Chelseaden did you work through those figures yourself (kudos if you did) or is it on a website somewhere? Got to admit I'm surprised since both of our north London neighbours have had some huge crowds over the years to be fair. To be anywhere near them is something I really think we should get credit for when you look at our limited success in comparison.
Attendances - the good, the bad and the ugly
- Thread starter Cobham
- Start date
Alan, good question on the choices in London. I think you could argue it both ways.
On the one hand there are more than enough people in the London area that, arguably, almost all the London clubs ought to be getting crowds the size of Spurs/Arse. Manchester and Liverpool may only have two teams (if you ignore Tranmere, Stockport, etc.) but their populations are way smaller.
On the other hand when things are not going well for one club In London there is plenty of other football to watch should you want to do so. As a Chelsea fan I might not want to go to Spurs, QPR or West Ham but I wouldn't have a problem going to Wall or Palace or Foolem (not saying I would or did but I wouldn't have any major problem doing so, whereas going to Spurs...!!!!!). Back in the day, when we weren't challenging them and I didn't mind them so much I once went to match at Arse as a neutral (well it was against the Dippers so I actually wanted L'Arse to win). Of course if you go and watch someone else because your team is doing badly that;s fickle isn't it?
Then there is maybe the thing about one team towns like Leeds or Newcastle. I've always felt that they are more likely to pull people in simply because they are THE team of that town and as such fully represent them. Whether they are going through a good patch or a bad one the team is usually named after the city you live in and really means something to that community whereas we don't represent London. To choose to go to Chelsea when we were sh*t.. well that's bordering on the perverse. As you mentioned about the working class housing I've never felt that Chelsea had the support from the community that it should have. Look at what the Conservative councils did for us in the 80s. I would say we were almost unloved in our area most of the time.
On the one hand there are more than enough people in the London area that, arguably, almost all the London clubs ought to be getting crowds the size of Spurs/Arse. Manchester and Liverpool may only have two teams (if you ignore Tranmere, Stockport, etc.) but their populations are way smaller.
On the other hand when things are not going well for one club In London there is plenty of other football to watch should you want to do so. As a Chelsea fan I might not want to go to Spurs, QPR or West Ham but I wouldn't have a problem going to Wall or Palace or Foolem (not saying I would or did but I wouldn't have any major problem doing so, whereas going to Spurs...!!!!!). Back in the day, when we weren't challenging them and I didn't mind them so much I once went to match at Arse as a neutral (well it was against the Dippers so I actually wanted L'Arse to win). Of course if you go and watch someone else because your team is doing badly that;s fickle isn't it?
Then there is maybe the thing about one team towns like Leeds or Newcastle. I've always felt that they are more likely to pull people in simply because they are THE team of that town and as such fully represent them. Whether they are going through a good patch or a bad one the team is usually named after the city you live in and really means something to that community whereas we don't represent London. To choose to go to Chelsea when we were sh*t.. well that's bordering on the perverse. As you mentioned about the working class housing I've never felt that Chelsea had the support from the community that it should have. Look at what the Conservative councils did for us in the 80s. I would say we were almost unloved in our area most of the time.
Chelseaden
Youth Team
- Messages
- 233
- Reaction score
- 10
Yeah worked it out roughly from that website. they had sh*t crowds early part of the century but got the big crowds after the 2nd world war. Arsenal of course had that run of success under Chapman so had decent crowds around that period.
Carshalton Blue
First Team Regular
- Messages
- 2,796
- Reaction score
- 4,092
Chelseaden
Youth Team
- Messages
- 233
- Reaction score
- 10
The stats do show us tho we need to increase capacity whether at the bridge but no further away than earls Court. Because history shows we have a huge following. I would like us to have a bigger stadium than United because our successful period now demands it.
Chelseaden
Youth Team
- Messages
- 233
- Reaction score
- 10
Norman long legend sounds like frankie Howard. Lol.
Since CB brought up the 'big club' index take a look at our old friends Dirty Leeds. I must admit it does get to me when oppo fans sing the "where were you when you were s**t" song and all the 'history' stuff. How is it that no one ever says that about Dirty? They won absolutely nothing until Revie came along, less even than us, and their attendances were poor. Compared to ours they were shocking. I don't know if this link will work but it should be Leeds' attendances since 1921:
http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm
They got 13,259 in 1986 after 4 years in Div 2 and finishing in 14th place. How is that any different from the 13,132 we got in '82 in 12th place in our third year in Div 2 or the 12,672 we got in '83 after finishing 18th? They also got 13k averages in the 60s just before Revie showed up (admittedly in Div 2 but still...) and 13, 14 and 15k averages in the 1930s when they were in Div 1. That's shocking. There is simply no comparison between our crowds and theirs in any decade you care to look at.
