Jump to content

Talk:Manchester United F.C.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 84.70.37.64 (talk) at 22:53, 24 June 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconFootball Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Pending tasks for Manchester United F.C.:

edit - watch - purge

Talk:Manchester United F.C./to do

If User:Bluemooners is going to insist on including Shaun Goater as a noted Manchester United player I wish he'd learn how to properly use Wikipedia linking syntax! In any case, as ManU sold him to Rotherham after two years he hardly made much of an impression at Old Trafford (- 0 games, 0 goals).... -- Arwel 13:29, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It appears this page has been vandalised.19/4/04User:Andycjp

Crest

I'm sure that the Manchester United emblem displayed here is out of date; it changed slightly (colours and wording; it no longer specifies Football Club) in about 1998, I think. Kinitawowi 11:50, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

The PLC board changed the club crest for the sole purpose of 'branding', to the enormous annoyance of many of the 'traditional' united fans. It is seen as indicative of the PLC's lack of focus on the 'football' side of the business, rightly or wrongly.

That is absolutely correct.

Notable Players

Why are Diego Forlan and Fabien Barthez on the notable players list. They got rid of barthez and forlan has a terrible record. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.122.71.71 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 13 September 2004 (UTC).[reply]

Well, I didn't hate Barthez (that Silvestre donkey, on the other hand...), but I do agree that Notable Players is in dire need of a massive rewrite; it pains me to admit it, but the player list section is actually done better at the moment on the Liverpool page. I certainly like the "current squad" section it uses. Kinitawowi 12:55, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't djemba-djemba be removed?

Huh? He was removed from the "current squad" list on January 31, the day he was transferred. -- Arwel 17:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fabien Barthez was tons better than Massimo Taibi. Remember him? Diego Forlan was, sadly not effective, simply because Fergie kept playing him as a substitute. He could never build on his form. What form he showed indeed for Villareal. --chapter1 08:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GUYS! Why remove players from the noteable list at all? It is simply a matter of your personal opinion if they were good or not as is that the only criterium for inclusion? The fact remains that they were players of some note (almost famous lol) and to remove the links diminishes the service in my opinion. -theCondor- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheCondor (talk • contribs) 11:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

We can't just include everyone who played for the club and I think including players who were rarely if ever first-choice (Butt, P Nev) or who were crap for United (Thomas) makes us look daft. It might be worth having some discussion on here about how long the list should be and who should be in it but would you seriously include any of those three in an all-time list of the club's most notable players? CTOAGN (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, the list would be terribly long if all players were included. I wasnt arguing for that. We do have the 'All Player List immediately below that. I am just conscience that all fans would never agree on a definitive list. For example, to take issue with the examples you quoted: Butt was very much a regular in the 1990's. Mickey Thomas may not have been comparable to a Georgie Best (but who is? lol) but, for his time, he made a notable contribution. As a suggestion, why not include only those players who are still active in the game, albeit at another club? All retired /deceased players would be therefore be found in the All List. - theCondor- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheCondor (talk • contribs) 17:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Original language?

I'm not fussed about crests displayed being current ones or not.But the article as it stands reads more like an official brochure than an impartial reference work.Is the writing original or does some of it come from Manchester United's PR department?--L.E./12.144.5.2/[email protected] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.144.5.2 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 3 October 2004 (UTC).[reply]

On the current squad section, why does Roy Carroll not have any flag next to him? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.135.1.31 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 23 October 2004 (UTC).[reply]

Presumably because no-one found the Northern Irish flag, which is non-standardly named, being a gif rather than a png! -- Arwel 20:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
More or less precisely it; that and the fact that I was trying to find the cross of St Patrick, as the "red hand flag" looks a bit too close to the cross of St George in the minimised form. The cross of St Andrew (used for Darren Fletcher) is also non-standard. Kinitawowi 09:44, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Good sources of flags are the World Cup or European Championship qualification articles - plenty of countries on there! -- Arwel 09:58, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

edited Bobby Charlton survivor of Munich to read help England win the world cup, rather than lead ( implied he was the captain.

