1880 Group

Andy Conway said:
That's strange. Because there's a giant photo of the St Marks team on our stadium right above my turnstile.
Click to expand...
It's a really bizarre situation to me, either these clubs were our forerunners or they weren't, but we've ended up with officially they're not but unofficially they are. It doesn't help that much of what's out there on the internet and in many publications is misleadingly worded, such as:

"The 1894–95 season was Manchester City F.C.'s fourth season of league football and third season in the Football League." (Wikipedia)

@Gary James has mentioned that people were aware that if Ardwick FC attempted to seek re-election with their failing structure that they would not succeed and therefore it is logical that these people felt compelled to distance themselves from Ardwick FC by forming a new club and applying that way, rather than attempting to take control of Ardwick (if that was needed or indeed possible) and explaining their new management structure. When Newton Heath had their financial problems in 1902, they weren't facing re-election so could just re-structure unopposed, it seems odd that purely because Ardwick had finished in a re-election position the founders of City were forced into a more dramatic course of action. Or, another way of looking at it, is that it gave those same people the opportunity to use Ardwick's position to replace their league membership. That itself is interesting because just a few years earlier teams would get league membership due to their success in regional competitions whereas MCFC, as a new club, had no such pedigree.

I am leaning towards City being to Ardwick what Liverpool are to Everton, a new club taking over the ground and the previous tenant moving on, albeit in different circumstances and Ardwick failing very quickly.
 
Citizen of Legoland said:
It's a really bizarre situation to me, either these clubs were our forerunners or they weren't, but we've ended up with officially they're not but unofficially they are. It doesn't help that much of what's out there on the internet and in many publications is misleadingly worded, such as:

"The 1894–95 season was Manchester City F.C.'s fourth season of league football and third season in the Football League." (Wikipedia)

@Gary James has mentioned that people were aware that if Ardwick FC attempted to seek re-election with their failing structure that they would not succeed and therefore it is logical that these people felt compelled to distance themselves from Ardwick FC by forming a new club and applying that way, rather than attempting to take control of Ardwick (if that was needed or indeed possible) and explaining their new management structure. When Newton Heath had their financial problems in 1902, they weren't facing re-election so could just re-structure unopposed, it seems odd that purely because Ardwick had finished in a re-election position the founders of City were forced into a more dramatic course of action. Or, another way of looking at it, is that it gave those same people the opportunity to use Ardwick's position to replace their league membership. That itself is interesting because just a few years earlier teams would get league membership due to their success in regional competitions whereas MCFC, as a new club, had no such pedigree.

I am leaning towards City being to Ardwick what Liverpool are to Everton, a new club taking over the ground and the previous tenant moving on, albeit in different circumstances and Ardwick failing very quickly.
Click to expand...
Many Ardwick officials were against the creation of MCFC and there were 2 clubs in existence for a period. Once Ardwick played their last game and closed down most of those then joined the new City but not all the players did for example. The re-election bit is significant too but election to the League after its initial season right through until the 1980s was by election (old boys act - let’s keep our friends in and deny aspiring clubs like Altrincham). It wasn’t based on competitions won. Even in 1892 when the League was expanded in to 2 divisions votes were taken for those who applied to join the top division and Div 2.

Sadly there are too many myths (don’t get me started on Anna Connell) with people often repeating on Wikipedia and elsewhere assumptions etc. There’s still much to research - and there are other points between 1880 and 1887 when the continuity of the club could be said to have ceased - but for me the key aspect of continuity are the people. From the 1880s through to the 1940s there were at least 2 people directly connected with MCFC that had been there at/near the start of the club. The club is a different one but it’s roots started at St Mark’s with continuity all the way through.
 
Gary James said:
Many Ardwick officials were against the creation of MCFC and there were 2 clubs in existence for a period. Once Ardwick played their last game and closed down most of those then joined the new City but not all the players did for example. The re-election bit is significant too but election to the League after its initial season right through until the 1980s was by election (old boys act - let’s keep our friends in and deny aspiring clubs like Altrincham). It wasn’t based on competitions won. Even in 1892 when the League was expanded in to 2 divisions votes were taken for those who applied to join the top division and Div 2.

Sadly there are too many myths (don’t get me started on Anna Connell) with people often repeating on Wikipedia and elsewhere assumptions etc. There’s still much to research - and there are other points between 1880 and 1887 when the continuity of the club could be said to have ceased - but for me the key aspect of continuity are the people. From the 1880s through to the 1940s there were at least 2 people directly connected with MCFC that had been there at/near the start of the club. The club is a different one but it’s roots started at St Mark’s with continuity all the way through.
Click to expand...
Growing up I’d always believed Ardwick became City, purely from panini sticker albums & football annuals when I was a kid, as this was always stated as fact

I do love all your research on the history of not only City, but also Mancunian football. Keep up the good work Gary
 
Citizen of Legoland said:
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.
Click to expand...
They really have been vermin scum for a very long time
 
gkelly1972 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Thread should be void.

Anyone worth their salt knows we don't have any history.
 
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
✖
  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.