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

[PaoloDiCanio12]

7 hours ago, Truth is out there said:

“11th best supported club in this country” ? - what criteria ?

 

(NB it has been mathematically proven that 86.6666(recurring) % of statistics are fabricated )

 

There you go: 

[Guest Mcguigan]

8 hours ago, PaoloDiCanio12 said:

You forget to mention that since the season I quoted only 3 times have we made the top 10 and the rest we have either been below mid table or languished towards the bottom half of the table, a pretty good reason why our crowds would significantly dwindle, we had a free fall in table.

 

You are quoting crowds from when we were in or just shy of a relegation battle, this is with no ambition, even finishing below mid table in 90s, we still got an attendance which is worth more than 39k now, so that’s something which backs up my argument, I can go on, when we were relegated we had the 14th highest attendance, the 14th highest is now 30k, so backing up my claim once again, i said if relegated we would get around 29-31k, so I will stick by my opinion because I do have facts to back it up, proven by what I have just stated there.

 

In our best days in past 30 years (92-95) crowds were completely different, it has changed beyond comprehension nowadays, it is not just down to smaller stadiums though (although that does play a part) if it was how come these were the attendances of the top clubs at the time, Man City 26k in a 35k, Everton 22k in a 30-40k, Chelsea 19k, Arsenal 30k, 31k in a 38-40k stadium, so that clearly proves that it wasn’t because of small capacity stadiums.

 

Anyway you have your opinion and I’ll have mine and I’ll stick to my original opinion (29-31k relegation season, 34k average-just below average season and 34k top 10, unless we get an extension to stadium, which does not look likely.)
 

 

No I wasn't. I quoting a full nine years worth of PL attendances to get a more factual picture, rather than some strange claim that wherever we finished in an attendance table in the 90's somehow equates to what we would average now.

 

We finished 4th in the att table in 91/92, do you think if capacity allowed we'd get 58k in the PL now which is what 4th equates to?

 

We finished 6th in the att tables in 92/93, do you think if capacity allowed we'd get 54k in the PL now which is what 6th equates to?

 

We finished 7th in the att tables in 93/94, do you think if capacity allowed we'd get 52k in the PL now which is what 7th equates to?

 

We finished 9th in the att tables in 94/95, 9th is now worth 39k using your thinking. Do you think we'd average 39k now?

 

Not really backing up your claim is it and you're really basis it on facts again are you? I keep quoting facts at you and you keep making things up.

 

The only time it resembles some sort of rational is when we drop to 14th in the attendance league. Then we are compared with smaller clubs hitting around 30k. Not really the signs of being a big club, which is what the thread is about.

 

You state having no ambition or being just shy of a relegation as a reason our crowds dwindled. Yet in 96/97 season after £10m of summer player investment and a creditable 7th place finish we still couldn't regularly get over 26k through the gates (25,714). The countries big clubs were getting 30k+.

 

 

[Guest Mcguigan]

40 minutes ago, PaoloDiCanio12 said:

There you go: 

Surly an average attendance over those years is more accurate. We had 10 more years than Wolves, 20 more than West Ham and over 50 more than Leeds. 

[pussface]

This big club talk or big club mentality isn’t doing us any favours in my opinion.

We were a ‘big’ club, but so were Forrest, Derby, Sunderland etc. We need to move on from the past and accept we’re not a big club (at the moment) by most metrics, and then we can start building our way up to becoming one again. I’d rather Wednesday were a smaller stature but well run successful club like Leicester to be honest. 

 

Unfortunately part of that means accepting we need a new stadium built to accommodate the 21st century. Hillsborough is a relic anchoring us to the past.

 

[kobayashi]

23 minutes ago, pussface said:

 

Unfortunately part of that means accepting we need a new stadium built to accommodate the 21st century. Hillsborough is a relic anchoring us to the past.

 

The “unfortunate” point regarding the ground is that the anchor just got bigger since club has just commenced a 30 year lease described as “non-cancellable” during which it has to pay rent totalling £77.25m. Wednesday aren’t going anywhere.

[Truth is out there]

1 hour ago, PaoloDiCanio12 said:

There you go: 

https://fanbanter.co.uk/how-englands-top-four-divisions-look-based-on-all-time-average-attendance/
 

summat about “lies, damn, lies & statistics” ?

[PaoloDiCanio12]

6 minutes ago, Truth is out there said:

https://fanbanter.co.uk/how-englands-top-four-divisions-look-based-on-all-time-average-attendance/
 

summat about “lies, damn, lies & statistics” ?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/football/news/attendance-statistic-proves-sheffield-wednesday-18189104.amp
 

ok 

[Earlsfieldowl]

We were and probably still are based on ground size and fan base but we are diminished in the other key measures - status, facilities etc

 

Our stint at the top table feels like a very distant memory and we have lost touch with that side of the game.

 

I liken us to an old sports car with a Ford Fiesta engine.  Still quite impressive in way but underpowered where it counts.

[Guest Mcguigan]

11 minutes ago, Truth is out there said:

https://fanbanter.co.uk/how-englands-top-four-divisions-look-based-on-all-time-average-attendance/
 

summat about “lies, damn, lies & statistics” ?

Yeah, we’ve got a 10, 30 & 50 year start on some clubs below us.

[PaoloDiCanio12]

10 minutes ago, Mcguigan said:

Yeah, we’ve got a 10, 30 & 50 year start on some clubs below us.

Erm no, it starts from the formation of the English football  league (1888-89) we have 30 years on leeds but aside that all the clubs were formed or were already formed in this time period.

[pussface]

29 minutes ago, kobayashi said:

The “unfortunate” point regarding the ground is that the anchor just got bigger since club has just commenced a 30 year lease described as “non-cancellable” during which it has to pay rent totalling £77.25m. Wednesday aren’t going anywhere.