--Greatbear 09:35, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Please do not use Man U in the text ( Its an unfortunate abbreviation that many supporters take offence at )

--Greatbear 16:18, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why can't editers use Man U? Man U is used to differentiate between Man U and Man C. We certainly don't want both sides of fans to start fighting. --chapter1 08:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC) --[reply]

Man U was an abbreviation created by ABU's (anything but United) therefore it does invoke strong feeling against its use from some fans.

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that only wankers say Man U. Aib6 15:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Successful managers?

Having a 'successful managers' section seems a bit POV and also a bit wasteful when there is another managers' list below it. Might it be more sensible to merge these? Perhaps some factual information about the achievements of each could be added to enable the reader to decide. Andrewferrier 19:47, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

Slightly confused as to why the article mentions Steua and Reims as other clubs to have appeared in just two European Cup Finals. Was there any particular reason for selecting these clubs over others with the same record (FC Porto and Olympique Marseilles for example)? It seems to me these particular clubs are being used to portray Manchester United in a slightly derogatory light, and that no comparisons are in fact neccessary. --Alilaw 12:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The only two successful managers are *can't remember the name* and Ferguson. Only these two have won the European Cup. The rest didn't, so I think the successful manager section can be taken out.

Gavin Campbell

Who's that guy, when did he get the No. 21 shirt?

Probably got the number 21 last night when User:Gavincmbll added it to the article! -- Arwel 12:26, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When will people stop abusing free resources for their own amusement?

writing up articles tidily

would whoever wrote up the club's extended history in this article be so kind (and one-tenth as enthusiastic) and do the internal linking bit as well for what you wrote? -Mayumashu 05:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

History

This section just repeats a lot of what's in the History of Manchester United article. Wouldn't it be better to merge the two one way or the other? It seems a waste of time to have people editing both articles. Cantthinkofagoodname 11:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The ALex Ferguson Era

The very last part :

"but there is still a good chance of success in the shape of an F.A Cup victory over Arsenal in the final on 21st May. During the close-season, at least two major signings would be useful if United are to perform to the best of their ability in 2005-06. A title challenge should be their minimum target, as they have been realistic challengers in the league for the last 14 seasons. The European Cup should also be a priority, as they have yet to equal the success of 1968 and 1999."

Seems terribly to violate NPOV or original research. It is defintiely commentary that I do not htink is appropriate. I am sure a similar sentiment can be expressed in a much more neutral way.--Gangster Octopus 16:49, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the club's history into new pages

The history section was split out of the page last year (I think) but someone then wrote another history section in the main page. Both pages are now well over the recommended maximum size for a Wikipedia article, and it's getting to the stage where I suspect people are editing them without reading them all the way through (which would explain why the Glazer takeover is mentioned twice in Manchester United, in roughly the same amount of detail each time).

So, my idea is to create new pages for different eras in United's history, merge the relevant bits of Alex Ferguson, History of Manchester United and the History section of Manchester United into each new page and put summaries of each new page on Manchester United, with comments asking people not to make the summaries too long. The new articles would have titles like:

I think something like this is necessary to keep the pages manageable, but obviously don't want to make such big changes to other people's work without hearing what people think first. Please let me know what you think on this page.


Thanks, Cantthinkofagoodname 10:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, go for it. I can't say I envy you all that work though. ;) There's a definite need for some pictures, too ... perhaps I'll look into doing that (so you don't have to do everything!); one for each of the four history sections, maybe. The original history of Manchester United page would need to be deleted once all the merging and construction had taken place. Proto 11:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice idea, but I'm not entirely sure. I know the history needs a huge reworking (personally, I think the Glazer takeover - timeline, effects and implications, reactions - is probably a big enough event to warrant an article of its own)... but for some reason I don't think I like the split history. It looked fairly manageable when it was in a page of its own, so why it was steadily remerged into the article is anyone's guess. However, given that the article can only possibly grow, and that it does need management, I'd say aye. I'll be glad to help out wherever I can. Kinitawowi 11:55, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
I think you have a really good idea here! In fact, I can think of a few more Premiership pages—and even one NON-LEAGUE (!) page (I'm thinking of AFC Wimbledon)— that could need this treatment in the not-too-distant future. I do agree that the Glazer takeover does warrant an article of its own. One detail that's especially interesting to me in the Glazer saga is the apparently developing links between AFC, or at least certain elements within AFC, and strongly anti-Glazer United fans. Back to the article... I have a couple of ideas:
  • Once the project is done, don't kill the History of Manchester United page entirely, but make it a dab to the individual history sections. Better yet, create a template so that users can easily jump from one article to another.
  • With the number of players who have played an important role in United history, you could almost create a master list of important players, either in the main article or in its own article, and then have sublists in each of the history articles, keyed to era.
As Proto would say, "I don't envy you all that work." Nonethless, go for it!  :) Dale Arnett 13:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a list of important players. It is located at List of Manchester United players. Add as you see fit. 67.173.107.96

