Only 1 City

[Gary James]

I'm waiting for Gary. He has more information at his fingertips than a typical Wikipedia article, especially one with only one source (which is unsourced itself) written by two blokes, he'll have newspapers from the time etc. He told me he had researched this and knowing the depth of his research from reading some of his books, I'll take his word any day of the week.

Thanks for that. Always appreciated.

A few points to add on why 'City'.

As mentioned by a few, it's all about pride in Manchester and where you come from but for me there's a definite tie in with an event that took place in the region the year Ardwick became City - the opening of the Manchester Ship Canal.

In 1894 the Ship Canal was opened by Queen Victoria and I think that brought a great deal of Mancunian pride to the fore. No one knows specifically who came up with the name MCFC but it was clear that the Club's ambitions were such that the name Manchester had to be taken (City weren't the first Manchester named football club - Manchester FC were & they competed in the FA Cup before City & Utd).

In 1894 Newton Heath also tried to change their name - to Manchester FC - but were stopped by the FA after complaints from the RFU (Manchester FC was - and still is - the rugby team). They wanted to do this around the time Ardwick/City was being disbanded/reformed, so not clear which name selection came first.

Ardwick/City wouldn't have gone for Manchester FC, but I like to think that the person who came up with the idea for the new name focused on representing Manchester and, the only way to properly do that, is to pick a name that truly represented the proud, industrial, developing city. Manchester City FC is the only name that truly represents the city of Manchester and so the only one worth having as it focuses on the place.

To use the name City your home had to be a city (obvious, but clearly limits the number of City named sides) and once used no other organisation could take on that name.

I also think I'm right (though I've not checked this out properly) that where 2 teams come from the same city and one is called 'City' that tends to be the oldest or first to adopt its current name (Manchester, Bristol & Bradford are the 3 obvious ones). The City name was always worth trying to adopt.

As I said - nationally say you support City and everyone assumes you're a Manchester Blue. Alongside this, worth also remembering that City's shade of Blue (originally known as Cambridge Blue, then light blue and ultimately Sky Blue - a term used in the 50s and possibly earlier) also made us unique.

Coventry hijacked the colour and the nickname (ironically after City's performance against the odds in the 1955 FAC final), but the colour has always been City's.

 

[Gingers Dad]

I've asked this one Gary before. He says Lincoln were but apart from them, yeah, we are. I still think we can lay claim to it, we're the most successful City side, biggest fanbase, highest revenue etc. and second historically. Aggregate win for Manchester City.

Plus, 3 FA Cup finals have been contested between teams called City. And we've won them all.

 

[fbloke]

I'm waiting for Gary. He has more information at his fingertips than a typical Wikipedia article, especially one with only one source (which is unsourced itself) written by two blokes, he'll have newspapers from the time etc. He told me he had researched this and knowing the depth of his research from reading some of his books, I'll take his word any day of the week.

Thanks for that. Always appreciated.

A few points to add on why 'City'.

As mentioned by a few, it's all about pride in Manchester and where you come from but for me there's a definite tie in with an event that took place in the region the year Ardwick became City - the opening of the Manchester Ship Canal.

In 1894 the Ship Canal was opened by Queen Victoria and I think that brought a great deal of Mancunian pride to the fore. No one knows specifically who came up with the name MCFC but it was clear that the Club's ambitions were such that the name Manchester had to be taken (City weren't the first Manchester named football club - Manchester FC were & they competed in the FA Cup before City & Utd).

In 1894 Newton Heath also tried to change their name - to Manchester FC - but were stopped by the FA after complaints from the RFU (Manchester FC was - and still is - the rugby team). They wanted to do this around the time Ardwick/City was being disbanded/reformed, so not clear which name selection came first.

Ardwick/City wouldn't have gone for Manchester FC, but I like to think that the person who came up with the idea for the new name focused on representing Manchester and, the only way to properly do that, is to pick a name that truly represented the proud, industrial, developing city. Manchester City FC is the only name that truly represents the city of Manchester and so the only one worth having as it focuses on the place.

To use the name City your home had to be a city (obvious, but clearly limits the number of City named sides) and once used no other organisation could take on that name.

I also think I'm right (though I've not checked this out properly) that where 2 teams come from the same city and one is called 'City' that tends to be the oldest or first to adopt its current name (Manchester, Bristol & Bradford are the 3 obvious ones). The City name was always worth trying to adopt.

I made the point about the number of cities in the country being an obvious limiting factor earlier.

But lets not forget that as well as the ship canal a number of important things happened to Manchester that were significant.

It was only in 1854 that Manchester was given its 'letters patent' to confirm it as a City and of course football grew relatively soon after that event.

Then in 1880 the University became exactly that, a university again by Royal Charter.

