Talk:Newport County A.F.C.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Foundation dates/continuation[edit]

I added tags to request citations for the claim in the opening paragraph that Newport County AFC "is a continuation of Newport County". Newport County folded in 1989 and Newport County AFC was founded as a new club, so this claim is dubious. We need secondary sources to support the claim that Newport County AFC is the same club as Newport County. Mooretwin (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC refer to Newport being "back in the Football League after 25 years" for a start. Number 57 20:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not the greatest source. What about any football annuals/directories? Mooretwin (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC source that's been added to the article is very ambiguous. Mooretwin (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it not the greatest source? Because it disagrees with what you seem to be thinking? It quite clearly says that the club is back in the Football League after 25 years, which in turn clearly means that the current club is seen as a continuation of the old one. Or was the current incatnation in the League 25 years ago? This article also says "But the prize fell instead to Newport County, as they completed their remarkable journey of rebirth to take their place in the fourth tier of English football a quarter of a century after it was snatched away." Number 57 21:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think a football annual like the Sky Sports annual (formerly Rothmans) would have more authority than a BBC web journalist. Mooretwin (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis? The annual is written by a father and daughter team with (AFAIK) no editorial oversight. Number 57 07:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis that published books have greater weight than online news articles and Rothmans/Sky Sports is traditionally considered to be the football equivalent of Wisden. Mooretwin (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who says published books have greater weight than online articles ? anyway, that's irrelevant as most references on wiki come from online articles and these BBC references are totally valid. I'm unsure if you are a football follower but anyone with any knowledge of Newport County knows the club was resurrected by fans groups and despite a financial blip in 1988 is considered the same club by current and former players/managers as well as the media, supporters and other clubs.Pwimageglow (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Financial blip? the club went bankrupt, got thrown out of the league mid-season, got thrown out of the Welsh FA and had all their assets liquidated. When Newport AFC were formed in 89 they was never a suggestion this was a continuation of County - it couldn't have been for legal reasons - and the club badge had "founded-1989" on it in the early nineties. The idea that this a reformation of County only came about when the club changed its' name in 1999. Fair enough that the clubs and fans consider it to be the same club but that doesn't make it true Topcardi (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The club was reformed in 1989 by the same supporters of the original club (in the same colours, many of the same players and a former manager). Many of those supporters are still involved with the club, including the current club president David Hando. For the 1989-90 season Newport council refused to let them play in Newport because the council considered them to be the same team. When Newport Council relented they returned to their old ground in Newport, Somerton Park. It wasn't until the 1992-3 season that the FAW tried to force them into the Welsh Premier league and the High Court found the FAW's actions illegal. All the media coverage of the recent Conference playoff final recalled the history of Newport County as a continuation of the 1912 Club, as do the wiki references. The wiki article clearly identifies the reformed club hence no problem.
Argument still is that the club was not "reformed" in 89. Newport AFC was a completely different club if even officials and supporters were the same. The club has dishonestly tried to revise its' own history over the last 15 years to play on the link with the original County. For proof here's the club badge from 93 http://thebeautifulhistory.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/newportcountynow-psd.jpg not re-formed - this clearly states "Founded 89". The original and new County should be separate articles like the Accrington Stanley examples. Topcardi (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this thread is about providing the references related to continuation and that has been completed. Of course legally they are two separate clubs but that is addressed in the article. The overwhelming reference material is that fans, officials, Newport Council, FAW, other clubs and media (past and present) consider it a continuation. Picky I know but Accrington Stanley is not a valid comparison as they folded mid 1966 and reformed for 1968-69 season so there was no continuity. Rewriting history ? You are entitled to your opinion but that sounds like a mischievous allegiance to another club ?. Your view of events is contrary to that of the people who were involved with the club before and after 89, including me ie it is and always has been the same club. Reality is there's no point or appetite for splitting this article and that would be another wiki talk thread anyway.Pwimageglow (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no allegiance to any rival club and very happy to see a Newport team back in the league. Just don't like to see bad precedents being set.Topcardi (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree this is potentially a worrying precedent. It's one thing to reference that this club is considered to be a continuation of the old, but another to have a single article about two clubs. Mooretwin (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the relevant precedents here are A.F.C. Telford United, Chester F.C., Darlington 1883, Aldershot Town F.C., etc?
Have sought input at the WP Football talk page. Mooretwin (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I see you have raised a point based on the conclusion you formed at the outset ignoring all the abovePwimageglow (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you have conveniently chosen to ignore Topcardi's agreement that Newport are 'back in the league'Pwimageglow (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Damn - you caught me:-) Meant Newport as a city not just the club, Re-edited my comment to make clear what I meant. Topcardi (talk) 09:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Here's something interesting from a pretty well respected football blog. [1]. "My second question is regarding the formation of the phoenix club, Newport AFC. When the supporters met to establish a new side, I had never realised that Newport County were still actually in existence, were in training, and had been accepted into the Vauxhall Opel League. I had always known that some County fans objected to the formation of the new club, and perhaps this explains it. Could County have been saved if the supporters had backed it in the Opel League? I doubt it, as Sherman would never have found funds to pay off the debts, but should the supporters have waited until County had officially disappeared?" end quote . So the 1st Newport County existed even after AFC was formed? Topcardi (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there is such a thing as a well respected blog but the author says in his intro "I’m admitting my ignorance from the start".Pwimageglow (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re Aldershot Town, Chester etc, I would refer you to the examples of Middlesbrough F.C. (liquidated in 1986), ACF Fiorentina (2002), Rangers F.C. (2013) etc. Number 57 10:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what makes those examples more relevant to Newport than the others? I understand the others - certainly Rangers - were explicitly recognised by their FAs as continuations. Also there was direct continuation and no gap in existence and no name changes (Middlesbrough carried on as before, whereas Newport were expelled from their league and had to start again elsewhere). With Newport there was a gap between the original club folding and the new one being formed, and the new one was formed under a different name and only later changed its name to replicate that of the original club. Mooretwin (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing makes them more relevant - I was merely pointing out that some clubs have separate articles and some don't, so your claim that there is some kind of standard here is incorrect (and for the record, there were also name changes in the examples I quoted - Fiorentina reformed as Florentia Viola before going back to the Fiorentina name, whilst Middlesbrough's official name and club crest both changed). Number 57 11:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could also list Gateshead F.C. (of which several), Burslem Port Vale/Port Vale, or Bradford Park Avenue as arguably different clubs contained in single articles. After Bradford FC liquidated in 1974, a club calling itself Bradford Park Avenue spent many years playing Sunday league football before another new club was formed in that name to switch to Saturdays and join the pyramid structure. I don't think listing Wikipedia's apparently inconsistent treatment of other clubs' broken histories as precedents to be followed is entirely useful. The inconsistent treatment of other clubs' broken histories shows that we can't just pick out articles as precedents to be followed. The question should be one of history as reflected in reliable sources. If enough reliable sources refer to the new club as a continuation of the old, then so should we. If they don't, we shouldn't. Sorry, I hit submit while still trying to formulate that sentence. Struway2 (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that the current Port Vale, Gateshead and Bradford Park Avenue clubs are different clubs from those that preceded them. Mooretwin (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some further sources referring to them as a single club by saying they are returning to the Football League - Daily Mail, Guardian, Sky Sports. Eldumpo (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a better story to say they're returning to the football league. Mooretwin (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for goodness sake, what nonsense. Why would that be a better story than a story that it's a club that's never been in the league before. You've asked for citations and got them in abundance and had all your wrong and biased statements corrected. Sorry for the impatience but we can all spend our wiki time more productively elsewhere.Pwimageglow (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because "back after 25 years" and "back after extinction" is more dramatic than simply a new club being promoted. I didn't make any wrong or biased statements. At least no more biased than anyone else's. I'd suggest that the most likely category of editor to be biased would be Newport County supporters. I have no connection to the club and no axe to grind, other than to seek accuracy in the encyclopaedia. It seems there has been a rewriting of history here, but since the sources have accepted that rewriting of history, there is nothing that can be done. Mooretwin (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Grrrr - enough. So now your blaming media misreporting for your view being wrong. No Newport County supporter including me would care if its one article or two - except its fine and clearer as it is. As already discussed. there's no precedent for two articles rather than one. You are just making pointless stuff up to back up your view. Again "rewriting history" you've picked up on a personal view of Topcardi to back up your view at the outset and I can assure you would be very much in the minority.Pwimageglow (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exhibit A "Accrington Stanley are on course to bridge a 44-year gap by regaining their place in the Football League."