125 years

[kun]

Don't you mean 10 years?

Manchester City est 2008, everybody knows that!!

 

[Gary James]

Registered as a company called Manchester City in 1894 after Ardwick was restructured.

The club has been around since 1880 or earlier, the name and it's registration since 1894

Ardwick and City were different clubs. Ardwick played on (briefly) after the new club MCFC was formed. Personally, I always say the roots to MCFC lay in Ardwick, West Gorton, St Mark's etc. but they were two separate clubs officially.

 

[Gary James]

So next season is our 125th. I wonder if club marketing have realised.

It'll be 2019-20 as it's always been celebrated in the first season starting after the anniversary. Back in 1894 the season ended in April, and 1894-95 was the first, so it will be 2019-20.

 

[ccr]

Were the rags just a name change Gary ?

 

[urban genie]

Actually, City never actually wore a centenary kit in 1993-94 - wikipedia and other sources claim they did but they didn't. Eddie Phillips brought out a centenary badge and souvenirs for the 1994-95 season and City celebrated the centenary in other ways during 1994-95 (including a booklet). The club was formed in April 1894 - at the end of the football season and wasn't active properly until the 1894-95 season so that's what became the first season (and the 125 will surely then be 2019-20 season as it matches with all previous celebrations).

1894, as you say, is accurate because 1880 wasn't MCFC. Nor was 1880 definitely the year the club first played. They may have played in 1879. As people often compare MCFC and MUFC the key things to know are:

1860s - St Mark's established a cricket club and occasional other sporting activity.
1878 - Newton Heath established a sports committee at the railway works which organised athletic tournaments and other sports.
1880 - The earliest known match report for St Mark's football team exists but this may not necessarily be their first game (lots of reasons which I explained in ) One week after the earliest reported St Mark's game Newton Heath's earliest reported game appears. Therefore - like for like St Mark's played before NH BUT if NH did play games earlier than Nov 1880 then the same logic must be followed for St Mark's - so, 1880 is merely the first we know of a game, not the formation of a club.
1880s - various name changes and rebirths for the St Mark's team meaning that there are several dates when we know for certain a club was established which could have as equal significance as 1880 or even stronger.
1887 - Ardwick established as a limited company and the first steps towards the club we know today.
1894 - Ardwick collapses but only after some supporters of the club establish a new club called Manchester City FC. Ardwick played AFTER MCFC was formed and the directors, management and so on claimed MCFC to be a completely new club. Therefore 1894 IS the anniversary of MCFC, not 1887, 1880 or 1865 etc. Ardwick closes down and eventually most - but not all - fans, staff and committeemen join the new MCFC. Ardwick had finished in the re-election zone and Josh Parlby, City's new manager, stressed this was not Ardwick in disguise this was a new club at the election meeting (Ardwick would probably have been booted out of the League). His plan worked and the new club was accepted.
1902 - Newton Heath is bankrupt. A new club is established called Manchester United and, as with City, this was a new legal entity. However, as NH hadn't finished in the re-election zone the new directors (different to NH's) did not have to apply for election to the League and so they claimed this was a name change to the League at the time, meaning automatic inclusion in the 1902-03 season.

I hope this helps. City are right to celebrate the 125th anniversary of MCFC in 2019-20. Whether Utd are right to include 1878 is another matter!

Cheers, I remember the centenary shirt, but tbh wasn't sure if it was worn or just a souvenier made up.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Why 1894 and not 1880? I know the name was changed in 1894, but the Club was established in 1880.

Manchester City Football Club were founded on 16th April 1894.

StMarks, who became Gorton, who became Ardwick went bust and many went over to Manchester City. They were not forerunners.

It’s 1894 only. There was nothing before Manchester City, just other clubs that weren’t ours.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Actually, City never actually wore a centenary kit in 1993-94 - wikipedia and other sources claim they did but they didn't. Eddie Phillips brought out a centenary badge and souvenirs for the 1994-95 season and City celebrated the centenary in other ways during 1994-95 (including a booklet). The club was formed in April 1894 - at the end of the football season and wasn't active properly until the 1894-95 season so that's what became the first season (and the 125 will surely then be 2019-20 season as it matches with all previous celebrations).