Yep.

Yet another shrewd move by our esteemed Chairman.

[pussface]

2 minutes ago, pussface said:

Yep.

Yet another shrewd move by our esteemed Chairman.

Although if we went to administration, I’m not sure the lease contract wouldn’t be void.

[PaoloDiCanio12]

1 hour ago, Mcguigan said:

No I wasn't. I quoting a full nine years worth of PL attendances to get a more factual picture, rather than some strange claim that wherever we finished in an attendance table in the 90's somehow equates to what we would average now.

 

We finished 4th in the att table in 91/92, do you think if capacity allowed we'd get 58k in the PL now which is what 4th equates to?

 

We finished 6th in the att tables in 92/93, do you think if capacity allowed we'd get 54k in the PL now which is what 6th equates to?

 

We finished 7th in the att tables in 93/94, do you think if capacity allowed we'd get 52k in the PL now which is what 7th equates to?

 

We finished 9th in the att tables in 94/95, 9th is now worth 39k using your thinking. Do you think we'd average 39k now?

 

Not really backing up your claim is it and you're really basis it on facts again are you? I keep quoting facts at you and you keep making things up.

 

The only time it resembles some sort of rational is when we drop to 14th in the attendance league. Then we are compared with smaller clubs hitting around 30k. Not really the signs of being a big club, which is what the thread is about.

 

You state having no ambition or being just shy of a relegation as a reason our crowds dwindled. Yet in 96/97 season after £10m of summer player investment and a creditable 7th place finish we still couldn't regularly get over 26k through the gates (25,714). The countries big clubs were getting 30k+.

 

 

As I said you have your opinion I’ll have mine, I have already told you the facts and that is why I will maintain my original opinion.

[Truth is out there]

11 minutes ago, PaoloDiCanio12 said:

Erm no, it starts from the formation of the English football  league (1888-89) we have 30 years on leeds but aside that all the clubs were formed or were already formed in this time period.

But “all the clubs”  weren’t in the (12 team) league & despite what you say some weren’t even formed (West Ham 1896 as another eg)

 

[PaoloDiCanio12]

8 minutes ago, Truth is out there said:

But “all the clubs”  weren’t in the (12 team) league & despite what you say some weren’t even formed (West Ham 1896 as another eg)

 

I said around the same time (5-10 year after) so it doesn’t make that much of a difference and this is over 130 years of attendance  so a few years after isn’t going to make a difference.

[PaoloDiCanio12]

1 minute ago, PaoloDiCanio12 said:

I said around the same time (5-10 year after) so it doesn’t make that much of a difference and this is over 130 years of attendance  so a few years after isn’t going to make a difference.

 I meant around the same time*

[DSandersonOWL]

On 16/05/2021 at 21:48, alanharper said:

Can't believe Colin West scored twice 

Goal posts and net had been put on top of stand roof just for him

[Guest LondonOwl313]

2 hours ago, Mcguigan said:

No I wasn't. I quoting a full nine years worth of PL attendances to get a more factual picture, rather than some strange claim that wherever we finished in an attendance table in the 90's somehow equates to what we would average now.

 

We finished 4th in the att table in 91/92, do you think if capacity allowed we'd get 58k in the PL now which is what 4th equates to?

 

We finished 6th in the att tables in 92/93, do you think if capacity allowed we'd get 54k in the PL now which is what 6th equates to?

 

We finished 7th in the att tables in 93/94, do you think if capacity allowed we'd get 52k in the PL now which is what 7th equates to?

 

We finished 9th in the att tables in 94/95, 9th is now worth 39k using your thinking. Do you think we'd average 39k now?

 

Not really backing up your claim is it and you're really basis it on facts again are you? I keep quoting facts at you and you keep making things up.

 

The only time it resembles some sort of rational is when we drop to 14th in the attendance league. Then we are compared with smaller clubs hitting around 30k. Not really the signs of being a big club, which is what the thread is about.

 

You state having no ambition or being just shy of a relegation as a reason our crowds dwindled. Yet in 96/97 season after £10m of summer player investment and a creditable 7th place finish we still couldn't regularly get over 26k through the gates (25,714). The countries big clubs were getting 30k+.

 

 

It’s hard to say because teams like City or Chelsea at the time wouldn’t have envisaged being able to get those sorts of attendances.

 

If we were top 6 right now, we’d probably just about fill Hillsborough. But let’s say we’d never been relegated and instead over the last 20 years we’d built the club up and being consistently in Europe and often the Champions League.

 

Could definitely see us getting 55k in that scenario because there would be so many tag alongs, plus the younger generation would be engaged with it. 
 

It’s an impossible one to answer though because we haven’t been successful and I think it would take decades of sustained success rather than just getting there 

[kobayashi]

38 minutes ago, pussface said:

Although if we went to administration, I’m not sure the lease contract wouldn’t be void.

The reality is that whilst ever SWFC and Sheffield 3 are owned by the same company/individual then the ground sale/lease is an "accounting manoeuvre" rather than a commercial reality. The trouble will come if the owners of the two parties are ever different or if Sheffield 3 losses or passes ownership of the ground to a 3rd party. The immediate risk is the Sheffield 3 loan of £6.5m secured against the ground to an unknown lender that has to be repaid by September.  

[pussface]

15 minutes ago, kobayashi said:

The reality is that whilst ever SWFC and Sheffield 3 are owned by the same company/individual then the ground sale/lease is an "accounting manoeuvre" rather than a commercial reality. The trouble will come if the owners of the two parties are ever different or if Sheffield 3 losses or passes ownership of the ground to a 3rd party. The immediate risk is the Sheffield 3 loan of £6.5m secured against the ground to an unknown lender that has to be repaid by September.  

It’s just grim.