Talk:2019–20 Manchester United F.C. season

League Position
Hi, I would like to get a point clarified before the proper season starts as to which method of league position we are going to be using on this page as I don't feel that last year's discussion reached an agreed conclusion.

We either have the "position at the end of the day the match was played" method or the "matchweek" method.

I feel a need for consistency across the pages however I have only been editing/viewing this series of pages for the past two seasons and as the 2017–18 Manchester United F.C. season used the "matchweek" method and the 2018–19 Manchester United F.C. season used the "position at the end of the day the match was played" method is the reason I pulled it up last year.

Now it could be that for the 2017–18 Manchester United F.C. season both methods resulted in the same league position as apparently the "position at the end of the day the match was played" method has always been used.

However as I stated last year I am in favour of the "matchweek" method as it better represent the team's performance per week in comparison to others and is the archiving method used on the Premier League's website ( https://www.premierleague.com/tables ) which is the website used as a source for the league position on this page and pages of previous Manchester United seasons. Therefore if we are to use the "position at the end of the day the match was played" method we should really be citing a different source on this page as per Verifiability as the league position on last season's page are not the same as the source given.

I invite users   who contributed in the discussion last year to contribute again and hopefully we can reach an agreed consensus before the season starts. Mn1548 (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * For me, it makes most sense to consider Fri/Sat/Sun/Mon games as weekend fixtures, with Tue/Wed/Thu being midweek fixtures. If a game is played on Saturday, the team's position after that round would be wherever they are at the end of each period. In the event that two fixtures are played in these 3/4 day periods (this is uncommon and did not happen last season), the team's position would be listed as it stands immediately before the second fixture in that short period. Domeditrix (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Go for after each MDs. – Flix11 (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Attendance for Spurs game
Attendance was 80,062 as per (not sure if the Daily Mail is considered an RS but can't find it anywhere else).---    Managerarc   ™ talk  18:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2019
tahith chong europe league must be 2(1) angel gomes europe league must be 3 Christian handriono (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2019
Everton game on Sunday 15th December attendance was 73,328 and not 63,328 as stated. 81.150.67.225 (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit has been made by another user. MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Attendance vs Everton
Should we follow 73k (in MU site) or 63k (in PL site)? Flix11 (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The BBC also backs up the 73k attendance figure. I highly doubt there would have been 10,000 missing fans that day. It was a league game on a weekend, there’s no way it wasn’t a sell-out. I think the Premier League’s attendance figure was just a typo. – PeeJay 08:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Home & Away Pre-Season
I think the Perth Glory game should be changed to away as it was in Perth and they hosted the 2019 A-League Grand Final there. Thoughts? WDM10 (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Perth Glory don’t play at that stadium though. It was a neutral ground. – PeeJay 11:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 Postponed Fixtures
Postponed fixtures due to coronavirus should be formatted like it is done on women's page with the original scheduled date in the date column and then the fixture appearing again when it is actually played. Claiming Tottenham is the "next" fixture is wrong as that was surpossed to be last weekend. BHA is the next fixture due to be played. It also assumes that when the league resumes that the remaining fixtures are in the original intended order which is unlikely. Mn1548 (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Tottenham may be wrong as the next fixture, but the Brighton fixture is equally wrong, since there is officially no football until the end of next month. Our next scheduled game is against Crystal Palace on May 2nd. And who says we should use that format? These postponed fixtures now officially have no scheduled date, so it wouldn't make sense to write the original scheduled date in the "Date" column. – PeeJay 17:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It makes more sense to do it that way as it's been done on the women's page. It acknowledges an original scheduled date and the postponement. By the logic of 'any next fixture is wrong' it sounds like once the fixtures are rearranged, the intent is to not acknowledge postponed fixtures on this page which I don't agree with. Any confirmed postponed fixture should be listed with the original scheduled date as it is part of United's season. Mn1548 (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not making any sense. By your logic, we should note the original scheduled date for any fixture, including those moved due to cup commitments. Fixtures are postponed for whatever reason all the time, and I see no reason to make special mention of them. Once the fixture is rescheduled, it should be listed with all the others in the order in which they are played. And just because something is done on one article doesn't mean that is the right way to do it; who scrutinised the measures taken on that article at the time? – PeeJay 17:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I see what your saying, it just seems like something that should be kept consistent and personally I prefer how it is done on the women's page. Cup commitments are a common reason to postpone so I guessed that's why they have been emitted, appart from cup commitments though nothing has really postponed a United men's game to my memory so the way it's done