Talk:Manchester United F.C./Archive 1

It appears this page has been vandalised.19/4/04User:Andycjp

Crest
I'm sure that the Manchester United emblem displayed here is out of date; it changed slightly (colours and wording; it no longer specifies Football Club) in about 1998, I think. Kinitawowi 11:50, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

The PLC board changed the club crest for the sole purpose of 'branding', to the enormous annoyance of many of the 'traditional' united fans. It is seen as indicative of the PLC's lack of focus on the 'football' side of the business, rightly or wrongly.

That is absolutely correct.

Notable Players
Why are Diego Forlan and Fabien Barthez on the notable players list. They got rid of barthez and forlan has a terrible record. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.122.71.71 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 13 September 2004 (UTC).


 * Well, I didn't hate Barthez (that Silvestre donkey, on the other hand...), but I do agree that Notable Players is in dire need of a massive rewrite; it pains me to admit it, but the player list section is actually done better at the moment on the Liverpool page. I certainly like the "current squad" section it uses. Kinitawowi 12:55, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't djemba-djemba be removed?
 * Huh? He was removed from the "current squad" list on January 31, the day he was transferred. -- Arwel 17:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fabien Barthez was tons better than Massimo Taibi. Remember him? Diego Forlan was, sadly not effective, simply because Fergie kept playing him as a substitute. He could never build on his form. What form he showed indeed for Villareal. --chapter1 08:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

GUYS! Why remove players from the noteable list at all? It is simply a matter of your personal opinion if they were good or not as is that the only criterium for inclusion? The fact remains that they were players of some note (almost famous lol) and to remove the links diminishes the service in my opinion. -theCondor- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheCondor (talk • contribs) 11:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC).


 * We can't just include everyone who played for the club and I think including players who were rarely if ever first-choice (Butt, P Nev) or who were crap for United (Thomas) makes us look daft. It might be worth having some discussion on here about how long the list should be and who should be in it but would you seriously include any of those three in an all-time list of the club's most notable players? CTOAGN (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly, the list would be terribly long if all players were included. I wasnt arguing for that. We do have the 'All Player List immediately below that. I am just conscience that all fans would never agree on a definitive list. For example, to take issue with the examples you quoted: Butt was very much a regular in the 1990's. Mickey Thomas may not have been comparable to a Georgie Best (but who is? lol) but, for his time, he made a notable contribution. As a suggestion, why not include only those players who are still active in the game, albeit at another club? All retired /deceased players would be therefore be found in the All List. - theCondor- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheCondor (talk • contribs) 17:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC).

Yes but the list is supposed highlight those who greatly contributed to United, right? For example, Bobby Charlton played over 700 games for United and scored over 200 goals, removing him would be a shame. Though some players on the list didn't contribute to United as much as others, nor are they that famous (i.e Kleberson), so I do suggest some removal.

Kleberson won the World Cup with Brazil and was an integral member of that team, he then signed for (£7m?) United. In my book that makes you fairly famous in football. I think players should be 'notable' solely if they have achieved notoriety in their careers. One prime example being if they've been capped several times for their country, like John Sivebaek. Blomqvist who despite being part of the treble winning squad, didn't really achieve notoriety at United but was well respected in the game after his time at IFK Gothenburg (he scored for them against us in the Champions League) and Parma. He won countless caps for Sweden. The same could be said for Neil Webb and Gary Birtles. This is a list of notable players not all-time greats. You can't erase players you didn't rate from the club's history. I think the player list on the Liverpool page is terrible, it's based on club honours so players like Diomede(World Cup winning squad member with France but largely unknown) and Eric Meijer are included. For United that would mean including David May! To me that approach smacks of triumphalism and doesn't acknowledge the true history of the club, "warts an' all". Phil 20/9/06

Original language?
I'm not fussed about crests displayed being current ones or not.But the article as it stands reads more like an official brochure than an impartial reference work.Is the writing original or does some of it come from Manchester United's PR department?--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.144.5.2 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 3 October 2004 (UTC).