So what makes them immune to the jibes we get? Is it because they're from a northern working class town so are somehow more 'real'? Is it because we all remember when they were a great side from the mid 60s to mid 70s but no one remembers what they were like before?
http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm
They got 13,259 in 1986 after 4 years in Div 2 and finishing in 14th place. How is that any different from the 13,132 we got in '82 in 12th place in our third year in Div 2 or the 12,672 we got in '83 after finishing 18th? They also got 13k averages in the 60s just before Revie showed up (admittedly in Div 2 but still...) and 13, 14 and 15k averages in the 1930s when they were in Div 1. That's shocking. There is simply no comparison between our crowds and theirs in any decade you care to look at.
So what makes them immune to the jibes we get? Is it because they're from a northern working class town so are somehow more 'real'? Is it because we all remember when they were a great side from the mid 60s to mid 70s but no one remembers what they were like before?
Englishman
Making history, not living off it.
- Messages
- 3,954
- Reaction score
- 437
Probably because for the last ten years or so, no one has cared enough about Leeds to bother!
I take your point though. It does make me laugh when the 'no history' or 'no fans before 2003' line is thrown at us by fans who clearly don't even know their own club's history (the non-sanitised version, at any rate).
Btw 16 years ago, Man City were playing Mansfield in the Auto Windscreens Shield in front of 3007 people!
Yep, I just get the feeling that they wouldn't have the 'small club', 'no fans', 'no history' stuff thrown at them even if they were in the Premier League. They weren't formed until 1921 when the former Leeds City were disbanded and only won their first trophy in 1968 (League Cup). I think there's something in where we're located and our supposed fan base that makes others look at us the way they do.
Villa are another interesting case. Good crowds in the 20s and 30s and right after the war but never that good again after that apart from the mid to late 70s. What's interesting is that, despite their relative success in the early 80s (Div 1 winners in 1981 when they averaged 34k and then EC winners in 1982) they were averaging only 18k by 1985 and just 15k by 1986, only 4 years later. I think that goes to show that the malaise that football was in at that time outweighed any relative success clubs were having. Think again about our average during what I've called our 'bad' period and I think any impartial observer would have to say "not that bad".
It's like a religion up there, I tells ya. Newcastle Utd, always get big crowds those Geordies.
Now I'm not going to say that Newcastle haven't had great crowds, they obviously have. They were the best supported club in the country until we came along and they had some truly massive averages after the war (during a period of success of course). Despite that they were, in general, below us I would say (certainly 20s, 30s and 60s) and by the 1980s were suffering like everyone else.
In 1980 they averaged 16,001 and a year later they got just over 17k. However, the worst for them I think is 1990/91 when they got an enormous 16,834 for the season when finishing 11th in Div 2. Remember this was after the 1990 WC, hooliganism was on the wane and crowds were on the rise again across the country. This is most definitely not the mid-80s period when just about every club in the country was experiencing their lowest crowds since the 1910s.
Their first three league games showed the post 1990 effect with very respectable crowds in the 23k range. Then the realisation that they were s**t sunk in and the crowds dropped. During Oct and April they were getting between 12k and 17k and sunk to a low of 10,004 against Oxford on 10th April 1991. I'll state again, this was after the 1990 WC. Exactly 10 years later they were getting 51k as an average.
It's like a religion up there.
Now I'm not going to say that Newcastle haven't had great crowds, they obviously have. They were the best supported club in the country until we came along and they had some truly massive averages after the war (during a period of success of course). Despite that they were, in general, below us I would say (certainly 20s, 30s and 60s) and by the 1980s were suffering like everyone else.
In 1980 they averaged 16,001 and a year later they got just over 17k. However, the worst for them I think is 1990/91 when they got an enormous 16,834 for the season when finishing 11th in Div 2. Remember this was after the 1990 WC, hooliganism was on the wane and crowds were on the rise again across the country. This is most definitely not the mid-80s period when just about every club in the country was experiencing their lowest crowds since the 1910s.
