Forgive us older fans for thinking we actually a big club.

[Beard]

We're not a big club..........

 

 

 

 

 

 

We're Massive 

[TheSlicer]

29 minutes ago, PaoloDiCanio12 said:

Probably agree with that, it can be debated if we are a big club nowadays but overall it’s not up for debate, we are certainly a big club.

Just hope we get back to being a genuine big club that doesn’t rely on its past. The fans definitely deserve some modern day success. I’d even take a mid table prem finish as success 

[theowlsman]

That massive thing has severely cost us.

 

Just had (off Blackpool fans) “Which pub league are The Massive playing in next season then?”

 

F*** off Wednesday.

[theowlsman]

I remember my Dad telling me about the 1960-61 season, finishing 2nd to Spurs when any other season we would have been League Champions with record points. 

 

RIP Dad btw.

[nevthelodgemoorowl]

11 minutes ago, theowlsman said:

I remember my Dad telling me about the 1960-61 season, finishing 2nd to Spurs when any other season we would have been League Champions with record points. 

 

RIP Dad btw.

 

I was there we still needed a couple of more players. Wilf Smith and Peter Eustace waiting in the wings. Two from three; Joe Baker, Denis Law or George Eastham would have brought some silverware ! 

 

RIP both our Dads.

Edited May 17, 2021 by nevthelodgemoorowl

[theowlsman]

2 minutes ago, nevthelodgemoorowl said:

 

I was there we still needed a couple of more players. Wilf Smith and Peter Eustace waiting in the wings. Two from three; Joe Baker, Denis Law or George Eastham would have brought some silverware ! 

 

Didn’t realise you were that old Nev.

 

 

[nevthelodgemoorowl]

1 minute ago, theowlsman said:

 

Didn’t realise you were that old Nev.

 

 

 

I know I look younger but I had my 71st Birthday on Saturday. Stubbornly denying the Grim Reaper. 

[Guest Mcguigan]

41 minutes ago, PaoloDiCanio12 said:

It is not guesswork, what I said was clear fact too, I’m just saying it’s incomparable as crowds were completely different in our glory days.

 

Late  90s were when we were on the downfall, getting lower half table finishes, we never dropped into bottom 3 of attendances in this time period, in our glory days (early 90s) only Man U, arsenal and Liverpool averaged more than 30k  in this time period, how do you expect us to average more than them, we still got more than the title winners at the time and the 4th highest attendance, how’s that not a big club? 
 

Leicester and Southampton etc get 30k+ now but every season when we were last in top flight they were getting smaller crowds than us? Our attendance was usually the 8th best in the top flight, you can look that up if you wish, the 8th best is now 40k, so the pl has changed beyond comprehension, based on that how is the 30k average significant? 

I agree to disagree though but those are the facts.

I have and our average PL attendance was 11th not 8th. 
 

I will agree that the PL has changed but only for the clubs that have had to extend or move completely because they didn’t have enough capacity back then. All the clubs that have changed beyond comprehension had to to grow because they had hit a glass ceiling capacity wise.

 

You quote Leicester and Southampton as getting lower crowds than us but of course they where, two tiny little stadiums compared to Hillsborough’s size back then. Look how they shot up when they moved.

 

Our best season average in the PL, we had 12,000+ empty seats every game in 40k stadium.

 

You’re guessing at best and then you try justify by saying we were on a downfall getting low finishes. We finished 7th in 96/97 and couldn’t get 26k regularly through the turnstiles.

 

So your conclusion to us being a big club is, if the tickets are cheap and we’re pushing the top 3 in the PL.

 

Expensive tickets and lower half of the PL finishes and we can be excused.

[theowlsman]

1 minute ago, nevthelodgemoorowl said:

 

I know I look younger but I had my 71st Birthday on Saturday. Stubbornly denying the Grim Reaper. 

 

You’ll probably scare the bleeder to death to be fair. 

[SiJ]

We are a "big" club in a historical sense and we have a very decent sized fanbase...but we are well short in so many areas compared to so-called "smaller" clubs.

 

Right now, I'm watching two of those in the shape of Bournemouth and Brentford.

[room0035]

22 hours ago, Nero said:

What I find more shocking is goals from midfield in would never happen under DC .

[TheSlicer]

1 hour ago, Beard said:

We're not a big club..........

 

 

 

 

 

 

We're Massive 

This is cringe and tiresome and probably why we are called tinpot. 
 

