Pigs.............................hate Utd first, love Wednesday second?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Blade58

Blade58

Once a Blade, always a daft ****
Joined
Jan 10, 2010
Messages
12,242
Reaction score
13,631
Location
God's country ...... Rovrum!
The pigs have always maintained that it's we (superior Blades fans) that have always hated Wendy first and love our club second. Does this article regards both clubs history dispel the "myth" ?

Btw, this is the first time I have read this about what happened regards Bramall Lane

www.examinerlive.co.uk

When Blade rivalry with Wednesday began and why Owls hold a grudge

Sheffield United and Wednesday’s rivalry is as passionate as any in the country
www.examinerlive.co.uk www.examinerlive.co.uk
 

I am a little wary of any articles after the one about Argentina.
 
Story holds no true weight with it being written based on comments from John Garrett. It may be true, it may be partly true. But it's a very lopsided story from the United side of the city.
 
As I understood it, Wednesday rented the Brammall Lane from Sheffield United Cricket Club (not sure if that is the correct name) and the committee decided to hike the rent.
Wednesday refused to pay and moved out. Sheffield United football club was then formed.
 
kop_blade9 said:
As I understood it, Wednesday rented the Brammall Lane from Sheffield United Cricket Club (not sure if that is the correct name) and the committee decided to hike the rent.
Wednesday refused to pay and moved out. Sheffield United football club was then formed.
Click to expand...
This, or at least part of it, is also a myth which has really gained ground, particularly because it circulates on the internet a lot. The inference is that Wednesday moving out was the reason for the forming of United. It also relies on the idea that Bramall Lane was Wednesday's home ground - in the sense that Wednesday occupied Bramall Lane in the modern "home ground" sense, rather than a sports venue that various clubs booked when needed, which is how it really was - and that therefore Bramall Lane was reliant on Wednesday for rent and had to plug the gap when they left.
I was wanting to start a thread on this, but wanted to do a bit of research first.
 
kop_blade9 said:
As I understood it, Wednesday rented the Brammall Lane from Sheffield United Cricket Club (not sure if that is the correct name) and the committee decided to hike the rent.
Wednesday refused to pay and moved out. Sheffield United football club was then formed.
Click to expand...

Apart from the incorrect spelling of the ground that is my understanding. The Pigs only used the Lane for their bigger games and when the Cricket Club wanted to increase prices the PIGS set the precedent for years to come of not paying their debts and went to the Olive Grove.

I wish John Garret wouldn't keep referencing Charles Clegg as it perpetuates the myth he was responsible for the creation of the Blades when he was a Pig himself who was on their Committee and also the local FA representative.

In fact its suggested that Clegg was reluctant to get involved with the new Club because of his Pig affiliations but as the FA were keen to get teams into a second division he was obliged to.

The real father of Sheffield United was the other Charles, Charles Stokes as the attached article confirms.

The creation of SUFC started the jealousy and it continued when we tried to adopt the nickname the Blades. The Pigs wanted it because they were the oldest Club we told them to fuck off and have been doing so ever since.

Charles Stokes: Sheffield football’s most famous man that you’ve probably never heard of – England's Oldest Football Clubs

www.englandsoldestfootballclubs.com www.englandsoldestfootballclubs.com
 
Hamburg Blade said:
This, or at least part of it, is also a myth which has really gained ground, particularly because it circulates on the internet a lot. The inference is that Wednesday moving out was the reason for the forming of United. It also relies on the idea that Bramall Lane was Wednesday's home ground - in the sense that Wednesday occupied Bramall Lane in the modern "home ground" sense, rather than a sports venue that various clubs booked when needed, which is how it really was - and that therefore Bramall Lane was reliant on Wednesday for rent and had to plug the gap when they left.
I was wanting to start a thread on this, but wanted to do a bit of research first.
Click to expand...

The reference to Wednesday being reluctant to continue to pay for their appearances at the Lane is in Dennis Clarebroughs book.
 
