Talk:Enfield Town F.C.

Unverifiable points of view
Wikipedia pages should not contain unverifiable points of view. Please desist.

If you post information to this page, please cite a reference showing where that information came from and may be found by other Wikipedia users.

Enfield Town FC did not "hijack" Enfield FC. To hijack means to take over by force. Enfield Town FC did not take over Enfield FC. The old club continued for another 6 years. The people who formed Enfield Town FC, AFC Wimbledon and FC United of Manchester, as well as the now defunct AFC Barnsley, did so because they felt that they could not reach sufficient understanding with the Chairman of the existing club to carry on following that existing club, and each decided that forming a new club run by the supporters was the way forward. AFC Wimbledon was formed by supporters who spent a season following Enfield Town to see if it was the right course to follow. FC United was formed because AFC Wimbledon had highlighted the "new club" method of allowing supporters a say in the way a club is run. In each case the reasons for the breakdown in communication between the supporters and the Chairman were different (although both Enfield FC's and Wimbledon FC's Chairmen had moved their clubs away from their traditional areas) but in each case the supporters agreed to take a substantial drop in the level of football they were watching and the facilities at the lower levels were not as good as at the previous higher levels.

In the case of Enfield Town, the supporters agreed a drop of three levels. When Enfield Town was formed, Enfield FC was in the Ryman League Premier Division which was at Step 2 of the National League system before the Conference North and South came into existence. Enfield Town started in the Essex Senior League at Step 5.

Jancyclops (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to "Unverifiable points of view" re Enfield Town FC
It is clear to me, as someone with no axe to grind, that the reasons for the actions of the fans of AFC Wimbledon were totally different to those of the Enfield Town fans and those of the fans of FC United of Manchester.

I will happily acknowledge that the drop of 3 steps on the non-league pyramid was was quite a drop, but step 2 down to step 5 bears no comparison to the drop experienced by the AFC Wimbledon fans when falling from the old Football League div 1 and is not in the same galaxy as that experienced by the FC United fans when going from the FA Premier League down to step 5 of the non-league pyramid.

In the ESL you still attended some grounds that were not much different from those in the Ryman whereas the best ground that the FC United fans will ever attend in the forseeable future is their current home ground of Gigg Lane - home of Bury FC.

You may have noticed that whenever I used the word "hijack(ed)" I always put it in inverted commas so as to emphasise that whilst it was a term I have often heard used, I did not neccesarily agree that it was the correct terminology even though as I'm sure you will acknowledge, club kit was taken from Enfield FC at the time of the split and the ownership of it was disputed as was that of the PA system that was also taken.

I will acknowledge that I could & probably should have been more concilliatory in the earliest edits that I made, but the information regarding the lawsuit by the Leyton Chairman should always be mentioned as it represents a significant event in the club's history and you seem to be reluctant to acknowledge it at all even though this is definitely verifiable by virtue of it being a matter of public record.

Like I say, the history of your club and the fierce passions that were aroused on it's formation and in the intervening period right up to the present date, should be acknowledged and documented in any enyclopedic article so that anyone who is researching the club's origins will be able to see the full picture rather than a sterile "Pravda" type article that glosses over anything that you, or anyone else for that matter, does not want to acknowledge and would rather brush under the carpet.

Believe it or believe it not, I have no axe to grind, but just like to see that the truth and the whole truth is shown.

Feel free to reply to me if you so wish.

Ericsback (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericsback (talk • contribs) 18:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Still contains unveriable content
The reasons for supporters of one club taking action are always going to be different from those of another club. That doesn't mean they can't be comparable. AFC Wimbledon was formed after disenchanted Wimbledon fans spent a season watching Enfield Town to see whether that was the right thing to do. They formed their own club because their own club was moved from its traditional home. Funnily enough, that was the same reason the Enfield Supporters Trust was formed. A chairman sold the ground and moved out of the borough. Of course the exact circumstances aren't going to be the same but the fact is that you certainly can draw a comparison between the two. In the case of Enfield Town, AFC Wimbledon, AFC Barnsley and FC United of Manchester, the actions of the Board, and in the case of the first three specifically the Chairman, has led to the formation of a breakaway club. The same thing could possibly have happened at Chester City had Terry Smith not sold out. How on earth can this show that there can be "no comparison"? Of course, the unique one out of that lot is AFC Barnsley because it folded once the supporters felt they had got what they wanted at Barnsley FC.

