What gone wrong since 1976

[JJBlade]

Small time mentality of the fans means the club also adopts a small time mentality. To be honest anything to do with Sheffield is small time, shops that tend to thrive are Poundstretcher, 99p shop, Poundland etc, hence why those shops are in t city centre.

Also the general negativity and pessimism amongst the fan base.
Even in the late 1970’s, pensioners used to say to me “United….always the bridesmaid, never the bride”.

Whereas Liverpool could be 2 or even 3-0 down in the 1st leg of a European tie and their fans genuinely expect to still go through.
The reason is because their fans have seen it so many times over the devades, thrashing Europes best at Anfield, scoring last minute winners etc.
Where as over the decades i‘ve tended to see bad luck in our big matches, last minute goals scored against us etc.
So when ever we’re in a big match it often comes into my mind we’ll probably concede in the last minute.

That's changed now

Oh for the days when we were the bridesmaid

Instead of the embarrassing relatives who weren't even invited

 

[JJBlade]

I am exactly the same: always felt an affinity with City and Everton as I felt their rivals were Wednesday by another name, i.e. arrogant and entitled. Got to be honest though, I think Wednesdays delusions of grandeur don’t stand up to scrutiny: their trophy cabinet is almost as much a part of ancient history as ours is, and their self-appointed position as a true footballing side are based solely on a handful of seasons in the early 90s, conveniently ignoring their high profile long ball managers Charlton and Wilkinson.

Very true about their hoofball credentials
They were the inventors of this type of game long before Wimbledons crazy gang

 

[Alan Birchenall's hair]

Well, January started well, had my 16th birthday and somehow persuaded this funny, intelligent, beautiful girl to go out with me, got expelled from school though and she met someone else, my dad was constantly on my case telling me to "turn that bloody funeral music down" and that only takes us up to that summer.

Oh, wait is this about the footie....?

Good for me too. Had my 18th birthday, spent many Friday nights shagging in the Wyvern pub car park, and Saturday nights in The Wapentake. Oh, and I too had all the Van Der Graaf generator albums....

 

[coaxingstar71]

I don't want to derail the thread. However, you've asked so I'll do you the courtesy of an answer.

Thanks, that was really interesting. I wasn't trying to be funny either, I'm sure there's still loads of City fans who recall scraping through the League 1 play-off final against Gillingham.

I don't know how much you know about the history of the Sheffield clubs but my version is, they were formed well before us and I guess have therefore felt more entitled as the older club. We were formed well after Bramall Lane was built and in doing so evicted them from playing there, so that caused some bitterness. My view is, and this won't be shared by our more ardent fans, is that up until recently they WERE the bigger club. They've won 4 League titles to our 1, always had a bigger ground and from attendance figures, I'd say they've always had about 5-10,000 more what I would call 'core' support (in terms of those that go to games). However, this started to change in the 2000's when Warnock was manager, perhaps because we were relatively more successful at the time, several Wembley and semi-final appearances, the triple assault season in 2003-04, maybe our marketing dept were better at getting kids to support the Blades and possibly because we had more recently developed our ground whereas theirs hadn't really changed since the 60's when they had their stands paid for them by hosting World Cup games (another bone of contention between fans).

I think it's difficult to pinpoint why we haven't been as successful as other northern clubs, but I think despite being one of the largest cities in the country, we seem to be a bit more 'small time'. We hosted the World Student Games FFS! We had an airport with a runway that wasn't big enough for large jets and closed down, our city centre is a shithole compared to Manchester. The city council are spending gazillions on tarting the place up, just at the point that no fucker is going to it. Not many want to invest in the city, let alone the football clubs, so I don't know but maybe the combination of all these factors contribute to why we're not as successful.

 

[SUFC Handsworth]

Thanks, that was really interesting. I wasn't trying to be funny either, I'm sure there's still loads of City fans who recall scraping through the League 1 play-off final against Gillingham.

I don't know how much you know about the history of the Sheffield clubs but my version is, they were formed well before us and I guess have therefore felt more entitled as the older club. We were formed well after Bramall Lane was built and in doing so evicted them from playing there, so that caused some bitterness. My view is, and this won't be shared by our more ardent fans, is that up until recently they WERE the bigger club. They've won 4 League titles to our 1, always had a bigger ground and from attendance figures, I'd say they've always had about 5-10,000 more what I would call 'core' support (in terms of those that go to games). However, this started to change in the 2000's when Warnock was manager, perhaps because we were relatively more successful at the time, several Wembley and semi-final appearances, the triple assault season in 2003-04, maybe our marketing dept were better at getting kids to support the Blades and possibly because we had more recently developed our ground whereas theirs hadn't really changed since the 60's when they had their stands paid for them by hosting World Cup games (another bone of contention between fans).