The pride that Mancunians would have had in the implied and real status of their home 'town' must have been immense.

So using the suffix City was of huge significance for both the club and the CIty as well.

 

[Skashion]

Thanks for that. Always appreciated.

A few points to add on why 'City'.

As mentioned by a few, it's all about pride in Manchester and where you come from but for me there's a definite tie in with an event that took place in the region the year Ardwick became City - the opening of the Manchester Ship Canal.

In 1894 the Ship Canal was opened by Queen Victoria and I think that brought a great deal of Mancunian pride to the fore. No one knows specifically who came up with the name MCFC but it was clear that the Club's ambitions were such that the name Manchester had to be taken (City weren't the first Manchester named football club - Manchester FC were & they competed in the FA Cup before City & Utd).

In 1894 Newton Heath also tried to change their name - to Manchester FC - but were stopped by the FA after complaints from the RFU (Manchester FC was - and still is - the rugby team). They wanted to do this around the time Ardwick/City was being disbanded/reformed, so not clear which name selection came first.

Ardwick/City wouldn't have gone for Manchester FC, but I like to think that the person who came up with the idea for the new name focused on representing Manchester and, the only way to properly do that, is to pick a name that truly represented the proud, industrial, developing city. Manchester City FC is the only name that truly represents the city of Manchester and so the only one worth having as it focuses on the place.

To use the name City your home had to be a city (obvious, but clearly limits the number of City named sides) and once used no other organisation could take on that name.

I also think I'm right (though I've not checked this out properly) that where 2 teams come from the same city and one is called 'City' that tends to be the oldest or first to adopt its current name (Manchester, Bristol & Bradford are the 3 obvious ones). The City name was always worth trying to adopt.

As I said - nationally say you support City and everyone assumes you're a Manchester Blue. Alongside this, worth also remembering that City's shade of Blue (originally known as Cambridge Blue, then light blue and ultimately Sky Blue - a term used in the 50s and possibly earlier) also made us unique.

Coventry hijacked the colour and the nickname (ironically after City's performance against the odds in the 1955 FAC final), but the colour has always been City's.

No problem. I have immense respect for your passion, unsurpassed knowledge, and scholarly approach to City's history.

We can't exactly criticise other clubs for taking inspiration from the colours of other successful clubs though can we. ;-) Wasn't it Malcolm Allison who introduced red and black because of AC Milan whereas traditionally maroon had been our other colour?

 

[1.618034]

I'm waiting for Gary. He has more information at his fingertips than a typical Wikipedia article, especially one with only one source (which is unsourced itself) written by two blokes, he'll have newspapers from the time etc. He told me he had researched this and knowing the depth of his research from reading some of his books, I'll take his word any day of the week.

Thanks for that. Always appreciated.

A few points to add on why 'City'.

As mentioned by a few, it's all about pride in Manchester and where you come from but for me there's a definite tie in with an event that took place in the region the year Ardwick became City - the opening of the Manchester Ship Canal.

In 1894 the Ship Canal was opened by Queen Victoria and I think that brought a great deal of Mancunian pride to the fore. No one knows specifically who came up with the name MCFC but it was clear that the Club's ambitions were such that the name Manchester had to be taken (City weren't the first Manchester named football club - Manchester FC were & they competed in the FA Cup before City & Utd).

In 1894 Newton Heath also tried to change their name - to Manchester FC - but were stopped by the FA after complaints from the RFU (Manchester FC was - and still is - the rugby team). They wanted to do this around the time Ardwick/City was being disbanded/reformed, so not clear which name selection came first.

Ardwick/City wouldn't have gone for Manchester FC, but I like to think that the person who came up with the idea for the new name focused on representing Manchester and, the only way to properly do that, is to pick a name that truly represented the proud, industrial, developing city. Manchester City FC is the only name that truly represents the city of Manchester and so the only one worth having as it focuses on the place.

To use the name City your home had to be a city (obvious, but clearly limits the number of City named sides) and once used no other organisation could take on that name.

I also think I'm right (though I've not checked this out properly) that where 2 teams come from the same city and one is called 'City' that tends to be the oldest or first to adopt its current name (Manchester, Bristol & Bradford are the 3 obvious ones). The City name was always worth trying to adopt.

As I said - nationally say you support City and everyone assumes you're a Manchester Blue. Alongside this, worth also remembering that City's shade of Blue (originally known as Cambridge Blue, then light blue and ultimately Sky Blue - a term used in the 50s and possibly earlier) also made us unique.

Coventry hijacked the colour and the nickname (ironically after City's performance against the odds in the 1955 FAC final), but the colour has always been City's.

Thanks Gary. Your contributions always add gravitas.