Dave Ewing's Back 'eader
Well-Known Member
Jeez, this is not as complicated as growing a basil plant on a fuckin' windowsill. Sometime in 1893 some ArdwickFC geezers thought we ought to be called Manchester City!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
1894 v 1880
- Thread starter cyberblue
- Start date
that the club was formed 1
I don't disagree with you Ric but it has always been accepted by the club and historians alikethat the club wa sfounded in 1894 that is why the club phone no was 1894 ,that is why the club celebrated its Centenary in 1894 .that is why there is an 1894 lounge ,pin badges ect have 1894 a supporters group call them selves 1894 , 1880 has only just been banded about in the last few years and I am just interested to no why the recent interestIt's not as though the club just sprang up from nowhere in 1894 though.
Gary's obviously much better placed to answer this than I am, but our records on the site date back to 1892, when we were still Ardwick FC:
http://bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/History/Matches/Seasons.aspx
I don't think we should ignore the formative years of our club, regardless of name.
Last edited:
that the club was formed 1I don't disagree with you Ric but it has always been accepted by the club and historians alikethat the club wa sfounded in 1894 that is why the club phone no was 1894 ,that is why the club celebrated its Centenary in 1894 .that is why there is an 1894 lounge ,pin badges ect have 1894 a supporters group call them selves 1894 , 1880 has only just been banded about in the last few years and I am just interested to no why the recent interest
1894 is just the year that the club changed their name to Manchester City. It was still essentially the same club in terms of players, manager (Joshua Parlby), ground (Hyde Road) etc.
Mad Eyed Screamer
Moderator
No one is ''re-writing'' history.That is not the point of the thread why the sudden urge to rewrite history now it has always been accepted the club was formed in 1894
St Marks / Gorton / Ardwick is our history.
SkyBlueTX
Well-Known Member
Muffin!
kippaxkid74
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 1,739
As Gary has pointed out Ardwick played a few games after city were formed, ie the 2 were side by side for a short while.. so it's a sticky subject.
Sure i remember that my old official city diaries from the club shop in the mid 80s (still have my childhood musings in them somewhere!) listed as the year formed = founder members of division 2 1887 as Ardwick FC, 1894 as Manchester City FC.
I can dig them out in a day or 2 if people care ;) Point is if my memory is right then it shows the club did for a while at least acknowledge Ardwick and 1887 as founder members of the football league division 2, before trying to make a quick buck under franny in 1994 with that horrendous centenary badge!! All this 1880 we throw around nowadays just strikes me as who can claim to have the oldest club!
while i'm rambling like a senile old woman (hi mum!) does anyone know if AFC Wimbledon properly refer themselves as being formed when the old Wimbledon were?
Sure i remember that my old official city diaries from the club shop in the mid 80s (still have my childhood musings in them somewhere!) listed as the year formed = founder members of division 2 1887 as Ardwick FC, 1894 as Manchester City FC.
I can dig them out in a day or 2 if people care ;) Point is if my memory is right then it shows the club did for a while at least acknowledge Ardwick and 1887 as founder members of the football league division 2, before trying to make a quick buck under franny in 1994 with that horrendous centenary badge!! All this 1880 we throw around nowadays just strikes me as who can claim to have the oldest club!
while i'm rambling like a senile old woman (hi mum!) does anyone know if AFC Wimbledon properly refer themselves as being formed when the old Wimbledon were?
Mad Eyed Screamer
Moderator
No. AFC Wimbledon have themselves as formed in 2002.while i'm rambling like a senile old woman (hi mum!) does anyone know if AFC Wimbledon properly refer themselves as being formed when the old Wimbledon were?
However..... in a deal brokered with the Football Supporters' Federation (the Middle East wars would be easier to solve, trust me) between AFCW and MKD (at the time when there was a boycott of away fans attending games in Milton Keynes) MKD agreed to hand over the replica FA Cup given to the original Wimbledon as winners in 1988 and also relinquish all history relating to WFC, in effect, becoming a new club themselves (which to many of us is exactly what they were / are)
In turn, AFCW are able to 'claim' the history of the original club but as mentioned, have themselves as being formed in 2002
what difference does it make - we are most establishen team in Manchester - we are oleder than than the rags and kept them afloat when their ground was bombed ........ heck we even gave them some weak minded fans in 1958.
We are Top - thats all.........
We are Top - thats all.........
