Club Badge (merged)

Gary James said:
Ardwick did not receive any votes because Ardwick wasn't at that meeting. Dig out the contemporary reports. Who should we believe - the people who formed 'a new club for Manchester' and the journalists, League AGM minutes etc from the period or a writer writing over 100 years later who gets confused?

Everything before 1894 is important - vital even - in understanding City's story but the specific formation of MCFC is 1894. MUFC's formation is 1902 - City shouldn't bend the truth because Utd do.
Click to expand...

According to Companies House, MUFC was registered as a company on 31 October 1907, so isn't that the equivalent date to our 16 April 1894?
Similarly most teams who claim formation in the 1870s and 1880s were registered as companies much later. For example Everton was registered in 1892 as was Liverpool, and Preston was registered in 1893. Seems like we're the only team that uses the company registration date, although I recall that after Middlesbrough reformed in the 80s, they had 1986 on their badge for a while until they reverted back to their original date a few years later.
 
The club have got the badge right as far as i am concerned, if you don't agree then show us what would be better, or shut the fuck up.
 
BrianW said:
I always find it a bit odd that people are still attached to the 'old' counties. These counties were the definition of administrative areas, put in so the local sheriff knew where to stop oppressing the locals and leave it to the next door thug. It's just that they were set up a long, long time ago. However they were put there by a government, not God, and were just as 'artificial' as any other random political unit.

Any road, the badge isn't perfect, it's not what I'd have chosen, but it's better than the one in place. No badge is going to satisfy everyone, but this is a fair compromise.
Click to expand...
May as well say the same about the national boundaries in that case.
 
Shaelumstash said:
Great post. I just don't understand the posts where people say "Greater Manchester is just an administrative area that the Tory's forced upon us". As opposed to Lancashire, which was an administrative area forced upon us by the ruling power a few hundred years ago! What's the difference?!

Manchester is no longer part of Lancashire in any political or commercial sense. Greater Manchester is it's own autonomous city region. The 10 Greater Manchester councils own Manchester, East Midlands and Stanstead airports. The GM city council are recieving devolved powers for taxation, transport, health, home building, and economic powers that no other city or region has ever had in the country.

Yet some claim Manchester is still really in Lancashire. In what possible way is it still in Lancashire?!! Greater Manchester city council is now the most important regional authority in the country, it has as much to do with Preston and Blackburn as it does with Leeds or Birmingham!

Aside from that, the rose adds a bit of colour and depth to the badge, and to me it represents an old popular City badge more than it does the county of Lancashire.
Click to expand...
In what way is it still part of Lancashire? Look at an old map.
 
Shaelumstash said:
Yeh I've got no problem with the rose being on the badge mate. I grew up with the original rose badge and the birdie never meant anything to me.

The ship, shield and rivers are all historic symbols of Manchester and are on the CoA. As the club represents the city of Manchester, it's right and proper that these things are represented.

From a symbolic point of view, while the rose is on the CoA, it was originally on our badge to represent Lancashire. The club is no longer in Lancashire, so it's a bit antiquated to include it, but it does make the design a bit more eye catching, so I'm happy for it to be there.

There's lots of things we could include, plane, microchip, atom, computer etc, but for me the Greggs pasty is similar to the rose, much more Lancastrian than Mancunian. I could get behind a barm being included though....
Click to expand...

Greggs the Benwell dody
 
Shaelumstash said:
Great post. I just don't understand the posts where people say "Greater Manchester is just an administrative area that the Tory's forced upon us". As opposed to Lancashire, which was an administrative area forced upon us by the ruling power a few hundred years ago! What's the difference?!

Manchester is no longer part of Lancashire in any political or commercial sense. Greater Manchester is it's own autonomous city region. The 10 Greater Manchester councils own Manchester, East Midlands and Stanstead airports. The GM city council are recieving devolved powers for taxation, transport, health, home building, and economic powers that no other city or region has ever had in the country.

Yet some claim Manchester is still really in Lancashire. In what possible way is it still in Lancashire?!! Greater Manchester city council is now the most important regional authority in the country, it has as much to do with Preston and Blackburn as it does with Leeds or Birmingham!