Their first three league games showed the post 1990 effect with very respectable crowds in the 23k range. Then the realisation that they were s**t sunk in and the crowds dropped. During Oct and April they were getting between 12k and 17k and sunk to a low of 10,004 against Oxford on 10th April 1991. I'll state again, this was after the 1990 WC. Exactly 10 years later they were getting 51k as an average.
It's like a religion up there.
It's like a religion up there. Part Two.
Cherry picking a few years for Sun'land.
In both 1926 and 1927 they finished 3rd in the League and got averages of 21,339 and 18,122 respectively. Note that we were in Div 2 and got 32,355 in '26 (the highest in the country that season) and 29,861 in '27 (7th best). In fact the only time they averaged over 30k in a season before the war (30,378 to be precise) was in 1936 when they were champions (we got 34,977 while finishing in 8th place, 3rd best support in the country). Two years before this when finishing 6th they got 18,269. Not fickle at all.
Cherry picking a few more years.
1971 15,780 in Div 2
1972 15,906 in Div 2
1983 17,370 in Div 1 (CFC, 12,672 in Div 2 relegation battle)
1984 16,180 in Div 1
1987 13,607 in Div 2
1989 14,878 in Div 2
1994 16,934 in Div 2
1995 15,344 in Div 2 and then averaged over 46k in 2001 and 2002 just 6/7 years later. Just like a religion.
Cherry picking a few years for Sun'land.
In both 1926 and 1927 they finished 3rd in the League and got averages of 21,339 and 18,122 respectively. Note that we were in Div 2 and got 32,355 in '26 (the highest in the country that season) and 29,861 in '27 (7th best). In fact the only time they averaged over 30k in a season before the war (30,378 to be precise) was in 1936 when they were champions (we got 34,977 while finishing in 8th place, 3rd best support in the country). Two years before this when finishing 6th they got 18,269. Not fickle at all.
Cherry picking a few more years.
1971 15,780 in Div 2
1972 15,906 in Div 2
1983 17,370 in Div 1 (CFC, 12,672 in Div 2 relegation battle)
1984 16,180 in Div 1
1987 13,607 in Div 2
1989 14,878 in Div 2
1994 16,934 in Div 2
1995 15,344 in Div 2 and then averaged over 46k in 2001 and 2002 just 6/7 years later. Just like a religion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chelseaden
Youth Team
- Messages
- 233
- Reaction score
- 10
Good posts cobham. Despite our relative in and out success for the best part of our 1st 90 years, the where were you when you were sh*t song doesn't hold much credibility considering our crowd averages overall.
Englishman
Making history, not living off it.
- Messages
- 3,954
- Reaction score
- 437
It's interesting to compare other teams and put our "bad moment" in context. Clearly this was when English football as a whole was at a low point, beset with hooliganism, poor quality stadia, Heysel, Hillsborough, Bradford, etc, and a lot of sub-20,000 crowds for bigger clubs like Arsenal, Spurs, Villa, City, Newcastle and so on (though they'd never believe you - only Chelsea had sh*t crowds in the 80s). Imagine Liverpool only averaging 30,000 now. This was also an era when England could get 25,000 for an international at Wembley. These days if less than 50,000 turn up it's seen as disappointing.
The early 80s were pretty dismal for us attendance wise, it has to be said. However:
83-84: 10th highest in England (above Everton, who won the FA Cup that year)
84-85: 9th (above West Ham and Villa)
85-86: 8th (above West Ham, Spurs and Villa)
86-87: 12th (above Leeds)
87-88: 8th (relegated that year; above West Ham, Citeh and Villa)
88-89: 17th (blip)
89-90: 10th (above West Ham)
Which, though hardly spectacular is fairly respectable for a club at a historic low point on and off the pitch, and spent half the decade in Div2.
Cheers Den. You know those averages you posted for us between 1906 and 1978? I just did 1909 to 1979 (60 seasons) and got the following Arsenal 34,795, Spurs, 34,551 and Chelsea 33,927. Behind those two but still very, very respectable considering the respective success of the clubs. I'm wondering if you averaged it out over 70 years? I took off ten because of the war years when the league didn't run. When I did it over 70 years I got 29,080 which is much closer to what you got.
