1880 Group

It would be misleading to put 1880 on the badge. Although City's history can be traced back to 1880 via the predecessor sides, the formation of Manchester City in 1894 was more than a name change and constituted the establishment of a distinct and new football club.

Happy to be corrected but that's my take from what I've read.
Plus, of course, there’s no evidence that 1880 was a definitive foundation date. It’s currently the earliest known date of a match but we may have played prior to that. If we used MUFC’s example we’d be selecting a date from the 1860s when the first reported cricket game occurred. There’s no evidence of Newton Heath playing football before 1880 and they base their 1878 on other sports.
 
It would be misleading to put 1880 on the badge. Although City's history can be traced back to 1880 via the predecessor sides, the formation of Manchester City in 1894 was more than a name change and constituted the establishment of a distinct and new football club.

Happy to be corrected but that's my take from what I've read.
That's how I think it went, Ardwick were dissolved and Manchester City were formed as a new limited company. I suppose they could have tried to argue with the league that it was the same entity, after all, other clubs had become limited companies previously (since Small Heath - later, Birmingham - were the first in 1888) and have seemingly kept their continuity, but Ardwick would have had to have re-applied to the league anyway as they finished so low at the end of the previous season, so they probably just decided a clean break was easiest. Perhaps there were league rules put in place after the Everton/Liverpool mess just 2 years earlier where Liverpool's eventual founder registered a limited company as Everton FC & Athletic in an attempt to steal the real Everton's league position and fixtures. That same limited company became the dippers.
 
That's how I think it went, Ardwick were dissolved and Manchester City were formed as a new limited company. I suppose they could have tried to argue with the league that it was the same entity, after all, other clubs had become limited companies previously (since Small Heath - later, Birmingham - were the first in 1888) and have seemingly kept their continuity, but Ardwick would have had to have re-applied to the league anyway as they finished so low at the end of the previous season, so they probably just decided a clean break was easiest. Perhaps there were league rules put in place after the Everton/Liverpool mess just 2 years earlier where Liverpool's eventual founder registered a limited company as Everton FC & Athletic in an attempt to steal the real Everton's league position and fixtures. That same limited company became the dippers.
One of the key points in 1894 was that it had to be a new club - if there’d been any suggestion it was Ardwick in disguise they would not have received enough votes.
 
Can someone explain to me/others why we decided to miss off 14 years of our history, culminating in 1894 on our badge, when 1880 has a far greater reach with us blues?

Also, does the 1894 Group act officially on our fans behalf? Given their prominence in the last number of days, I'd like to know how things work?
I'm one of the founding members and main organisers of 1894.

Regarding your first paragraph @pace89 and @Gary James have both given good responses which are why we chose that particular year for a name. We chose the year of Manchester City's formation as opposed to something different (such as Union Bears at Rangers, Green Brigade at Celtic, Holmesdale Fanatics at Crystal Palace) as we wanted to focus specifically on the history of our club and to improve the atmosphere in a traditional British way. It was also a bit of a 'f*ck you' to people who thought we had no history as a club.

We don't act on behalf of all city fans. The official supporters club and City Matters fill those positions. We do try and organise City fans though. For example fundraising for displays, doing the displays on a match day, organising bus welcomings, organising protests etc. If you're interested in anything specific please ask.
 
One of the key points in 1894 was that it had to be a new club - if there’d been any suggestion it was Ardwick in disguise they would not have received enough votes.
Was that league rules do you know? I was wondering how other clubs managed to retain their continuity, not that it's important really.

Edit: Or do you mean they knew they wouldn't have got enough votes for re-election as Ardwick? Why was that? Is there any info about it?
 
Last edited:
Was that league rules do you know? I was wondering how other clubs managed to retain their continuity, not that it's important really.

Edit: Or do you mean they knew they wouldn't have got enough votes for re-election as Ardwick? Why was that? Is there any info about it?
They knew they wouldn’t get enough votes plus Ardwick continued playing after MCFC established briefly
 
Can someone explain to me/others why we decided to miss off 14 years of our history, culminating in 1894 on our badge, when 1880 has a far greater reach with us blues?

Also, does the 1894 Group act officially on our fans behalf? Given their prominence in the last number of days, I'd like to know how things work?
Manchester City Football Club were formed in 1894 and there were no forerunner clubs to City.

St Marks did become Gorton who did become Ardwick, but Ardwick did not become Manchester City. It was just a coincidence that there were people involved with Gorton and Ardwick who founded (or played for) City and that Ardwick disbanded very soon after City formed.

But we were not those clubs before we were City.
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.