Aside from that, the rose adds a bit of colour and depth to the badge, and to me it represents an old popular City badge more than it does the county of Lancashire.
Click to expand...

its not been greater manchester for very long at all though, you can't just ignore hundreds of years of history. the rose if anything is more relevant to manchester and its history then the ship. what happens if the boundaries change again and manchester ends up in another region.... do we then forget about greater manchester ?. its on the coa, lots of buildings around manchester and is an important symbol of our past, just like the ship.you can't just forget about it because the council changed it.
 
west didsblue said:
According to Companies House, MUFC was registered as a company on 31 October 1907, so isn't that the equivalent date to our 16 April 1894?
Similarly most teams who claim formation in the 1870s and 1880s were registered as companies much later. For example Everton was registered in 1892 as was Liverpool, and Preston was registered in 1893. Seems like we're the only team that uses the company registration date, although I recall that after Middlesbrough reformed in the 80s, they had 1986 on their badge for a while until they reverted back to their original date a few years later.
Click to expand...

There are better examples than this. If we have to take the date that the club as a company was founded then - aside from that it sets a dangerous precedent for encouraging the viewing of football as a business first and a sport second - Arsenal were founded in 1910, Spurs in 1983, Chelsea in 1990, Liverpool in 1997 and Leicester City in 2002. I'm sure if I'd looked up the whole PL I would've found examples registered in the last two years but I stopped after about seven attempts because virtually every example I looked up was proving my point.

I love Gary's work but I can't side with him on this one. A football club is defined by its core, not by its corporate registration. We existed as a club before 1894, it's just that the directors chose to re-register the club. Aside from the strict legal registration which involved a name change, nothing really changed. The same players played, the same stadium hosted, the same fans attended. The fact that there were all of these press clippings from the time is just testament to the desire of the directors to spin the story as a new club in order to shake the lingering debt issues but it doesn't change the fact that the club as a core entity remained the same. I agree with Gary that we can't conclusively prove that the club started operating in 1880 but given the lack of better alternatives, and the fact that 1894 is a transitional year, not a formative one, I think we should respect it as the closest we can come to understanding our birth year.
 
avixxt.jpg


around the time of The Muffin man probably
 
SWP's back said:
An old one, showing Manchester in Lancashire. Red Rose county. House of Lancaster. Henry Tudor and all that.

"Greater Manchester" may be correct but it's all very clinical, modern and doesn't have the same romanticism.
Click to expand...

So my original question "In what way is Manchester still in Lancashire" your answer is that it used to be and Lancashire is more romantic than Greater Manchester?

It's your view and your entitled to it, but it's a rather strange answer to my question.
 
Falastur said:
There are better examples than this. If we have to take the date that the club as a company was founded then - aside from that it sets a dangerous precedent for encouraging the viewing of football as a business first and a sport second - Arsenal were founded in 1910, Spurs in 1983, Chelsea in 1990, Liverpool in 1997 and Leicester City in 2002. I'm sure if I'd looked up the whole PL I would've found examples registered in the last two years but I stopped after about seven attempts because virtually every example I looked up was proving my point.

I love Gary's work but I can't side with him on this one. A football club is defined by its core, not by its corporate registration. We existed as a club before 1894, it's just that the directors chose to re-register the club. Aside from the strict legal registration which involved a name change, nothing really changed. The same players played, the same stadium hosted, the same fans attended. The fact that there were all of these press clippings from the time is just testament to the desire of the directors to spin the story as a new club in order to shake the lingering debt issues but it doesn't change the fact that the club as a core entity remained the same. I agree with Gary that we can't conclusively prove that the club started operating in 1880 but given the lack of better alternatives, and the fact that 1894 is a transitional year, not a formative one, I think we should respect it as the closest we can come to understanding our birth year.
Click to expand...
I think you've looked up the dates of holding companies or PLCs rather than the original football clubs in some cases. For example Tottenham was registered in 1898 and Liverpool was registered in 1892. Otherwise I agree with your point.
 
Shaelumstash said:
So my original question "In what way is Manchester still in Lancashire" your answer is that it used to be and Lancashire is more romantic than Greater Manchester?

It's your view and your entitled to it, but it's a rather strange answer to my question.
Click to expand...

Manchester Is in Greater Manchester Metropolital county, Greater Manchester is in the historic cournties of Cheshire below the mersey and Lancashire above it, in fact bar whythenshawe anyone I know from sale, Alty, etc consider themselves from Cheshire. But the City of Manchester is in the lancastrian part of greater Manchester nothing will change that fact and that many from north and east Manchester still consider themselves Lancastrian and saying they ain't repeatedly won't change 800 years of history over 40 yrs as an admin choice by some civil servant in westminster to redraw boundries
 
Shaelumstash said:
So my original question "In what way is Manchester still in Lancashire" your answer is that it used to be and Lancashire is more romantic than Greater Manchester?

It's your view and your entitled to it, but it's a rather strange answer to my question.
Click to expand...
The County Palatine of Lancaster covers the old boundaries of Lancashire and is still extant. The symbol is a red rose so although Manchester isn't in Lancashire anymore it's still part of the County Palatine (I think).
 
Cheadle_hulmeBlue said:
its not been greater manchester for very long at all though, you can't just ignore hundreds of years of history. the rose if anything is more relevant to manchester and its history then the ship. what happens if the boundaries change again and manchester ends up in another region.... do we then forget about greater manchester ?. its on the coa, lots of buildings around manchester and is an important symbol of our past, just like the ship.you can't just forget about it because the council changed it.
Click to expand...

I don't mind the rose on the badge mate. I grew up with it, and it means more to me than the eagle ever did.

The rivers and ship don't represent Greater Manchester. They represent the city of Manchester. The name of our club is the giveaway for me, we represent the city of Manchester. Not the county, and certainly not the county it used to be in.

Personally I think anyone who considers that Manchester is still essentially in Lancashire are naive and ignorant to the power and incredible work that Greater Manchester city council have done in transforming the city region beyond all recognition.

The way the airport is thriving, the complete regeneration of the city centre, the rapid expansion of the Metrolink, and most poignantly of all, the whole SportCity / Etihad complex only exists because of how ambitious and capable the city council are. The CFA, the whole regeneration of East Manchester, the partnership with ADUG, the huge multibillion pound housing scheme near to the stadium, the devolution of power to have an autonomous city region and the centre and flagship of the Northern Powerhouse (if this ever truly gains traction) all of these things are only possible because the city works with the other metropolitan councils as a Greater Manchester city region. None of these things would have been possible if Manchester was still a mill town in Lancashire.

Being in Lancashire might be "romantic" to some. Not me. Nothing agsinst Lancastrians and people from North Manchester who seem to be more attached to Lancashire, but to me Lancashire is now a complete irrelevance to Manchester as a city, and has been for a couple of decades.
 
west didsblue said:
The County Palatine of Lancaster covers the old boundaries of Lancashire and is still extant. The symbol is a red rose so although Manchester isn't in Lancashire anymore it's still part of the County Palatine (I think).
Click to expand...

It stil does and the area below covers it and all areas celebrate Lancashire Day on 27th November

map-lancashire.gif


Official quotes from the Dutchy of Lancashire

"Both Furness & Cartmel lie within the County Palatine."
Duchy of Lancaster - 4th September 1992

"We confirm that although the changes brought about by the 1972, and indeed, subsequent legislation, have altered the administrative boundaries of the County (of Lancashire) for the purposes of local government, they have not affected the boundaries of the Palatinate."
Duchy of Lancaster - 29th August 1996

"The river Mersey forms the southern boundary of the Palatinate..."
Duchy of Lancaster - 2nd January 1997

There has been no changes since the last quote on Lancashires status

I understand that some parts of south manchester and stockport have no affinity with Lancashire, but I think it was more to do with the old badge why the rose is so popular, even though I am happy on both the lancastrian and city aspect I can see why some would rather it not be on.
 
Last edited:
Shaelumstash said:
So my original question "In what way is Manchester still in Lancashire" your answer is that it used to be and Lancashire is more romantic than Greater Manchester?

It's your view and your entitled to it, but it's a rather strange answer to my question.
Click to expand...
It's literally all I have.
 
urban genie said:
It stil does and the area below covers it and all areas celebrate Lancashire Day on 27th November

map-lancashire.gif


Official quotes from the Dutchy of Lancashire

"Both Furness & Cartmel lie within the County Palatine."
Duchy of Lancaster - 4th September 1992

"We confirm that although the changes brought about by the 1972, and indeed, subsequent legislation, have altered the administrative boundaries of the County (of Lancashire) for the purposes of local government, they have not affected the boundaries of the Palatinate."
Duchy of Lancaster - 29th August 1996

"The river Mersey forms the southern boundary of the Palatinate..."
Duchy of Lancaster - 2nd January 1997

There has been no changes since the last quote on Lancashires status

I understand that some parts of south manchester and stockport have no affinity with Lancashire, but I think it was more to do with the old badge why the rose is so popular, even though I am happy on both the lancastrian and city aspect I can see why some would rather it not be on.
Click to expand...
Ignore my previous post.

I have this as well ^^
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top