Talk:Manchester United F.C./Archive 2

Injured Players

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

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)

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)

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)

Page size >36Kb

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

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)

Links

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).

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)

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).

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)

[1]

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)

I have accordingly altered the page.GordyB 09:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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).

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

This has already been discussed see Talk:Manchester_United_F.C.#Page_Name above. Jooler 12:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article?

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? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 21:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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 ([2], [3], [4]), 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)

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? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

Well that solves that argument :P TheCondor 21:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Bluemooners

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)

Agreed. You might as well have David Platt as well if Goater is going to be included. --Skully Collins _{Review Me! Please?} 14:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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).

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)

cheers! TheCondor 10:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Is Rincon still at Sao Paulo or is he at Sporting Lisbon now? 84.70.37.64 22:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

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).

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

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)

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

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!!!

the reason most people hate this club is because they have a large fan base of glory hunters.

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

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)

Record League Attendance (at Old Trafford): 75,828 v Liverpool, Premiership, 22 October 2006

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)

You mean pedantic as in absolutely 100% correct? You clearly have no idea what you are tlaking about anyway - there are 10 boroughs in Greater Manchester, not nine (the city of Manchester itself being a borough). Rochdale, Bolton, Bury, Wigan, Oldham and Stockport are not in Manchester, therefore neither is the borough of Trafford. Therefore Manchester United is not located in the City of Manchester any more than clubs I just listed are. Why can't people accept facts??

As for London clubs - I don't see them deleting the name of the borough they are located in from their entries, in fact most tend to be proud of their location rather than ashamed like Manchester United fans clearly are.

FAO of the City fan who has been editing this page. Why don't you sign your posts? I thought that was a rule on here, you are quite quick to display other posters IP numbers when they forget to sign their posts, but you don't post your own signature or IP number. Double standards again? Could you explain why you don't have to sign your posts yet other do?

(AS for the Stretford debate - this sort of thing makes no difference to anyone but City fans) James Ryddel.

Champions Cup

Is there any reason why the European Cup (as I believe it was known in 1956) is referred to as the Champions Cup in the records section? --Aenimiac 18:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It was technically the "European Champion Clubs' Cup", so either name is probably acceptable. - Pal 19:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Famous players

Either alphabetize or list by chronological order. Yonatanh 23:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

New Shirt

please edit the shirt picture out as many people have not seen it yet an dont want to untill it is revailed.

The kit has been unveiled now but I think that image should be removed as it isn't a very good quality image. I'm not sure a real life image of the kit needs to be included in the article (for any football team, I could only imagine it being appropriate in a separate article listing all the kits for football teams in the league) Also, the football kit template needs to be edited to look like the new kit. I'm not sure how to go about doing it so I'll leave it up to someone else. Diddy Didds 15:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a good at it. What do the shorts and socks look like?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 05:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, it looks really really complicated.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 12:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Old Trafford Location

I've noticed that someone is changing the City that Old Trafford is in from Manchester to Trafford. The Infobox at the top of the page says Manchester so shouldn't that information be continuous throughout the article? Diddy Didds 14:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Trafford is the correct location, Manchester united is not classed as being in Manchester itself - just outside that borough. It is correct however to describe it as being in "Greater Manchester", of which Trafford is a borough.

I.e. the only correct description is "Trafford, Great Manchester"

By this logic there are no teams in London as for example Arsenal are in the borough of Islington. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, Manchester United are a club from the City of Manchester. Administrative boundaries are not relevant. 84.70.103.5 17:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no football team within the City of London (the "Square Mile") or within the City of Westminster (Greater London's other City) for that matter, all the "London" teams' grounds are within London Boroughs of Greater London. Similarly Manchester United's ground is not within the boundaries of the City of Manchester; it is within Trafford Metropolitan Borough, which is within the metropolitan county of Greater Manchester.Mister Ennui 10:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It cannot reasonably be argued that being in Greater Manchester is the same as being in the City of Manchester, as this would mean the residents of the City of Salford (which is also part of Greater Manchester) are also residents of the City of Manchester - I don't see how you can be simultaneously in two cities. Manchester United's ground is outside the city boundary and they are thus a Trafford team and also a Greater Manchester team. They are not a team of the City of Manchester (unlike Manchester City FC, whose ground is within the city boundary).Mister Ennui 10:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Much of Manchester United's support does come from within the City of Manchester however.Mister Ennui 10:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth aren't government boundaries relevant? - they are the only offical boundaries there are. Should we just use opinion instead? As people have noted this is an encyclopedia - that means you have to use FACTS. The boroughs of Rochdale, Bolton, Bury, Wigan, Oldham and Stockport are not in Manchester, therefore neither is the borough of Trafford. Please stop vandalising this entry and accept facts. "Greater Manchester" is the only appropriate term.

Stock Exchange

Is Manchester United a publically traded company and if so what is their ticker symbol? Thank you. John R G 05:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Not anymore. They are back in private hands after the Glazers bought them. Jastein 06:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)