I know it’s a inside joke but still cringe 

[PaoloDiCanio12]

34 minutes ago, Mcguigan said:

I have and our average PL attendance was 11th not 8th. 
 

I will agree that the PL has changed but only for the clubs that have had to extend or move completely because they didn’t have enough capacity back then. All the clubs that have changed beyond comprehension had to to grow because they had hit a glass ceiling capacity wise.

 

You quote Leicester and Southampton as getting lower crowds than us but of course they where, two tiny little stadiums compared to Hillsborough’s size back then. Look how they shot up when they moved.

 

Our best season average in the PL, we had 12,000+ empty seats every game in 40k stadium.

 

You’re guessing at best and then you try justify by saying we were on a downfall getting low finishes. We finished 7th in 96/97 and couldn’t get 26k regularly through the turnstiles.

 

So your conclusion to us being a big club is, if the tickets are cheap and we’re pushing the top 3 in the PL.

 

Expensive tickets and lower half of the PL finishes and we can be excused.

  It’s not 11th but ok (the regular attendance we got was 8th or lower we achieved that 4 times, we achieved 11th 3 times) even if you claim is true (which it isn’t) the 11th best average is now worth 33k, which is above 30k and also Leicester and Southampton, so how can the 30k claim not be futile, on top of it being a completely different time attendance wise, crowds have skyrocketed? 
 

On the empty seats claim that is completely and utterly irrelevant, the attendance year you are quoting (we got a higher attendance than the title winners) Arsenal had 9k empty seats that year, Liverpool had 6k empty seats, we had 11k, Arsenal and Liverpool can get 60k+ in nowadays so how can that point hold any relevance whatsoever? 

 
The 96/97 season clubs like Sunderland could barely get 20k in a stadium which held 42k (they averaged 6k less than us that season) that was the average at the time so to use factors from the now to conclude attendances from 25-30 years ago is not fair. 
 

The facts say on combined loyal support from the start of the English football league to now, we are the 11th best, Sunderland 10th, that is quite clearly a big club, all these clubs you claim are better supported than us (Forest, Leicester, Southampton etc) are below us with the closest just making it into the top 20, Leicester. 

 

[Guest Mcguigan]

5 minutes ago, PaoloDiCanio12 said:

  It’s not 11th but ok (the regular attendance we got was 8th or lower we achieved that 4 times, we achieved 11th 3 times) even if you claim is true (which it isn’t) the 11th best average is now worth 33k, which is above 30k and also Leicester and Southampton, so how can the 30k claim not be futile, on top of it being a completely different time attendance wise, crowds have skyrocketed? 
 

On the empty seats claim that is completely and utterly irrelevant, the attendance year you are quoting (we got a higher attendance than the title winners) Arsenal had 9k empty seats that year, Liverpool had 6k empty seats, we had 11k, Arsenal and Liverpool can get 60k+ in nowadays so how can that point hold any relevance whatsoever? 

 
The 96/97 season clubs like Sunderland could barely get 20k in a stadium which held 42k (they averaged 6k less than us that season) that was the average at the time so to use factors from the now to conclude attendances from 25-30 years ago is not fair. 
 

The facts say on combined loyal support from the start of the English football league to now, we are the 11th best, Sunderland 10th, that is quite clearly a big club, all these clubs you claim are better supported than us (Forest, Leicester, Southampton etc) are below us with the closest just making it into the top 20, Leicester. 

 

Could one post be filled with more inaccuracies? 
 

In 96/97 Sunderland could barely get 20k in a 42k stadium, how do you work that out? They didn’t open the ground till 97/98 season.

 

I’ll leave this here I think, you’ve clearly guessed everything again. 

 

 

[PaoloDiCanio12]

23 minutes ago, Mcguigan said:

Could one post be filled with more inaccuracies? 
 

In 96/97 Sunderland could barely get 20k in a 42k stadium, how do you work that out? They didn’t open the ground till 97/98 season.

 

I’ll leave this here I think, you’ve clearly guessed everything again. 

 

 

Sound mate, you’ve highlighted one mistake from me but if you want I can highlight the claim that you said we give 6k, when our typical away capacity is 3700, usual prem attendance being 11th when it was 8th but of course, making one mistake means everything doesn’t it, everything else I said was fact. 