I think it's difficult to pinpoint why we haven't been as successful as other northern clubs, but I think despite being one of the largest cities in the country, we seem to be a bit more 'small time'. We hosted the World Student Games FFS! We had an airport with a runway that wasn't big enough for large jets and closed down, our city centre is a shithole compared to Manchester. The city council are spending gazillions on tarting the place up, just at the point that no fucker is going to it. Not many want to invest in the city, let alone the football clubs, so I don't know but maybe the combination of all these factors contribute to why we're not as successful.

Too right that view won't be shared by (i'd hope) most United fans. They might have won more titles but we've won more FA Cups than them (at a time when the FA Cup was probably viewed at least on par, if not above a league title). I'd also point out where was that 5-10,000 extra 'core' support in the 70s when their gates where regularly under 10k? After the South Stand was built for a good few years our ground capacity was always billed as 49k, compared to il stadio du rustio at 50k, yes bigger but only just.

I'd make one more point about the history of Bramall Lane, I believe if i remember reading it correctly (I'm sure Silent could confirm it or not), that before there was a SUFC, the committee at Bramall Lane (Sheffield United Cricket Club??) asked Wednesday if they wanted to move in to the Lane as their permanent ground but they turned it down in favour of a move to Owlerton. I guess if they'd have accepted it's not beyond the realms of possibility Sheffield would have been a one club city, Wednesday, the Blades of Bramall Lane !!!

 

[pommpey]

I think it's difficult to pinpoint why we haven't been as successful as other northern clubs, but I think despite being one of the largest cities in the country, we seem to be a bit more 'small time'. We hosted the World Student Games FFS! We had an airport with a runway that wasn't big enough for large jets and closed down, our city centre is a shithole compared to Manchester. The city council are spending gazillions on tarting the place up, just at the point that no fucker is going to it. Not many want to invest in the city, let alone the football clubs, so I don't know but maybe the combination of all these factors contribute to why we're not as successful.

This. It's all about ambition, image and how to get the population invested in the vision.

All Sheffield has had is a Full Montyesque visage of 'tough losers'. And that bleeds through into the football clubs, doesn't it?

If Man United were relegated again, or Spurs, Arsenal or even Everton, there would be the biggest fucking post-mortem ever.

Us? It's almost a formality, even amongst the supporters. There is a predictable inevitability braced against our demise, forever bearing down on any dreams of success. If we attracted the moneyed elite and the crazy rich, then one of the two clubs would be sorted. But Manchester has Corrers and brand United and lately City, Leeds has a central Yorkshire kudos that even bases the regional television HQ there, whereby Sheffield might as well be on the IOW for all they fucking care. Every now and then a small miracle occurs - Harris, Bassett, Charlton, Francis, Warnock and Wilder and one of the runt-city's clubs manages to scrape into the top flight. But again, the stopwatch is set as to when they'll return to the cellar, like some mad aunt.

pommpey

 

[coaxingstar71]

Too right that view won't be shared by (i'd hope) most United fans. They might have won more titles but we've won more FA Cups than them (at a time when the FA Cup was probably viewed at least on par, if not above a league title). I'd also point out where was that 5-10,000 extra 'core' support in the 70s when their gates where regularly under 10k? After the South Stand was built for a good few years our ground capacity was always billed as 49k, compared to il stadio du rustio at 50k, yes bigger but only just.

I'd make one more point about the history of Bramall Lane, I believe if i remember reading it correctly (I'm sure Silent could confirm it or not), that before there was a SUFC, the committee at Bramall Lane (Sheffield United Cricket Club??) asked Wednesday if they wanted to move in to the Lane as their permanent ground but they turned it down in favour of a move to Owlerton. I guess if they'd have accepted it's not beyond the realms of possibility Sheffield would have been a one club city, Wednesday, the Blades of Bramall Lane !!!

Like I said, my version/ardent fans...

But come on, in terms of attendances, you're talking of a period when they were languishing at the foot of the old division 3 and we were in the 1st division. My view is that, until around the 2000's, if we were both in the same league with the same size ground, they would have got about 5-10,000 more. Disagree if you like.

I'd have to read up again, but as I recall they were basically prevented from playing at the Lane, maybe it was because they would have had to pay large fees to do so, I'd have to check. What I do know is, it caused bad blood between the two clubs in those early years.

 

[nopigfansintown]

It's primarily down to economics, isn't it? The deindustrialisation of Britain hit Sheffield harder than pretty much anywhere: none of these industries were replaced by anything except low paid, poor quality jobs that left the work they replaced looking glamorous in comparison. The central government strategy of non investment in the north has also left its imprint. There is nothing in the city that is here because the government thought: " London or the South East and some other northern cities have enough - let's make sure this thing goes to Sheffield". There's nothing like that really.
Absurd decisions by the local council have aided and abetted this whole thing: the decision to build Meadowhall effectively killed the high street in Sheffield and Rotherham, as did the various retail parks. The council were warned that it would happen, but they went through with them both anyway (brown envelopes?).
The failure to invest in a functional public transport network. If you look at, say, our tram service compared to Manchester's. it's laughable. It hardly goes anywhere and is prohibitively expensive. Likewise with trains and buses. Shit and expensive is a byword for Sheffield now unfortunately
This all feeds into the football teams to some degree. Sheffield United haven't had anything approaching a visionary owner since prior to the First World War. McCabe is probably the best which says it all really. There has never been a real attempt to overinflate the club and move it forward through big capital investment in infrastructure. The sty had that via grants which made them competitive in the early 90s. We've been rag assed rovers bar a brief window under McCabe when the ground was getting developed and our academy was ahead of most similar sized clubs. Realistically, -relatively speaking - we are now behind the point when McCabe took sole ownership at the start of the century.

