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

[PaoloDiCanio12]

4 minutes ago, pat blondeau said:

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 

I can understand this logic but that’s a bit of a stretch, football didn’t start post ww2.

 The 1870s were over 20 years before we even won our first trophy, Preston have only ever won 4 trophies and 3 of them were in the 1880s, Huddersfield have only ever won 3 trophies in their history, we have won 9 major trophies (if you recognise the English super cup) and 5 of them have come in the past century, so it’s hardly clutching at straws. 

[pat blondeau]

1 minute ago, PaoloDiCanio12 said:

I can understand this logic but that’s a bit of a stretch, football didn’t start post ww2.

 The 1870s were over 20 years before we even won our first trophy, Preston have only ever won 4 trophies and 3 of them were in the 1880s, Huddersfield have only ever won 3 trophies in their history, we have won 9 major trophies (if you recognise the English super cup) and 5 of them have come in the past century, so it’s hardly clutching at straws. 

Is there anyone that’s still living that remembers us winning more than 1 trophy?

 

Huddersfield have won the league more than us in the last 100 years.

 

It’s good to have a history and some honours on the board but that’s all it is... history. It’s no relevance of where we are today

[PaoloDiCanio12]

4 minutes ago, pat blondeau said:

Is there anyone that’s still living that remembers us winning more than 1 trophy?

 

Huddersfield have won the league more than us in the last 100 years.

 

It’s good to have a history and some honours on the board but that’s all it is... history. It’s no relevance of where we are today

I can agree with that, I would much rather be a small club in top flight etc etc but how do you measure club size then, the thread is about big clubs so if we are looking at the overall picture, we have to include honours? 
 

If we’re talking about the current team and infrastructure of the club we aren’t a big club but personally I like to look at it overall (all our history) and if you do that we certainly are a big club 

Edited May 17, 2021 by PaoloDiCanio12

[pat blondeau]

5 minutes ago, PaoloDiCanio12 said:

I can agree with that, I would much rather be a small club in top flight etc etc but how do you measure club size then, the thread is about big clubs so if we are looking at the overall picture, we have to include honours? 
 

If we’re talking about the current team and infrastructure of the club we aren’t a big club but personally I like to look at it overall (all our history) and if you do that we certainly are a big club 

Honours is fair enough but I’d say it needs to be in living memory.
 

Footballers were paid a minimum wage until 1961 so I wouldn’t go back beyond that date. All the players were paid the same before 1961 so club size didn’t really matter

[PaoloDiCanio12]

9 minutes ago, pat blondeau said:

Honours is fair enough but I’d say it needs to be in living memory.
 

Footballers were paid a minimum wage until 1961 so I wouldn’t go back beyond that date. All the players were paid the same before 1961 so club size didn’t really matter

 Let’s agree to disagree then mate, that would make clubs like Wigan more successful than Newcastle etc so that’s why I would say look at the full history, I think we should go further back than 1961 because at that time football was already 100 years old but personally I believe that it is based off trophies and crowds.

Edited May 17, 2021 by PaoloDiCanio12

[PaoloDiCanio12]

12 minutes ago, pat blondeau said:

Honours is fair enough but I’d say it needs to be in living memory.
 

Footballers were paid a minimum wage until 1961 so I wouldn’t go back beyond that date. All the players were paid the same before 1961 so club size didn’t really matter

I misread your comment I thought you said the last 50 years as since 1961 Wigan and Newcastle have won same amount of major honours (Newcastle 1969, Wigan 2013) 

[flo]

Barnsley are probably the most well known club in South Yorkshire now. 

[pat blondeau]

6 minutes ago, PaoloDiCanio12 said:

 Let’s agree to disagree then mate, that would make clubs like Wigan more successful than Newcastle etc so that’s why I would say look at the full history, I think we should go further back than 1961 because at that time football was already 100 years old but personally I believe that it is based off trophies and crowds.

Yes we can debate honours, crowds and history all night but the figure that matters is turnover and we’ll be well down the list on that 

[Rogers]

We had a great name and were seen as front runners in many ways in the early 1900 century and obviously around the 1930’s. 