1894, as you say, is accurate because 1880 wasn't MCFC. Nor was 1880 definitely the year the club first played. They may have played in 1879. As people often compare MCFC and MUFC the key things to know are:

1860s - St Mark's established a cricket club and occasional other sporting activity.
1878 - Newton Heath established a sports committee at the railway works which organised athletic tournaments and other sports.
1880 - The earliest known match report for St Mark's football team exists but this may not necessarily be their first game (lots of reasons which I explained in ) One week after the earliest reported St Mark's game Newton Heath's earliest reported game appears. Therefore - like for like St Mark's played before NH BUT if NH did play games earlier than Nov 1880 then the same logic must be followed for St Mark's - so, 1880 is merely the first we know of a game, not the formation of a club.
1880s - various name changes and rebirths for the St Mark's team meaning that there are several dates when we know for certain a club was established which could have as equal significance as 1880 or even stronger.
1887 - Ardwick established as a limited company and the first steps towards the club we know today.
1894 - Ardwick collapses but only after some supporters of the club establish a new club called Manchester City FC. Ardwick played AFTER MCFC was formed and the directors, management and so on claimed MCFC to be a completely new club. Therefore 1894 IS the anniversary of MCFC, not 1887, 1880 or 1865 etc. Ardwick closes down and eventually most - but not all - fans, staff and committeemen join the new MCFC. Ardwick had finished in the re-election zone and Josh Parlby, City's new manager, stressed this was not Ardwick in disguise this was a new club at the election meeting (Ardwick would probably have been booted out of the League). His plan worked and the new club was accepted.
1902 - Newton Heath is bankrupt. A new club is established called Manchester United and, as with City, this was a new legal entity. However, as NH hadn't finished in the re-election zone the new directors (different to NH's) did not have to apply for election to the League and so they claimed this was a name change to the League at the time, meaning automatic inclusion in the 1902-03 season.

I hope this helps. City are right to celebrate the 125th anniversary of MCFC in 2019-20. Whether Utd are right to include 1878 is another matter!

A much more detailed post compared to mine, top man

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Were the rags just a name change Gary ?

Stadium, kits, badge, name, borough, everything changed for them but they were the same club. Unlike at City.

Funny thing about Newton Heath; they were founded by a Scouser!

 

[Fame Monster]

1880s - various name changes and rebirths for the St Mark's team meaning that there are several dates when we know for certain a club was established which could have as equal significance as 1880 or even stronger.
1887 - Ardwick established as a limited company and the first steps towards the club we know today.
1894 - Ardwick collapses but only after some supporters of the club establish a new club called Manchester City FC. Ardwick played AFTER MCFC was formed and the directors, management and so on claimed MCFC to be a completely new club. Therefore 1894 IS the anniversary of MCFC, not 1887, 1880 or 1865 etc. Ardwick closes down and eventually most - but not all - fans, staff and committeemen join the new MCFC. Ardwick had finished in the re-election zone and Josh Parlby, City's new manager, stressed this was not Ardwick in disguise this was a new club at the election meeting (Ardwick would probably have been booted out of the League). His plan worked and the new club was accepted.

To what extent were the committee members who ran Ardwick involved in the creation of Manchester City?

Depending on the circumstances and the people involved in the formation of City, you could make a strong legal argument that City might have existed before 1894 if we were a 'sham' version of Ardwick formed purely to avoid being booted out the league and to avoid existing legal obligations. There are some exceptions to corporate personality and it would be a shame if we lost decades of our history if we were always devised to supersede Ardwick by the same people who created and were Ardwick and previous incarnations of Ardwick.

 

[Gary James]

To what extent were the committee members who ran Ardwick involved in the creation of Manchester City?

Depending on the circumstances and the people involved in the formation of City, you could make a strong legal argument that City might have existed before 1894 if we were a 'sham' version of Ardwick formed purely to avoid being booted out the league and to avoid existing legal obligations. There are some exceptions to corporate personality and it would be a shame if we lost decades of our history if we were always devised to supersede Ardwick by the same people who created and were Ardwick and previous incarnations of Ardwick.

Those that wanted Ardwick to continue remained and objected to MCFC; the new MCFC attracted committeemen who had not previously been involved. They were two clubs - However.... MCFC would never have existed without Ardwick and therefore the roots of the club are the same and must be remembered. In a sense the establishment of FC Utd is an example of what happened though for different reasons - some chose to create a new club as the old one was not doing what they wanted it to; some objected and stayed loyal to their old club; others joined the new club and another group who had never been associated with the old club also joined the new club. The difference being that Ardwick eventually closed down and then others - but not all - joined the new club. With FC Utd some claim MUFC as their origins and it is true it wouldn't have existed without MUFC but that doesn't mean it's the same club.

We can never, and should never, dismiss Ardwick - without those roots MCFC would never have existed. I think it irks people that MUFC incorrectly portray their transformation as the same club and it was not. The two were similar recreations. St Mark's, West Gorton, Belle Vue, Gorton and Ardwick are all important and their stories must be told and remembered, but it is also extremely important that we celebrate the 125th anniversary of MCFC being established.

Both City and Utd have claimed different formation dates in the past - NH was 1885 in some books in the 60s; City's was 1887 in the match programme during the 1980s - but the establishment of MCFC in 1894 and MUFC in 1902 should always be properly recognised, while remembering the footballing activities that started for definite by Nov 1880 but potentially during the 1870s.