 

[ancientblade]

Like I said, my version/ardent fans...

But come on, in terms of attendances, you're talking of a period when they were languishing at the foot of the old division 3 and we were in the 1st division. My view is that, until around the 2000's, if we were both in the same league with the same size ground, they would have got about 5-10,000 more. Disagree if you like.

I'd have to read up again, but as I recall they were basically prevented from playing at the Lane, maybe it was because they would have had to pay large fees to do so, I'd have to check. What I do know is, it caused bad blood between the two clubs in those early years.

also dont forget dare i say it a massive catchment area around hillsbro with the many housing estates i grew up on one of them and while we were definetly outnumbered there was still plenty of united fans on them as well buses going back to parsons cross southey and shirecliffe were always packed after a game at the lane

 

[Silent Blade]

I'd make one more point about the history of Bramall Lane, I believe if i remember reading it correctly (I'm sure Silent could confirm it or not), that before there was a SUFC, the committee at Bramall Lane (Sheffield United Cricket Club??) asked Wednesday if they wanted to move in to the Lane as their permanent ground but they turned it down in favour of a move to Owlerton. I guess if they'd have accepted it's not beyond the realms of possibility Sheffield would have been a one club city, Wednesday, the Blades of Bramall Lane !!!

From Denis Clareborough's 100 years book published in 1989

 

[Bladesman]

We've made a series of poor decisions when well placed by getting ahead of ourselves, punctuated by some at best hopeful managerial appointments (Inching forward anyone?).

Under Bassett, 4 years was a decent run and then we seemed to think we could absorb selling Brian Deane and didn't adequately replace him "well done gentlemen, you've just relegated us" Bassett said in the boardroom meeting.

Under Spackman, we were well placed playing great football but didn't know when to stop spending, bringing in too many strikers only to redress the balance by selling Deane and Fjortoft on the same day.

Under Warnock, we were clear by about 10 points at a point in the season. Yes there was Tevez and Hulse but the January transfer window spend of 5m did little to address a midfield that lacked quality with Tonge it's main creator, signing Fathi, a fullback, as the main option there and once more getting ahead of ourselves signing Shelton when a better midfielder for now would have been more useful.

Sacking Blackwell having allowed him to recruit all summer and also cashing in greedily on both Kyles was totally unnecessary and teed us up nicely to get relegated out of nowhere.

Ched Evans then getting ahead of himself rather than having a pizza and going home kept us down far longer than required but also Danny Wilson's only management decision needed that season woefully saw us attempt to mitigate by getting Hoskins(crock), Beattie(past it) and O'Halloran(rubbish).

Subsequently followed by Blackman being offloaded to be replaced by Jonathan Forte in another Kamikaze Board decision especially on the back of injuries to Shaun Miller and DeGirolamo.

After a season of promise, Clough totally losing the plot on recruitment was another after we'd sold Maguire having spent silly money on Brayford.

Under Wilder, in the top flight, we got away with signings who did a bit the first season but provided no long term advancement I e. 10/11 starters were out of the promotion XI yet we spent 60m trying to replace the guy who scored 24 goals to get us up. We failed to improve the infrastructure and once more got ahead of ourselves, addressing the nice to have of owning our own keeper and trying for an alternative forward option whilst not filling the O'Connell shaped hole in the defence or tackling Lundstram's need for further replacing and upgrading the midfield.

You could post an alternative - are we the unluckiest team alive thread too - Hans Segers, Tevez/Hulse, Ched, Diego/Miller, Coutts (which saw promotion delayed a year), O'Connell which would all have been plausible reasons however that would also ignore the fact we've had plenty of chance to do ourselves a favour in all those seasons and failed to do so.

The JOC situation was all of out own making and unlike when we lost Coutts to injury, we had enough money in the bank to replace JOC. If Wilder wants to know a key reason as to why we struggled last season its because he didn't just go and sign Jake Cooper.

