Ferran Soriano: City positioning themselves as “club of the future”

[dickie davies]

Gary James said it on two different occasions at talks of his i went to. One for the new badge at the CFA and one for a talk about why football became the main sport in Manchester at Central Library

So City's first ground was Central Library!

 

[Gary James]

Well @Gary James disagrees with you about two posts above.

The two clubs did exist at the same time - Ardwick played their last game after MCFC were established and MCFC had to be seen to be a new club otherwise they would not have been accepted into the League. However, once MCFC became established Ardwick was unlikely to continue and once it went, the majority of people associated with Ardwick joined MCFC (but not all). It is right to trace roots back to St Mark's through Gorton and Atdwick and the other incarnations, but MCFC was a new club. The same is true for MUFC - it was a new club but traced its roots back via Newton Heath.

 

[Gary James]

Ok, everything I've seen refers to Manchester Central being outside the football league and the two Manchester clubs inside the league (Ardwick and Newton Heath) not bearing the Manchester moniker so Ardwick deciding to change to Manchester City FC after a reorganisation. Nothing about the two clubs existing simultaneously. In fact in the 1893/94 season they played the first 27 games as Ardwick AFC (who were dissolved after the 27th game) and the final game as Manchester City FC (who were playing their first ever fixture), suggesting that the two clubs didn't, in fact, exist at the same time.

I explain it all in Manchester The City Years which can be downloaded via Amazon. They did exist at the same time but not for long.

 

[aguero93:20]

The two clubs did exist at the same time - Ardwick played their last game after MCFC were established and MCFC had to be seen to be a new club otherwise they would not have been accepted into the League. However, once MCFC became established Ardwick was unlikely to continue and once it went, the majority of people associated with Ardwick joined MCFC (but not all). It is right to trace roots back to St Mark's through Gorton and Atdwick and the other incarnations, but MCFC was a new club. The same is true for MUFC - it was a new club but traced its roots back via Newton Heath.

? What's the situation with the 1893/94 season then? The club played 27 games as Ardwick AFC and the last game as MCFC.

Edit sorry just saw reply above.
Maybe there were 2 companies simultaneously but it's very hard to see how they can be painted as anything but the same entity.

 

[Gary James]

? What's the situation with the 1893/94 season then? The club played 27 games as Ardwick AFC and the last game as MCFC.

Not true - where's that from? All games were Ardwick who played their last game after MCFC established.

 

[Gary James]

? What's the situation with the 1893/94 season then? The club played 27 games as Ardwick AFC and the last game as MCFC.

Edit sorry just saw reply above.
Maybe there were 2 companies simultaneously but it's very hard to see how they can be painted as anything but the same entity.

The people who established MCFC made it abundantly clear this was a new club and not Ardwick renamed, launched or anything. Some Ardwick officials wanted their club to continue. They were separate clubs but came together. However, I will always say that MCFC's roots did lie in Ardwick.

 

[aguero93:20]

Not true - where's that from? All games were Ardwick who played their last game after MCFC established.

Seen a few different final league tables with MCFC instead of Ardwick, I'll track one down later.

 

[mekonmcfc]

93:20 nails it above.

Pedants !! the name Manchester City is synonymous with blue and white

 

[SWP's back]

The two clubs did exist at the same time - Ardwick played their last game after MCFC were established and MCFC had to be seen to be a new club otherwise they would not have been accepted into the League. However, once MCFC became established Ardwick was unlikely to continue and once it went, the majority of people associated with Ardwick joined MCFC (but not all). It is right to trace roots back to St Mark's through Gorton and Atdwick and the other incarnations, but MCFC was a new club. The same is true for MUFC - it was a new club but traced its roots back via Newton Heath.

Thanks Gary, appreciate the answer.

 

[SWP's back]

Pedants !! the name Manchester City is synonymous with blue and white

and the song Blue Moon, just as Liverpool are with "You'll never walk alone", doesn't mean either was the first to have them.

 

[mekonmcfc]

and the song Blue Moon, just as Liverpool are with "You'll never walk alone", doesn't mean either was the first to have them.

I don't think that's the point, Manchester City FC started playing in blue, the clubs that formed Manchester City didn't. You cant say we were City before, because factually we were not. It was just Ardwick and St Marks and neither had anything to do with Manchester City until the club was formed

 

[dickie davies]

I explain it all in Manchester The City Years which can be downloaded via Amazon. They did exist at the same time but not for long.

 

[Gary James]

I don't think that's the point, Manchester City FC started playing in blue, the clubs that formed Manchester City didn't. You cant say we were City before, because factually we were not. It was just Ardwick and St Marks and neither had anything to do with Manchester City until the club was formed

Ardwick did wear blue and white from 1887. Initially it was royal blue and white stripes then Cambridge blue and white quarters - a great kit.