Addison said:
The reference to Wednesday being reluctant to continue to pay for their appearances at the Lane is in Dennis Clarebroughs book.
Click to expand...
It's not the issue of their unwillingness to pay the high rent, it's the inference that it was their move to a new ground which prompted the forming of United. As I say, I wanted to research it all before posting stuff that may not be accurate, but as far as I am aware the decision was made after a cup semi-final held at the Lane brought in a lot of paying spectators and the committee were finally convinced that a regular, professional team based at Bramall Lane made financial sense.
 
kop_blade9 said:
As I understood it, Wednesday rented the Brammall Lane from Sheffield United Cricket Club (not sure if that is the correct name) and the committee decided to hike the rent.
Wednesday refused to pay and moved out. Sheffield United football club was then formed.
Click to expand...


?
 
I won't have anyone disrespecting those fine, upstanding, honest people from S6.
 

Hamburg Blade said:
It's not the issue of their unwillingness to pay the high rent, it's the inference that it was their move to a new ground which prompted the forming of United. As I say, I wanted to research it all before posting stuff that may not be accurate, but as far as I am aware the decision was made after a cup semi-final held at the Lane brought in a lot of paying spectators and the committee were finally convinced that a regular, professional team based at Bramall Lane made financial sense.
Click to expand...

Theres reference to the game between Preston and West Brom in the article I attached although some sources suggested it was an International match. From what I have read up on the subject the Pigs not being willing to pay the rent occurred before the match in question. Charles Stokes saw the opportunity to replace lost revenue when 22,000 paying customers came through the door and that convinced the previously unwilling Cricket Committee to agree to a football team around the time the FA were keen to get new clubs into its new league.
 
stringer said:
Genuine question, which one was that & why’d it make you wary?
Click to expand...
It was about the club trip to Argentina to buy players in '78ish was on here about 2 weeks ago (a cursory search but can't find it think it was the Yorkshire Post), anyway the article pretty much said we had been going to sign (it was already agreed) Ardiles, Villa, Sabella, Verde with Maradonna a late addition but we conceded the first 2 to Spurs and we had to pay a backhander as well as a fee to get Maradonna. The article had errors and didn't really make sense but it was attributed to John Garrett who would know about these things. Considering (if memory serves) that only 2 non UK players were allowed in a team on the pitch it really didn't ring true.
 
Addison said:
Theres reference to the game between Preston and West Brom in the article I attached although some sources suggested it was an International match. From what I have read up on the subject the Pigs not being willing to pay the rent occurred before the match in question. Charles Stokes saw the opportunity to replace lost revenue when 22,000 paying customers came through the door and that convinced the previously unwilling Cricket Committee to agree to a football team around the time the FA were keen to get new clubs into its new league.
Click to expand...
I would still take issue with the phrase "replace lost revenue" when refering to Wednesday building their own ground, which had taken place two years before. Before that, they were an amatuer club that entered local competitions and friendlies. We transpose our understanding of football onto the past, but I suspect most Wednesday games were not attended by all that many. They were very nomadic in their early years and I don't know how many games they actually played at Bramall Lane. The suggestion is that they played nowhere else between 80 and 87, but is that true? How many games were there? How many attended? I am sceptical. The major competition that they entered was the FA Cup and when you look at their fixtures, there are very few home games that would have been played at Bramall Lane.
What Stokes would have been watching, would have been Wednesday's turn to professionalism and how professionalism was changing the sport. Also the growing popularity of football support for well established teams or teams that represented a town or city - which Wednesday didn't at the time, being one of several local clubs. I think he had more of a vision than just replacing some questionable lost revenue. He probably didn't expect Wednesday to grow as much as they did.
 
Hamburg Blade said:
I would still take issue with the phrase "replace lost revenue" when refering to Wednesday building their own ground, which had taken place two years before. Before that, they were an amatuer club that entered local competitions and friendlies. We transpose our understanding of football onto the past, but I suspect most Wednesday games were not attended by all that many. They were very nomadic in their early years and I don't know how many games they actually played at Bramall Lane. The suggestion is that they played nowhere else between 80 and 87, but is that true? How many games were there? How many attended? I am sceptical. The major competition that they entered was the FA Cup and when you look at their fixtures, there are very few home games that would have been played at Bramall Lane.
What Stokes would have been watching, would have been Wednesday's turn to professionalism and how professionalism was changing the sport. Also the growing popularity of football support for well established teams or teams that represented a town or city - which Wednesday didn't at the time, being one of several local clubs. I think he had more of a vision than just replacing some questionable lost revenue. He probably didn't expect Wednesday to grow as much as they did.
Click to expand...