Gary James
Well-Known Member
Just spotted this... Pet subject of mine but one I thought wasn't being debated much these days. I'll list the facts before I ramble on about what it all means (sorry if this bores people but it was a real bugbear of mine in the badge talks that people were, put simply, twisting history). Here goes:
1865 St Mark's Church opens
1860s (possibly as early as 1866) St Mark's has cricket matches
1880 St Mark's earliest known 'association' football match is played (but it may not be the actual 'first')
1884 Gorton AFC formed (the photo people wrongly claim is St Mark's with white cross was taken that season; club had undergone other reforming etc before 1884)
1887 Ardwick AFC is formed & turns professional (I.e. Starts paying a player officially; this was more of an evolution of Gorton than 'new' club)
1892 Ardwick AFC joins the League
1894 some involved with Ardwick upset at the club's struggles in 1893-94 decide to form a new club (emphasis on NEW). They create Manchester City. Some leaders at Ardwick decide to keep the club going and Ardwick fulfils it's fixtures. MCFC becomes a registered company and Ardwick plays on AFTER MCFC is a legal entity. Mcfc gets accepted into the League as a NEW club, not Ardwick in disguise. Ardwick's supporters switch to the new club and the club ceases to exist. Most of the Ardwick figures decide to join MCFC but not every player and shareholder switched and when City signed a former Ardwick player it was usually reported as a signing from Ardwick or from 'the old Ardwick' club.
So, what does this mean? In simple terms MCFC was formed in 1894 - no earlier. It's a date we can prove conclusively. Ardwick and everything that went before it is important as MCFC would not exist without it, but none of the earlier dates are MCFC. Part of our story and important, of course.
As I've said so many times 1880 is simply the date we know the church played a football game that we can prove. There may have been earlier games that just didn't get reported or, so far, those reports just haven't been found. I'm still researching that period and am confident they played earlier - it's always struck me as odd that a CofE church in West Gorton played a Baptist Church from Macclesfield as its 'first' game - surely they'd have played another local church or local team first, or they'd have played another CofE church they had a connection with. Regardless of what's been said on occasion, there were teams playing association football closer than Macclesfield (there were games in Fairfield for example in the 1870s and in Longsight). If we claim formation as 1880 we may well have to change it in a couple of years time when a game in 1879, 1878, 1877, or earlier are found. Also, unlike Unitedwho have no proof of football being played by them/Newton Heath before 1880, I think it's important we stick to facts. City is City and we have a date we can conclusively prove. 1880 is important but may well not have been the beginning plus, if course, those who formed MCFC in 1894 claimed it as a new club for practical reasons. If we followed Utd's lead we may as well claim 1868 or whatever St Mark's earliest sporting activity was, but we're better than that.
1865 St Mark's Church opens
1860s (possibly as early as 1866) St Mark's has cricket matches
1880 St Mark's earliest known 'association' football match is played (but it may not be the actual 'first')
1884 Gorton AFC formed (the photo people wrongly claim is St Mark's with white cross was taken that season; club had undergone other reforming etc before 1884)
1887 Ardwick AFC is formed & turns professional (I.e. Starts paying a player officially; this was more of an evolution of Gorton than 'new' club)
1892 Ardwick AFC joins the League
1894 some involved with Ardwick upset at the club's struggles in 1893-94 decide to form a new club (emphasis on NEW). They create Manchester City. Some leaders at Ardwick decide to keep the club going and Ardwick fulfils it's fixtures. MCFC becomes a registered company and Ardwick plays on AFTER MCFC is a legal entity. Mcfc gets accepted into the League as a NEW club, not Ardwick in disguise. Ardwick's supporters switch to the new club and the club ceases to exist. Most of the Ardwick figures decide to join MCFC but not every player and shareholder switched and when City signed a former Ardwick player it was usually reported as a signing from Ardwick or from 'the old Ardwick' club.
So, what does this mean? In simple terms MCFC was formed in 1894 - no earlier. It's a date we can prove conclusively. Ardwick and everything that went before it is important as MCFC would not exist without it, but none of the earlier dates are MCFC. Part of our story and important, of course.
As I've said so many times 1880 is simply the date we know the church played a football game that we can prove. There may have been earlier games that just didn't get reported or, so far, those reports just haven't been found. I'm still researching that period and am confident they played earlier - it's always struck me as odd that a CofE church in West Gorton played a Baptist Church from Macclesfield as its 'first' game - surely they'd have played another local church or local team first, or they'd have played another CofE church they had a connection with. Regardless of what's been said on occasion, there were teams playing association football closer than Macclesfield (there were games in Fairfield for example in the 1870s and in Longsight). If we claim formation as 1880 we may well have to change it in a couple of years time when a game in 1879, 1878, 1877, or earlier are found. Also, unlike Unitedwho have no proof of football being played by them/Newton Heath before 1880, I think it's important we stick to facts. City is City and we have a date we can conclusively prove. 1880 is important but may well not have been the beginning plus, if course, those who formed MCFC in 1894 claimed it as a new club for practical reasons. If we followed Utd's lead we may as well claim 1868 or whatever St Mark's earliest sporting activity was, but we're better than that.