Talk:Sydney FC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject on Football in Australia The article on Sydney FC is supported by the WikiProject on Football (soccer) in Australia, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of football (soccer) in Australia related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia To-do:
WikiProject on Football The article on Sydney FC is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Removed surry hills and cricketers at the cove section. Wikipedia does not need this information


Is there really any point in having records and noted players/managers sections for such a young club? In the latter case, there's only one of each and they can surely be mentioned in the article text. J.K. 08:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Why did someone delete my contribution on ultras and the cove? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Portillo (talk • contribs) 10 Jan 2006.

Because they were unsourced and potentially defamatory. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. ～J.K. 07:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


"The former Manchester United European Champions League winner is not only be the most highly paid signing in the history of the game in Australia, but also the player with the greatest football pedigree." What about George Best? Surely you can't get better pedigree than that?--Hack 04:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Best played four games, Yorke is the first truly big name to sign a permanent contract with an Australian club. Gorast 08:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Club nickname

From the SMH: "Glamour FC, Hollywood FC or Bling Bling FC - whatever the choice of nickname, Sydney are the tall poppies of the new competition." I'm a Sydney FC supporter and I actually find any and all of those nicknames humorous and positive. Does anybody else think that it would be appropriate to use one of them (though which, I'm really not certain) in the club infobox? Or are they all a bit too derogatory and not really in widespread use? Veila 11:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There used to be "Bling FC" listed there. Someone must have taken it out, much to my disappointment. It's too perfect for the club not to use. ～J.K. 12:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

While the nick name Bling Bling was used for a few months, it's really died of late. It was never official, the Sydney media have dropped it, as have the Sydney fans.Tancred 14:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed the press refering to them simply as FC. SMH, Sports Tonight and SBS. --Executive.koala 01:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Really? I wouldn't have expected to hear that one outside Sydney. But then, for a club as devoid of identifying features as this one, I suppose there's really no other options. ～J.K. 04:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • FC claim victory, win or lose I do like how they've allowed the possibilty of a nickname to evolve from public perception. Anyway, here's another example of "FC" being used to describe them. --Executive.koala 23:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be good if someone could update this page (I would although I have a feeling I wouldn't be able to with Wiki's magnificent:p encyclopedia standards). Everyone knows Littbarski is gone and the squad has changed a great deal, as well as backroom issues with the club and the league itself.

[edit] Sydney FC userbox

There is now a Sydney FC userbox that people can plaster all over their user page! Simply add {{User sfc}} someplace and all will be good in the world. veila# 00:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transfers Section

It just seemed so pointless, I removed it. This is an encyclopedia entry, not a "breaking news" page. If there's a signing that is in fact a "transfer" that is significant enough to be discussed in depth (i.e. i'm thinking something that will actually be relevant and significant years from now.. like if we get Ronaldinho or something and as a direct result the club conquers the world), otherwise just add/remove the player from the squad list as there is no point contributing something that will be removed in a few months. Also, notice no other club page has that sort of section. --[dM] 11:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A-League 2005-06 Place

First? I thought they came second to Adelaide United and if they didn't where did Adelaide United finish? Maybe instead of writing first, you could write Play-off Champions and for Adelaide United you could write League Premiers, or something like that. --Executive.koala 11:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] League Table

As at completion of Regular Season: February 6, 2006.

Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts
Adelaide United (Premier) 21 13 4 4 33 25 8 43
Sydney FC 21 10 6 5 35 28 7 36
Central Coast Mariners FC 21 8 8 5 35 28 7 32
  Newcastle United Jets 21 9 4 8 27 29 -2 31
Perth Glory FC 21 8 5 8 34 29 5 29
Queensland Roar FC 21 7 7 7 27 22 5 28
Melbourne Victory FC 21 7 5 9 26 24 2 26
New Zealand Knights 21 1 3 17 15 47 -32 6

Key: Purple = Qualified for Major Semi Final. Green = Qualified for Minor Semi Final.