I defineately agree with this idea. It would make things clearer and easier to read. Not knowing what everyone's ages are, I would guess the history would be weakest for the Pre-1945 section, particularly anything before 1908 or after 1911 (the lean years). 67.173.107.96

I would suggest leaving History of Manchester United as it is, with links to sections which will contain more detail. Then we can go through and cut the detail from it, so it will give a general overview while peeps can click on the relevant links for more info about specific eras. I wrote pretty much the whole thing based on The Hamlyn Illustrated History of Manchester United 1878-1997 and it was a real job deciding what details were important and what to summarise. It's a great book and there's a lot in there which could be used for greater detail, especially the early years (pre-WW2). --Legalizeit 12:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I've created Manchester United pre-1945 from the text in History of Manchester United and added some stuff from this article to it. I'd have preferred to have something like a 50-50 split, but the section in History of Manchester United was more detailed so there wasn't a lot to add from here. I'd like to hear what people think of the pre-1945 article before I do any more on this, so please let me know whether you still think this is all a good idea. If anybody wants to help, it's probably best if you choose one or more of the sections and let us know here which one(s) you're doing. Please note that for post-1986, there's a lot of stuff on Alex Ferguson's page which is more about United than him and which could be merged into the new article. Cantthinkofagoodname 16:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I've taken the stuff on 1945-69 from both articles and merged them into Manchester United 1945-1969. Any comments would be welcome. I'm a bit concerned about attributing the text of the "new" articles, so if anyone knows how to get the article history sorted please let me know. CTOAGN 14:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I've done the same for Manchester United 1969-1986. CTOAGN 16:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They're all done now. The new articles are at:

I spotted a few inaccuracies going through the articles but haven't had time to fix them all. I think each article should have its own introduction summarising that period of United's history. It'd be great if someone else could do that, but if not I'll probably get round to it tomorrow. So I think now we need short summaries of United's history to go on this page and links to these articles. And possibly a message telling people to put long histories of the club in the linked article so no-one has to do this again :-D

I'm still concerned about attibuting the text to the contributors who wrote it, but I'm sure there will be a hack that can fix it.

Legalizeit, I like your idea about cutting down History of Manchester United and linking to the new sections, but I think once that's done it should be moved back into this page as the new History section. Does that sound alright to you? We could link from this article to HOMU and from them to the new ones but I think that's too longwinded.

CTOAGN 21:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd help, but at the moment my left arm's in a sling (tendonitis) - if nobody else has done it by next week, I'll have a crack at it. Proto 09:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've had a go at it but they still look a bit too long. Might edit them down further CTOAGN 13:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've done the summaries now, although I think it might be good to split the last article/section at the end of the 1999 season. I hope no-one's offended by my having reworked the page so much, but I thought it needed to be done with having duplicate history sections of that size. It's also a bit more feasible to read the whole page now which should prevent the same thing appearing twice and make vandalism a bit easier to spot. I'd be interested to hear any comments, and if anyone knows how I can sort out the attributions for the new aricles please let me know, otherwise I'll have a trawl through the WP documentation for it sometime. CTOAGN 10:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've now split the final history article into two as mentioned above. CTOAGN 21:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


i love cristiano ronaldo

Regarding van der Sar

Why is van der Sar in the noted players section? He hasn't even played a single game for United yet! kelvinhole

