Mëtal Bikër said:
mancunian_red_84 said:
Simple question easily clears this all up, when the name was changed in 1902 from Newton Heath to Manchester United what city did united play in?
Coz I believe it was bank street, clayton, city of manchester.
Now if you wanna say well you should have changed your name when you moved out of the city of manchester, fair doo's but don't forget to remind the following clubs to change their names,
Chelsea do not play in the london borough of chelsea and kensington but that of hammersmith and fulham.
Millwall no longer play in the area but moved to bermondsey.
I could knock a few more off.
You say it isnt important where the fans come from but to me thats your lifeblood right there and the local supporters are the most important.
The 20 odd thousand who kept united afloat during the yo-yo years of the 30's were mancunian people from the same areas you are and I are from.
Thats your mancunian roots right there, and those roots still exist in every little shithole estate around this great city.
Check the old newspaper archieves to see how the manchester media viewed united, it certainly wasn't in the same way they viewed Bury. United has, is and will continue to be viewed as a manchester club.
City boundaries change, they have done since both our clubs were formed and will do in the future no doubt. But what always remains and what ignores borders is a clubs sphere of influence.
Why are leyton orient so bothered about the west ham move.
United when named, Manchester United played in the city of Manchester and since that time has drawn huge support from the city.......thats what counts here fella.
So, if for example Bolton was added as a district of the City of manchester, you would state that Bolton have ALWAYS played in Manchester? Your logic is flawed. You called yourself united to latch onto the popularity of Manchester City FC as your owners who bailed you out decided a "rebrand" was required in order to attract more attention to yourselves.
the old newspaper articles often referred to united as "moneybags united" due to their wealth, and we're talking 1909 here. when they lost it all and City grew from strength to strength and in popularity City were simply known as "Manchester", especially in the 30's., but now we're getting away from the original point aren't we, talking about which club is bigger etc.
United were formed as Newton Heath in the Lancashire town of the same name. The boundary changed, but Newton Heath rejected all association to the city, instead preferring to remain as a solitary club representing themselves. After the rebrand the club moved to an entirely new area outside the city limited (remember this in early 20th century Manchester, 1 mile was a BIG difference back then)
Why does this bother united fans so much to know that their club has a flippant association with the City of Manchester at best?
You can argue about fanbases, growing popularity til you're blue in the face, it still does not change the fact that united were formed OUTSIDE the city, has no interest in Manchester and only have any association at all because the boundaries changed around them and then after 8 years they STILL moved out of the area completely.
I am not arguing united was formed in manchester, city wasn't formed in manchester either if you want to be technical.
What I am saying is the name manchester united is perfectly legitimate, since when it was decided what to call the club was located in manchester and the support united had at that time mostly came from the city of manchester.
The truth here is you have two schools of thought , one that football clubs should reflect their area which is why one of your board resigned when you moved to south manchester and set up manchester central arguing that east/central manchester had a right to a football club.
Or you had the other school of thought in that football clubs can be grown by tapping into other areas, particularly untapped ones.
Now if you guys want to argue about the modern day manchester united, particularly since they dropped football club from the badge and decided to tap into every foreign market they can....ill hold my hands up and rip my own club to shreads for some of the shameless stuff thats gone on and also point out the stuff your club is beginning to do that resembles the early stages of what we did 15-20 years ago.
But no way whatsoever are city the only mancunian club, we are too big in manchester for that one and by big im not talking about armchairs and 3d tv's in pubs, im talking about your average week in week out manc lads.
United has and will continue to draw huge numbers of these lads from the city regardless of success.
I think if city are to become the new power around these parts you need to move away from this mentality you have, your owners certainly plan to rightly or wrongly.
