Talk:Michael Knighton

Untitled
I can't find any details about what Knighton has done since he left Carlisle - this needs sorting! --Robdurbar 18:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The simple answer is not much. Bothered around with Darlington FC for a bit. Went back to Durham Uni but dropped out after a term. (I would also question the fact that he graduated from Durham University in the first place - I have a feeling he went to Durham New College, not the University -as such I would suggest removing him from the Durham Alumni pages). He owned a wine bar in Derbyshire for a period i think, but has dropped out of football entirely (hopefully).

I am afraid that - whether you like it or not,Sir - Mr. Knighton did indeed attend Bede College, Durham University as a very genuine and real Durham University student of merit - I know because I was in his year at the same University. Might I ask which University did you attend yourself ? Your ill-informed information and very clear prejudice against the man, is somewhat telling. Further, what ever he is doing now - I guess that he has moved on from the sad place that you appear locked into yourself relating to events of virtually more than a decade ago, if that is not too disrespectful to you. Oh,yes,and finally - Mr. Knighton never did own a wine bar as you, once again, wrongly claim - it belonged to a member of his family - so I am given to believe - from a far more reliable source than your own very embittered, immature and misguided views. What a pity the man is not here to defend himself against the likes of you - because believe,Sir,when I tell you this based on your comments to date- intellectually,spiritually,emotionally - you could not live with the guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.220.44 (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

New information needs to be added
It seems Michael Knighton has a website which goes into great detail about himself and his other persuits including being an artist and poet. He reportedly created a scultpture said to be worth £70 million. article I'm going to take a guess the Konghtin Pearlmich is a pseudonym for Michael Knighton. His web address is Official website. If I get the time I will attempt to add the additional information that can be verified.

I am more than happy to discuss issues editors may have with my changes, but only on the basis they cite authoritative references and use unbiased language when writing on this page. The article suffers from unverified facts and bias language. --Dreylax01 (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This article has been subject to a lot of attention from sources very close to Mr Knighton, who have continually claimed that the facts contained therein are not reflective of the situation as it actually happened. However, we can only go by what is reported in the media, not what Mr Knighton's propaganda team would have us believe. I think it is a bit much to describe him as an artist and poet simply because he's drawn a few pictures, written a few lines of verse and stuck them up on his website. Very few third-party sources would describe him as an artist or poet and neither should we. Furthermore, his bid for Manchester United was actually only £20m – £10m to buy Martin Edwards' shares and a potential £10m more to buy the shares off the rest of the shareholders at the same price he had offered Edwards. The extra £10m you mentioned came in the form of proposed renovations to Old Trafford. You claim that Knighton's bid to buy the club fell through for unknown reasons, but the reasons are in fact quite well known – his financial backers pulled out, leaving him marginally short of the asking price. Your contributions to the article read like you have intimate knowledge of Knighton's business history, yet your comments here give the opposite impression. If you have any connection to Knighton, it behoves you to inform us. – PeeJay 21:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think using the term propaganda is extreme considering the majority of additions are minor. Secondly, Michael Knighton has written over 3,000 poems with two books due for release later this year. I would hardly call that a "few lines of verse". As for 'drawing a few pictures', I would ask you perform proper due diligence before making redundant statements like the aforementioned. Michael Knighton has had his work exhibited at the prestigious Kings College Chapel, Cambridge. Which is documented here and here. Considering the artwork weighed 3 tons, cost £40,000 to position and was viewed by the general public - I think we can agree that constitutes as more 'than a few pictures' as you put it. Not to mention the 6,000 artworks Michael Knighton has created in his studio, some of which can be viewed on his website.

In response to your comment: "Very few third-party sources would describe him as an artist or poet", I would point you to Tim Kendrew's comment on Michael Knighton (Tim Kendrew was formally head of Christies Auction House in Melbourne Australia) "Michael Knighton is a creative genius. He has fantastic and original art ideas which he is able to bring into artistic reality. The Cambridge exhibition displayed fine examples of his talent. He is a very fine artist in his own right. Michael has the potential, if only he would stop hiding the light of his artistic talent under a bushel, to go down as perhaps one of the most notable artists of the third quarter of the twentieth century. Michael is up there with the very best of the living modern day artists which we see around the art world today”. Also for your reference is a video filmed during the exhibition where the general public discuss their views on the Michael Knighton's Triptych, as well as the highly respected Ioannis Goss-Taylor and Lady Starkey.

Most bizarrely though, you deem Michael Knighton unfit to be titled as an entrepreneur. Perhaps you should look up the term 'entrepreneur' here, which wikipedia defines as "An entrepreneur is an individual who organizes and operates a business or businesses, taking on financial risk to do so.". Knighton is referenced multiple times in the press as being a "property magnet" here and of course taking into account his bid to purchase manchester United and his purchase of Carlisle United all contribute to being entrepreneurial or "operating a business, taking on financial risk to do so". Regarding being a political commentator I point to various interviews on television and print as well as online where Knighton has been asked to comment. Again videos can be sourced and archived articles can be referenced if you are still having difficulty with that point - his official website lists various articles on said subject matter as well.