Dunno. Don't think anyone will mind if you remove him. CTOAGN 21:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As the Premiership has started, Van der Sar has been hailed by Sir alex himself as well as others as the man to at last replace Schmeichel, and 4 games in, 4 clean sheets, he has already proved popular with fans and pundits alike. I think it's fair to include Edwin Van der Sar in the notable players, he has a Worldwide reputation and wether succesful or not, is already Manchester United's most notable signing and improvement this season. Thats my opinion, but if he's not to be included it's no problem. --MrShuke 13:15, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


Van der sar is a fantastic goalkeeper, mabye its something you can only tell by watching him instead of soaking up statistics, the reasons hes conceeded so many are probably

  1. He played for Fulham, not best defence in the world, no offence to any fulham fans
  2. He was good, so he played all the games for fulham, therefore he has more matches to play, and more likely to conceed goals.

Also you cannot blaim conceeded goals on the keeper, don't know bout you guys but over our side of the pond football is a team sport. Philc T+C 23:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

I've reverted this: 

(ironically many fans campaigned for privatising several years ago),

as I'm not sure what was being referred to. Anyone know which campaign is being referred to? There were a significant number of fans who opposed the flotation in the first place, but as Martin Edwards had been trying to sell the club to some, at best, unsuitable people it was seen as the lesser of two evils. CTOAGN 23:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Famous fans section

Do we really need this for the United article? I can see the point of having one for smaller clubs which have about three famous fans, but with a club the size of United I don't think it improves the article. It'll have about 50 names in a couple of months, and I don't really see why it's notable. CTOAGN 16:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It could have it's own page, I suppose ... is there a List of famous Manchester United fans? Proto t c 12:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, I don't think so. --chapter1 00:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glazer vs big money transfers

I've removed the following from the article:

On 1st August 2005, club chief executive David Gill had given Red's manager the green light to chase England international striker Michael Owen, but Glazer had blocked the attempt due to his expensive £80,000 per week contract.

Because: a) the club denies they wanted Owen (for what that's worth; it's not as if y'all really need him, anyway!) b) there was no cite c) is it really appropriate for a general encyclopædic entry on the club? c) it sounds very much like a ManU fan whingeing about Glazer, which is Not Good for NPOV --MarkGallagher 11:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Page Name

The club has, since 1997 or so, been officially known as Manchester United, NOT Manchester United F.C.. Thus, surely the page name should be changed accordingly. Deano 18:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surely not. You mean the managment organization that owns the football club, is known as Manchester United PLC. This company owns a number of companies that trade on the name Man U. The company that actually runs the football club is Manchester United Football Club Limited. See [1] Jooler 19:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No I mean take a look and the club badge. It changed from saying "Manchester United Football Club" to just "Manchester United" around about 1998. The reason? Because the Club was Manchester United, and Manchester United was the Club. Plus, it is infinitely more practical from a wiki standpoint (in terms of redirects) to have the name as MU rather than MUFC. Deano 20:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this is so, then they forgot to tell their own web designers. The front page of manutd.com has at the bottom: "Copyright, Manchester United FC, 2005". Apart from the huge numbers of links that would have to be edited if we moved the page, Manchester United redirects here anyway. -- Arwel 20:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They obviously didnt forget to tell ther web designers as it actuallt day "Copyright Manchester United Limited 2006" 172.203.0.198 15:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Club badges don't really mean much do they Image:Arsenal_FC.png,Image:Newcastle_United_crest.png, Image:West Ham United FC Crest.gif (I just noticed the last one should be a png not a gif) Jooler 20:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From the official website: "This website is the only official website of Manchester United Football Club and is ©Copyright Manchester United PLC (the "Club") and Trans World International (UK) Inc ("TWI") 1998 - 2003.--GingerM 16:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can only think of one reason for getting rid of the Football Club: It's more about the club than the fans. --chapter1 08:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added FA Cup record to opening paragraph - J Bryant

The old logo underneath the club infomation looks out off place. Should it be there? Hamedog 16:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Club Logo in 70s
Club Logo in 70s
  • I don't think so, unless someone puts a caption underneath it saying when it was used. I've taken it out, but put a link here so we can find it if anyone objects. If it's going to be in at all, it probably belongs in one of the history articles imo. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added it to the 1969-1986 section and to the article of the same name. I captionted it to say used in 1970's.


Support

I've reverted this edit:

United fans who are not from the north-west have often been labelled as bandwagon jumpers and glory hunters who choose to follow United because of their success, instead of supporting a local team. Many people from the West Midlands started supporting United during the 1990's. This was easily because four of the five teams in this region were playing below the Premiership. In regions with relatively unsuccessful teams, such as Devon and Cornwall, many followers of Manchester United and other big clubs like Liverpool and Arsenal can be found. The inception of Sky television has made it possible for fans to watch United matches on T.V all around the world. Many United supporters have never been to a game because of the ever-increasing ticket prices.

No idea why the West Midlands and Devon were singled out, there are plenty of nineties United fans all around the country. Also, it would have been more neutral to mention that out-of-town fans are hardly unique to United: there's no shortage of Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea fans who live miles from their club and have never been to a match. I don't see why what was already there was completely blanked either - was it really that bad? File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

We could do with a few more photos for the United articles. Some useful ones would be:

  • Denis Law's statue in the Stretford End
  • The Munich clock
  • Any photos of Old Trafford that you've taken yourself
  • The Stretford End banners
  • Any of the anti-Glazer protests from last season
  • The scarves laid in tribute to George Best
  • The procession in Manchester after United won the treble

There are people on Wikipedia who go round deleting any copyrighted images that they find, so they'll probably need to be photos you've taken yourself and don't mind releasing the copyright for. I've hardly ever taken a camera to matches, but I've got good photo of the Nou Camp in 1999 that I'll upload. I think that's about it though. Older photos would be especially good - pics of the stadium in the 80s or something.

If you need a hand with the image tagging or uploading process, leave a message on my user page and I'll help you out. Thanks, File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The John Obi Mikel Saga

I think that this article could improve by adding information about the John Obi Mikel case that has been going on for more than 9 months now. Both in this article, and in the Chelsea F.C. article. Although the dispute is far from finished, that shouldn't be any reason for us not too include information about the case. I think it is of interest. Does anyone have any comments to this? (I also posted this idea in the Chelsea talk page.) NuclearFunk 21:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's notable enough to United for this page. The club's history is condensed pretty tightly here to fit it into a reasonable-sized page - the 1960s only get one paragraph - so it wouldn't be appropriate. There's obviously something weird going on with his transfer, but at the moment as far as United are concerned he's just a player they've tried and failed to sign, not much more notable to the club than Michael Ballack. IMO it's not even relevant enough to go on Manchester United 1999-present unless something drastic comes out (which wouldn't completely surprise me). Similarly, I don't think anything on this transfer would belong on Chelsea's page even if he did sign for them. CTOAGN (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is is just me or has somebody been altering the data

in the table of number of times finished at a certain ranking195.8.3.165 17:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've put them back. Cheers, CTOAGN (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Injured Players

I think we need a section on players who are currently injured. -M.Kris 03:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that doesn't seem encyclopaedic. We'd probably end up with sections on transfer speculation and why Silvestre ever thought he could be a centre back if we did that. CTOAGN (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford Chan and Wesley Brown

I believed two anons changed Wayne Rooney and another player to the following names above. Would I clarify whether these two players are playing for MUFC? I am not so keen in soccer though, but I don't know whether this is vandalism. --Terence Ong 13:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know who Bradford Chan is, but Wesley Brown has been playing for United for years, although he's better known as Wes. I've set up a redirect. CTOAGN (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page size >36Kb

Should this article be split, perhaps Manchester United F.C.(History) and current? Chris 19:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It already has, we have something like 5 articles on United's history - see the United template near the bottom of the article. This is why I put comments in the text asking people not to make the history section in the article any longer than it was. I wouldn't worry about article size until it gets to at least 50k, the 32k thing is an old recommendation from the days when there was a browser that wouldn't let you edit more than 32k at a time. The history section could be trimmed down a bit though. CTOAGN (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why have supporter web-sites been taken out? S'long as they are well-updated fansites, I see no harm in this - yet they are always edited back out within a day? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.203.254.11 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]


