We've not had a Martin O'Neill argument in ages...

[Mister E]

It's also made me think just how many clubs were undoubtedly bigger than us in 1996-ish. Liverpool and Manchester United definitely, Arsenal were re-building after George Graham and they'd have gone past us helped by the fact that Nick bloody Hornby helped make them the ideal club to cash in on the new footie boom but apart from that who? Spurs were doing poorly, Newcastle were massively in debt, Everton were mid-table in a good year and struggling in a bad one, Chelsea's rescuer was still six years away. We could have been right up there but for that corner shop mentality. 

And that was why there was so much energy back then going into things like the AVST and the other fan groups that sprung up. Not individually game-changing but cumulatively there was a groundswell that eventually had some impact on Ellis' decision to quit.
The fans' energy of that time does not seem to be replicated in the same way these days: maybe we have just had too much mediocrity for too long, and that has become the norm. Sad, if true.

[silhillvilla]

Fans money ie. gate receipts was a huge chunk of turnover back then. Nowadays it's insignificant as are the match day attending  fans. We are merely unpaid extras in a TV soap.

[dave.woodhall]

It's also made me think just how many clubs were undoubtedly bigger than us in 1996-ish. Liverpool and Manchester United definitely, Arsenal were re-building after George Graham and they'd have gone past us helped by the fact that Nick bloody Hornby helped make them the ideal club to cash in on the new footie boom but apart from that who? Spurs were doing poorly, Newcastle were massively in debt, Everton were mid-table in a good year and struggling in a bad one, Chelsea's rescuer was still six years away. We could have been right up there but for that corner shop mentality. 

And that was why there was so much energy back then going into things like the AVST and the other fan groups that sprung up. Not individually game-changing but cumulatively there was a groundswell that eventually had some impact on Ellis' decision to quit.
The fans' energy of that time does not seem to be replicated in the same way these days: maybe we have just had too much mediocrity for too long, and that has become the norm. Sad, if true.

I don't think Doug quit because of the fans - he received a good offer, he was in his eighties and he hadn't been enjoying good health. He rang rings round all of us.

I also think that there are many reasons why what happened then hasn't happened now; you had people who remembered the seventies boardroom battles and were willing to take part, the media were more willing to listen to supporters' genuine opinions rather pushing for controversy and the Sky line of fans as sad twats and the comparative lack of outlets for dissent made it easier to contact a mass audience. There was also a genuine belief that a better-run club could compete whereas now we know that will never happen without a billion pound investment.

[olaftab]

Yes O'Neill era is a bit like crashing your car deliberately  so that repair firm will wash, shine and valet it upon return.

[Clampy]

Well my point was MON set us back decades by all his frivolous expenditure on dodgy centre halves and suspect midfielders .

Billy NcNeil took us down. That could have set us back even further.

[aj2k77]

Well my point was MON set us back decades by all his frivolous expenditure on dodgy centre halves and suspect midfielders .

Billy NcNeil took us down. That could have set us back even further.

Oh for a Graham Taylor to come in now and grab this club by the scruff of it's neck.

[peter w]

Well my point was MON set us back decades by all his frivolous expenditure on dodgy centre halves and suspect midfielders .

Billy NcNeil took us down. That could have set us back even further.

He was the manager at the time but the writing was on the wall since Turner which is ultimately Ellis.

[olaftab]

It's also made me think just how many clubs were undoubtedly bigger than us in 1996-ish. Liverpool and Manchester United definitely, Arsenal were re-building after George Graham and they'd have gone past us helped by the fact that Nick bloody Hornby helped make them the ideal club to cash in on the new footie boom but apart from that who? Spurs were doing poorly, Newcastle were massively in debt, Everton were mid-table in a good year and struggling in a bad one, Chelsea's rescuer was still six years away. We could have been right up there but for that corner shop mentality. 

Not building on 96 was  a big miss for us and we have not recovered from. We were nearly there. Collymore was added a year too late. If only Ellis had said "Finishing 4th is not good enough Brian what do you need  to win us the title next season?"