Yeh I agree a distinction has to be made between Premiers and Champions, and the results for both put in the template. I'm not sure how it could be done, I tried Champions (2nd in league) but that makes it seem like they were Champions because they came 2nd in the league. There is of course the strange perception that the finals results are more important than the league results (while most sport-following Australians could probably name the last 10 grand final winners in their favourite sport without trouble, a lot would struggle naming the last 10 "minor" premiers), and this should be reflected in the template IMHO. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 05:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This is going to be a terminological pain in the arse, especially since any European fans will likely assume the A-League runs on the same system as their leagues, and then wonder where the Cup (ie knockout competition) results are. "Minor premier" is clear, simple, succinct, and likely completely impenetrable to anyone who isn't a fan of Aussie sport already; the perception that finals results count for more than league results is simply taken for granted in basketball, other football codes, and pretty much any other sport which uses a regular-season/finals format (hence the use of "minor round" and "major round" for each part of the season respectively). I was thinking putting "regular season" and "final" in brackets after each relevant position, but I suspect even the former is more an Americanism; perhaps a link to the relevant section of A-League will help. ～J.K. 08:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I long for the day we have a proper knock out competition involving A-League and state league clubs, then we can lose this Grand Final nonesne, until then though, the GF fills the end of season big-day-out void. What you have there is good for now thanks JK, but slowly we should come up with something else. Maybe a dedicated A-League infobox. If you look at Liverpool FC is just says FA Premier League 5th and no mention of FA Cup or European Cup. We could change A-League 2005-06 to just 2005-06 and write A-League 2nd (Finals 1st) with appropriate links. Ah sh*t. "This is going to be a terminological pain in the arse" uh-huh. :) --Executive.koala 13:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll second the call for a knockout cup (Adelaide Utd v Adelaide City is a match I wanna see) but I can't see a pure league format ever catching on down here, given that even the four-day cricket cup has started putting on a final. ～J.K. 23:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm strongly against trying to shoehorn the distinction of final position in "regular season" vs. "final season" into the infobox. The competition is very simple: whoever wins the grand final comes first. The article is the right location to give placings from the regular season, as the infobox isn't a good mechanism for explaining these matters.
From the A-League website: "The Hyundai A-League Season will consist of a Regular Season and a Finals Series featuring the top four (4) teams from the Regular Season, the winner of which will be crowned Hyundai A-League Champions." This seems to make it easy to classify Sydney FC's result (which is what the infobox is presenting it as) as "Champions". The hard case is trying to determine the final placing of Adelaide and Newcastle. Equal third? Or does Adelaide beat Newcastle by virtue of having progressed "further"? ⁂veila# 08:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The A-League also said those that finished the "regular season" in first would be crowned "Premiers" (note, not minor premiers) and there's nowhere that says that winning either is more important than the other. Adelaide would be higher 'ranked' in the finals than Newcy because they got further, typically you would say Newcastle finished "Semi finalists", Adelaide "Preliminary finalists", CCM "Runners up" and Sydney "Champions" rather than 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th as this caters for the possibility that two teams are knocked out at the same stage under a different finals system. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 11:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
When/where did the A-League say there would be a Premiers award? It's not in the official rules that I linked to above. ⁂veila# 00:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I was there at the SFS, when Adelaide were given the Prenmiers plate.Tancred 01:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I recall it being mentioned a fair bit in the Adelaide press (surprise, surprise). ～J.K. 01:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
There's a plate!? Did the A-League site have an article about this and I missed it? I still think we can infer that the finals series is more important that the league; it's certainly been given higher esteem in the press and on the official A-League site. ⁂veila# 01:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Cove

Portillo, suggesting that all cove members attend every match is just untrue, all songs that are sung by the cove are, inherently, for Sydney FC, how can a group of individuals produce "official" cove merchandise and taking "vivacious" out left the sentence grammatically flawed. Please feel free to keep editing the article, but try to be a little more careful in your edits. Thanks. ⁂veila# 13:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

TECHNICALLY Cove "members" are those with season-tickets in the cove, so I'd argue that it is a reasonable generalisation to say that they attend every game. Also, I don't see the point of "unofficial" to describe the merchandise seeing as it is Cove merchandise as opposed to Sydney FC merchandise, and the profits go to the fans fund which directly pays for the flags/banners etc used by the Cove. Anyway, that section of the article could do with a re-write, which I might do along with "First Season" when I have some more time. --[dM] 04:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] football vs. football (soccer)