On the Manchester United bid, again, it is widely reported that his financial backers pulled out, however I have been unable to find an original article where this information was sourced from. Just because something is repeated over a long period of time doesn't make it fact. If you can find a verifiable source, either the backers themselves quoted or Michael Knighton himself declaring it to be true I see no other alternative than to omit that sentence. I would suggest we amend it to read "the reasons are unknown for Knighton's withdrawal, however the speculation at the time was his financial backers pulled out of the bid. I think that is perfectly reasonable. You also state that the "the whole 'in retrospect' thing is irrelevant" which clearly shows that you have missed the point. Michael Knighton created a blueprint which transfomed Manchester United from a turnover of just £7 million per annum with a £1.29 million loss in the year 1988 to a £25 million turnover over the next 5 years. Manchester United had not made a profit for the previous 20 years, when Michael Knighton joined that immediately changed. I dont think you can say that is a coincidence. Knighton is even quoted as saying "I can turn Manchester United into a £150 million company within 15 years" Financial Times, 12 September 1989. Considering Manchester United is worth £2.1 billion now - I think his predictions are very relevant, and, in turn, making the "retrospect" highly relevant. There is an article on this very point from the telegraph here, to quote "It was a visionary plan, one which has now been adopted by football clubs across the globe". There is another article from the Manchester Evening news, I quote "Oh, and quite possibly one of sport's greatest visionaries of the last 20 years. " The article can be found here

I have researched Michael Knighton in great depth and find him a fascinating character, however I have held back from writing with bias or POV. However you seem to have a personal dislike of the man, this is obvious especially when reading your edit comments from previous versions of the article and your above derogatory comments for the mans accomplishments. I imagined you would have issues with the additions I had made hence the request of a third opinion. I am more than happy to discuss your issues with my contributions, but I ask that you do so in a respectful and rational manner, citing references for your objections.

Thanks. --Dreylax01 (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no feelings one way or another towards Knighton. If you have interpreted my comments as negative towards him, then I fear you are simply seeing what you want/expect to see. You are right that repetition of a fact does not increase its veracity; however, when various respected journalists (Michael Crick, Mihir Bose, Jim White) all report it in top-selling books, then it becomes something to take notice of. There are no sources who claim that the deal fell apart for any reason other than that the money wasn't there, so I don't see any reason to beat about the bush. As for entrepreneurship, he may have acted in an entrepreneurial way in the past, but that is not what he is known for. Neither is he very well known for his art or poetry; he may have been published as a poet and had his art exhibited, but those things are not what he is primarily known for. Teddy Sheringham has taken part in a few televised poker tournaments, but I wouldn't describe him in the opening sentence of his article as "a footballer and poker player". – PeeJay 22:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I suppose we shall have to wait for new sources to come to light to find out the origin of the story and what happened. However I still do not see how it is still not speculation. If acting in an entrepreneurial way is not buying football clubs (highly risky business investments) then I really don't know what is. He is known for owning football clubs which translates as entrepreneurial in its very definition. Also it is irrespective if Knighton is more widely known for one subject matter than another - that point doesn't negate the fact that he is also an accomplished artist and poet - verified by third parties. Knighton is mainly known for his football exploits as is mentioned, however I don't see why the other exploits should be omitted which are of public interest and are well documented. Your example of Teddy Sheringham is a puzzling comparison considering he does not actively pursue it as a career choice nor does he receive merit for it. --Dreylax01 (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

