sheffsteel

Blackburn is winnable but they’re a bit of a Jekyl or Hyde side and on their day, they’re actually a very good side. West Brom look certs for the playoffs and Sunderland will have little to play for. These types of matches are difficult to judge. I reckon against WBA and Sunderland first goal is key. If they score first they’ll fight for the result. If Wednesday score first then I doubt they’ll be showing urgency and fight to equalise. Draws are normally decent enough results but with the 3 points system it makes winning massive. My prediction Draw away at Blackburn, everyone predicts doom and gloom. Then beat WBA, then either draw or beat Sunderland.

Its a different world now. In the 80’s fans used to deliberately surge and almost being crushed was quite normal and classed as exciting for the some people. For big matches the gangways were totally packed. If you were front of the Kop and wanted the toilet, could take a good 15 minutes to battle your way through the crowds. Virtually every single match with a big crowd was potentially dangerous but that was part of the excitement and accepted as the norm. The Hillsboro disaster was an accident waiting to happen.

27.5K Owls + 4.2K Stokies = 31.7K in attendance

They're notoriously diffucult to predict when playing the final game against a mid table side with nothing at stake. Always think it's about the intensity of the start and who scores the first goal. Sunderland score 1st they'll feel confident and try to end the season with a positive result Wednesday score first and you feel the Sunderland players will go through the motions whilst thinking about their Summer holidays.

It depends on the design of the stadium. SWFC rarely sell out the home end so giving away teams 4K is practical and a money spinner. Its the odd final match of season promotion/ relegation clash when the lower tier tends to be required for home fans. It's like arguing Blackburn give many clubs 6K, but no one ever returns the favour for them.

Agree. What a low quality game. Plymouth pass it around midfield a little better but have zero penetration. You can see why they've struggled to score a single goal a lately. Rotherham just look a poor lower division outfit. They don't look like scoring either. You feel their only chance of scoring will be from a set piece.

I remember he was quite smug on Talksport chatting to Simons Jordan a few year back. He said he'd sort legal advice and valuation of a stadium isn't just the bricks and mortar price to rebuild it. He was saying Pride Park is a building with massive money making potential, so should be valued higher. Remember Simon Jordan not being exactly convinced, he said the Derby accounts would show non football related income and that's the only aspect that could affect valuation when taking into account alternative revenue streams.

Regards stadium valuation I remember Derby County owner Mel Morris explaining to Simon Jordan why he feels confident he's stayed with FFP restrictions. Derby County had massively overspent on player salaries/ transfers. Then Mel Morris decided to set up a company to buy Pride Park, with Morris setting a valuation of 81.1 million. Jordan asked how Pride Park could possibly be worth 81 million when other stadiums were valued much less. Morris quoted the value should be based on "commercial profitability". He explained that Pride Park has extensive conference/ banqueting facilties and potentially could hold concerts every week. He explained that the stadium could create massive non football profits. Jordan said that surely a value should be based on what non football profits Derby show on their accounts. Morris disagree and said it was based on "potential" profits. Anyway as we all now know Mel Morris confidence on finding a loop hole to avoid FFP penalties was a false confidence. The EFL refused to accept the £81 million valuation and they were punished.

Don't most clubs need MASSIVE investment? The problem is only 3 clubs can be promoted each year. So if every clubs gambles then debts will be massive too and many clubs would go into admin or go bust. Fortunately FFP has been brought in to protect fans from over ambitious/ reckless ownership, so clubs can't receive massive investment regards on field players. It needs to be slowly built.

Fragile

It's a tricky one. Hillsborough is a historical stadium, easily one the best in the 1970's. Think SWFC have been unlucky because the stadium was always so good, it was easy to rest on your laurels. Other clubs either had 1 or 2 terrible/ old fashioned stands, so the decision to rebuild new stands was an easy logical decision. Some clubs had terrible/ old fashioned stadia than when it was changed to all seater the capacity was too small. So the decision to build a brand new stadium was an easy logical no brainer decision. Club like Middlesboro leaving Ayrsome Park, Leicester leaving Filbert Stree, Derby leaving Baseball ground, had little to lose really. Where as Hillsboro is like owning a rare historic classic car. Agree think Wednesday should move eventually but it's not an easy decision. For example where should it be located? Sheffield is quite a traditional conservative crowd than dont like change. Dont think putting it somewhere off the parkway, in the middle of no where would gp down well with many fans calling it a day. Of course it it was PL football then people would go. But whilst the team is struggling you dont want to put up barriers/ excuses for not attending. Also what would the best capacity be? Think they'd copy Leicester and make it 30K to 32K, with potential to increase it to 40K but to b e honest would prefer a stadium like Hillsborough compared to a bowl like Leicesters.

You're statement accurate if you take a snap shot of the 1992 to 1994 two season era but Man City, Arsenal, Everton and Spurs are historically and currently far far bigger than Wednesday. Arsenal and Spurs now have a fanbase easily more than double Wednesdays. There's only West Ham who historcally have won very little but historically and currently also have a much bigger fanbase.

There are a few perceived issues/problems with football, so let's take a few common issues. 1: Perceived unfairness regards EFL clubs unable to compete in the PL without the billionaire owners. 2: The Sky TV money distribution that the PL clubs give the EFL. 3: The risk of EFL being run by dodgy owners, so they might go into admin or go bust. I heard the news today and the regulator explained that their primary purpose is option 3. This made me think....I've heard many football fans (Wednesday and United) crying out for investment but they talk about investment like it's free money, when actually it's instant debt. So investment could lead to success (which we all want) but also could lead to option 3. Also regards option 3 this was really common around 2015 but in the last 11 seasons (since FFP) there are only 5 clubs that have gone into admin. So FFP has been a huge success. Regards option 2, if the PL give EFL clubs more money, it just means they spend more, so doesn't prevent option 3. Think one answer is for the regulator to have an independent accountant looking at the accounts of every club every single season, so there are no financial surprises. This idea was suggested by Steve Gibson a few years ago and was unanimously rejected by EFL Chairman at the annual Chairman's meeting. My concern is that having a regulator sounds good but every club and every fan has self interest, doubt the regulator will have any teeth. The PL has become an incredible success story, in fact football has never been so popular in the England. Clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal, Man Utd and Newcastle have season ticket waiting lists of 30K. In countries like USA and sadly, even Brazil the PL is more popular than their domestic competition. it's now easily the most watched, most successful, richest league in world football with predictions that it's will become alot bigger totally dwarfing the Spanish and Italian leagues, hence why Real, Barca, Juventus, Milan are so desperate to form a Euro Super league to challenge the English Premier league. Can't see a regulator doing anything to slow down the growth. Also there's no way in the near future any English clubs are leaving the PL for a Euro super league because all the money is in the PL and there's a chance a Euro super league wouldn't be as popular. So in the early days the top English clubs would want their cake and eat it by being in both the PL and a new Euro league to test the waters regards how popular and profitable it could become.

A caller rang Radio Sheffield the other saying "why can't we have investment like Ipswich". It made me think with FFP rules its not that simple because there's a 30 million over 3 years limit. My view is instead of overspending by 10 million each season the best policy is to time it right, overspend by 2 million, then 2 million the following year, then in the 3rd year go for it with a 26 million over spend and just hope other clubs aren't also massively overspending during the same season.

Just imagine if all 24 Championship clubs were run this way. Imagine if they all had owners who had fantastic football brains and business acumen. The fact is only 3 clubs can be successful, gaining promotion and 3 clubs are guaranteed to be relegated. You can gaurantee that the fans of the relegated will say they have a clueless owner who lacks ambition.