Where is our natural home?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

There's a lot of speculation amongst us at the moment as to where we will end up at the end of the season, tempered by arguments as to our order in the 'natural scheme' of things.

[Warning: I shall be using anachronistic terminology from henceforth]

Personally speaking, I believe we should occupy a slot somewhat similar to the one Stoke have recently vacated. That is, to put none too fine a point on it, hovering in the lower end of the First Division, with occasional expectations of European entryism, and the very occasional Cup progression.

I don't think of us as the Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool set. But equally I think we are better than the Leicester, Norwich, Newcastle set.

(Obviously there are too many teams to occupy the position I think we should: Derby, Forest, Leeds, Blackburn, the Sheffields, etc) But I still believe our natural position is in the lower half of the First Division, not scrambling for crumbs in the fxckin Second Division.

What're you thoughts on this?

[Prufrock]

There's a website around that works out the up to date league table from game 1 in 18whatever.

Think we were about 13th. Obviously being there at the start bumps us up a bit. I reckon on those sort of grounds, we're bottom half prem top half championship.

Problem is that isn't what counts now. Last night we brought on decrepit Lloyd Dyer while they brought on £25m loanee Bolasie.

We brought on our spanking cost-money Doige and Magennis (1.4m, tops, for the pair). They took off 50kpw loanee Tammy Abraham and brought on £14m can't get a game Scott Hogan.

We're shopping at different supermarkets to about 20 of the other teams in this league.

[nicholaldo]

It depends on what variables you think should be used to measure it. Average attendance is probably one of the best, and would likely have us in the top half of the second tier with a lot of others. On trophies won I'd hazard a guess that we would be in roughly the same area, but our history of league position would have us comfortably in the first tier as (I think) we still hold the record of playing the most seasons in the top flight without ever winning it.

We can only really argue that we should have expectations of European entryism based on our very recent, and maybe very distant, history, but within, say, the last twenty years, our place in the footballing pyramid was largely a result of outside investment and us stumbling upon one of the best English managers of his generation than it being our natural place in the grand scheme of things. Though obviously, the same point can be made about Bournemouth's current position and Manchester City's Premier League trophies. In fact, since the Premier League came into being, success has been so dependent on how deep an owner's pockets are that it's difficult to determine exactly what impact this time period should have on calculating where clubs lie - should Bournemouth be considered “bigger” than the average third/fourth tier dweller because they were lucky enough to attract a billionaire? Or is the mere fact that they were able to attract such a wealthy person an indication that they have more potential?

Presumably, location played some part in that attraction (if he had bought into Mansfield Town, for example, it would be a right pain traipsing up there every other Saturday from his mansion in Sandbanks). So if location is a factor, how much do we benefit from being so close to Manchester? We don't have as many fans as Sunderland but then again, all things being equal, I doubt very many good players would choose to live in the North East over the North West.

All in all, evaluating each of the above, I'd have us in and around the top eight of the Championship. However, as money is now more significant than ever, and if all revenue was derived from gate receipts and realistically attainable sponsorship deals, we would today be around the middle of the Championship. We're one of the best and biggest town clubs, and should be proud about it.

(I should add, though, that burdened as we are by our current financial constraints, we can't hope to be anywhere other than the bottom six of the Championship / top six of League One)

[Harry Genshaw]

Historically, we're about mid table championship.

Right now, given our finances and attendances, we're top half league 1 I reckon. It's hard to reconcile that clubs with lower crowds (Burnley) poorer history's - (Sheffield Utd, Birmingham) or both (Bournemouth, Wigan, Cardiff) have far brighter prospects for the next 10 years than we do.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

It depends on what variables you think should be used to measure it. Average attendance is probably one of the best, and would likely have us in the top half of the second tier with a lot of others. On trophies won I'd hazard a guess that we would be in roughly the same area, but our history of league position would have us comfortably in the first tier as (I think) we still hold the record of playing the most seasons in the top flight without ever winning it.

We can only really argue that we should have expectations of European entryism based on our very recent, and maybe very distant, history, but within, say, the last twenty years, our place in the footballing pyramid was largely a result of outside investment and us stumbling upon one of the best English managers of his generation than it being our natural place in the grand scheme of things. Though obviously, the same point can be made about Bournemouth's current position and Manchester City's Premier League trophies. In fact, since the Premier League came into being, success has been so dependent on how deep an owner's pockets are that it's difficult to determine exactly what impact this time period should have on calculating where clubs lie - should Bournemouth be considered “bigger” than the average third/fourth tier dweller because they were lucky enough to attract a billionaire? Or is the mere fact that they were able to attract such a wealthy person an indication that they have more potential?

Presumably, location played some part in that attraction (if he had bought into Mansfield Town, for example, it would be a right pain traipsing up there every other Saturday from his mansion in Sandbanks). So if location is a factor, how much do we benefit from being so close to Manchester? We don't have as many fans as Sunderland but then again, all things being equal, I doubt very many good players would choose to live in the North East over the North West.

All in all, evaluating each of the above, I'd have us in and around the top eight of the Championship. However, as money is now more significant than ever, and if all revenue was derived from gate receipts and realistically attainable sponsorship deals, we would today be around the middle of the Championship. We're one of the best and biggest town clubs, and should be proud about it.

(I should add, though, that burdened as we are by our current financial constraints, we can't hope to be anywhere other than the bottom six of the Championship / top six of League One)

When you ask what variables, I was thinking of gut feeling and innate expectation alone. I realise financially we are limited (at present). But we have a large catchment of potential fans, which should generate revenue, which should attract investors with deep pockets.
Bournemouth, for example has a very small catchment area in relation to us. Bournemouth also has a poor history; even Yeovil within the southwest has a spicier past!
We are blessed in our status as a (surviving) founder member of the first ever football league on the planet. Our sights, in my opinion, should be set higher than the position we occupy.
I think a lot of the fractiousness surrounding the club and fans at present is due to the lack of progress towards our 'natural state' in the football hierarchy. We should be moaning about having lost at home to Man U, not fxcking Hull.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Historically, we're about mid table championship.

Right now, given our finances and attendances, we're top half league 1 I reckon. It's hard to reconcile that clubs with lower crowds (Burnley) poorer history's - (Sheffield Utd, Birmingham) or both (Bournemouth, Wigan, Cardiff) have far brighter prospects for the next 10 years than we do.

I disagree: Historically we are about mid table Premiership. (I'm older than you. I know this for a fact... ).

[Lost Leopard Spot]

There's a website around that works out the up to date league table from game 1 in 18whatever.

Think we were about 13th. Obviously being there at the start bumps us up a bit. I reckon on those sort of grounds, we're bottom half prem top half championship.

Problem is that isn't what counts now. Last night we brought on decrepit Lloyd Dyer while they brought on £25m loanee Bolasie.

We brought on our spanking cost-money Doige and Magennis (1.4m, tops, for the pair). They took off 50kpw loanee Tammy Abraham and brought on £14m can't get a game Scott Hogan.

We're shopping at different supermarkets to about 20 of the other teams in this league.

I wasn't interested in Reality. I was asking the question from a mental perspective of where we should be point of view, fantasy if you like.

[Jugs]

We've won the cup 4 times, got an England legend in our alumni, been in the top flight for many, many years and have a very rich history.

We've also had some absolute superstars in our team in recent years, names that are recognised all over the world.

We're Bolton Wanderers - we should be in the top flight.

[BWFC_Insane]

Natural order? Look at how much revenue you can generate and how many rich folk want to invest. Right now, league one. History means nowt. It’s about how much you can spend.

To suggest we should be above Newcastle is laughable. We are a town club that has a core of 12K fans. Saying we should be above clubs who even at their worst more than comfortably double that and at higher prices is nonsense.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Natural order? Look at how much revenue you can generate and how many rich folk want to invest. Right now, league one. History means nowt. It’s about how much you can spend.

To suggest we should be above Newcastle is laughable. We are a town club that has a core of 12K fans. Saying we should be above clubs who even at their worst more than comfortably double that and at higher prices is nonsense.

And as always you've missed the fxcking point... Trying reading what was posted previously before you go off on one. ("To suggest we should be above Newcastle is laughable". Only if you are a tit).

[Lost Leopard Spot]

We've won the cup 4 times, got an England legend in our alumni, been in the top flight for many, many years and have a very rich history.

We've also had some absolute superstars in our team in recent years, names that are recognised all over the world.

We're Bolton Wanderers - we should be in the top flight.

You Sir are an admirable fan, I salute you.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Pushing for promotion from the third tier. That's where I still see as our natural home.

Although my first game was McGovern's last, I started attending regularly the season we left the Third - through the play-off trap-door (kids, ask yer dad). I knew that was below us, and promotion from the Fourth proved it, and then followed roughly half a decade of trying to get out through the sun-roof. It happened, and we over-extended by getting promoted to the top flight...

But all that doesn't matter. Two seasons ago, when we were back in the third, some folk were attending games like they'd got shit on their shoes. To me, it felt more like going back home.

[officer_dibble]

Dicking about in the championship.

Not a fan of the question though. When we were consistently bloodying noses of top flight teams it was ace laughing at their fans moaning about being beat by shithouses like Bolton.

I just think it’s a shame when you have season on season of shit football and staving off relegation. You want to enjoy going to the game at some point.

[BWFC_Insane]

Natural order? Look at how much revenue you can generate and how many rich folk want to invest. Right now, league one. History means nowt. It’s about how much you can spend.

To suggest we should be above Newcastle is laughable. We are a town club that has a core of 12K fans. Saying we should be above clubs who even at their worst more than comfortably double that and at higher prices is nonsense.

And as always you've missed the fxcking point... Trying reading what was posted previously before you go off on one. ("To suggest we should be above Newcastle is laughable". Only if you are a tit).

Given your post doesn't define any criteria besides "natural position" and you offer no reasoning as to your opinion then reading the post is fairly pointless.

History doesn't suggest we are a first division side once you take out the fact we existed for a long time. Since 1960 we've spent 19 seasons in the top flight and 40 not in the top flight. So, lets say more than double our time outside the top flight.

Fanbase size doesn't suggest we're a premiership club either. Nor for that matter a top half championship one.

Current financial statements suggest we're one of the poorest clubs in the championship.

So I'm not sure what basis this "what's our natural home" has. Other than for kids who started following us as a premiership club without an understanding of the history - I'm not convinced anyone can justify suggesting we "belong" in the top flight. Indeed pre-Allardyce we has only managed 4 top flight seasons in about 30 years. And using the Allardyce years as a "barometer" for where we SHOULD be is about as relevant as Ipswich fans using Sir Bobby's time or Derby fans using Clough's time. Brilliant managers happen and you enjoy those periods for as long as possible. But when they go - you find clubs often do sink.

Now as a counter point when Coyle was frittering away the last of our money and blowing our chances of staying up I was told by everyone on here "we don't have a divine right to be in the premiership, stop moaning and enjoy the ride - football is better outside the top flight anyway". I could see how disastrous relegation was - I think people underestimate how a club like Bolton suffers when relegated after a sustained period in the top flight. But its been and gone. We all WANT to get back there but the game has changed and doing so either requires magic or serious cash investment. You could wait another 50/60 years or more for the next Allardyce/Clough to come along as most clubs outside the top flight hope for. And who knows when someone with money fancies us as a plaything? Till then its grim, but its been far far worse.

[TANGODANCER]

^^

Er, COME ON YOU WHITES...!..

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Other than for kids who started following us as a premiership club without an understanding of the history - I'm not convinced anyone can justify suggesting we "belong" in the top flight. Indeed pre-Allardyce we has only managed 4 top flight seasons in about 30 years.

That's an interesting way to look at it (and one hinted at by LLS's topic question). History is very important to football fans - mention Chelsea to any Liverpool supporter - but I guess we draw the line where it suits us, to some extent.

Although I was brought up on stories of the Armfield-Greaves era - my dad and elder sister were regulars during that rise - it felt like a blip by the time I started going, when the bare facts said we'd been on the slide for the thick end of the 25 years that had passed since the abolition of the maximum wage.

Conversely, those who are a decade or two older than me had the memory, ingrained or imposed, of us being a top-flight side, and of THAT being the natural order of things. And those even older than that - like my dad, who was at Wembley in 1958 two months shy of his 18th birthday (what a time to be alive) - top-flight membership was an inherited birthright.

Whereas I suppose to The Kids These Days, with their own pantheon of Okochadjorkaeffhierrocamponolandavies, we're an established Premier League etc and what the hell are we doing here.

Another way of looking at it is in terms of looking up or down, which is often described by successive league finishing positions. Essentially (and roughly):
1960 to 1972: downward drift, D1 to D3
1972 to 1979: bounced back up, D3 to D1
1979 to 1987: down, D1 to D4
1987 to 1995: up, D4 to D1
1995 to 2001: yoyo between D1/D2
2001 to 2007: establish in top flight
2007 to 2012: aim to avoid relegation
2012 to 2016: down from D1 to D3

It's still too soon to judge the last couple of years, although I suspect history will remember them as valiant (if doomed?).

[Athertonian]

Again, all depends which era you began watching the Wanderers.

My Father took me to see Bolton for the first time during our relegation season around 64 I think. He was brought up watching them in the top flight and knew nothing less up to that time. He took me regularly during our second division days where crowds decreased massively during those times.


I only can remember Bolton being a top Division team for a couple of seasons and remained there until season in the Prem came along.
I can only presume many of the posters on here have followed Bolton more seasons in the prem than any other league.

Until someone with a pile of spare money comes along we'll remain to struggle in this league which is where I would say this is the clubs natural home.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

My Father took me to see Bolton for the first time during our relegation season around 64 I think.

Yeah, after spending all but two seasons of the previous half-century in the top flight we were relegated in late April 1964, two days after The Beatles' Can't Buy Me Love was knocked off the top spot by Peter Paul and Mary's A World Without Love. Other fitting No.1s that summer included It's Over and It's All Over Now.

For our last league game, we were just above the relegation zone and at home to 16th-placed Wolves on the night of Friday, 24th April. Birmingham, a point below us and in the drop zone, had two fixtures to fit in that week: home to champions Liverpool (Wednesday) and home to Sheffield United (Saturday). They beat the Scousers 3-1, we lost 4-0 to the Dogheads, and the 11th-placed Blades also obligingly stepped aside 3-0. It was Birmingham's second successive season escaping the drop by one place; they went down in 1965 and came back up in 1972. It took us six years longer.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Pushing for promotion from the third tier. That's where I still see as our natural home.

Although my first game was McGovern's last, I started attending regularly the season we left the Third - through the play-off trap-door (kids, ask yer dad). I knew that was below us, and promotion from the Fourth proved it, and then followed roughly half a decade of trying to get out through the sun-roof. It happened, and we over-extended by getting promoted to the top flight...

But all that doesn't matter. Two seasons ago, when we were back in the third, some folk were attending games like they'd got shit on their shoes. To me, it felt more like going back home.

This, above anything else, tells me what year you were born in. I have admiration for fans (true fans) of lower and non-league clubs. And I understand their elation when 'above their station', and their nonchalance and stick with it attitude when they go back down.
I asked the question initially because the the amount of irritation/angst/animosity/and disgruntlement amongst the fans presently.
(By the way, I'm a Wanderer because my granddad took me to see us for my first game when I was six because his granddad had taken him to see us at the same age because his granddad was playing for us. We were firmly First Division then).

[TKIZ!]

First game was Phil Neal's first season in charge and although we won I then not long after saw us crash through to Division 4. Myself, I've always viewed us as a L2/L3 (in old money) team.

The seasons were we played in the Premier League were magical but our natural home will always been the divisions below. WE just don't have the fan base any more, especially not since the introduction of the gravy train of the Premier League.

I'm a Wanderer by birth, it's been a family tradition for years. I wouldn't change it for anything