[Edit - I did it from 1909 because the Euro Football Stats site that I used doesn't have Spurs attendances from 1906-08 for some reason. If they did I could have gone back to 1906 and we would have been even closer to the others because we were the best supported back then. Isn't that ironic? We were best supported the furthest back. But we have no history!]
[Edit - I did it from 1909 because the Euro Football Stats site that I used doesn't have Spurs attendances from 1906-08 for some reason. If they did I could have gone back to 1906 and we would have been even closer to the others because we were the best supported back then. Isn't that ironic? We were best supported the furthest back. But we have no history!]
Last edited by a moderator:
Another good way of looking at it Englishman. A lot of the clubs that sing the "where were you when you were s**t" song have never even been in the top ten themselves in any year. It really shows that, relatively speaking we weren't that much worse than anyone else.
Last edited by a moderator:
Using Englishman's idea of overall position in a season again it looks like 1979 to 1996 is the aberration. These were the years when we were outside the top ten best supported clubs on a regular basis. Hardly surprising really though considering what was going on on the pitch and with the club as a whole.
We were never below the 6th best supported team in the land (and most often 1st, 2nd or 3rd) from 1908 until 1939 (when we were 7th best supported in a year when we nearly got relegated).
After the war until our first championship in 1955 was not quite as good but still very respectable with only a 10th in 1950 being below the top 7 (we had a 1st, 2nd and two 4th bests in that time).
Between '55 and '72 we held our own pretty well but it's noticeable that we start to drop down a little to outside the top 5 but inside the top 10. What I think happened is that some teams that we often or usually would have finished above were now too successful for us to compete with e.g. Everton, Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal, Man Utd. The top five had now become a bit of a closed shop (the so called 'Big Five'). However, when we were (relatively) successful we did, just, break the top 5 again ('67, '70', '71, '72) and sometimes even when we weren't successful ('59 and '60). But we also had our first 'outside the top ten' seasons since 1906 (11th in '57 and '62).
Mid-70s is where things really start to go wrong but this was partly because of ground redevelopment, at least at first. In fact i wonder if we never really recovered from this? We dropped outside the top ten best supported clubs during this period (1976 being very poor at under 19k average and only the 25th best supported team in the country).
Between 1979 and 1996 we seem to consolidate somewhere in the teens in terms of average support and this is of course what everyone remembers along with our all time lows of 28th and 27th (worth noting our league positions those years were 34th and 40th). Then fortunes gradually improved and from 1997 until now we've been back in the top ten and mostly (just) in the top 6. Of course the overall averages have us as 5th so top 6 is about right I think.
We were never below the 6th best supported team in the land (and most often 1st, 2nd or 3rd) from 1908 until 1939 (when we were 7th best supported in a year when we nearly got relegated).
After the war until our first championship in 1955 was not quite as good but still very respectable with only a 10th in 1950 being below the top 7 (we had a 1st, 2nd and two 4th bests in that time).
Between '55 and '72 we held our own pretty well but it's noticeable that we start to drop down a little to outside the top 5 but inside the top 10. What I think happened is that some teams that we often or usually would have finished above were now too successful for us to compete with e.g. Everton, Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal, Man Utd. The top five had now become a bit of a closed shop (the so called 'Big Five'). However, when we were (relatively) successful we did, just, break the top 5 again ('67, '70', '71, '72) and sometimes even when we weren't successful ('59 and '60). But we also had our first 'outside the top ten' seasons since 1906 (11th in '57 and '62).
Mid-70s is where things really start to go wrong but this was partly because of ground redevelopment, at least at first. In fact i wonder if we never really recovered from this? We dropped outside the top ten best supported clubs during this period (1976 being very poor at under 19k average and only the 25th best supported team in the country).
Between 1979 and 1996 we seem to consolidate somewhere in the teens in terms of average support and this is of course what everyone remembers along with our all time lows of 28th and 27th (worth noting our league positions those years were 34th and 40th). Then fortunes gradually improved and from 1997 until now we've been back in the top ten and mostly (just) in the top 6. Of course the overall averages have us as 5th so top 6 is about right I think.
Well at the risk of boring everyone I thought I'd look at our Cockney friends over at the Boleyn Grounds. I knew they weren't great but it still quite surprised me to see that they didn't manage to average over 30k until 1969 (post the '66 WC Cup and all that "we won the WC bo**ocks"). In fact until the Premiership era the best years for the Hammers were 1967-1975. Before that they were awful in terms of attendance with gates mostly in the high teens and low twenty thousands. They are one of the few teams who have had better support in the modern era.