Clarebrough states it was the impact of not getting enough of the gate receipts at the Lane that led to the Pigs building their own ground;

" The decision of the Wednesday Football Club to use professional players had far reaching effects. Their ground was adequate only for small numbers of spectators.They had used Bramall Lane or the nearby Sheaf House Ground for more important fixtures but gate money was now a prime concern to the Wednesday. For a match at Bramall Lane one third of the match receipts had gone to the United. For every sixpence paid by the spectators at a popular FA Cup tie half went the opposing side and tuppence to United with the Wednesday getting one penny. Within a few weeks of becoming a professional team the Wednesday had taken a lease on land at Olive Grove and begun to build a more suitable ground.

That fits to an extent with John Garrets statement that Wednesday wanted Bramall Lane but the Committee didn't want them. It also confirms Wednesday had their own ground but used Bramall Lane for the bigger fixtures probably the FA Cup ties. The fact was the Cricket Committee were opposed to any form of football and rejected Charles Stokes early attempts to form a Club affiliated to the United Cricket team. We should be eternally grateful to these old fuddy duddies because they prevented the Pigs further desecrating the hallowed turf.

The lost revenue it is suggested was one means by which Stokes was able to persuade the Cricket Committee to agree to a football team. Stokes had been an advocate of setting up a football team for some time having played for the Wednesday but he had been met with opposition from the Committee who saw the playing surface as sacrosanct. As Clarebrough explains;

" Bramall Lane was not financially viable as a cricket ground, sources of revenue other than football provided little money as many were held for charitable purposes and would be expected to make little profit. Football would provide a regular reasonable income during the winter for example 22,688 had paid to watch an FA Cup semi final in March 1889 and Bramall Lane was one of the few grounds in Britain that could hold large outdoor events with its high walls turnstiles, secure gates standing seating. The reputation of Sheffield as a leading centre of football had fallen away and support for a new Club was growing in the press and among senior followers and enthusiasts"

edit: Apologies to Andrew Kirkham who was co author of 'Sheffield United The complete record'
 
Bramall lane was a cricket ground when football started but you name it and most sports have been played at the lane. It was never the home of the pigs who played early games somewhere near the Sheaf view pub only using Bramall lane for big games. The pigs adopted Olive Grove when they decided to turn professional rather than pay rent to the Cricket club which makes sense really as they were not at that time a club representing Sheffield but rather a collection of fella's with fuck all to do on Wednesday's hence their name.
Locally there was Sheffield FC, and Hallam FC and that lot all much the same size. The first professional club to represent Sheffield was United the pigs didn't adopt Sheffield before their name until 1929, so never forget the city is Red n White always has been always will be that's what gets up the grunters snouts. Probably the reason too the pig fans clamour for others to love them and why they say everyone wants them back in the Premier league. It's a load of bollocks they were never wanted or needed at the lane back then, same as today the Premier League has largely forgot about them and no fucker wants them back, they are a shit stain on football remembered only for the worst UK sporting disaster.
 
Addison said:
Clarebrough states it was the impact of not getting enough of the gate receipts at the Lane that led to the Pigs building their own ground;

" The decision of the Wednesday Football Club to use professional players had far reaching effects. Their ground was adequate only for small numbers of spectators.They had used Bramall Lane or the nearby Sheaf House Ground for more important fixtures but gate money was now a prime concern to the Wednesday. For a match at Bramall Lane one third of the match receipts had gone to the United. For every sixpence paid by the spectators at a popular FA Cup tie half went the opposing side and tuppence to United with the Wednesday getting one penny. Within a few weeks of becoming a professional team the Wednesday had taken a lease on land at Olive Grove and begun to build a more suitable ground.

That fits to an extent with John Garrets statement that Wednesday wanted Bramall Lane but the Committee didn't want them. It also confirms Wednesday had their own ground but used Bramall Lane for the bigger fixtures probably the FA Cup ties. The fact was the Cricket Committee were opposed to any form of football and rejected Charles Stokes early attempts to form a Club affiliated to the United Cricket team. We should be eternally grateful to these old fuddy duddies because they prevented the Pigs further desecrating the hallowed turf.