On the current squad section, why does Roy Carroll not have any flag next to him? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.135.1.31 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 23 October 2004 (UTC).
 * Presumably because no-one found the Northern Irish flag, which is non-standardly named, being a gif rather than a png! -- Arwel 20:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * More or less precisely it; that and the fact that I was trying to find the cross of St Patrick, as the "red hand flag" looks a bit too close to the cross of St George in the minimised form. The cross of St Andrew (used for Darren Fletcher) is also non-standard. Kinitawowi 09:44, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Good sources of flags are the World Cup or European Championship qualification articles - plenty of countries on there! -- Arwel 09:58, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

edited Bobby Charlton survivor of Munich to read help England win the world cup, rather than lead ( implied he was the captain.

--Greatbear 09:35, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please do not use Man U in the text ( Its an unfortunate abbreviation that many supporters take offence at )

--Greatbear 16:18, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why can't editers use Man U? Man U is used to differentiate between Man U and Man C. We certainly don't want both sides of fans to start fighting. --chapter1 08:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC) --

Man U was an abbreviation created by ABU's (anything but United) therefore it does invoke strong feeling against its use from some fans.

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that only wankers say Man U. Aib6 15:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Successful managers?
Having a 'successful managers' section seems a bit POV and also a bit wasteful when there is another managers' list below it. Might it be more sensible to merge these? Perhaps some factual information about the achievements of each could be added to enable the reader to decide. Andrewferrier 19:47, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

Slightly confused as to why the article mentions Steua and Reims as other clubs to have appeared in just two European Cup Finals. Was there any particular reason for selecting these clubs over others with the same record (FC Porto and Olympique Marseilles for example)? It seems to me these particular clubs are being used to portray Manchester United in a slightly derogatory light, and that no comparisons are in fact neccessary. --Alilaw 12:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The only two successful managers are *can't remember the name* and Ferguson. Only these two have won the European Cup. The rest didn't, so I think the successful manager section can be taken out.

Gavin Campbell
Who's that guy, when did he get the No. 21 shirt?
 * Probably got the number 21 last night when User:Gavincmbll added it to the article! -- Arwel 12:26, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When will people stop abusing free resources for their own amusement?

writing up articles tidily
would whoever wrote up the club's extended history in this article be so kind (and one-tenth as enthusiastic) and do the internal linking bit as well for what you wrote? -Mayumashu 05:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

History
This section just repeats a lot of what's in the History of Manchester United article. Wouldn't it be better to merge the two one way or the other? It seems a waste of time to have people editing both articles. Cantthinkofagoodname 11:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The ALex Ferguson Era
The very last part :

"but there is still a good chance of success in the shape of an F.A Cup victory over Arsenal in the final on 21st May. During the close-season, at least two major signings would be useful if United are to perform to the best of their ability in 2005-06. A title challenge should be their minimum target, as they have been realistic challengers in the league for the last 14 seasons. The European Cup should also be a priority, as they have yet to equal the success of 1968 and 1999."

Seems terribly to violate NPOV or original research. It is defintiely commentary that I do not htink is appropriate. I am sure a similar sentiment can be expressed in a much more neutral way.--Gangster Octopus 16:49, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Splitting the club's history into new pages
The history section was split out of the page last year (I think) but someone then wrote another history section in the main page. Both pages are now well over the recommended maximum size for a Wikipedia article, and it's getting to the stage where I suspect people are editing them without reading them all the way through (which would explain why the Glazer takeover is mentioned twice in Manchester United, in roughly the same amount of detail each time).

So, my idea is to create new pages for different eras in United's history, merge the relevant bits of Alex Ferguson, History of Manchester United and the History section of Manchester United into each new page and put summaries of each new page on Manchester United, with comments asking people not to make the summaries too long. The new articles would have titles like:


 * Manchester United pre-1945
 * Manchester United 1945-1968
 * Manchester United 1968-1986
 * Manchester United 1986-present

I think something like this is necessary to keep the pages manageable, but obviously don't want to make such big changes to other people's work without hearing what people think first. Please let me know what you think on this page.

Thanks, Cantthinkofagoodname 10:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me, go for it. I can't say I envy you all that work though. ;)  There's a definite need for some pictures, too ... perhaps I'll look into doing that (so you don't have to do everything!); one for each of the four history sections, maybe.  The original history of Manchester United page would need to be deleted once all the merging and construction had taken place. Proto 11:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Nice idea, but I'm not entirely sure. I know the history needs a huge reworking (personally, I think the Glazer takeover - timeline, effects and implications, reactions - is probably a big enough event to warrant an article of its own)... but for some reason I don't think I like the split history. It looked fairly manageable when it was in a page of its own, so why it was steadily remerged into the article is anyone's guess. However, given that the article can only possibly grow, and that it does need management, I'd say aye. I'll be glad to help out wherever I can. Kinitawowi 11:55, May 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you have a really good idea here! In fact, I can think of a few more Premiership pages&mdash;and even one NON-LEAGUE (!) page (I'm thinking of AFC Wimbledon)&mdash; that could need this treatment in the not-too-distant future. I do agree that the Glazer takeover does warrant an article of its own. One detail that's especially interesting to me in the Glazer saga is the apparently developing links between AFC, or at least certain elements within AFC, and strongly anti-Glazer United fans. Back to the article... I have a couple of ideas:


 * Once the project is done, don't kill the History of Manchester United page entirely, but make it a dab to the individual history sections. Better yet, create a template so that users can easily jump from one article to another.
 * With the number of players who have played an important role in United history, you could almost create a master list of important players, either in the main article or in its own article, and then have sublists in each of the history articles, keyed to era.
 * As Proto would say, "I don't envy you all that work." Nonethless, go for it!  :)   Dale Arnett 13:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have made a list of important players. It is located at List of Manchester United players.  Add as you see fit. 67.173.107.96

I defineately agree with this idea. It would make things clearer and easier to read. Not knowing what everyone's ages are, I would guess the history would be weakest for the Pre-1945 section, particularly anything before 1908 or after 1911 (the lean years). 67.173.107.96

I would suggest leaving History of Manchester United as it is, with links to sections which will contain more detail. Then we can go through and cut the detail from it, so it will give a general overview while peeps can click on the relevant links for more info about specific eras. I wrote pretty much the whole thing based on The Hamlyn Illustrated History of Manchester United 1878-1997 and it was a real job deciding what details were important and what to summarise. It's a great book and there's a lot in there which could be used for greater detail, especially the early years (pre-WW2). --Legalizeit 12:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've created Manchester United pre-1945 from the text in History of Manchester United and added some stuff from this article to it. I'd have preferred to have something like a 50-50 split, but the section in History of Manchester United was more detailed so there wasn't a lot to add from here. I'd like to hear what people think of the pre-1945 article before I do any more on this, so please let me know whether you still think this is all a good idea. If anybody wants to help, it's probably best if you choose one or more of the sections and let us know here which one(s) you're doing. Please note that for post-1986, there's a lot of stuff on Alex Ferguson's page which is more about United than him and which could be merged into the new article. Cantthinkofagoodname 16:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I've taken the stuff on 1945-69 from both articles and merged them into Manchester United 1945-1969. Any comments would be welcome. I'm a bit concerned about attributing the text of the "new" articles, so if anyone knows how to get the article history sorted please let me know. CTOAGN 14:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I've done the same for Manchester United 1969-1986. CTOAGN 16:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They're all done now. The new articles are at:
 * Manchester United pre-1945
 * Manchester United 1945-1969
 * Manchester United 1969-1986
 * Manchester United 1986-present

I spotted a few inaccuracies going through the articles but haven't had time to fix them all. I think each article should have its own introduction summarising that period of United's history. It'd be great if someone else could do that, but if not I'll probably get round to it tomorrow. So I think now we need short summaries of United's history to go on this page and links to these articles. And possibly a message telling people to put long histories of the club in the linked article so no-one has to do this again :-D

I'm still concerned about attibuting the text to the contributors who wrote it, but I'm sure there will be a hack that can fix it.

Legalizeit, I like your idea about cutting down History of Manchester United and linking to the new sections, but I think once that's done it should be moved back into this page as the new History section. Does that sound alright to you? We could link from this article to HOMU and from them to the new ones but I think that's too longwinded.

CTOAGN 21:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd help, but at the moment my left arm's in a sling (tendonitis) - if nobody else has done it by next week, I'll have a crack at it. Proto 09:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've had a go at it but they still look a bit too long. Might edit them down further CTOAGN 13:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've done the summaries now, although I think it might be good to split the last article/section at the end of the 1999 season. I hope no-one's offended by my having reworked the page so much, but I thought it needed to be done with having duplicate history sections of that size.  It's also a bit more feasible to read the whole page now which should prevent the same thing appearing twice and make vandalism a bit easier to spot.  I'd be interested to hear any comments, and if anyone knows how I can sort out the attributions for the new aricles please let me know, otherwise I'll have a trawl through the WP documentation for it sometime.  CTOAGN 10:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've now split the final history article into two as mentioned above. CTOAGN 21:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i love cristiano ronaldo

Regarding van der Sar
Why is van der Sar in the noted players section? He hasn't even played a single game for United yet! kelvinhole
 * Dunno. Don't think anyone will mind if you remove him. CTOAGN 21:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * As the Premiership has started, Van der Sar has been hailed by Sir alex himself as well as others as the man to at last replace Schmeichel, and 4 games in, 4 clean sheets, he has already proved popular with fans and pundits alike. I think it's fair to include Edwin Van der Sar in the notable players, he has a Worldwide reputation and wether succesful or not, is already Manchester United's most notable signing and improvement this season. Thats my opinion, but if he's not to be included it's no problem. --MrShuke 13:15, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Van der sar is a fantastic goalkeeper, mabye its something you can only tell by watching him instead of soaking up statistics, the reasons hes conceeded so many are probably
 * 1) He played for Fulham, not best defence in the world, no offence to any fulham fans
 * 2) He was good, so he played all the games for fulham, therefore he has more matches to play, and more likely to conceed goals.

Also you cannot blaim conceeded goals on the keeper, don't know bout you guys but over our side of the pond football is a team sport. Philc T+C 23:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Reversion
I've reverted this: (ironically many fans campaigned for privatising several years ago), as I'm not sure what was being referred to. Anyone know which campaign is being referred to? There were a significant number of fans who opposed the flotation in the first place, but as Martin Edwards had been trying to sell the club to some, at best, unsuitable people it was seen as the lesser of two evils. CTOAGN 23:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Famous fans section
Do we really need this for the United article? I can see the point of having one for smaller clubs which have about three famous fans, but with a club the size of United I don't think it improves the article. It'll have about 50 names in a couple of months, and I don't really see why it's notable. CTOAGN 16:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It could have it's own page, I suppose ... is there a List of famous Manchester United fans? Proto t c 12:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Currently, I don't think so. --chapter1 00:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Glazer vs big money transfers
I've removed the following from the article:
 * On 1st August 2005, club chief executive David Gill had given Red's manager the green light to chase England international striker Michael Owen, but Glazer had blocked the attempt due to his expensive £80,000 per week contract.

Because: a) the club denies they wanted Owen (for what that's worth; it's not as if y'all really need him, anyway!) b) there was no cite c) is it really appropriate for a general encyclopædic entry on the club? c) it sounds very much like a ManU fan whingeing about Glazer, which is Not Good for NPOV --MarkGallagher 11:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Page Name
The club has, since 1997 or so, been officially known as Manchester United, NOT Manchester United F.C.. Thus, surely the page name should be changed accordingly. Deano 18:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Surely not. You mean the managment organization that owns the football club, is known as Manchester United PLC. This company owns a number of companies that trade on the name Man U. The company that actually runs the football club is Manchester United Football Club Limited. See Jooler 19:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

No I mean take a look and the club badge. It changed from saying "Manchester United Football Club" to just "Manchester United" around about 1998. The reason? Because the Club was Manchester United, and Manchester United was the Club. Plus, it is infinitely more practical from a wiki standpoint (in terms of redirects) to have the name as MU rather than MUFC. Deano 20:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If this is so, then they forgot to tell their own web designers. The front page of manutd.com has at the bottom: "Copyright, Manchester United FC, 2005". Apart from the huge numbers of links that would have to be edited if we moved the page, Manchester United redirects here anyway. -- Arwel 20:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * They obviously didnt forget to tell ther web designers as it actuallt day "Copyright Manchester United Limited 2006" 172.203.0.198 15:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Club badges don't really mean much do they Image:Arsenal_FC.png,Image:Newcastle_United_crest.png, Image:West Ham United FC Crest.gif (I just noticed the last one should be a png not a gif) Jooler 20:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * From the official website: "This website is the only official website of Manchester United Football Club and is ©Copyright Manchester United PLC (the "Club") and Trans World International (UK) Inc ("TWI") 1998 - 2003.--GingerM 16:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I can only think of one reason for getting rid of the Football Club: It's more about the club than the fans. --chapter1 08:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Added FA Cup record to opening paragraph - J Bryant