In response to the removal of the Willie Layton reference by User:PeeJay2K3. There was no need to remove the reference to Knighton's great grandfather. There is no page currently created for Willie Layton so it seems all the more bizarre that it would be removed. The point is completely relevant and adds interesting information to Knighton's possible inspiration for pursuing football. The edit was approved by User:Okeyes (WMF) who gave me thanks for the addition.
 * Just because one other editor approves of a change does not necessarily mean the edit is kosher. The information about Willie Layton is too specific for an article about his great-grandson. By all means, however, create the article about Willie Layton. – PeeJay 21:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not see how one sentence can be too specific. It is an interesting point, more interesting than the league and FA Cup reference. Its not one editor, it is two editors who approve of the change. Thats 2:1, those odds favour keeping the statement. I must say, Its becoming rather tiresome having to debate with you every single addition made to this article when references are provided. I wouldn't create an article on Willie Layton, as most likely you would have issue with every sentence written if I was the creator. --Dreylax01 (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I probably would since you seem to have no idea about editorial discretion, but if the man is notable, someone should create it. As for the statement, you should know that Wikipedia is not a democracy; we don't work based on what the majority wants, we work around policies designed to help us decide what should and should not go into articles. You think being one of the 125 "greatest players" at a club like Sheffield Wednesday is interesting? I don't disagree, but I don't think it's what makes Layton notable, especially given the status of Sheffield Wednesday. – PeeJay 12:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If you don't think being 125th out of more than 5,000 professional players for Sheffield Wednesday over the years is what makes Willie Layton notable, then clearly your definition of "notable" perhaps differs from the majority general consensus. The more important point - is that clearly Knighton must have been motivated or inspired by this particular ancestor to pursue his career in professional football. Which makes this information in respect of his great-grandfather particularly pertinent and relevant. However I've really had enough with the constant battle, this is exactly why wikipedia editors are dropping dramatically, as it is not a pleasant environment to be in. To quote wikipedia itself "Others go away because they find the community too hostile" taken from the visual editor page here, fortunately with the new visual editor it will bring some fresh life into this forum. Good luck --Dreylax01 (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that's what makes him notable. If you asked anyone who had heard of Layton what they knew him for, they would most likely say "Oh, he was part of the Wednesday team that won the league twice in the 1900s", not "Oh, he's one of our 125 greatest players". That 125 greatest players list isn't even readily available anywhere and only appears in one obscure book. It wasn't an official club poll or anything like that, just the opinion of the author of one book. Furthermore, where is your evidence that Knighton was inspired by his ancestor? Maybe he just liked football. You don't have to have a relative who played the sport to want to do it yourself. Finally, I'm not being hostile, I'm just presenting my argument. – PeeJay 11:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested Third opinion (3O)
As I am eager to resolve this dispute with rational and logical conversation, I have requested a third opinion. --Dreylax01 (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I am a regular volunteer at the Third Opinion project. The guidelines of that project say, "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill." The request for a Third Opinion in regard to this dispute has been removed because there has been no such talk page discussion between the editors involved in the dispute. Consider leaving a note on the other editor's user talk page asking him or her to come here to discuss the matter. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I have made the request on the users talk page --Dreylax01 (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment
Should Michael Knighton be listed for his other exploits as an artist, poet and political commentator? --Dreylax01 (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a question of balance. A quick google search reveals that (unexpectedly!) his artwork has had an impact: he appears to be 'Kongthin Pearlmich' (an anagram of his name) who has been written about after a bit of a stunt a few years ago (eg here, here) and even had a short-lived article at Wikipedia (Articles for deletion/Kongthin Pearlmich). His poetry is not yet published, and I don't know if the future work is from a reputable publisher of self-published - but if it is from a proper publisher, then that is relevant. The political commentary is just a blog, and barely notable. I suggest a sub-section after Carlisle United which covers this topic, along the the lines of "After football", which would describe what he's been up to, focusing on the Kongthin Pearlmich incident. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to establish who is publishing his poetry to no avail. We need to establish if the publisher is mainstream, if so it should feature in the article. However, if the work is self published then there is little point mentioning it. I concur that there needs to be a sub-section addition, not sure on the title "After football" though. Anyone fancy writing it? --Dreylax01 (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Calling him an "amateur poet" or "aspiring poet" would be good if the publisher cannot be determined. However, I believe it would be alright to simply call him a poet (if it can be found that the books have actually been published).
 * Calling him an artist (or something more specific, depending on the kind of artwork) seems good based on Chalmers' points.
 * Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 16:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that makes sense on both the writing and artist front. I don't know much about art terminology so I will leave it to someone better versed in the subject to elaborate on. --Dreylax01 (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The first paragraph should only describe why he is notable. People know him for his involvement in football clubs, not for his poetry and whatnot. FurrySings (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What needs to be added now is a new section after Carlisle on what he is doing currently. As I mentioned before, I think this should be written by someone with knowledge in the arts subject matter to describe the kind of Art Knighton does. --Dreylax01 (talk) 09:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Whatever reliable sources ascribe to him is usable - it is not up to us to make any claims in Wikipedia's voice, only to relate the claims made in reliable sources. If a  RS source calls him a "political commentator" then we follow that, if one calls him a "poet" and he s not a published poet, then we can presumably so state.  And so on.  If a source says he took part in a stunt, then we can report on the stunt.  Just as long as we do not violate rules about contentious claims, I see no problems. Collect (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

There are a few articles as of late on Michael Knighton's recent exploits (here) as well as an article published in FourFourTwo detailing some of the backstory to the Manchester United bid. I think his Poetry and art are certainly worth mentioning now, perhaps in a section "after football" or something similar. Also it would be good to check the facts of the article in FourFourTwo. Thoughts? Dreylax01 (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Added a new section titled "about football" it could do with padding out a bit on the art side, but I think it's sufficient for now. Dreylax01 (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence in the source you provided that "Kongthin Pearlmich" (which is a stupid name, btw) is actually Michael Knighton. – PeeJay 16:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Surprised it took you 40 minutes to delete it, you're normally quicker. Here is the quote: “I did in the end use my own name, but I wrote it in reverse,” from here, third last paragraph. Konghtin Pearlmich is an anagram of Michael Knighton with an additional "P". Doesn't really matter what your opinion of his chosen name is, a fact, is a fact. It would be great if you could contribute to the article instead of regressing it constantly.Dreylax01 (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not quite proof enough, I'd say. Plus I'm pretty sure his exploits still aren't that notable. – PeeJay 20:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Other than the fact Knighton officially announced that he is Konghtin Pearlmich on his own website (and no one had disputed this claim, has intricate details of the artist and images of the said artwork - which can be found nowhere else, I'll cite another source. Here's another link, this time from the (Mirror). As for it not being notable, as I've said before - anyone can see that Kinghton purportedly offering a £70m sculpture to Kings College Cathedral and spending £40,000 installing it for 3 days is pretty notable. It's certainly more interesting and notable than a newspaper report that he saw a UFO. The artwork being covered by the Telegraph newspaper and BBC, again is more notable than the UFO story covered by a local newspaper. - Dreylax01 (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Knighton. 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:
 * Added tag to http://archive.thisislancashire.co.uk/1998/04/25/802667.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090828031900/http://www.angelfire.com/dc/3games/halpin.html to http://www.angelfire.com/dc/3games/halpin.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150705151936/http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/carlisle-united/latest/michael-knighton-breaks-13-year-carlisle-utd-silence-1.1220258 to http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/carlisle-united/latest/michael-knighton-breaks-13-year-carlisle-utd-silence-1.1220258
 * Added tag to http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/carlisle-united/latest/if-carlisle-united-ever-invite-me-back-i-ll-go-knighton-1.1220443

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for eyes on from blp editors
I have requested blp editors to give this article a once over as Knighton is in the news. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

After football edit.
Hello fellow Wiki editors, please can you review the following edit to 'after football' section : "In 2022, Knighton exhibited two works at the Royal Academy of Arts Summer Exhibition. One of the works depicts a silhouette of a footballer and a bee. ". Thanks in advance Rollotron (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Although the information is factual, can you please provide some third-party coverage to prove its encyclopaedic notability? – PeeJay 11:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This information is of public record. Third-party coverage provided by a national newspaper can be found below. The RA is an internationally recognised charity for the arts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Academy_of_Arts. The RA summer exhibition is the world's oldest open submission exhibition, held every year since 1769 for emerging and established artists. Some of the world's best artists have exhibited in this exhibition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Academy_Summer_Exhibition. Knighton's work is listed in the 254th RA Summer Exhibition catalogue: https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibition/summer-exhibition-2023. Third-party coverage can be found in an article written by Joe Bernstien for The Mail on Sunday, Aug. 2022, discussing Manchester United and the Glazers in which Knighton's inclusion in the RA Summer Exhibition is mentioned. A version of this article also appeared online https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-11130633/Michael-Knighton-says-end-near-Glazer-family.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollotron (talk • contribs) 10:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No one is disputing the accuracy of the information, the issue is whether it's really appropriate to mention in an encyclopaedic article. Furthermore, the Daily Mail isn't really considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, so if you could provide a different source, that would be appreciated. – PeeJay 02:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks PeeJay for your comments. Appreciate the Daily Mail is a deprecated source (hence used only in the chat) but the RA catalogue and links to the exhibition are not. I understand your point regarding the appropriateness of such an event. I think exhibiting artwork at a nationally recognised institution for the first time should be considered notable information for the 'After Football' section. The summer exhibition is a public event which recieves national media coverage each year, Knighton's inclusion may be of interest to someone reading about his activies after football. I noticed from reading the chat page you were against establishing an 'After football' section in the first place. Does this explain a reluctance to add anything further? We might disagree on this addition to the page and have requested a Third opinion to help us both. Rollotron (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would welcome a third opinion. You're right, personally I don't think Knighton's art career is particularly noteworthy, and that's backed up by the paucity of sources, but I'd like to see what others think. – PeeJay 21:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for welcoming an 3O on this PeeJay. Btw, I'm in your camp on Knighton's art, but appreciate some people must obviously like it, including the judges at the RA (stops typing and scratches head). Rollotron (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @PeeJay@Rollotron The inclusion of the works in the Royal Academy of Arts Summer Exhibition seems relevant, but the content of the works definitely doesn't. I would keep the citation, but change the line to something like "In 2022, Knighton exhibited two mixed media works at the Royal Academy of Arts Summer Exhibition." Blueshiftofdeath (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)