1993 (post 1990 WC) in Div 2 saw them get only 16,001 for a promotion season. Only just over 17k for an opening home match against Charlton pretty much set the standard for the rest of the season. Other poor attendances were 12k v Notts County, Bristol City and Peterborough, 11k v Watford, Derby and Oxford, 10k v Sunderland and 6,981 against Crewe in the League Cup. Was the ground being redeveloped?
Weirdly they also only got 15k v Millwall. Now they'd just got 25k against Wolves and Newcastle in the weeks previous to that. Couldn't have been scared could they?
1993 (post 1990 WC) in Div 2 saw them get only 16,001 for a promotion season. Only just over 17k for an opening home match against Charlton pretty much set the standard for the rest of the season. Other poor attendances were 12k v Notts County, Bristol City and Peterborough, 11k v Watford, Derby and Oxford, 10k v Sunderland and 6,981 against Crewe in the League Cup. Was the ground being redeveloped?
Weirdly they also only got 15k v Millwall. Now they'd just got 25k against Wolves and Newcastle in the weeks previous to that. Couldn't have been scared could they?
Liverpool. Last one for today. This is the big one. And it might be enlightening given that they are the chief culprits of the 'history' stuff.
Pre-WWI (10 seasons)
I suppose we should give them some credit for beating us in our very first season (1905-6) when they finished as champions. However, for the next 9 seasons we had a higher average every year. Overall our attendances averaged 26,145, theirs were 19,438. No history whatsoever.
Between the Wars (20 seasons)
Their average attendance over that period was 28,677, ours was 32,677. During this time they were champions in '22 and '23 and finished 4th three times. We came 3rd in 1920 and 8th was our next best finish in 1936. We also suffered relegation and spent 6 seasons in Div 2.
Just in case any Scouser reads this and thinks maybe we got some really high averages for a few seasons which skews those overall averages in our favour, let's look at who comes top each year. They got a higher average gate a total of only 5 times out of those 20 or 25% of the time:
1923 (When they were champions again) they got 33,495 for the highest average in the League and we got 30,000 finishing in 19th place for the 5th best average (3,495 difference).
1925 After having been champions in '22 and '23, they were 4th in 1925 so this was a good period for them and they got 29,185. We finished 5th in Div 2 and were one place behind them in the averages (3rd to their 2nd highest in the league) with 28,975 (a massive 210 per game difference!)
1930 They finished 12th and got 30,219 for the 5th highest average, we finished 2nd in Div 2 with 27,799 for the 6th highest average (2,420 difference).
1934 They finished 18th and got 29,429 for the 5th highest average and we finished 19th in the league and got 29,183 for 6th highest average (246 difference).
1939 They finished 11th and got 31,422 for the 5th highest average, we got 30,999 in 20th place for 7th highest (423 difference).
Obviously the other 15 seasons we had the higher average, that includes four years in Div 2 and a relegation year!
Post WWII 1947-1955 (9 seasons)
Chelsea's average attendance 44,386, Liverpool's 41,504.
They had the higher attendance in 1947 when they again won the championship. Their average attendance was the second highest for that year at 45,732. We came 15th in the League and had the third highest average at 44,550.
They also had a higher average in 1950 when they were the fifth highest with 45,783 and we were the tenth with 42,238. Of course, as you might have guessed, they again finished above us coming 8th (and reaching the Cup Final) to our 13th.
That was it. The other 7 years we had the higher attendances.
The eagle-eyed among you might have noticed that the 8 times they finished above us in attendances between 1906 and 1955 (39 seasons) they had also finished above us, often well above us, in the League.
Post WWII 1956-1962 (7 seasons)
Here things start to change. Strangely, having won our first league title in 1955, our attendances began to drop. I don't know why. Perhaps one of the older forum members might be able to tell us?
Also, you have to give credit here to the Dippers, their attendances seemed to harden and become more consistent even though they were relegated in 1954 and stayed down until 62. Their gates in Div 2 were pretty respectable (having said that they only just missed promotion every year but the first) and so we shared the higher attendance 4 times each. Our average attendance over this period was 34,536, their's was 35,329 so they were ahead of us for the first time.