on the women's page seemed like the standard. But I don't agree with only showing Tottenham as a postponed fixture. From what you said no postponed fixtures should not be shown but I think that this is part of the season so all confirmed postponements should be listed. Mn1548 (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's pretty dangerous to make assumptions. Why would you assume the women's page followed any sort of "standard" on this, when this is pretty much unprecedented in living memory? Someone probably made a decision on there and it stuck because hardly anyone edits the women's pages; this page was always bound to attract more attention. – PeeJay 08:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. This isn't just about fixtures postponed due to COVID-19. The women's page is a good example of how it should be done regardless of if it is a standard or not. The "bgcolor=#C0C0C0" colour is surpossed to be used for times like this so it makes no sense to remove all trace of it after fixtures are rearrange like you are suggesting. At the end of the day fixtures that are postponed are postponed and they should be listed as factual information like those fixtures that are not. The "bgcolor=#C0C0C0" colour is in the Manual of Style and is to be used for postpone fixtures or voided season. The fact it is there suggest we use it and not ignore the fact that these fixtures were postponed after they are rearrange. Mn1548 (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Friendly v West Brom
How do we know Bruno Fernandes scored in the first match? He's not mentioned in the article linked. – PeeJay 12:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Friendlies
I understand why an Inter-squad friendly may not be wanted as it could be seen as just a training match but it be separated into two section as there is two distinct parts. Also it looks nicer and makes it more clear to what people are actually reading. Mn1548 (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. How is "pre-season and friendlies" not self-explanatory enough as a section header? There may be two parts, but it has happened before that the team has played friendlies at the start of the season and then another set just after the end of the season, so it's not like this is totally novel. This is exactly what paragraphs are for, and it's not like people couldn't wrap their heads around the situation with the time jump between pre-season and the Project Restart friendlies based on what they read in the prose. – PeeJay 18:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I never said "pre-season and friendlies" as a header wasn't clear. What I said was there are two distinct sections so they should be separated by subheaders. And relying on paragraphs to explain the difference is a bit longer winded considering it can be simply and clearly done with two two-word subheaders. Paragraphs are surpossed to give details about something not be the sole method of distinguishing the section. It's a convoluted way of doing it. Mn1548 (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * But the two parts can be adequately summarised by a single section. The only thing that distinguishes one from the other is the time of year when those fixtures were played, so why do they need subsections? It's not like either section is overly long. – PeeJay 21:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Releases
Although the season has been extended the contract season hasn't. The players to quote the reference have being released for the "2020-21 season". They should be on next season's page, even if just to keep consistency across the pages. Mn1548 (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What on earth is a "contract season"? You can't just make up terms to suit your purposes. – PeeJay 13:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of contacts expire on 30th June.  Player registration and pre-agreed contracts start on 1st July.       The term "contract season" whist not official, describes the period of time from 1st July (year x) to 30th June (year x+1). As explain in the reference the releases are for the "2020-21 season". The summer transfer window has always been considered a part of the season it is before not after. Just because the fixtures have been extended past the 30th June end of season deadline doesn't mean the transfer window should be considered a part of this 2019-20 season. The consensus across the vast majority of other clubs I've looked at is that the 30th June releases have gone on the respective 2020-21 page. I don't see why the Manchester United page needs to be different. Mn1548 (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an unprecedented occurrence in English football, so it's natural there would be some confusion on your part. The 2019-20 season is not over, so any players released on 1 July should be treated as having been released during this season. To say otherwise introduces unnecessary confusion, since it doesn't make sense to say they were released during a season that cannot begin until this one is over, which won't be for several weeks. – PeeJay 17:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I fully understand that. The problem will come with transfers between clubs more that release. Such as Ligue 1 which cancelled there season or the Bundesliga which finished it but still before the 30 June. Does the same transfer class as 2019-20 for one club and 2020-21 for another? It's not just geographic, lower leagues in England have also cancelled. If new signing aren't illegible to play for remaining 2019-20 fixtures such as Timo Werner they would naturally class as a 2020-21 signing, so are incomings a 2020-21 transfer and outgoings a 2019-20 transfer. The summer transfer window is now open, which as explained belongs to the season it is before, and if the preliminary close date is to be true of 5th October, at what point does the season change if not midnight 30th June. In reality it would depend of this is an official extension to the season or an overrun of fixtures. To me it looks like the latter as it's not universal across all leagues, if it were I'd agree on having the release on the 2019-20 page. 30th June is the official end of the UEFA season,  and I can't find anything on a "new" official end date due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Therefore I believe that this is an overrun of fixtures, not an official extension to the season by UEFA. If you can find sources to counter this then I'd happily accept the releases to be part of the 2019-20 season but it still leaves the other questions created by this problem unanswered. Mn1548 (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Official date released Monday 27 July for the start of the window. Any transfers after this date goes on next season's page. Mn1548 (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Penalty record