The lost revenue it is suggested was one means by which Stokes was able to persuade the Cricket Committee to agree to a football team. Stokes had been an advocate of setting up a football team for some time having played for the Wednesday but he had been met with opposition from the Committee who saw the playing surface as sacrosanct. As Clarebrough explains;

" Bramall Lane was not financially viable as a cricket ground, sources of revenue other than football provided little money as many were held for charitable purposes and would be expected to make little profit. Football would provide a regular reasonable income during the winter for example 22,688 had paid to watch an FA Cup semi final in March 1889 and Bramall Lane was one of the few grounds in Britain that could hold large outdoor events with its high walls turnstiles, secure gates standing seating. The reputation of Sheffield as a leading centre of football had fallen away and support for a new Club was growing in the press and among senior followers and enthusiasts"

edit: Apologies to Andrew Kirkham who was co author of 'Sheffield United The complete record'
Click to expand...
Yes I've read that before and it's no surprise that Wednesday wanted their own ground when they were only taking a sixth of gate receipts at a home game. I don't think there is any doubt that Wednesday would like to have taken over Bramall Lane, being the best ground in Sheffield, but that wouldn't have ever been on the cards and operating as a professional club renting the ground for every home game wouldn't have been satisfactory.
Nevertheless, that hasn't anything to do with the general belief that Wednesday moving to a new ground left Bramall Lane so short of revenue that it formed its own club. FA cup games were the biggest at the time I believe and in the 4 years before they got their own ground, they played 4 home games in the cup, presumably at BL. The two years before United were formed they were at Olive Grove. So where is this massive shortfall of cash? How many other games did Wednesday play at the Lane that would have brought high gate receipts? Before 1880 they would have played lesser games elsewhere. Local mini-cups and friendly matches would surely not have brought that many through the gate, or maybe I'm wrong, but I can't find any information about other games played in those years.
There were lots of other teams around at the time, some as big as Wednesday I think, like Heeley. DId they play at the Lane occasionally?
I just can't see how Wednesday were providing Bramall Lane with a decent revenue stream leading up to our formation. We know they weren't in the two years prior, so I really don't think "loss of gate receipts" was a factor in our formation - rather a vision of a future which involved high gate receipts from regular football played by a professional team, something that Sheffield hadn't seen up to that point.
 
Blade58 said:
The pigs have always maintained that it's we (superior Blades fans) that have always hated Wendy first and love our club second. Does this article regards both clubs history dispel the "myth" ?

Btw, this is the first time I have read this about what happened regards Bramall Lane

www.examinerlive.co.uk

When Blade rivalry with Wednesday began and why Owls hold a grudge

Sheffield United and Wednesday’s rivalry is as passionate as any in the country
www.examinerlive.co.uk www.examinerlive.co.uk
Click to expand...

Is there an actual article in and amongst all those fucking adverts?

pommpey
 
Hamburg Blade said:
Yes I've read that before and it's no surprise that Wednesday wanted their own ground when they were only taking a sixth of gate receipts at a home game. I don't think there is any doubt that Wednesday would like to have taken over Bramall Lane, being the best ground in Sheffield, but that wouldn't have ever been on the cards and operating as a professional club renting the ground for every home game wouldn't have been satisfactory.
Nevertheless, that hasn't anything to do with the general belief that Wednesday moving to a new ground left Bramall Lane so short of revenue that it formed its own club. FA cup games were the biggest at the time I believe and in the 4 years before they got their own ground, they played 4 home games in the cup, presumably at BL. The two years before United were formed they were at Olive Grove. So where is this massive shortfall of cash? How many other games did Wednesday play at the Lane that would have brought high gate receipts? Before 1880 they would have played lesser games elsewhere. Local mini-cups and friendly matches would surely not have brought that many through the gate, or maybe I'm wrong, but I can't find any information about other games played in those years.
There were lots of other teams around at the time, some as big as Wednesday I think, like Heeley. DId they play at the Lane occasionally?
I just can't see how Wednesday were providing Bramall Lane with a decent revenue stream leading up to our formation. We know they weren't in the two years prior, so I really don't think "loss of gate receipts" was a factor in our formation - rather a vision of a future which involved high gate receipts from regular football played by a professional team, something that Sheffield hadn't seen up to that point.
Click to expand...
What we need to remember is at that time is that Cricket was a bigger game than football but only suited to fine weather in the summer time much like Tennis and Baseball when the weather turned cold and wet there was no income from anywhere. When professional teams started to appear it was a good idea for the Cricket club to form a football team to make money all year round nothing to do with lost revenue from the pigs. Bramall lane probably raised more money from International games, FA cup semi finals and Championship of Britain games than it ever made from the pigs. Sheffield FC and Hallam FC probably used it as much if not more than the pigs.