Old Logo
The old logo underneath the club infomation looks out off place. Should it be there? Hamedog 16:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think so, unless someone puts a caption underneath it saying when it was used. I've taken it out, but put a link here so we can find it if anyone objects.  If it's going to be in at all, it probably belongs in one of the history articles imo. [[Image:Yemen flag large.png|24px]] CTOAGN (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I added it to the 1969-1986 section and to the article of the same name. I captionted it to say used in 1970's.

Support
I've reverted this edit:

''United fans who are not from the north-west have often been labelled as bandwagon jumpers and glory hunters who choose to follow United because of their success, instead of supporting a local team. Many people from the West Midlands started supporting United during the 1990's. This was easily because four of the five teams in this region were playing below the Premiership. In regions with relatively unsuccessful teams, such as Devon and Cornwall, many followers of Manchester United and other big clubs like Liverpool and Arsenal can be found. The inception of Sky television has made it possible for fans to watch United matches on T.V all around the world. Many United supporters have never been to a game because of the ever-increasing ticket prices.''

No idea why the West Midlands and Devon were singled out, there are plenty of nineties United fans all around the country. Also, it would have been more neutral to mention that out-of-town fans are hardly unique to United: there's no shortage of Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea fans who live miles from their club and have never been to a match. I don't see why what was already there was completely blanked either - was it really that bad? CTOAGN (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC). Plus there is the little fact that almost every year of the last 50, United have had the highest average attendace in the country. Despite the fact that from 1968-1990 the only major trophies the Red Devils won were 3 FA Cup's, even in the old 2nd divison more fans watched United than rivals Liverpool! At the height of Liverpool's success in the early 80's, Bob Paisley (Anfield manager at the time) admitted no matter how many things they won, they would never be as big a club as United.

Photos
We could do with a few more photos for the United articles. Some useful ones would be:
 * Denis Law's statue in the Stretford End
 * The Munich clock
 * Any photos of Old Trafford that you've taken yourself
 * The Stretford End banners
 * Any of the anti-Glazer protests from last season
 * The scarves laid in tribute to George Best
 * The procession in Manchester after United won the treble

There are people on Wikipedia who go round deleting any copyrighted images that they find, so they'll probably need to be photos you've taken yourself and don't mind releasing the copyright for. I've hardly ever taken a camera to matches, but I've got good photo of the Nou Camp in 1999 that I'll upload. I think that's about it though. Older photos would be especially good - pics of the stadium in the 80s or something.

If you need a hand with the image tagging or uploading process, leave a message on my user page and I'll help you out. Thanks, CTOAGN (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The John Obi Mikel Saga
I think that this article could improve by adding information about the John Obi Mikel case that has been going on for more than 9 months now. Both in this article, and in the Chelsea F.C. article. Although the dispute is far from finished, that shouldn't be any reason for us not too include information about the case. I think it is of interest. Does anyone have any comments to this? (I also posted this idea in the Chelsea talk page.) NuclearFunk 21:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's notable enough to United for this page. The club's history is condensed pretty tightly here to fit it into a reasonable-sized page - the 1960s only get one paragraph - so it wouldn't be appropriate.  There's obviously something weird going on with his transfer, but at the moment as far as United are concerned he's just a player they've tried and failed to sign, not much more notable to the club than Michael Ballack.  IMO it's not even relevant enough to go on Manchester United 1999-present unless something drastic comes out (which wouldn't completely surprise me). Similarly, I don't think anything on this transfer would belong on Chelsea's page even if he did sign for them.  CTOAGN (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice piece of business in the end - £12m for a player who has never even been to Manchester!! 84.70.37.111 22:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Is is just me or has somebody been altering the data
in the table of number of times finished at a certain ranking195.8.3.165 17:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've put them back. Cheers, CTOAGN (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)