It's usually done because if you have one fansite in the External Links, then within four or five hours, there have been twenty others added by anonymous editors, all saying 'Well, if website A is allowed, so is mine'. Proto||type 11:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not allow them all? They all provide further information and opinion on Manchester United FC and are just as relevant as many of the media sites mentioned.
There are 1000's of sites, most dont have accurate or uptodate information. The page shows 3 listed fan sites currently. Either it is all allowed or none. Should those 3 not be removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheCondor (talk • contribs) 19:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]


2006/05/08 I removed an unofficial link from the "Independent media sites" list. I dont know who posted it but it is to a copied Sky broadcast and I am sure contravend copyright regs. Anyone feel it needs to go back here is the line. *the one and only MUFC video

The Red Devils

The text here states that the nickanme 'Red Devils' came from 'the Heathans'. What evidence is there for that?

Rugby league sources say that the Salford City Reds were given this nickname in the 1930s by French journalist and Manchester United copied it.GordyB 09:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[2]
History: The club was founded as Newton Heath by members of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway company, but that team went bankrupt in 1902 leading to the formation of Manchester United. The club was known since the turn of the 20th century as United, but in the late 40's and early 50's when Talismanic manager Matt Busby led the team to its greatest successes, the media and fans referred to the club as "Busby's Babes." Sadly, in 1958, a airplane crash in Munich took the lives of seven players as well as injuring Busby himself. After the crash, Busby's Babes seemed inappropriate so a new name was sought. English rugby club Salford toured France wearing red shirts and became known as "The Red Devils". Busby liked the sound of it, thinking a devil was more intimidating to opponents than angelic babes. He declared Manchester United should also be known as the "The Red Devils" and soon the club began incorporating the devil logo into match programs and scarves. In 1970 the club badge was redesigned, but now with a devil in the center holding a pitch-fork.GordyB 09:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have accordingly altered the page.GordyB 09:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That link is a URL forwarder, and is therefore blocked by my ISP, so I can't check it out. What is the URL the link forwards to? Proto||type 11:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It just confirms the above passage i.e. I didn't invent this. It has short paragraphs on the histories of different clubs. I posted the data because you have to scroll down the page a long way to get to Manchester United.GordyB 14:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the site http://footballclubs.dyndns.org/allclubs.php?co=england was used to help with the history of ManU, certainly we can add it as an external link? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.65.14.143 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]


I totally agree. The http://footballclubs.dyndns.org site is phenominal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.197.142.154 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Manchester United or Manchester United F.C.

Which is it, I was under the impression that Man Utd changed its name and dropped the F.C. in order to expand into more business areas, hence it is not on the badge anymore and hence when the club was a PLC it was Manchester United PLC, no FC. Especially as Manchester United F.C. is not used once on the official website, only Manchester United is used. Anyone know the answer for sure? Philc T+C 23:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be (probably still is) an FA rule saying that clubs could not be publicly traded, so directors got around it by transferring ownership of the club to a holding company and publicly trading the holding company. In United's case MUPLC was the holding company and MUFC was the club. The club is now owned by a company called Red Football which is owned by the Glazer family and (I think) based in the USA.
When they changed the badge they claimed it looked better without the extra lettering and said something or other about building a brand. This upset a lot of United fans and the new badge is still unpopular, but AFAIK the club itself is still Manchester United F.C. I think it's best to keep the article title as it is for the sake of consistency with other articles, unless someone can show that it's definitely inaccurate. After all, we've got redirects from most other sensible titles for it. CTOAGN (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then When it says in the Manchester United official website "copyright Manchester United Ltd 2006", who is that? If its not MUFC and not Red Football, who is this third party? Philc T+C 21:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. My best guess would be that it's a replacement for the PLC now that there's no longer a PLC but I thought Red Football had directly replaced the PLC. CTOAGN (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I had a thought, since everyone seems pretty sure MUFC exists, and is not just Manchester United now, I was under the impression that around the time people think the name was changed, the club diversified, involving its finances in things far from football, such as the casino ventures which Glazer was berated about due to NFL rules regarding gambling and split intrests. So possibly MUFC is a division of Manchester United which is owned by Red Football which is in turn owned by the Glazers, its just a thought, but it could explain a few things. Philc T+C 22:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does this really need discussing? Manchester United exists, principally, as a football club, hence the use of the FC is optional surely. Comparing it with the great club of Liverpool, for instance, FC is more essential when referring to Liverpool in some cases, as the listener / reader might think you're referring solely to the city in a sentence such as "I love Liverpool". Manchester United is obviously referring to the football club therefore the shirts and, more specifically, their badges can afford to do away with the FC initials. 86.10.6.70 03:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Dalglynch-72[reply]
This has already been discussed see Talk:Manchester_United_F.C.#Page_Name above. Jooler 12:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this article should be in the nomination for featured article status. There are a number of pictures, references and links to web-sites. The article is also conscise and has an objective feel to it. Any comments? --Siva1979Talk to me 12:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article would need to go through the Peer Review process first, which will pick up on a lot of errors and what could still be done, before going through the feature article process. The Arsenal F.C. article is featured, so it might not be a bad idea to see what that article's got that this one hasn't. Proto||type 15:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had a go at getting it there last year, but realised that maintaining the article was more work than improving it. It attracts so many edits from people who haven't read the Wikipedia guidelines (not their fault - we encourage people to edit articles straight away so we can't really complain) that keeping on top of people's opinions of who United should sign or two-paragraph entries on a new signing takes ages. We've just created a list of articles that have this problem at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football which might make it easier, so I'll have another go at it if I get time. CTOAGN (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous fans - do we care?

Is it appropriate to have a list of so-called (in some cases) 'famous' people who support the club? Surely it would be better to have a category 'Manchester United fans' which could identify these people if there is a WikiPage on them. Then just have a link to the category on this page. It'd help with the size issue too. MikesPlant 16:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it. We've had this discussion before, both on this page and at WikiProject Football. All the major English club pages got rid of them - most people agreed it was unencyclopaedic and a waste of space. CTOAGN (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talking Reds

Just letting whoever it concerns know that I added an external link to the Official Man United Message board - Talking Reds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kev-Ryan (talk • contribs) 10:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Official capacity?

Is 76,000 all-seater the official capacity of Old Trafford? Does anyone know when the expansion had been completed? Finally, is Manchester United going to expand this capacity future in the future? --Siva1979Talk to me 21:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current expansion involved the 2 new quantrants will be fully completed at the start of next season, and at that stage the stadium's capacity will be 76,000 (give or take). According to several sources ([3], [4], [5]), the long-term plan is to re-build the South Stand à la the North Stand, making OT a whopping 90,000 seat behemoth... DJR (Talk) 23:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on a personal note, this is indeed very, very good news for me. As a Manchester United supporter, it had always been my dream to see Old Trafford as having the largest stadium capacity in Europe. I hope that these long term plans will materialize soon! But, is the expansion potential limited? I heard that a nearby railway network prevents Old Trafford from increasing to a gigantic size. Is that true? --Siva1979Talk to me 03:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a railway line right next to the ground with houses immediately behind it. In the past there's been talk of building over the railway line and buying and demolishing the houses but it's always been rejected as costing too much. I think it's unlikely to be expanded much further as supply and demand seem to be just about equal at the moment - they're selling out but only just for most games. CTOAGN (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, they could rebuild the South Stand to the height of the west/east stands or their current land... however if they wanted to replicate the North Stand on the opposite side... then they would indeed have to build on top of the railway... unless some new technological engineering enables some sort of crazy structure... DJR (Talk) 21:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's currently 73,006 and I think the official capacity will go up to 76,313 by the start of the 06/07 season. The figure comes from the FootballGroundGuide message board (link, however it's down due to virus problems at the moment... this link contains some of the info). Also, if I remember correctly, building a copy of the North Stand on the South Stand is unviable due to the railway line, it'd be far too expensive. Last I heard there could be a smaller 2nd tier on the South Stand, though, taking capacity to over 80,000. --CharlieT 12:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caps