[silhillvilla]

Well my point was MON set us back decades by all his frivolous expenditure on dodgy centre halves and suspect midfielders .

Billy NcNeil took us down. That could have set us back even further.

Going down worked out well for us. It allowed us time to rebuild and relaunch ourselves. Not that I'd advocate going down in this era. The landscape has changed too much

[Clampy]

Well my point was MON set us back decades by all his frivolous expenditure on dodgy centre halves and suspect midfielders .

Billy NcNeil took us down. That could have set us back even further.

Going down worked out well for us. It allowed us time to rebuild and relaunch ourselves. Not that I'd advocate going down in this era. The landscape has changed too much

It only worked out well because we came straight back up. What if we hadn't?

[Mister E]

It's also made me think just how many clubs were undoubtedly bigger than us in 1996-ish. Liverpool and Manchester United definitely, Arsenal were re-building after George Graham and they'd have gone past us helped by the fact that Nick bloody Hornby helped make them the ideal club to cash in on the new footie boom but apart from that who? Spurs were doing poorly, Newcastle were massively in debt, Everton were mid-table in a good year and struggling in a bad one, Chelsea's rescuer was still six years away. We could have been right up there but for that corner shop mentality. 

And that was why there was so much energy back then going into things like the AVST and the other fan groups that sprung up. Not individually game-changing but cumulatively there was a groundswell that eventually had some impact on Ellis' decision to quit.
The fans' energy of that time does not seem to be replicated in the same way these days: maybe we have just had too much mediocrity for too long, and that has become the norm. Sad, if true.

I don't think Doug quit because of the fans - he received a good offer, he was in his eighties and he hadn't been enjoying good health. He rang rings round all of us.

I also think that there are many reasons why what happened then hasn't happened now; you had people who remembered the seventies boardroom battles and were willing to take part, the media were more willing to listen to supporters' genuine opinions rather pushing for controversy and the Sky line of fans as sad twats and the comparative lack of outlets for dissent made it easier to contact a mass audience. There was also a genuine belief that a better-run club could compete whereas now we know that will never happen without a billion pound investment.

Agree with all of this - I'd only add that I think the build-up of fan discontent would have had some effect on HDE's decision about when to sell; but I accept that all the other factors you mention were relevant.

[dave.woodhall]

Agree with all of this - I'd only add that I think the build-up of fan discontent would have had some effect on HDE's decision about when to sell; but I accept that all the other factors you mention were relevant.

I think the only factor in his decision was that someone finally showed him the colour of their money. Thinking about it as well, the fact that the mainstream media is so reluctant to provide a platform for proper supporter debate is a big problem.   

[silhillvilla]

Well my point was MON set us back decades by all his frivolous expenditure on dodgy centre halves and suspect midfielders .

Billy NcNeil took us down. That could have set us back even further.

Going down worked out well for us. It allowed us time to rebuild and relaunch ourselves. Not that I'd advocate going down in this era. The landscape has changed too much

It only worked out well because we came straight back up. What if we hadn't?

There's a chance we'd still be there. Luckily we were very good away from home with Sir Graham and were ok at drawing at home as we were most teams cup final that season possibly with Leeds as the exception

[Clampy]

Well my point was MON set us back decades by all his frivolous expenditure on dodgy centre halves and suspect midfielders .

Billy NcNeil took us down. That could have set us back even further.

Going down worked out well for us. It allowed us time to rebuild and relaunch ourselves. Not that I'd advocate going down in this era. The landscape has changed too much

It only worked out well because we came straight back up. What if we hadn't?

There's a chance we'd still be there. Luckily we were very good away from home with Sir Graham and were ok at drawing at home as we were most teams cup final that season possibly with Leeds as the exception

Your post summed up why going down for a club our size would be terrible.

[silhillvilla]

I never said it would be good if it happened again. Just that it actually worked out well for us back in 1987