"A sports ground since 1854, Bramall Lane stadium was originally laid out as a cricket ground before it became a football ground in 1862. Though primarily a football ground, it later also served as a venue for bowls, tennis, cycling and athletics. In 1878, Bramall Lane staged the first recorded floodlit football match ever played, to an estimated crowd of 20,000. The ground staged England's first international played outside of London, against Scotland in 1883. Sheffield United became the resident football club in 1889. "
 
Which ever way you look at it it’s not been hard to celebrate a united win or a Wednesday defeat it’s just the norm now
 
metalblade said:
What we need to remember is at that time is that Cricket was a bigger game than football but only suited to fine weather in the summer time much like Tennis and Baseball when the weather turned cold and wet there was no income from anywhere. When professional teams started to appear it was a good idea for the Cricket club to form a football team to make money all year round nothing to do with lost revenue from the pigs. Bramall lane probably raised more money from International games, FA cup semi finals and Championship of Britain games than it ever made from the pigs. Sheffield FC and Hallam FC probably used it as much if not more than the pigs.

"A sports ground since 1854, Bramall Lane stadium was originally laid out as a cricket ground before it became a football ground in 1862. Though primarily a football ground, it later also served as a venue for bowls, tennis, cycling and athletics. In 1878, Bramall Lane staged the first recorded floodlit football match ever played, to an estimated crowd of 20,000. The ground staged England's first international played outside of London, against Scotland in 1883. Sheffield United became the resident football club in 1889. "
Click to expand...
What we always need to remember when looking at the past is that things were different then. We have a tendency to have a picture in our heads that is based on the world we know around us. Most teams in Sheffield before we were formed were amateur and rented pitches as required, or leased pitches they didn't own. Competitions involving teams from a wider area only appeared in the few years before our formation, so most games were friendly challenges. There were also a surprisingly high number of clubs in the area, at a time when the population was half as big as it is now and largely made up of workers who wouldn't have had a lot of spare cash to spend on regular attendance. I wonder how high the attendances were, especially if it cost as much as sixpence.

I read that the total attendance of the first league season was 600,000. With 12 clubs that's an average match gate of 4500, unless my maths is off, which is quite healthy if everyone is paying sixpence, but makes you wonder what the crowds would have been for Wednesday playing Broomhall in a friendly (or in the days before leagues, would it have mattered? Do we only rate friendlies lesser now because we compare them to competition games?)

There is a distinct lack of information on these details on the internet (and the likes of Wikipedia is full of mistakes and contradictions) and I wonder whether anyone knows at all. If Wednesday only played at Bramall Lane from 80-87, as suggested, barely played any FA Cup matches there, what would the attendances have been like? Did Bramall Lane charge less for non-cup games?

If you take a quote from Clarebrough that Addison quotes above: The decision of the Wednesday Football Club to use professional players had far reaching effects. Their ground was adequate only for small numbers of spectators. They had used Bramall Lane or the nearby Sheaf House Ground for more important fixtures... this suggests that when they turned professional in 87 they weren't using Bramall Lane exclusively, belying the common assertion that Bramall Lane was their home ground. Or is he mixing up earlier times?
All in all, I've come to the conclusion that the "lack of gate receipts after Wednesday's departure prompted the forming of Sheffield United" is a myth - and probably Bramall Lane being Wednesday's home ground from 80-87 is also a myth. But I'd love some more detailed information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom