BBC Home

Explore the BBC


user rating: 4 star

Dave Allen resigns as SWFC chairman

Championship Sheffield Wednesday
comment on the article

Sheffield Wednesday have confirmed that Dave Allen has resigned as chairman.

To say Allen was a controversial figurehead for the club would be the mother of all understatements.

Allen polarised opinion amongst supporters during his time at Hillsborough, after taking over from Geoff Hulley as chairman in 2003.

Perhaps Allen's finest moment was persuading Paul Sturrock to become the club's manager in 2004, a move which paid off handsomely when Wednesday were promoted back to the Championship via the play-offs the following year.

Allen also personally financed the signing of several Owls' players over the years, but made no secret of the fact that he felt the club needed a fresh cash injection from other investors.

But when a proposed takeover by former Everton director Paul Gregg collapsed earlier this year, Allen's frustration was clear, as he blamed supporter's group Wednesdayite for blocking the deal.

This was just one example of his stormy relationship with the Wednesday fans.

Earlier this month he was cleared by the FA of bringing the game into disrepute after allegedly calling one fan a "venomous bitch", and referring to some fans as "scum" and "cretins" after they shouted abuse at him during a match.

Many Wednesdayites have been campaigning for months on 606 for Allen to go, so now that he has, what are your thoughts?

Latest 10 comments

Read members' comments or add your own
comment by S8_Owl (U10487356)

posted Nov 24, 2007

The simple fact is Dave Allen not only stabilised the club, but he has moved the Owls forward.

I remember the shocking state of the playing squad when he took over. We had players who did not want to be at the club, and that was obvious to see on the playing field.

Watching England the other night reminded me of the Sibon era.

Chris Turner, Paul Sturrock & Brian Laws have all been succesful in improving the squad, on the budget SWFC has.

Dave Allen added his own cash to the resourses available. His only short coming is he is not Abramovic, but not many people in this world are.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 24, 2007

I don't understand the rules concerning the administration issue. Is there a chance that if we go into administration that Dave Allen with some financial backers could can buy our club for a song and finally get rid of this Wednesdayite shower that has been responsible for holding us back for so long?

Dave Allen is clearly an intelligent man and I find it hard to believe that he does not care passionately about our club given the investments he has made in it and the constant abuse he has recieved in reward for so long. He must recognise that we as a football club cannot progress whilst we have this Wednesdayite albatros around our neck.

I doubt he would read thse comments but just in case, Dave thanks for everything.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by shortio (U2862408)

posted Nov 24, 2007

I personally have p*** boilingly angry with DA since the sacking of Paul Sturrock. I'm sad to say. This week's England debacle and uber-personal criticism of Steve McLaren reminds me that football is only a game. "Nobody died" as Bob Woolmer used to say.

DA did himself no favours with the way he represented himself or SWFC in my opinion. He labelled the last but one performance of PS' reign (a 2-1 win against Barnsley) as an "embarrassment". To my mind, it was DA's performance in that radio interview that was the embarrassment.

If Wednesday fans are misinformed re; Dave Allen, who's fault is it - ours or his? Is information given or received? Surely the former.

And as for Wednesdayite!!! I have to admit I'm pretty misinformed about them too.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Ragnar (U10405147)

posted Nov 24, 2007

funnyeltonjohn I wasnt aware DA has 'given' his shares back nor sold them as any sane person would. Would you give your car back or your house if you left no you would do the sensible thing and sell them.


Wednesday are a share holder exactly the same as Dave Allen, and many other people. As I have stated before as a majo shaeholder they would be approached by any potential buyer the same as the club. They have no reason to sell them back to the club and I guee in the intersts of the club they witheld thm from sale to DA. Wednesdayite have always been open to discussion and dialogue. Unfortunatley, unlike you, I can see both sides of the arguement. Those 'self centred morons' as you call them are the fans! And they own the shares which have been available for sale should a takeover arise. I ask you to ask yourself this question, would you GIVE a gun to someone if they would not give you concrete evidnce of what they intended to do with it? Didnt think so. The time is now right for Wednesday to be run fairly and by someone who can hanfdle the position well and act responsibly under stress. Im not sure I could do it but I know I wouldnt make those comments about the people who make that club happen and are the very soul and very real reason for its existence.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by S8_Owl (U10487356)

posted Nov 24, 2007

I do not think any one is mis informed about Wednesdayite or Dave Allen, but people have different opinions about why Wednesday are in the position we are in.

Dave Allen may have alienated some sections of the support, but he had a positive influence on the club.

Wednesdayite however alienated the club that gave them their shares, and seem to have had a disruptive influence at the club since they were handed there shares. Remember the Ken Bates debacle, Im sure DA wont forget.

The Barnsley match was an embarrasment. Brunty scored a fluke of his shin in the last minute of the game.

PS and DA obviously fell out in the summer before the Barnsley match, and I was just as angry as most Wednesday fans at the time of the sacking, but Brian Laws has proved that the club could be moved forward at that time, with the same players. PS at the time was after extra cash for a Striker, and must have put DA in an awkard position as DA was seen to be the person witholding cash for that striker.

As for these shares. I hope DA uses his shares to help to get rid of the remaining Directors at SWFC who are up for relelection, who have been at the club since the days of mismanagement in the Premier League.

As for who would come in? Im sure there must be a number of people who would love to get involved at Board level, even if they do not have the cash to buy all the shares, now is time for a change.

Maybe the Shareholders association can put forward serious candidates with the help of DA and Wednesdayite votes. The directors up for re election have silently mismanaged the club for too long, and they appear to be the cause of SWFC losing a Chairman and director who helped fund a club that was insolvent.

Finally. If people have verbally abused DA, then surely he is entitled to return the complement to these people? The comments he made were not about all Owls fans, but were about a minority of "Wednesdayite", "Wednesdayites".

DA would have been a bigger man to ignore the insults, but I may have returned the insults if I was also in his position at the time, and I think most people would have also.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 24, 2007

re ragnar's comments on wednesdayite

I think most fans have little respect for wednesdayite as an organisation.Ragnar puts them on a par with DA as a shareholder. Technically this is true but their is one big difference.
DA put his money where his mouth is. He BOUGHT shares, gifted some money for players etc and loaned the club millions.
Wednesdayite have raised peanuts and have been an unnecessary nuisance.
Wednesdayite would command my respect and deserve a place on the board if they put serious money into a business in which they have a 10% stake. Put up the money - say a loan to the club of say 2 million or shut up.

Ultimatley money talks.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Ragnar (U10405147)

posted Nov 24, 2007

Sorry I was under the impression Wednesdayite had bought 10% of the shares? Is this incorrect? Also it is well documented that they have had all monetary contributions to the club refused. Lets not forget we are not the only club that has these problems and it is not unique to Wednesday. As I have said before it is now time for someone to come in with a good business sense and management, something I have never said DA lacks, but I also hope that someone with passion for football invests as both is what is needed not just one.

Is business ruling football?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 24, 2007

Yes Ragnar, business is ruling football. It is a real shame, but its reality.
I'm one of the ludites who will not buy Sky for that exact reason.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by S8_Owl (U10487356)

posted Nov 25, 2007

Wednesdayite did not buy their shares. Ironically the SWFC board, and probaby DA himself, gifted 10% of the shares to the Owls Trust (aka Wednesdayite) when DA picked up his 10% of shares for guarentoring the debt to the bank.

These shares were previously owned by the bank, after loans had been converted into shares in the club.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 26, 2007

This may well spell trouble for Sheffield Wednesday, just when it seemed they were moving forwards.

add comment | complain about this comment

Comment on this article

Sorry, you can only contribute to 606 during opening hours. These are 0900-2300 UK time, seven days a week, but may vary to accommodate sporting events and UK public holidays.


Rate Breakdown

  • 5 75.00%
    6 votes
  • 4
    0 votes
  • 3
    0 votes
  • 2
    0 votes
  • 1 25.00%
    2 votes

average rating:
4.00 from 8 votes