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

Sheffield, I suppose, could justly claim to be called the ugliest town in the Old World: its inhabitants, who want it to be pre-eminent in everything, very likely do make that claim for it. It has a population of half a million and it contains fewer decent buildings than the average East Anglian village of five hundred. And the stench! If at rare moments you stop smelling sulphur it is because you have begun smelling gas. Even the shallow river that runs through the town is usually bright yellow with some chemical or other. Once I halted in the street and counted the factory chimneys I could see; there were thirty-three of them, but there would have been far more if the air had not been obscured by smoke. One scene especially lingers in my mind. A frightful patch of waste ground (somehow, up there, a patch of waste ground attains a squalor that would be impossible even in London) trampled bare of grass and littered with newspapers and old saucepans. To the right an isolated row of gaunt four-roomed houses, dark red, blackened by smoke. To the left an interminable vista of factory chimneys, chimney beyond chimney, fading away into a dim blackish haze. Behind me a railway embankment made of the slag from furnaces. In front, across the patch of waste ground, a cubical building of red and yellow brick, with the sign ‘Thomas Grocock, Haulage Contractor’.

It seems to me, by daylight, one of the most appalling places I have ever seen. In whichever direction you look you see the same landscape of monstrous chimneys pouring forth smoke which is sometimes black and sometimes of a rosy tint said to be due to sulphur. You can smell the sulphur in the air all the while. All buildings are blackened within a year or two of being put up. Halting at one place I counted the factory chimneys I could see and there were 33. But it was very misty as well as smoky - there would have been many more visible on a clear day. I doubt whether there are any architecturally decent buildings in the town.

The town is very hilly (said to be built on seven hills, like Rome) and everywhere streets of mean little houses blackened by smoke run up at sharp angles, paved with cobbles which are purposely set unevenly to give horses etc., a grip. At night the hilliness creates fine effects because you look across from one hillside to the other and see the lamps twinkling like stars. Huge jets of flame shoot periodically out of the roofs of the foundries (many working night shifts at present) and show a splendid rosy colour through the smoke and steam. When you get a glimpse inside you see enormous fiery serpents of red-hot and white-hot (really lemon coloured) iron being rolled out into rails. In the central slummy part of the town are the small workshops of the 'little bosses', i.e. smaller employers who are making chiefly cutlery. I don't think I ever in my life saw so many broken windows. Some of these workshops have hardly a pane of glass in their windows and you would not believe they were inhabitable if you did not see the employees, mostly girls, at work inside.

The town is being torn down and rebuilt at an immense speed. Everywhere among the slums are gaps with squalid mounds of bricks where condemned houses have been demolished and on all the outskirts of the town new estates of Corporation houses are going up. These are much inferior, at any rate in appearance, to those at Liverpool. They are in terribly bleak situations, too. One estate just behind where I am living now, at the very summit of a hill, on horrible sticky clay soil and swept by icy winds. Notice that the people going into these new houses from the slums will always be paying higher rents; and also will have to spend much more on fuel to keep themselves warm. Also, in many cases, will be further from their work and therefore spend more on conveyances.

At night, when you cannot see the hideous shapes of the houses and the blackness of everything, a town like Sheffield assumes a kind of sinister magnificence. Sometimes the drifts of smoke are rosy with sulphur, and serrated flames, like circular saws, squeeze themselves out from beneath the cowls of the foundry chimneys. Through the open doors of foundries you see fiery serpents of iron being hauled to and fro by redlit boys, and you hear the whizz and thump of steam hammers and the scream of the iron under the blow.

When you contemplate such ugliness as this, there are two questions that strike you. First, is it inevitable? Secondly, does it matter?

..........................is nevertheless a good fellow and very anxious to help. Mixed up with his political feelings is the usual local patriotism of the Yorkshireman and much of his conversation consists of comparison between London and Sheffield to the detriment of the former. Sheffield is held to lead London in everything, e.g. on the one hand the new housing schemes in Sheffield are immensely superior, and on the other hand the Sheffield slums are more squalid than anything London can show. I notice that apart from the usual hatred between the Northerner and the Southerner, there is also hatred between the Yorkshireman and the Lancashireman, and also internecine hatred between the various Yorkshire towns. No one up here seems to have heard of any place in the south of England except London. If you come from the south you are assumed to be a cockney however often you deny it. At the same time as the Northerner despises the Southerner he has an uneasy feeling that the latter knows more of the arts of life and is very anxious to impress him.

 

[nopigfansintown]

Like I said, my version/ardent fans...

But come on, in terms of attendances, you're talking of a period when they were languishing at the foot of the old division 3 and we were in the 1st division. My view is that, until around the 2000's, if we were both in the same league with the same size ground, they would have got about 5-10,000 more. Disagree if you like.

I'd have to read up again, but as I recall they were basically prevented from playing at the Lane, maybe it was because they would have had to pay large fees to do so, I'd have to check. What I do know is, it caused bad blood between the two clubs in those early years.

Sheffield Wednesday only ever rented the Lane for fixtures as one of a number of grounds they played at. Normally for the big games when they needed the extra space. They got in a dispute with the owner, the Duke of Norfolk, who told them to sling their hook as they wouldn't pay a fair rent - when the game was bringing in big money. He compounded his victory in this dispute by forming his own team, SUFC, that were to play their games at BL.. Wednesday were one of six local clubs that played at BL periodically and have never owned the ground or had any type of footballing monopoly over Bramall Lane. This is a myth perpetuated by our blue and white friends. In the end, they moved to a stadium outside of the city boundaries in a place called Owlerton, as not being able to play the bigger games at BL whilst banking the proceeds wasn't seen as viable. They couldn't thrive on the gates at the smaller grounds in the city
.
The attendances of the Sheffield clubs have always swung one way and then the other. That time when it looked like they might take over was due to the Blades board knocking down John Street and not rebuilding it. They were the glamour boys with the government paying for their ground improvements (yet again) - we were on our uppers, with our ground seemingly going backwards. Considering the 90s dominance and a twenty two year head start, the war damage etc, one might even say their attendances are comparatively poor. This attendance malarkey has become part of the SWFC mythos of Sheffield attendances, which doesn't bare any real scrutiny:

England historical attendance and performance

England historical attendance and performance

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

It's primarily down to economics, isn't it? The deindustrialisation of Britain hit Sheffield harder than pretty much anywhere: none of these industries were replaced by anything except low paid, poor quality jobs that left the work they replaced looking glamorous in comparison. The central government strategy of non investment in the north has also left its imprint. There is nothing in the city that is here because the government thought: " London or the South East and some other northern cities have enough - let's make sure this thing goes to Sheffield". There's nothing like that really.
Absurd decisions by the local council have aided and abetted this whole thing: the decision to build Meadowhall effectively killed the high street in Sheffield and Rotherham, as did the various retail parks. The council were warned that it would happen, but they went through with them both anyway (brown envelopes?).
The failure to invest in a functional public transport network. If you look at, say, our tram service compared to Manchester's. it's laughable. It hardly goes anywhere and is prohibitively expensive. Likewise with trains and buses. Shit and expensive is a byword for Sheffield now unfortunately
This all feeds into the football teams to some degree. Sheffield United haven't had anything approaching a visionary owner since prior to the First World War. McCabe is probably the best which says it all really. There has never been a real attempt to overinflate the club and move it forward through big capital investment in infrastructure. The sty had that via grants which made them competitive in the early 90s. We've been rag assed rovers bar a brief window under McCabe when the ground was getting developed and our academy was ahead of most similar sized clubs. Realistically, -relatively speaking - we are now behind the point when McCabe took sole ownership at the start of the century.

Both Manchester and Liverpool were hit incredibly hard. Let's not forget that at certain times Liverpool was either the wealthiest or second wealthiest city in the world; that's a mighty fall from grace. Manchester in the 60's and 70's was far grimmer than Sheffield, and was seen by Marx & Engels as the ideal place to study the english working classes. Liverpool also went further left politically than Sheffield did in the 80's.

It's a topic that interests me, and using Manchester as a direct comparison, on paper both cities were very, very similar, but now markedly different. I've mentioned it before on here, but one thing I think is different between the 2 cities, is a.) demographics and b.) self confidence/entrepreneurism, and whether to two things are interlinked.

Manchester has a different demographic make up to Sheffield, with much higher number of people from Jewish, Irish Catholic and Afro-Caribbean backgrounds. Without wishing to drop the topic into stereotypes, I wonder whether that shapes the consciousness, creativity and/or outlook of a city, I don't know (probably the same can be said for Leeds). A beneficial fusion or crashing together of ideas, culture, attitude, etc, or the dynamism of 1st & 2nd generation immigration, that Sheffield has never had or had a sufficiently critical level.

Also, whenever Manchester stumbles upon a good thing or finds itself at the centre of the cultural zeitgeist, it seemingly monetarises and mythologises it, something that Sheffield can't seem to do or is unable/unwilling to do.

 

[nopigfansintown]

Both Manchester and Liverpool were hit incredibly hard. Let's not forget that at certain times Liverpool was either the wealthiest or second wealthiest city in the world; that's a mighty fall from grace. Manchester in the 60's and 70's was far grimmer than Sheffield. Liverpool also went further left politically than Sheffield did in the 80's.

It's a topic that interests me, and using Manchester as a direct comparison, on paper both cities were very, very similar, but now markedly different. I've mentioned it before on here, but one thing I think is different between the 2 cities, is a.) demographics and b.) self confidence/entrepreneurism.

Manchester has a different demographic make up to Sheffield, with much higher number of people from Jewish, Irish Catholic and Afro-Caribbean backgrounds. Without wishing to drop the topic into stereotypes, I wonder whether that shapes the consciousness, creativity and/or outlook of a city, I don't know (probably the same can be said for Leeds). A fusion or crashing together of ideas, culture, attitude, etc, or the dynamism of 1st & 2nd generation immigration, that Sheffield has never had or had a sufficiently critical level.

Also, whenever Manchester stumbles upon a good thing or finds itself at the centre of the cultural zeitgeist, it seemingly monetarises and mythologises it, something that Sheffield can't seem to do or is unable/unwilling to do.

