RAGS on Northern Ireland Forum.........Quality!!!!

[Macc Blue]

We are not partly a Yorkshire team you cock, it stood for Lancashire and yorkshire railway.
I don't give a fuck if the River Mersey is on the Trafford Coat of arms and I don't give a fuck that we have been playing our home games in the 'metropoliton borough of Trafford' (for the geeks) since 1910.

Who are you kidding pal, of course you give a fcuk knowing that City are the only team from Manchester and for the people of Manchester.....go on tell us all about "your" clubs community work in the city of manchester.
Tell me where your Platt Lane is, I'll give you a clue, charging kids a fortune to attend uncle bobbies soccer school doesn't qualify.

 

[Project Rain]

We were the first Manchester team, founded 2 years before city.
quote]

Neither City nor Utd were the first Manchester club, however this myth about Newton Heath playing football before the Blues has to be cleared up.

Newton Heath claim formation as 1878 but no evidence from that period whatsoever exists that they played football until November 1880 - the same month that we have hard evidence that St. Marks (City) played football. In fact the St. Mark's first known game is exactly 1 week prior to the game recognised as Newton Heath's first game.

Prior to 1880 Newton Heath were known as a works sports club but again little evidence exists of actual competitive sport, whereas St Marks are known to have been playing cricket as early as 1875 possibly earlier (again match reports exist).

The Blues evolved into MCFC in 1894 and Newton Heath became MUFC in 1902.

So on what terms do we measure 'oldest'? First known to have played competitive football - City (as St. Mark's). First known to have played competitive sport - City (as St. Mark's). First to have become 'Manchester' - City. First to claim a date in the 1870s - Utd (but in many authorised football books made pre-1990 Utd's formation is bizarrely recorded as 1885 - check out "There's Only One United - the Official Centenary History of MUFC" by Geoffrey Green). Green also states that the History of the Lancs FA says: "the club was founded in 1878,though no evidence seems available as precise proof of this".

All of this hardly matters, but it does prove that 'oldest' has to depend on hard evidence from the period - there are match reports from 1880, but no documentary evidence from the 1870s of football for either club produced pre-1880. For more info on the development of the game in our region (including comparisons on support etc.) check out "Manchester A Football History".

Thanks for the lesson Sir Gary!

 

[bluemanc]

They went 37 yrs without a Trophy.
LYR Newton Heath,the Y iYorkshire they are partly a Yorkshire team.
They have been a non-Manchester team for 99yrs.
Grimbsy hold the swamp attendence record.
The rags defied the FA by playing in Europe in the 1950's after Chelsea had refused to play because it was detrimental to the English game.
Denis Law did relegate them as the game was abandoned 10 mins from time with the game awarded to us,a full 10 mins before any other score was known.
They started the disaster chants at Cardiff in 1974 with the ABERFAN chants that caused a mass riot.
The River Mersey is on the Trafford Coat of arms.
Post these rag facts on that forum & watch them squirm

You are bound to surpass our 37 years in 3 years time.
We are not partly a Yorkshire team you cock, it stood for Lancashire and yorkshire railway.
We were the first Manchester team, founded 2 years before city.
The season we were relegated to division 2 we had an average attendance of 48,000, whilst City in the first division had average attendance of 32,000.
I don't give a fuck if the River Mersey is on the Trafford Coat of arms and I don't give a fuck that we have been playing our home games in the 'metropoliton borough of Trafford' (for the geeks) since 1910.

We are not partly a Yorkshire team you cock, it stood for Lancashire and yorkshire railway.

So the only bit i've got wrong is the bit about you being partly a Yorkshire team,i was so sure aswell..........perhaps i should have said flimsy roots of your club,sorry.

 

[CelticBhoyCityBlue]

has anybody posted the forum site address which all this shit is about. Being from Northern Ireland and a City fan i would like to defend City in what the arseholes are talking about.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.ourweecountry.co.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">www.ourweecountry.co.uk</a>

 

[blue jim]

has anybody posted the forum site address which all this shit is about. Being from Northern Ireland and a City fan i would like to defend City in what the arseholes are talking about.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.ourweecountry.co.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ourweecountry.co.uk</a>

I cant find the post. I'm not a subscriber if its in one of those forums.

 

[dannybcity]

Neither City nor Utd were the first Manchester club, however this myth about Newton Heath playing football before the Blues has to be cleared up.

Newton Heath claim formation as 1878 but no evidence from that period whatsoever exists that they played football until November 1880 - the same month that we have hard evidence that St. Marks (City) played football. In fact the St. Mark's first known game is exactly 1 week prior to the game recognised as Newton Heath's first game.

Prior to 1880 Newton Heath were known as a works sports club but again little evidence exists of actual competitive sport, whereas St Marks are known to have been playing cricket as early as 1875 possibly earlier (again match reports exist).

The Blues evolved into MCFC in 1894 and Newton Heath became MUFC in 1902.

So on what terms do we measure 'oldest'? First known to have played competitive football - City (as St. Mark's). First known to have played competitive sport - City (as St. Mark's). First to have become 'Manchester' - City. First to claim a date in the 1870s - Utd (but in many authorised football books made pre-1990 Utd's formation is bizarrely recorded as 1885 - check out "There's Only One United - the Official Centenary History of MUFC" by Geoffrey Green). Green also states that the History of the Lancs FA says: "the club was founded in 1878,though no evidence seems available as precise proof of this".

