Talk:2017–18 Manchester United F.C. season

Football: England / Manchester United / Season Low‑importance

	Association football portal This 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Manchester United task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

Michael Carrick's Testimonial[edit]

I think that Michael Carrick's Testimonial should be included in 2016–17 Manchester United F.C. season friendlies section because season 2017-18 starts in July. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Friendlies/squad info. etc.: There should be the kick-off times for friendlies and squad information and coaching staff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.229.57 (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe Players[edit]

Are players like Mitchell, McTominay and Gomes really part of the first team squad? I know they got a game or two at the end of last season but I am pretty sure they are back training with the reserve team now. I don't know if they should be amongst the squad list, especially as it is only a first team list and not a comprehensive one of everyone contracted to the club. Davefelmer (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a comprehensive list of everyone contracted to the club though, is it? It's a list of all the players with squad numbers. Of course, this can be trimmed if the list is shorter when it's released in August, but at the minute, Mitchell, McTominay and Gomes all have squad numbers and deserve to be included in the squad stats table. – Pee Jay 07:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on this one. Personally think that all players with a squad number should be included, especially if they are at any stage involved in a match day squad during the season (including unused subs). Would still love to see the match results/details format changed to mach most other clubs though, with opposition scorers included :) Bs1jac (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion about the second part of your comment currently ongoing at WT:FOOTY. Check it out. – Pee Jay 10:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough mate. Davefelmer (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly kick-off dates[edit]

Should they not be according to BST, the club's time, rather than the venue's local time? VEO^onefive 22:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think so. The team is currently operating on US time, so we should reflect that. What does the club's website say the date is for each game? – Pee Jay 00:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The website uses the UK dates, with a note of the local dates.[1] The site's match reports seem to be using UK time as well, unless the club reporters have not adjusted to the time zones and are penning these articles during the local ungodly hours. VEO^onefive 02:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just spotted this article, which gives the local date/time as the primary date/time. I think the date/time it is where the game is actually being played is more useful than converting it to BST, which is only relevant to people in our time zone. – Pee Jay 16:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

transfer amounts should be included[edit]

MU club insists to never report the transfer details. Which is alright for their own website.

This is a wikipedia. And transfer amounts are widely reported. And should be included. The same way they are included in players personal pages.

IF someone wants to insist, it can be noted under transfer amount: "75m per news reports, no official amount reported. "

I cannot see a justification for omitting such a crucial detail. Except that the club itself might not like, which has not relevance for an encyclopedia. Jazi Zilber (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so how do you know the amounts being reported are accurate? – Pee Jay 21:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no court proven evidence. But the reported amounts usually has some relation to the truth. Precise numbers will need court evidence of course. club statements can be false as well Jazi Zilber (talk)

This is why such numbers should be noted as news reports rather than absolutes Jazi Zilber (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one is asking for "court proven evidence", I'm just asking how you know those figures are accurate. For one thing, you've provided links to Goal.com and Transfermarkt, which are considered by WP:FOOTY to be unreliable sources. Furthermore, there's definitely a more elegant way to include the information you're proposing, so don't just pile in and make changes before this discussion has reached a conclusion. – Pee Jay 07:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you can see some of my references were to telegraph and guardian. so go do it yourself. simple google search will help you. go do it yourself if my work isn't to your taste. Jazi Zilber (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you don't understand my question. I'm not questioning the reliability of the sources in general, I'm asking how they can know the fee when it hasn't been made publicly known. – Pee Jay 20:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do newspapers know transfer amounts when the club does not openly give the numbers? Like much of investigative journalism. Those contracts have tens of people seeing them first hand (lawyers, agents, friends, club directors, their secretaries etc. etc.) Thus, it is not surprising is numbers do leak out.

I find it quite surprising how adamant you were here to remove those published numbers at any price. Even after the headline was changed to "rumored" Jazi Zilber (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be surprised. Wikipedia doesn't deal in rumours, especially when those rumours can be so wildly different. Now let it lie, we've got a compromise in place. – Pee Jay 19:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule list[edit]

Why cant we show the list of Premier League scheduled matches for the current month? What's your argument? My standpoint is when a fan visits this page they should be able to see all the schedules games of all competitions of current month. - Shivam.d.singh

for legal purpose. the premier league own the rights for the schedule. we can only show 1 PL game ahead, which is legal. UEFA doesn't force us like the PL does on upcoming games. so CL is ok, PL is not. --
– HonorTheKing (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^This. Unless the situation has changed, we can only claim Fair Use on the intellectual property of Football DataCo for the next game. More than that and we would be breaching copyright laws. But even if the situation has changed, why would you only put two upcoming fixtures? Why not the whole schedule? – Pee Jay 20:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]