[Guest Mcguigan]

14 minutes ago, PaoloDiCanio12 said:

Sound mate, you’ve highlighted one mistake from me but if you want I can highlight the claim that you said we give 6k, when our typical away capacity is 3700, usual prem attendance being 11th when it was 8th but of course, making one mistake means everything doesn’t it, everything else I said was fact. 

Usual away capacity 3,700 when Leeds brought 4,500 in the COVID season and 4,600 the season before. Same as Villa got 4,600.

 

92,93 6th

93,94 7th

94,95 9th

95,96 14th

96,97 11th

97,98 11th

98,99 12th

99,00 14th

 

8 seasons , average 11th

 

Nowadays, Liverpool can get 54,000 in not 60,000+
 

The 1996/97 season I quoted, Arsenal averaged 37,821 from a 38k capacity Highbury, they didn’t have 9,000 empty seats and Liverpool certainly didn’t have 6,000 empty seats.

 

Your facts are a bit off kilter.

 

 

[flo]

At least we are ahead of Oldham now, 

#strongertogether

[PaoloDiCanio12]

19 minutes ago, Mcguigan said:

Usual away capacity 3,700 when Leeds brought 4,500 in the COVID season and 4,600 the season before. Same as Villa got 4,600.

 

92,93 6th

93,94 7th

94,95 9th

95,96 14th

96,97 11th

97,98 11th

98,99 12th

99,00 14th

 

8 seasons , average 11th

 

Nowadays, Liverpool can get 54,000 in not 60,000+
 

The 1996/97 season I quoted, Arsenal averaged 37,821 from a 38k capacity Highbury, they didn’t have 9,000 empty seats and Liverpool certainly didn’t have 6,000 empty seats.

 

Your facts are a bit off kilter.

 

 

This is starting to get tedious so this is the last post I am going to make: 

For starters the away capacity is usually 3700, I already said only leeds (Yorkshire clubs) and the top clubs sell 4500, here is the regular away capacity according to the top sites like this one https://footballgroundguide.com/leagues/england/championship/hillsborough-sheffield-wednesday.html 

(Barely anyone sells this 3700 capacity out also, if every club sold out the capacity pre covid, our average attendance would be 28k and that season we finished 4th 31k, this is mainly due to ticket prices.) 

Even if we go off of your claim that our usual/ regular attendance in pl was 10-11th (even if i disagree with it) it still makes the 30k average point, the original point of the discussion futile because despite 60% of our time in pl we were outside of the top flight and were mostly languishing mid table or lower with expensive tickets, our attendance in the pl is worth around 32/35k nowadays.

 

  
Our highest attendance i meant the 91-92 season when we averaged 29-30k in a 40K stadium and arsenal averaged 31k in a 38-40k stadium at the time, so around 9k empty seats. 

 

But anyway I will agree to disagree, current team/ current infrastructure we are no way a big football club,  overall we definitely are, at the end of the day the facts say we are the 11th best supported club on all time attendance, 15th best on post war (25k post war average) we are the 13th most successful club in English football, how’s that not a big club? 
 

 

 

[Mus]

22 hours ago, Rogerwyldesmullet said:

Thanks for posting this because growing up I always had us in the same bracket as Villa Newcastle Chelsea Spurs Man City in terms of support but below Man U Liverpool and Arsenal.
 

Unlike a number of other clubs, we have not had the chance to do a “reset” in the modern context. We have been badly managed and badly run for so long I think it would take a sustained period of success to rekindle those sort of crowds.

 

Likewise - Hate to say it, but Hillsborough has gone from being one of the best stadia in the country to being too old, too tarnished and nowadays in the wrong place to ever be selected for international matches again. 

 

Agree with the bit about Hillsborough, it's tainted and although I love it maybe it's time we moved out.

[pat blondeau]

22 hours ago, PaoloDiCanio12 said:

Not sure if this is a joke/bait post but we certainly were a big club in English football, if we weren’t/ aren’t overall a big club how come these are the overall stats for our club? 

Using trophies we won before the war as a rationale we’re a big club is clutching at straws.

 

That’s like saying The Wanderers are a big club for winning 5 FA Cups in the 1870s, Preston North End are a big club for doing the double in 1889 and Huddersfield Town are a big club for winning the league three consecutive years in the 1920s.

 

The only trophy anyone that’s still living remembers us winning is the league cup 30 years ago and no one under the age of 30 can even remember us as a top flight club