Citizen of Legoland
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 9,066
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:That's strange. Because there's a giant photo of the St Marks team on our stadium right above my turnstile.
"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.