Hyde Rd Fire Rare Photo

[Citizen of Legoland]

I agree that Central had a good case. Despite being a new club, they'd certainly accrued better facilities, a bigger support and greater potential than any of the clubs actually elected or re-elected in the period between 1929 and 1932.

I can see why United were scared of them, but I also understand the reasons for City being wary of their growth. We had a very strong fan base in east Manchester even after the move to Maine Road: to the extent that Belle Vue and its environs didn't have a local side to back, the Blues remained their team despite having decamped to another area of the city.

Though United were in a wretched state as the 1930s dawned and for some time after, there was always potential that they'd recover and challenge for support in some of City's new areas that were more accessible from Maine Road. Indeed, by the end of the decade, United were in the top flight while City had been relegated and our average gate in 1938/39 (albeit in the second tier) exceeded theirs by less than 1,000. I assume that continued backing from the east of the city helped our gates to stay ahead of theirs at that point and we'd have been significantly worse off without it.

It's very tempting for me to look at issues like this with the benefit of hindsight. Given what United eventually became, I'd have loved City to conspire with Central to consign the reds to irrelevance and for the two MCFCs to have contested the main Mancunian rivalry going forward. But I do think that City's stance over Central was logical at the time from the perspective of pure self-interest.



I think this episode deserves more comment on this thread than it's had, and IMO it's much more revelatory in terms of the light it casts on the relationship between City and United throughout the two clubs' history than the Central affair is. It shows how MUFC acted in bad faith towards MCFC in a way that I struggle to recall us doing with regard to them.

I should say that this post comes largely from memory as I don't have access here to my materials on the topic, which are mainly your books. Please feel free to correct anything that's wrong in my recollections.

But as I recall, after the end of WW1, United knew that City were keen to move to a new ground and the reds wanted us to go to Old Trafford rather than to build on a new site of our own (it was believed at the time that we'd take up residence at or near to Belle Vue, though of course we eventually strayed much further afield). City refused, which I assume was because we wanted a ground of our own rather than just to be somebody else's tenant.

Then, as soon as the fire occurred at Hyde Road and City became amenable to the idea of using United's facility, they forgot how much they'd previously wanted this to happen. Instead, they reckoned we'd be desperate and decided to try to shaft us.

IIRC, they demanded all gate receipts attributable to any attendance bigger than for the corresponding fixture the previous season. That was outrageous given that we were challenging for the league at the time and were likely often to attract bigger crowds when not constrained by Hyde Road's limited capacity. But nonetheless, there you have a fine example of the attitude United showed towards us through nearly all of our existence and theirs.

Regrettably, when they shared Maine Road with us after the damage to Old Trafford in the War, the terms they received allowed them to make huge profits and move back in 1949 with large reserves of cash. We should have taken their view of neighbourliness, telling them to do one and share The Willows with Salford RL unless they tipped up all the surplus money to us.

Two teams created around the same time from scratch, Thames and Manchester Central. Both had good facilities and wealthy backers. One was elected, one wasn’t, both went bust pretty sharpish.

It doesn’t prove anything (they could have been the next Chelsea) and perhaps the way it happened for Central was wrong, but I still feel concerns about them would have been justified at the time. There seemed to be loads of clubs failing around then.

And who knows, maybe it would have been City that fell by the wayside eventually and I’d now be posting stuff on rag cafe instead.

Perish the thought.

 

[cyan]

When you look at how much City had invested in moving to Maine Road and United at Old Trafford, allowing Central to become established as a League club must have felt too risky for both. United were in the doldrums at the time - but the move to Old Trafford had been a sensible one and always gave them the potential to draw on the huge population around Trafford Park - especially with no major club in the Salford area. Had Manchester United folded - someone else would have emerged to use that ground and to compete with Central and City for the available support. No other urban area of similar size (I'm thinking Liverpool, Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds [Rugby & Football]) has three major football clubs which would suggest that two is the optimum. When you add Bolton into the mix who were regarded as a major team until 1960 - then something would have had to give - and despite the tension between City & United even at that time - perhaps it's better the enemy you know, than the pushy new kid that seems to know what they are doing!

But it is interesting to ponder - imagine a different history where Central and City survive as the two major football clubs in the area. perhaps Central would have done what they wanted and drawn from East & Central Manchester, but City were nicely positioned to draw from the growing suburbs to the west of the Manchester - including Trafford Park and into Salford/Eccles/Swinton etc. Which suggest that City had the potential to be the richer more successful of the two. Yet Central would have had an energy that was creating a momentum that could have taken them onto dominance - but then they would want a new ground instead of being tenants of Belle Vue and find themselves faced with the same issues that led both United and City to relocate away from East Manchester and that space would not become available for another 60 years.