Why on earth would a record number of penalties be worth mentioning in the article at all, let alone in the lead section? The mind absolutely boggles. – PeeJay 19:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It is a noteworthy record/statistic that the team broke during the Premier League season. It should not go on the main Manchester United article but it deserves to live on club's the 2019–20 season article and a Records & statistics article if the club has one. Just because you don't particularly like the record, does not make it any less notable. If the team broke the record for most goals scored in a season or most goals conceded, most points, fewest points, most wins, or draws, or losses, or most red cards, whatever, that is valid and deserves an inclusion in a club season article. Furthermore, both the Premier League and trusted sporting outlets deem it significant enough to keep a record of this and write articles about it. Rupert1904 (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not all records are equal. A record number of wins is absolutely notable, but would you be making the same argument if the team had just set a record for the most goals by players whose names begin with M? The line has to be drawn somewhere, of course, and my example is absolutely absurd, but what makes you think a record number of penalties needs to be included in the lead section of the article? This season will not be remembered for the number of penalties United were awarded; people will not look back in 20-25 years' time and say, "Hey, remember that season we got the most penalties ever?" – PeeJay 20:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, your analogy is so incredibly absurd that it should be thrown out and not even considered for this argument. The two are incomparable. Penalties, whether awarded or not, and especially in the new VAR era are almost always the most contentious decision in a match and decide the outcome of the game. So these decisions are vital to the outcome of their season. That alone should be enough for inclusion. But I will go on. This is a record kept by the Premier League, so they obviously value its importance! Numerous reliable outlets have written articles today about this piece of history including Eurosport, ESPN, Bleacher Report, Goal, Yahoo, and more. This absolutely and fundamentally is historic and needs to be included in this article. Whether it should be included in a specific Records & Statistics sub-section or Season Overview sub-section can be debated but it needs to be in this article. Lastly, another reason for its inclusion is so that if someone is reading this article in 20 years time, they will learn about this record. This tells a big part to the story of their season and you should not hide it from history. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Premier League keeps all sorts of records, not all of them worth mentioning in an encyclopaedia; there are records for touches by a player in the opposition box, the number of times a team or player hits the woodwork, offsides, and all sorts of others. Winning a lot of penalties is an interesting statistic at the time, but if you seriously think anyone will care in 20 years about the number of penalties United won this season, you're clearly having a laugh. You have yet to provide a compelling reason why this record "needs" to be included in the article at all, let alone why it should be mentioned in the article's lead section. – PeeJay 20:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's notable and historic as I have outlined numerous times. You simply do not like my argument because you perceive this as a negative piece of history that you don't want included in this article and because of that, you are showing your bias as a United supporter. A striker who sets the record for the most offsides in a single match or in a season should absolutely be included on that player's specific article. It's fine to not include this record in the lead section but I am including in the Premier League section. This record is much more historic and noteworthy than the last time Lingaard had scored a Premier League goal before today's match. Rupert1904 (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You know, it's not polite to assume that you know what's going on in someone else's head. My reason for not wanting to include the record in the lead section has nothing to do with me being a Manchester United fan. Your opinion regarding these records shows you're apparently not able to think critically about their encyclopaedic value. Also, this is the first time you've said anything about wanting to include the fact anywhere other than the lead section of the article. – PeeJay 21:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's actually the third specific time that I have said it is okay to be in a different section than the lead section - twice on this talk page and once in my edit. Calling me childish, uncivilized, and disruptive just because you don't agree with me is not very polite either. I should push back against you more for your mean spirited words against me and bias on this article but I am closing the book on this now. Rupert1904 (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You *have* been childish and disruptive by forcing me to initiate this discussion after you got pissy at me for reverting your addition. This could have all been solved a lot earlier if you'd actually engaged me in discussion and attempted to reach a compromise, but instead you acted antagonistically. Are you happy with the state of the article now? – PeeJay 21:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)