I think that Liverpool took its biggest impact prior to the first world war due to the advent of the Manchester Shipping Canal, which redirected a lot of traffic away from the city with the inevitable consequences (for both cities). The abolition of the slave trade also impacted the cities economy badly. More recently we have thing like shipbuilding that have continued to decline and have suffered from globalisation and deindustrialisation like our Steel, coal etc. I do think a lot of the damage was done earlier to Manchester and Liverpool which is partially why they have recovered more. Liverpool had lost a lot of its port based revenue a century ago, as did Manchester it's cotton revenues. I think you make a fair point about the cities demographics; that's often a feature of port towns and a boon to the economies.
It's worth pointing out that Liverpool was a hugely impressive city in general before any of its economic problems. Historians focus on the slum clearances etc, but never on the phenomenal infrastructure that was in place through centuries of investment that places like Sheffield never got. Anyone that visits the city centre can't possibly miss the architecture of Liverpool. There seems to have been a lot more central government investment in these two cities since which have helped them overcome the transition induced by deindustrialisation and globalisation. The cities have gone from providing jobs in primary and secondary industries to a tertiary, serviced based economy much more seamlessly than Sheffield.

 

[Kevincarterversion2.0]

Sheffield never gets investment. So, as success in football has become more and more dependant on money and investment, we have fallen further and further away. This means that when we have had the odd flirtation with some kind of success (e.g. finishing 9th under Wilder in the PL) - the lack of investment means we were unable to establish ourselves and sustain success.

In short, money.

 

[Sithblade]

Sheffield never gets investment. So, as success in football has become more and more dependant on money and investment, we have fallen further and further away. This means that when we have had the odd flirtation with some kind of success (e.g. finishing 9th under Wilder in the PL) - the lack of investment means we were unable to establish ourselves and sustain success.

In short, money.

Things are improving city wise, so hopefully the football will.

 

[VonBrysonsExpress]

Loving some of the theories, especially adding black to the shirts. Trying not to look in isolation and accepting the original comparison of palace as an anomolie I'd suggest we're comparative, and in some cases luckier than many clubs who appeared stable and secure back in the late 70s.

Over the last 20 years the ridiculous spending enabled by the premier League money & foreign investment has just widened the gap, championship clubs attempting to compete to attract players with enhanced salary expectations are bringing down many clubs and more will follow, the fact we've never had ownership/money to gamble like others may yet be seen as a blessing.

 

[SUFC Handsworth]

Like I said, my version/ardent fans...

But come on, in terms of attendances, you're talking of a period when they were languishing at the foot of the old division 3 and we were in the 1st division. My view is that, until around the 2000's, if we were both in the same league with the same size ground, they would have got about 5-10,000 more. Disagree if you like.

I'd have to read up again, but as I recall they were basically prevented from playing at the Lane, maybe it was because they would have had to pay large fees to do so, I'd have to check. What I do know is, it caused bad blood between the two clubs in those early years.

I think you're being very selective with your argument on this. It's 50+ years since Wednesday last averaged 30k plus gates for a season, we've done it three times since then. Bar the 60s, when for some reason Wednesday had much better average attendances than us, through the history of Sheffield football the average attendances have been pretty similar. Our all-time average home attendances are 19k, Wednesday's are 21k, much less than 5-10k 'core' support more they've supposedly got. Take out the 60s attendances and for the other 120 years there'll have been a fag paper between either clubs average attendances.

 

[Numpty's Dusty Ruts.]

The trouble is I think JJBlade might just be onto something it is not just United who have been shite so have the pigs apart from a few seasons in the early 90's when they spent a fortune they didn't have (still suffering from it to this day). the fortunes of both clubs pretty much mirror the fortunes of Sheffield and it's left wing councils. Pretty much everything Sheffield has done since the early 70's has turned to dust and has been left behind by a cotton town and a wool town. Fuck me Manchester even has a museum billed as the home of football and Leeds a museum for the royal armouries in a city that has never made a ton of steel throughout it's history. You couldn't make it up our council back the home of popular music when Sheffield has never been a city renowned for it's musical talent. Sheffield died with it's steel industry all we have now is students and a city centre of empty buildings where druggies, piss heads and homeless sleep in doorways by night and beg by day.

I have said this before, but the colour of the council is irrelevant to the football clubs or the cities' status. Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds are solidly Labour and have been for a very long time. And Newcastle. For some sustained success coming from nowhere, check out Leicester City and it's very long-standing Labour council. Portsmouth and Southend aren't crap clubs because they are in Tory cities, they've just been badly run. I have no idea whether Portsmouth or Southend are good or bad places, having never been to Sarfend and only been to Pompey once, over 40 years ago. York is Labour, Bath isn't, neither have league football clubs but both are brilliant cities to visit (and probably to live, if you have a few bob!).
What Sheffield has had is a council with little foresight or vision, coupled with the misfortune to have been screwed by the collapse of heavy industry in the UK. It also has two football clubs whose owners have demonstrated about the same foresight and vision as the council. If the millions chucked at Meadowhall had been used to develop the city centre we may have not had the problems we have now.
Oh, and Sheffield has a very significant pop music history, I'm not having that slagged off!!!