I understand that there was a big confrontation regarding "ownership" of the term football. Despite this, I'm adamant that it's inappropriate to use football (soccer) in the opening sentence of this article. It harms readability and aesthetics and isn't reflective of an encyclopaedic aim, it's simply territorial pissings in a linguistic setting. For anybody who is afraid that a reader might be confused about which football is being discussed: There's a wikilink to the football (soccer) article in the word football! If that isn't enough clarification then I don't see how slapping a bracketed word on the end is going to help matters. The distinction becomes important when considering article titles, not wikilinks so please, leave the crusade well alone and just let the link be. ⁂veila# 13:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that the Socceroos article is now at Australian national football (soccer) team, I'd say we left aesthetics behind in this mess a long time ago. All snarking aside, though, there's a disambiguation page for other codes' teams at Sydney Football Club — how about putting a link to that in, to inform people who get just plain Sydney FC mixed up with Sydney (insert animal nickname here) FC? Something like "for other professional football codes, see..." I'd do it myself, but you can bet there's been an edit war over it at some stage, and I suspect that if someone who actually enjoys a non-round-ball game adds it, there'll be another. (rolls eyes) ～J.K. 20:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, there is such a thing as readability; having a "WTF?" moment and checking the link takes one's concentration away from reading the actual article (though I guess you can argue that having "soccer" in brackets is almost as bad). Read this old article opening for another, similar example. ～J.K. 13:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree. For the sake of readability and aesthetics I'd like to see it as just football. But a lot of people wouldn't, and it raises the question - would doing this lead to another edit war. Maybe we could use "football" throughout the article for the reasons you brought up, but throw in a mention of the disambig page (e.g. This article refers to the football(soccer) club Sydney FC. For Sydney Football Clubs of other codes see disambig page) for clarification purposes and to keep the "soccer" people happy. --[dM] 12:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
There have been too many edit wars over "football" or "soccer". We've decided to say "football (soccer)" initially, then "football" thereafter. I know it's not as aesthetically pleasing as "football" (or, indeed, "soccer") on its own, but it's the price we pay for our childishness. See WP:AWNB. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
This and that are unrelated. Using the wikilink football does not preclude any other editor from using the same method of linking in any other sport that would like to claim the word football. This isn't a zero sum game. To give a clear example: Moore Park vs. Moore Park. Any editor not linking the simpler term of "Moore Park" in the common case is doing their writing an injustice.
Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and for all the benefits that brings, it also brings in the childish. Surely we have a duty as editors to try and do what's most correct, rather than giving in to the whims of a destructive group who would permit bias and conflict to eclipse rational argument and good design? The closest that anybody has come to a justifiable reason to use football (soccer) is J.K.'s point that an unqualified football might be jarring to some readers. Wikipedia is not constrained in this way. By linking the appropriate article, the reader may well encounter a moment of confusion, but if they're already 100% clear on the subject, why are they reading an article on it anyway? The link allows them to learn something in that case. That's a good thing.
Mark, I've no doubt that your intentions are lofty and worthwhile, you've certainly paid your dues in mediation on this issue. Despite that, I can't take your position that it's acceptable to compromise on standards to avoid (wholly aimless) conflict. ⁂veila# 12:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your second point, I expect most visitors to this page will have some idea of what soccer is. ;o) Football (soccer) is a lovely, long article, perfect for annoying the hell out of folks on dialup. Anyway, what do you think of just dodging the issue? The name of the club tells you they're involved in one variety of football or another, naming and linking to the league — not to mention the club logo in the upper right-hand corner — tells you which variety it is, and the intro as it stands, mentioning the World Cup as well in the second paragraph, reads so nicely I doubt most people will even notice there's no link to the sport itself. ～J.K. 00:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Just go with football (soccer). It's not worth the trouble arguing about it. It might be ugly but it's effective. --Hack 08:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What about using association football as is used in the page football many clubs in Ireland are called INSERT NAME A.F.C to differentiate between the predominant gaelic variety. Only a suggestion Soundabuser 06:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

We could also leave it as is. Football is fine.Tancred 02:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney FC shirt colour

According to the little information box on the right hand side the Sydney FC shirt colours are black and blue (home) and black and white (away), this is obviously not the case. I don't know how to fix it but I'm sure someone who does could do it. James 24 87 07:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Its something strange with the way IE and Firefox interpret 3-figure colour codes. I guess you're using IE, should be fixed now. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 09:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Fans

Ok, so I just removed this section of the article. It seems totally pointless to make a "list" of two celebrities (well there were 3, but Andy Harper is hardly "famous" outside of footballing circles, so it doesn't really count), not to mention that big Euro clubs who would actually have a reasonable number to list don't have such a section. Anthony La Paglia's involvement in the club is already mentioned in the article and you can feel free to mention Jimmy Barnes/Club anthem, though I was waiting for it to actually come out. Hopefully no-one has any issues with that, and if you do then that's why i'm posting in discussion. ==> [dM] 12:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-write of sorts

I've been working on the article here (edited by [dM] 05:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)), basically re-arranging it according to the Club manual of style (though it wasn't too far off to begin with TBH). