough etc are way ahead of us and will be for the forseeable future courtesy of SKY.

Why do you think big traditional clubs like us, pigs, Forest, Leeds etc can't get back in there. Simple, financially cut adrift and not just by the odd few million.

No, they have done a better job than us and many other clubs at building a side to get them up in the first place!
Their original promotions had no benefit of parachute payments. Many of them did spend a lot of money on the gamble of getting there, and building a debt prior to promotion. (Udders aside).
We on the other hand, spent silly money and got into debt while getting relegated. Poor managers, buying bad players, and paying them far too much for the respective ability.
None of that was the blame of anyone else but ourselves.