 

[coaxingstar71]

have never owned the ground or had any type of footballing monopoly over Bramall Lane.

England historical attendance and performance

England historical attendance and performance

I never said they did. I said they played there, but didn't after we were formed. Anyway my point was it caused bad blood between the two clubs.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I never said they did. I said they played there, but didn't after we were formed. Anyway my point was it caused bad blood between the two clubs.

Wendy took a lease on Olive Grove around two years before we were formed. The move to professionalism had them move to OG as those in charge at BL took a share of the gate receipts. A friendly was played in 1890 which would possibly negate any claims of “bad blood” particularly as Wendy were well established.

 

[Revolution]

Sheffield Wednesday only ever rented the Lane for fixtures as one of a number of grounds they played at. Normally for the big games when they needed the extra space. They got in a dispute with the owner, the Duke of Norfolk, who told them to sling their hook as they wouldn't pay a fair rent - when the game was bringing in big money. He compounded his victory in this dispute by forming his own team, SUFC, that were to play their games at BL.. Wednesday were one of six local clubs that played at BL periodically and have never owned the ground or had any type of footballing monopoly over Bramall Lane. This is a myth perpetuated by our blue and white friends. In the end, they moved to a stadium outside of the city boundaries in a place called Owlerton, as not being able to play the bigger games at BL whilst banking the proceeds wasn't seen as viable. They couldn't thrive on the gates at the smaller grounds in the city
.
The attendances of the Sheffield clubs have always swung one way and then the other. That time when it looked like they might take over was due to the Blades board knocking down John Street and not rebuilding it. They were the glamour boys with the government paying for their ground improvements (yet again) - we were on our uppers, with our ground seemingly going backwards. Considering the 90s dominance and a twenty two year head start, the war damage etc, one might even say their attendances are comparatively poor. This attendance malarkey has become part of the SWFC mythos of Sheffield attendances, which doesn't bare any real scrutiny:

England historical attendance and performance

England historical attendance and performance

That's not quite true re the formation of United. The club was formed by Sheffield United Cricket Club members. The spur for this was the Cup Semi final held at the Lane in 1889, which attracted a huge crowd of over 22,000, enormous by the standards of the time. The Duke of Norfolk owned the ground but the Cricket Club had the lease.

As you rightly say, Wednesday had never played at the Lane on any permanent basis (whoever wrote the Wikipedia entries for the two clubs has this wrong). They played at various grounds within a mile of the Lane, using the Lane for big matches when there would be a paid attendance, and settled at Olive Grove around the same time as we were formed. They left Olive Grove in 1900 as the ground was to be compulsorily purchased, I think. The members voted for a site at Carbrook, roughly where Centertainment is now, but they got gazumped, so they went to Owlerton/Hillsborough. This was a gamble as that was the very edge of the City. I think at that time it had only just been put in the City Boundary. It proved to be a good move because (a) it rapidly urbanised (b) there was great tram access and (c) Wednesday immediately won Division 2 and then the League twice and the Cup once in the next 7 years, drawing the crowds.

It is hard to believe now but the Cricket Club were not too bothered about getting a permanent team in the 1880's as cricket was the big money spinner, not football: it was Yorkshire's main ground at the time. The 1889 Semi Final was a Road to Damascus moment for them.

 

[Sean Thornton]

That's not quite true re the formation of United. The club was formed by Sheffield United Cricket Club members. The spur for this was the Cup Semi final held at the Lane in 1889, which attracted a huge crowd of over 22,000, enormous by the standards of the time. The Duke of Norfolk owned the ground but the Cricket Club had the lease.

As you rightly say, Wednesday had never played at the Lane on any permanent basis (whoever wrote the Wikipedia entries for the two clubs has this wrong). They played at various grounds within a mile of the Lane, using the Lane for big matches when there would be a paid attendance, and settled at Olive Grove around the same time as we were formed. They left Olive Grove in 1900 as the ground was to be compulsorily purchased, I think. The members voted for a site at Carbrook, roughly where Centertainment is now, but they got gazumped, so they went to Owlerton/Hillsborough. This was a gamble as that was the very edge of the City. I think at that time it had only just been put in the City Boundary. It proved to be a good move because (a) it rapidly urbanised (b) there was great tram access and (c) Wednesday immediately won Division 2 and then the League twice and the Cup once in the next 7 years, drawing the crowds.

It is hard to believe now but the Cricket Club were not too bothered about getting a permanent team in the 1880's as cricket was the big money spinner, not football: it was Yorkshire's main ground at the time. The 1889 Semi Final was a Road to Damascus moment for them.

I understand their first game at OG was September 1887.

 

[Barney]

I can only hope, for your mental wellbeing, that you're joking.

No one in their right mind would want to take us on.