Where it says Most Capped Player, is that only current players, as there are a lot more players that have played for United with more than VDS's 107 caps? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GingerM (talk • contribs) 14:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Caps are awarded for international games, not club games, so 107 is almost as high as it gets. CTOAGN (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would make more sense to list Bobby Charlton as holding this record, as most of van der Sar's caps were earned while playing for other clubs. Charlton is the player to earn most caps as a Manchester United player. By the logic that puts van der Sar as the record holder, Bobby Charlton would hold the equivalent record for Preston North End. Oldelpaso 17:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting angle. I sort of agree with you, but is that not changing the premise of that part of the article? Have both? TheCondor 10:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought Schmeichel and Charlton had more caps.--GingerM 17:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC) I just checked and Schmeichel had 129 so I'll add it to the article.--GingerM 17:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well that solves that argument :P TheCondor 21:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loan Players

Some of the loan players (season 2005/06) have already returned to the club. Jon Spector (due to injury) and Davey Jones are two I am aware of. As the Championship season is over for most clubs I guess others have also returned but I dont have any supporting facts. When should this section be updated? (I am new here so not familiar with the team workings). -theCondor- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheCondor (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Welcome to the project. If you see anything that you know is wrong or out of date, feel free to edit it. Just to let you know, you can sign your name with a link to your user page by putting ~~~~ at the end of a message. CTOAGN (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
cheers! TheCondor 10:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I wish people would read notes before editing. Someone put back Jon Spector in the loan section again for the fourth time. I am sick of removing it, so give up. For the record he came back to Old Tafford April 27th due to injury and being inelligible to play in Charltons last game of the season (at United). Im sure most of these player have returned now as all of their clubs seasons have been completed (exception Dong Fangzhuo and Mamom semi-permanent loans) TheCondor 15:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latest manutd.com confirmed sources. May 10, 2006: extended Liam Miller to Leeds Utd until May 27th. Extended: Ben Foster and Chris Eagles to Watford until May 27th. Confirmed returned due to season close: Jon Spector, Paul McShane, Eddie Johnson, Phil Bardsley, Phil Picken, Ebank-Blank, Eckersley, Heaton, Martin, Simpson, Dave Jones. TheCondor 12:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalised

Spotted the vandalism up there on the club name and I don't know how to change it =( Could someone change it? It's a bit uneasy seeing that on bold and big. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.130.234.67 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]


reverted --Mattarata 14:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is reporting abuse so difficult on Wiki :P I just spent an hour reading and following links to report 212.219.143.250 who has already had 4 final warning from an admin... then gave up. Someone else can do it for me if they know the procedure. TheCondor 12:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's more vandalism about diving. Seems to have survived a few reverts. Sprouty76 15:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHY DOES IT GET CHANGED WHEN IT'S POINTED OUT THAT MAN U ARE THE SECOND MOST SUCCESSFUL CLUB IN ENGLAND - YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE IT, BUT (NUMBER OF FA CUP WINS ASIDE) IT'S A FACT!!!

Record attendence

"The club has had the highest average attendance in English football the past 50 seasons. [1]" - from the intro. I seem to recall that when seating at Old Trafford was being increased, for one season MU didn't have the highest average attendence (mentioned on a Premership video if I recall correctly), but I'm unsure where to check. 86.133.110.239 16:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Darkson[reply]

The following link should help - http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/attneng.htm - according to that, Liverpool had the highest crowds in 87-88 and 88-89, whilst there was some redevelopment at Old Trafford. Liverpool also had the highest top flight crowds in 74-75, however, Manchester United were in the 2nd division and had an even higher average crowd. So the last time Man Utd didn't have the highest crowds, with the exception of redevelopment, would have been the 71-72 season, only 34 years. I've corrected it, and the link. --CharlieT 13:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantry regarding location

Can the pedantic City fans who keep changing the location to be "Stretford" or "Greater Manchester" please stop it. The city of Manchester comprises nine boroughs - not just the metropolitan borough of Manchester itself. By the logic you are applying there are no football clubs in London - as the City of London only covers one square mile!! This is an international resource and Manchester United do play in Manchester! 84.70.37.64 22:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manchester_United_F.C.&oldid=60402923"