Ericsback seems to be suggesting that the early absence of some of the information on this page is all my fault. It isn't. I didn't put the page up in the first place, I only started changing things following a juvenile attack on it and added in citations (because the content of a Wikipedia page should, of course, be verifiable!).

Wikipedia pages should never be filled with content that someone heard in a pub, from someone who got it from his mate, who heard it from someone else who, although this is never admitted, has an axe to grind. My axe to grind here is that the page has too much content which is mere speculation, is just someone's point of view or else is just not verifiable. Jancyclops (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is still having problems correctly editing the ETFC page
Before posting content to any page in Wikipedia, please read the section on verifying content.

Please read and act upon The five pillars of Wikipedia.

The reasons why Enfield Town FC was formed:
1. See the comments in the Supporters Direct newsletter from September 2001. Supporters' Direct newsletter, September 2001.

2. I can't verify this but I know it happened as I was there: Enfield FC were playing a home game in exile and the Chairman had decided once again not to hand over control of the club to the supporters. A kid watching the game (called Lee Robson, if you are interested) came up with a throwaway comment to the effect that if control of the club wasn't going to be handed over to the supporters, we should go off and form our own club. That certainly got some of the Enfield fans thinking.

3. After the split, Enfield FC didn't have many fans! Neither club did. In fact Enfield had been leaking support for some time before the split, mainly because of the move away from Southbury Road but also because the Chairman kept promising great things and then not fulfilling his promises. His "traffic survey", completed for a proposed move to the Tesco Country Club in Broxbourne was a joke.

After Enfield Town FC was formed:
1. Disgruntled Wimbledon fans who were boycotting their club heard about what we were doing and followed Enfield Town for a season to see if forming a breakaway club was the right thing for them to do as well.

2. Supporters of other clubs got in touch with Enfield Town for advice on taking the same route themselves.

3. Supporters and officials of other clubs got in touch with Enfield Town FC for advice about forming Supporters Trusts without going down the line of forming a breakaway club: supporters because they wanted more say in how their clubs were run and officials because they could see that the Supporters Trust model is useful in keeping a club in one piece if there hasn't been a complete breakdown of trust between the two sides.

Points of view
When supporters of a club breakaway they will always be seen as traitors by some of those who stayed behind. Some of the people who follow the new club will have similar antipathy towards the old club. However, on the day that the post-split Enfield FC got beaten 10-1 by Canvey Island and the 10th goal was scored by former Es player Lee Protheroe, there were supporters of Enfield Town who were unhappy about that, albeit overall very happy at having won the Essex Senior League on the same day.

Don't forget points of view are just that. If they are not verifiable they are not for Wikipedia.

Jancyclops (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Slow edit war
The slow edit war between IPs needs to stop, please cease inserting loaded POV terms into the article. Also, I suggest that editors get accounts and discuss things here. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Punctuation
There is a full stop missing between the sentences "The supporters agreed to take a drop three steps in the pyramid to step five and the Essex Senior League" and "However, the archived history of both Manchester United FC [1] and Wimbledon FC [2] clearly shows that the drop in standards experienced by the Enfield Town supporters bears no comparison with those of the fans of FC United and those of AFC Wimbledon who subsequently dropped from the FA Premier League and UEFA Champions league and the old Football League division 1 (now the Championship) respectively..", and there are two full stops at the end of the second of these two sentences. Coyets (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion about this whole inclusion at WT:FOOTY. --Jimbo[online] 16:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do grammatical corrections have to wait for the results of a discussion on whether the sentences should be included or not? If it should be decided that they should be deleted, they will be deleted regardless of the grammatical correctness. If it should be decided that they should be kept, the grammatical errors need correcting. Coyets (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion appears to have finished, and I have made the correction. Coyets (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Tense
The sentence "The club hopes to be able to move into the new ground in 2010." should read "The club hoped to be able to move into the new ground in 2010." The introductory paragraph correctly explains that the club now expects to move into the new ground in 2011. Coyets (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made the correction. Coyets (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As stated elsewhere, it's great to see that this page is no longer a self promoting load of rubbish written and controlled by the individuals who's thoroughly reprehensible behaviour led to the demise of a once great Football club. Common sense has prevailed, victory is ours. Well done Wikipedia. Ericsback(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

Page Protected
Just seen that you have "protected" this page from so called "vandalism". As someone who frequently looks at these pages on various topics I am amazed that you have decided to even waste your time on this. Until recently this page was nothing more than an extension to The Football Club's website and I assumed that you had dealt with that as it is now not nearly as anal as it was, but you were happy to leave it like that for heaven knows how long before forcing the Jimbo person to put a more neutral article up. Now, this article appears to be headed back in the direction of being a propaganda article seemingly with your backing. Motivated by the long drawn out "edit war" that went on over this article, I have watched it for quite sometime, and I have to say that I agree with the assertion made that it does "gloat" over the fact that the original club were denied promotion due to Ground Grading requirements,not purely because they mention it but by the manner in which it is written. factual comments should never be removed as long as they are made in a manner which show events or comments in their true context and are not made in a manner that effectively mocks and belittles any individual, group or organization in any way, shape or form which the wording of this section is clearly intended to do. I would now, as someone with a casual interest in this topic, urge you to remove the edit block from this page and in your capacity with Wikipedia, consult with everyone involved in how to word this page in less confrontational language and thus end this long edit war. My very best regards, M. Owen. (94.15.218.110 (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.218.110 (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2014
Incorrect Manager George Borg - No Longer Manager Zain Amin - New Manager

94.175.122.191 (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Cheers, Number   5  7  19:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2015
182.186.209.163 (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC) If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2021
Please change current Home Colours to - link is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Etfchome21wiki.png Fenomenomeno (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please could you provide the code. You can sort it out by editing the code for the box to the left. Cheers, Number   5  7  16:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I don't access to the source. The thumbnail is File:Etfchome21wiki.png|thumb|Etfchome21wiki, with double square brackets at either end. I can also upload away & third colours later (third colours would need a hyperlink). Thanks.Fenomenomeno (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The kit in the infobox is not an image like the one you've produced. It is created using the code below (you'll see it when you open the page to edit); the first four parameters ( etc) are for patterns (la = left arm, ra = right arm, b is body and sh is shorts); if you want to use specially designed patterns like the one in the png image, you have to upload them in separate sections – see the instructions at Template:Football kit and give them separate names. Also worth noting that you should not include a sponsor, if that's what the thing in the middle is.
 * The next five parameters are the colours for the four parts of the kit (left arm, right arm, body, shorts and socks); if you want to do a simpler kit layout without the features, you just need to enter the correct hex colour codes for the darker shade of blue. Cheers, Number   5  7  20:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Procedurally setting request to answered per the template's clause on awaiting user input. Cheers! — Sirdog (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2021
I've just watched an episode of the ITV series "The Big Match Revisited" in which Enfield played a fourth-round FA Cup tie in the 1980-81 season, drawing 1-1 away to Barnsley. (They lost the replay 0-3.) Please amend your 'Records' section accordingly. Birdman euston (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * That was Enfield; Enfield Town wasn't formed until 2001. Number   5  7  12:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2024
the Playoff Semi Final against Wingate and Finchley, 01/05/24, where the attendance was 2,225 - much higher than the record attendance on here. Jabbabiscuit (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have updated the article. Cheers, Number   5  7  20:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)