We managed to have a good name in the game and had a renaissance in terms of top ten finishes and getting to cup finals from 1986 - 1993. 
 

But the slow and painful decline and the way football is and how youngsters access the game is different; clubs with media presence are big clubs. The Brighton’s, Bournemouth’s, Swansea’s, etc even would be classed above us by the younger generation football supporter. 
 

And the last 2-3 years have made us a joke club; any traditional respect we did have from nearly a century ago is degrading at a rapid rate.  
 

We are just a League One club in many ways now. Kids don’t look at the history books 

 

[Geedee]

4 hours ago, flo said:

No they are not.They are just a small town club that's had a good season ( congratulations to them )

[Ronnie Starling]

For a so called big club we've spent the majority of my life outside the top flight.

[OneManBand]

The only time we are a big club is when we're in the third division .

[matthefish2002]

Depends how you measure being a big club. 

We have won more trophies in our history than Leicester City but does our FA Cup of 1935 count for much anymore.

 

We have potential to be a solid Premier League Club but so do others outside the Premier League.

I would have said 10 years ago we had more potential then a club like Burnley who have spent something like 7 out of last 8 seasons in the top division.

 

Having a fairly big fan base for a club outside the Premier League is an advantage but only if the club is being run correctly on and off the field.

 

[Bulldog]

22 hours ago, Mcguigan said:

Our problem has always been consistency of crowd numbers over the season, hence why we've not averaged over 30k for well over 50 years.

 

Sure we can pull in good home fan numbers once or twice a season but so can most clubs that have ample capacity to do so.

 

Look at our high numbers in the Championship, they're usually inflated because of 4-5-6k attending away fans. We took 40k to Wembley but so did Bradford City and countless others.

 

Our away support numbers are up their with the "big clubs" but not much else these days I'm afraid.

Spot on post - that season we averaged 27K. I was at the Liverpool game in 1985 with 49k in the ground - average attendance that year was 27K

[Watto]

22 hours ago, El Wednesday said:

17k v Leicester when we were top of the Premier League, early into the 96/97 season.

 

2 reasons for that crowd figure,

It was a Monday night game live on sky.

Wednesday although top after 4 games were on the slide under Pleat.

Apathy had already set in with some fans 

 

 

 

 

[PaoloDiCanio12]

52 minutes ago, Bulldog said:

Spot on post - that season we averaged 27K. I was at the Liverpool game in 1985 with 49k in the ground - average attendance that year was 27K

 

 

52 minutes ago, Bulldog said:

Spot on post - that season we averaged 27K. I was at the Liverpool game in 1985 with 49k in the ground - average attendance that year was 27K

You fail to mention that we were the 6th best supported club in the top flight and that attendance was 10k+ the average in the top flight at the time, getting more fans in than Newcastle Chelsea etc 

Edited May 18, 2021 by PaoloDiCanio12

[Guest Therealrealist]

42 minutes ago, Watto said:

 

2 reasons for that crowd figure,

It was a Monday night game live on sky.

Wednesday although top after 4 games were on the slide under Pleat.

Apathy had already set in with some fans 

 

 

 

 

If we wer in the prem next season and faced burnley on a monday night i dont thknk we would get much more than 17k

[the monk]

15 hours 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. 

 

 

Think he was talking about the stadium they were playing in at the time

Are you saying that the teams that have built new stadiums and saw crowds increase sold out their smaller stadiums every week ? 

[PaoloDiCanio12]

3 minutes ago, Therealrealist said:

If we wer in the prem next season and faced burnley on a monday night i dont thknk we would get much more than 17k

That was a completely different time mate, after 22 years out of the top flight even for games such as Burnley or Fulham on a Tuesday night, I can easily see 31k and 34k for run of the mill games IMO 

[Guest Therealrealist]

35 minutes ago, PaoloDiCanio12 said:

That was a completely different time mate, after 22 years out of the top flight even for games such as Burnley or Fulham on a Tuesday night, I can easily see 31k and 34k for run of the mill games IMO 

As a famous tennis player used to say..'you cannot be serious'..wednesday v burnley on tv..sunday dinner or monday night..34k (thats basically a sell out these days)..we wudnt get near that for a satday 15.00 kick off..imo