[2] on not letting the truth get in the way of a good storyTopcardi (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Grrrrrr - enough - we've had the Accrington discussion and we agreed they are not a continuation, why are you trying to now argue they are a continuation ? - ridiculous windup.Pwimageglow (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm trying to say that journalists don't always check their facts. Stanley are quite obviously not a continuation of the previous club but you still find "reliable sources" that ignore the facts. Topcardi (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas you quoted a blogger (who admitted his total ignorance of the facts) in failing to maker your point. This is ridiculous, I have better things to do and won't be commenting further. Pwimageglow (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I phrased that as a question and not a statement of fact. The big problem is that the same sources 100% contradict themselves at different points in time. The club accepted it was founded in 1989 prior to the name change to County and then claims it was founded in 1912 after that. If the evidence wasn't there from before 1999 then I wouldn't have a case to argue. All the same I hope County do well next season. Topcardi (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct or not, the vast majority of reliable sources tend to consider these new clubs as a continuation of the old ones. Perhaps this discussion is better at Talk:Phoenix club (association football)? GiantSnowman 15:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this isn't a question of sources, none of which appear to be authoritative from the above discussion. If an organisation goes bankrupt, it ceases to exist as an organisation (liquidation of the former entity's assets does not equate to continuing operation). If another organisation then sets up, using a similar name (in this case, not even the same name till years later), it's a new legal entity. I believe that should be the test. Let me ask: did the "continuation" club take over the liabilities of the previous? Of course not. NB a club which enters administration is a completely different case as it remains the same legal entity, Chrismorey (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but it doesn't then follow that there should be separate pages for each legal entity. Is the current Rangers FC a different club from the Rangers that went bust?, legally yes but in all other senses obviously not. Wiki is not a corporate directory. Provided a wiki page captures the history of a club there is no problem.Pwimageglow (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is incorrect and should be amended to make it clear that the current Newport County is not a continuation of the previous club. That previous club was liquidated and lost its league place. A new club was then formed. Whether the new club was founded by some of the people involved in the previous club, and chose a similar name and colours, is incidental. It is only in the last couple of years, primarily around the time that the club won promotion to the Football League, that this claim has begun to appear in the media.170.148.215.157 (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is addressed in the above discussion. There is no standard approach in wiki re pheonix clubs. The article adequately addresses the reformation. This discussion is dead. Pwimageglow (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving of recent discussion[edit]

Why has recent discussion been archived? Doing so makes it less accessible and unlikely that editors will look at it. Mooretwin (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Mooretwin (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As there has been no explanation given, I've raised this at WP:ANI. Mooretwin (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the thread, though as there has been no new comments in 5 days archiving seemed reasonable, though the method could have been better. Mooretwin (talk · contribs), ideally you should have tried to discuss this with Owain (talk · contribs) before going to ANI. GiantSnowman 16:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Newport County A.F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Newport County A.F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism[edit]

@Llemiles: Hi, seeing some of your recent additions, I'm concerned over the amount of WP:RECENTISM being introduced in the article. The new season for example has three paragraphs and we're not even in July. The main article should be a summary of the club's history and not place undue focus on recent events, things like preseason fixtures and cup draws for example should be kept to seasons pages. Kosack (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Newport_County_A.F.C.&oldid=1202006553"