However, put the two post war periods together and for the 15 seasons between 1947 and 1962 our average was 39,789 and their's was 38,622. Nonetheless you can see a slight swing towards them from 1956 onwards. Before that we were easily the better supported club. 1956 was the first time they had a higher attendance from a lower league position. Until then we had done that to them many, many times. I would say 1956 is the turning point but the consolidation came a little later.
We all know what happened next. Shankly joined Liverpool in Dec 1959, took them up in 1962 and by 1964 they had won the League, Beatlemania was in full flow and Liverpool was the place everyone wanted to be a part of. The rest, as they say in Scouseland, is history. What came before that has been airbrushed out. Personally I wouldn't accept them as the definitively better supported team until 1963.
Pre-WWI (10 seasons)
I suppose we should give them some credit for beating us in our very first season (1905-6) when they finished as champions. However, for the next 9 seasons we had a higher average every year. Overall our attendances averaged 26,145, theirs were 19,438. No history whatsoever.
Between the Wars (20 seasons)
Their average attendance over that period was 28,677, ours was 32,677. During this time they were champions in '22 and '23 and finished 4th three times. We came 3rd in 1920 and 8th was our next best finish in 1936. We also suffered relegation and spent 6 seasons in Div 2.
Just in case any Scouser reads this and thinks maybe we got some really high averages for a few seasons which skews those overall averages in our favour, let's look at who comes top each year. They got a higher average gate a total of only 5 times out of those 20 or 25% of the time:
1923 (When they were champions again) they got 33,495 for the highest average in the League and we got 30,000 finishing in 19th place for the 5th best average (3,495 difference).
1925 After having been champions in '22 and '23, they were 4th in 1925 so this was a good period for them and they got 29,185. We finished 5th in Div 2 and were one place behind them in the averages (3rd to their 2nd highest in the league) with 28,975 (a massive 210 per game difference!)
1930 They finished 12th and got 30,219 for the 5th highest average, we finished 2nd in Div 2 with 27,799 for the 6th highest average (2,420 difference).
1934 They finished 18th and got 29,429 for the 5th highest average and we finished 19th in the league and got 29,183 for 6th highest average (246 difference).
1939 They finished 11th and got 31,422 for the 5th highest average, we got 30,999 in 20th place for 7th highest (423 difference).
Obviously the other 15 seasons we had the higher average, that includes four years in Div 2 and a relegation year!
Post WWII 1947-1955 (9 seasons)
Chelsea's average attendance 44,386, Liverpool's 41,504.
They had the higher attendance in 1947 when they again won the championship. Their average attendance was the second highest for that year at 45,732. We came 15th in the League and had the third highest average at 44,550.
They also had a higher average in 1950 when they were the fifth highest with 45,783 and we were the tenth with 42,238. Of course, as you might have guessed, they again finished above us coming 8th (and reaching the Cup Final) to our 13th.
That was it. The other 7 years we had the higher attendances.
The eagle-eyed among you might have noticed that the 8 times they finished above us in attendances between 1906 and 1955 (39 seasons) they had also finished above us, often well above us, in the League.
Post WWII 1956-1962 (7 seasons)
Here things start to change. Strangely, having won our first league title in 1955, our attendances began to drop. I don't know why. Perhaps one of the older forum members might be able to tell us?
Also, you have to give credit here to the Dippers, their attendances seemed to harden and become more consistent even though they were relegated in 1954 and stayed down until 62. Their gates in Div 2 were pretty respectable (having said that they only just missed promotion every year but the first) and so we shared the higher attendance 4 times each. Our average attendance over this period was 34,536, their's was 35,329 so they were ahead of us for the first time.
However, put the two post war periods together and for the 15 seasons between 1947 and 1962 our average was 39,789 and their's was 38,622. Nonetheless you can see a slight swing towards them from 1956 onwards. Before that we were easily the better supported club. 1956 was the first time they had a higher attendance from a lower league position. Until then we had done that to them many, many times. I would say 1956 is the turning point but the consolidation came a little later.
We all know what happened next. Shankly joined Liverpool in Dec 1959, took them up in 1962 and by 1964 they had won the League, Beatlemania was in full flow and Liverpool was the place everyone wanted to be a part of. The rest, as they say in Scouseland, is history. What came before that has been airbrushed out. Personally I wouldn't accept them as the definitively better supported team until 1963.
Last edited by a moderator: