Would it have been better having a one team City?

[*_ash_* 88]

How did the first fans of both the clubs decide in the early days?

 

Was it just mainly north/south divide?

(I don't know)

 

As for the question more specifically,. I think possibilities:

 

If there had been one club, there might not have been as much interest in football in the city as 2 clubs has created.

 

Certainly no guarantee that one club would have been better than much of the early times when were both in the top flight.

 

Would Sheffield1 be getting the combination of both our gates now? (approx 45ish) if not in the top divisions for years? I doubt it.

 

I like having 2 clubs. Leeds and Newcastle are perhaps the nearest to what we might have been like as one.

 

I can't see any reason why Sheffield can't have 2 clubs in the top flight. Either team is 'bigger' (to use that old phrase) than many clubs in the current top flight.

[Michael_W 11]

How did the first fans of both the clubs decide in the early days?

Was it just mainly north/south divide?

(I don't know)

 

As for the question more specifically,. I think possibilities:

 

If there had been one club, there might not have been as much interest in football in the city as 2 clubs has created.

 

Certainly no guarantee that one club would have been better than much of the early times when were both in the top flight.

 

Would Sheffield1 be getting the combination of both our gates now? (approx 45ish) if not in the top divisions for years? I doubt it.

 

I like having 2 clubs. Leeds and Newcastle are perhaps the nearest to what we might have been like as one.

 

I can't see any reason why Sheffield can't have 2 clubs in the top flight. Either team is 'bigger' (to use that old phrase) than many clubs in the current top flight.

 

Believe it or not, a lot supported both clubs back in the early days.

If you read up on the history of the clubs both originate from cricket clubs, Wednesday played at the cricket ground (aka Bramall Lane) before Sheffield United FC were even a consideration .... United were only formed to fill a void and pay some rent, they should be grateful Wednesday built their own ground

[*_ash_* 88]

Believe it or not, a lot supported both clubs back in the early days.

If you read up on the history of the clubs both originate from cricket clubs, Wednesday played at the cricket ground (aka Bramall Lane) before Sheffield United FC were even a consideration .... United were only formed to fill a void and pay some rent, they should be grateful Wednesday built their own ground

 

That doesn't surprise me. This is long before TV or even radio. Even keen football fans of my Dad's age (he in 70s) went to as many games as they could. He said when he lived in London, they went to see Fulham one week, then Chelsea the next.

[FATTYFOULKE 10]

As per my title, as we all know Wednesday are the oldest club in Sheffield until United turned up and split the loyalty's of the city. Would it have been better for Wednesday to be the sole club and have the undivided attention/support (Like Leeds/Newcastle) Surely Sheffield could have become a footballing powerhouse and they could have been talking about us in the same breath as Man U, Chelsea and Arsenal?

 

You've contradicted yourself a bit there.

 

Leeds / Newcastle have undivided support but could hardly be called footballing powerhouses so why would you think a one club Sheffield would be competing with Man U, Chelsea and Arsenal?

[dorberman 10]

As per my title, as we all know Wednesday are the oldest club in Sheffield until United turned up and split the loyalty's of the city. Would it have been better for Wednesday to be the sole club and have the undivided attention/support (Like Leeds/Newcastle) Surely Sheffield could have become a footballing powerhouse and they could have been talking about us in the same breath as Man U, Chelsea and Arsenal?

 

With uniteds massive fan base then yes I suppose swfc could have been a bigger club like leeds with a bigger crowd to roar them on.

[allwednesday 11]

This is a two team city Sheffield Wednesday & Sheffield Wednesday reserves.

[Robbie Loving 10]

Ah yes, arsenal, man united and Chelsea. Those places with just the one football club,

 

Stupid question and no answer will bring any closure

[David Ra2 10]

As per my title, as we all know Wednesday are the oldest club in Sheffield until United turned up and split the loyalty's of the city. Would it have been better for Wednesday to be the sole club and have the undivided attention/support (Like Leeds/Newcastle) Surely Sheffield could have become a footballing powerhouse and they could have been talking about us in the same breath as Man U, Chelsea and Arsenal?

Newcastle have Sunderland across the Tyne both cities half the size of Sheffield

silly idea.

[solar energy 10]

We are all Sheffield aren't we, why do we argue all the time who's the best. . . .we all know there have only ever been two of the greatest clubs to come out of the mighty Sheffield that's UNITED AND ROXYS, and that's been shut for the past 20years.

[Longy67 23]

Believe it or not, a lot supported both clubs back in the early days.

If you read up on the history of the clubs both originate from cricket clubs, Wednesday played at the cricket ground (aka Bramall Lane) before Sheffield United FC were even a consideration .... United were only formed to fill a void and pay some rent, they should be grateful Wednesday built their own ground

 

When i am at work and chatting with the patients, football is nearly always in the conversations, well, mainly with blokes anyway, and a lot of people tell me they used to go to see both teams, it seemed popular right up to the late 60's, i wonder what divided them, the violence of the 70's perhaps???, i will have to investigate...

[*_ash_* 88]

When i am at work and chatting with the patients, football is nearly always in the conversations, well, mainly with blokes anyway, and a lot of people tell me they used to go to see both teams, it seemed popular right up to the late 60's, i wonder what divided them, the violence of the 70's perhaps???, i will have to investigate...

 

I don't think it divided them, I think in the 70s (nationwide) a lot changed - you only have to look at average attendances, probably less money about for one, and the 70s saw both our sides enter the 3rd tier for the first time in either history. (and by then football was on TV - games as well as violence!)

 

From what my Dad said, it was because it's not like today where you can sit at home watching matches. In the 60s I don't think even MOTD had started. If you wanted to watch football you had to go to matches, and that's what they did.

Edited March 24, 2017 by *_ash_*

[Jim Hardie 517]

When i am at work and chatting with the patients, football is nearly always in the conversations, well, mainly with blokes anyway, and a lot of people tell me they used to go to see both teams, it seemed popular right up to the late 60's, i wonder what divided them, the violence of the 70's perhaps???, i will have to investigate...

 

Cost could have been a factor. In my early teens, for two seasons I saw every first division match played in Sheffield. I even had a season ticket for the Lane for those two seasons. It cost me 16/- (80p) for 21 games. Wednesday didn't do boys season tickets or l'd have had one there as well.

Inflation in the 70s started price increases that never stopped even after inflation was under control.