All of this hardly matters, but it does prove that 'oldest' has to depend on hard evidence from the period - there are match reports from 1880, but no documentary evidence from the 1870s of football for either club produced pre-1880. For more info on the development of the game in our region (including comparisons on support etc.) check out "Manchester A Football History".

I hope you correct people in pubs about things like this.

 

[nmc]

We were the first Manchester team, founded 2 years before city.
quote]

Neither City nor Utd were the first Manchester club, however this myth about Newton Heath playing football before the Blues has to be cleared up.

Newton Heath claim formation as 1878 but no evidence from that period whatsoever exists that they played football until November 1880 - the same month that we have hard evidence that St. Marks (City) played football. In fact the St. Mark's first known game is exactly 1 week prior to the game recognised as Newton Heath's first game.

Prior to 1880 Newton Heath were known as a works sports club but again little evidence exists of actual competitive sport, whereas St Marks are known to have been playing cricket as early as 1875 possibly earlier (again match reports exist).

The Blues evolved into MCFC in 1894 and Newton Heath became MUFC in 1902.

So on what terms do we measure 'oldest'? First known to have played competitive football - City (as St. Mark's). First known to have played competitive sport - City (as St. Mark's). First to have become 'Manchester' - City. First to claim a date in the 1870s - Utd (but in many authorised football books made pre-1990 Utd's formation is bizarrely recorded as 1885 - check out "There's Only One United - the Official Centenary History of MUFC" by Geoffrey Green). Green also states that the History of the Lancs FA says: "the club was founded in 1878,though no evidence seems available as precise proof of this".

All of this hardly matters, but it does prove that 'oldest' has to depend on hard evidence from the period - there are match reports from 1880, but no documentary evidence from the 1870s of football for either club produced pre-1880. For more info on the development of the game in our region (including comparisons on support etc.) check out "Manchester A Football History".

Well it wouldn't be like the rags to re write history - for their own benefit - would it?!!!!.

 

[StrangewaysHereWeCome]

We were the first Manchester team, It says 1878 0n rag merchandise that we were founded 2 years before city. I'm a scruffy rag paedophile with fuck all better to do than come on city forums,truth be told I feel more at home here.RedCafe is full of cockneys and the Irish.

Neither City nor Utd were the first Manchester club, however this myth about Newton Heath playing football before the Blues has to be cleared up.

Newton Heath claim formation as 1878 but no evidence from that period whatsoever exists that they played football until November 1880 - the same month that we have hard evidence that St. Marks (City) played football. In fact the St. Mark's first known game is exactly 1 week prior to the game recognised as Newton Heath's first game.

Prior to 1880 Newton Heath were known as a works sports club but again little evidence exists of actual competitive sport, whereas St Marks are known to have been playing cricket as early as 1875 possibly earlier (again match reports exist).

The Blues evolved into MCFC in 1894 and Newton Heath became MUFC in 1902.

So on what terms do we measure 'oldest'? First known to have played competitive football - City (as St. Mark's). First known to have played competitive sport - City (as St. Mark's). First to have become 'Manchester' - City. First to claim a date in the 1870s - Utd (but in many authorised football books made pre-1990 Utd's formation is bizarrely recorded as 1885 - check out "There's Only One United - the Official Centenary History of MUFC" by Geoffrey Green). Green also states that the History of the Lancs FA says: "the club was founded in 1878,though no evidence seems available as precise proof of this".

All of this hardly matters, but it does prove that 'oldest' has to depend on hard evidence from the period - there are match reports from 1880, but no documentary evidence from the 1870s of football for either club produced pre-1880. For more info on the development of the game in our region (including comparisons on support etc.) check out "Manchester A Football History".

That's 1-0 to the City. Make sure you know your facts my ragged friend before someone corrects you!

 

[bluemanc]

has anybody posted the forum site address which all this shit is about. Being from Northern Ireland and a City fan i would like to defend City in what the arseholes are talking about.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.ourweecountry.co.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ourweecountry.co.uk</a>

I cant find the post. I'm not a subscriber if its in one of those forums.

I can't find the forum.

OWC has had a presence on the World Wide Web since 1999.

Nah i'm reading to much into thingd,methinks.

 

[samharris]

They went 37 yrs without a Trophy.
LYR Newton Heath,the Y iYorkshire they are partly a Yorkshire team.
They have been a non-Manchester team for 99yrs.
Grimbsy hold the swamp attendence record.
The rags defied the FA by playing in Europe in the 1950's after Chelsea had refused to play because it was detrimental to the English game.
Denis Law did relegate them as the game was abandoned 10 mins from time with the game awarded to us,a full 10 mins before any other score was known.
They started the disaster chants at Cardiff in 1974 with the ABERFAN chants that caused a mass riot.
The River Mersey is on the Trafford Coat of arms.
Post these rag facts on that forum & watch them squirm

You are bound to surpass our 37 years in 3 years time.
We are not partly a Yorkshire team you cock, it stood for Lancashire and yorkshire railway.
We were the first Manchester team, founded 2 years before city.
The season we were relegated to division 2 we had an average attendance of 48,000, whilst City in the first division had average attendance of 32,000.
I don't give a fuck if the River Mersey is on the Trafford Coat of arms and I don't give a fuck that we have been playing our home games in the 'metropoliton borough of Trafford' (for the geeks) since 1910.

Its Metropolitan....you gimp.