Talk:Leslie Knighton

Moved from article page
I can't understand how my edit is "unconstructive"

The page says,

"In 1919 Knighton was appointed secretary-manager of Arsenal, shortly after the club had been promoted to the First Division.[1]"

At the very least this suggest that promotion was one in the normal fashion of playing merit. There is NO mention that this remains one of the most contested injustices in the history of British Football. The first and only time that a club has been promoted due to other than playing merit or official sanctions.

A better phrase would be to add "controversially" as in...

"In 1919 Knighton was appointed secretary-manager of Arsenal, shortly after the club had been CONTROVERSIALLY promoted to the First Division." Possibly adding...

"The only time in British Football History that a club had been promoted without recourse to playing merit or official sanction.[1]"

Wording added to article by, moved from article page by Struway2 (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to add, you're welcome to change the wording of any article yourself. Though any changes should be backed up by reference to reliable published sources, see WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. This is absolutely necessary if you want to add words like "controversial", "injustice", etc, they must be justified by reliable published sources. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Arsenal History Society
I have removed a lengthy section from the article which sought to contradict the information presented that is sourced from the Soar & Tyler book, and is based on research by the Arsenal History Society. While interesting and very possibly true, we can't use blog posts to rebut claims from a reliable, published source. Also, the wording is very PoV in "pushing" the Society viewpoint as the truth. I've put the relevant text here for reference:

It should be noted that the above account of Knighton's work, particularly his time at Arsenal FC has been strongly challenged by Tony Attwood, chair of the Arsenal History Society.

Attwood's central point is that Knighton's autobiography was published 23 years after he left Arsenal, and was written for serialisation in a Sunday newspaper. Knighton, Attwood alleges, makes many factual mistakes which suggests he had no recourse to documentation from the era, and was seeking to raise money for his retirement.

Among other issues Attwood challenges the issue of no players being transferred for over £1000 with the case of Fred Pagnam who transferred to Arsenal in October 1919 (one of Knighton's first transfers) for £1500 http://www.blog.woolwicharsenal.co.uk/archives/4795

Attwood also cites the case of Dr James Paterson. Knighton claims he was reduced to using the brother in law of the club doctor as a player because Norris would not let him have the funds to sign anyone. But Paterson had won the league with Rangers, was a highly regarded player in Scotland who had moved to London to work, and who subsequently played for the English League. After he retired for playing Herbert Chapman persuaded to return to continue playing for Arsenal. http://www.blog.woolwicharsenal.co.uk/archives/10425

Attwood further cites the case of Sidney Hoar who on 22 November 1924 was purchased from Luton for £3000 in the era of “no transfer over “£1000″ http://www.blog.woolwicharsenal.co.uk/archives/10801

In a further example Attwood cites the case of Hugh Moffatt. Attwood states that what Knighton does not reveal is that Moffatt came in 1923 from Workington at the time were in the North Eastern League - the 7th tier of English football, and that there was no chance of Moffatt moving into Arsenal's first team, at least for several years. Attwood argues that the player simply did not look up to standard and went to a 3rd Division South simply because he was not developing into a decent player  If he had been a decent player then he would have been sold surely to a team higher up the league. http://www.blog.woolwicharsenal.co.uk/archives/3649

Through these and similar points of detail Attwood constructs the argument that the autobiography has been treated as prime evidence on the activity of Sir Henry Norris when it fact it is evidence only of Knighton's poor memory and need for money, and that none of its statements about Norris can be considered valid. Jellyman (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)