Squad on too high wages to sell
Places we rely on retiring
Players on long expensive contracts but not playing
only saleable assets have potentially career-ending/shortening injuries
Bloated and uneven squad
Crumbling and outdated facilities

I meant what I said because it's true. Your post doesn't change that

 

[metalblade]

I have said this before, but the colour of the council is irrelevant to the football clubs or the cities' status. Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds are solidly Labour and have been for a very long time. And Newcastle. For some sustained success coming from nowhere, check out Leicester City and it's very long-standing Labour council. Portsmouth and Southend aren't crap clubs because they are in Tory cities, they've just been badly run. I have no idea whether Portsmouth or Southend are good or bad places, having never been to Sarfend and only been to Pompey once, over 40 years ago. York is Labour, Bath isn't, neither have league football clubs but both are brilliant cities to visit (and probably to live, if you have a few bob!).
What Sheffield has had is a council with little foresight or vision, coupled with the misfortune to have been screwed by the collapse of heavy industry in the UK. It also has two football clubs whose owners have demonstrated about the same foresight and vision as the council. If the millions chucked at Meadowhall had been used to develop the city centre we may have not had the problems we have now.
Oh, and Sheffield has a very significant pop music history, I'm not having that slagged off!!!

The colour of the councils might be the same but sadly since the 1970's the quality in Sheffield's council and MP's has been severely lacking a trait that still exist to this day. You only have to look at the HS2 fiasco to see this, the original plan was to have a station at Meadowhall to serve both Sheffield and Rotherham but no Clive Betts and his cronies wanted HS2 to come into the city centre at Midland station a station that is already not really fit for purpose. What we then got was a plan running HS2 closer to Doncaster by passing Sheffield and Rotherham which would get a shorter version of the new trains that would fit into Midland station running over existing track making time savings to London negligible for the money spent. When this plan got the green light HS2's eastern leg was always going to be cancelled.
Let's have a look at the Northern rail plans and all the screaming for a Manchester to Leeds link just who is making any noise for a Manchester to Sheffield link not Dan fuckin Jarvis that's for sure the bloke is a dingle who's sympathies lie in West Yorkshire who always wanted Barnsley to chuck in with Leeds. Does he even know the Midland mainline from Bedford through Leicester, Derby, Nottingham, Sheffield up to Leeds is the only main rail route in the country that is not electrified? You won't see that cunt or the local MP's fighting Sheffield's corner. All Clive fuckin Betts campaigns for is a fucking old signal box in Beighton ffs. Talking of our Clive the MP representing a constituency who voted 62% in favour of Brexit after he voted to oppose the result of the referendum I asked the twat why his excuse was Tinsley Bridge Ltd made car parts for BMW and Volkswagen and if they got delayed at Dover then 2000 jobs might be at risk. He is a self serving cunt who shows utter contempt for the wishes of people voting for him same as the rest of them and then they wonder why voters moved away from Labour at the last election.
I could go on ....................... failed airport, failed tram system, failed Student games, buildings demolished before the have been paid for and land sold for £1.

 

[PaulHalfway]

It’s all about continuous and sustainable investment in the football club and infrastructure.
Pay wages at the competitive level and have an extensive and knowledgeable scouting structure
We have never done this, always on the cheap and short term boom and bust
A bit of luck across the years would have helped in PO finals and last day relegations also

 

[pommpey]

From Denis Clareborough's 100 years book published in 1989

View attachment 125223

That would be 'The Wednesday', not 'Sheffield Wednesday' of course because as anyone worth their salt knows, it was forty years after Sheffield United was formed before that challenged collective of subnormal, temoporally challenged dickheads decided to associate itself with the city they think they are from.

1867, my fucking arse. It should say '1929'.

pommpey

 

[Silent Blade]

That would be 'The Wednesday', not 'Sheffield Wednesday' of course because as anyone worth their salt knows, it was forty years after Sheffield United was formed before that challenged collective of subnormal, temoporally challenged dickheads decided to associate itself with the city they think they are from.

1867, my fucking arse. It should say '1929'.

pommpey

You are right but look at the below photo. Strange?

 

[coaxingstar71]

Wendy took a lease on Olive Grove around two years before we were formed. The move to professionalism had them move to OG as those in charge at BL took a share of the gate receipts. A friendly was played in 1890 which would possibly negate any claims of “bad blood” particularly as Wendy were well established.

I actually checked the First 100 Years book by Clarebrough last night, it doesn't specifically say that there was a falling out regarding the use of the ground, although it is implied because as you say Wednesday played big games there, however, as you rightly point out, a significant part of the gate money went to the United Committee and it wasn't economical for Wednesday to continue with that arrangement because they were turning professional so they sought their own ground. Of course soon after that the United Committee formed their own team following the large crowd for the Preston v WBA FA Cup Semi Final. However the book does say that relations between the two clubs was strained as when we were formed, we were a club without players and we had to advertise for new players. Wednesday, rightly or wrongly, thought we were trying to poach their players. From a United perspective, it was felt there was a lack of support from the Wednesday club. There was also some bad feeling caused by what each club were charging for games, with United apparently charging half of what Wednesday were (some things never change!). Certainly the lead up to the first league game between the two was tense because of the strained relations.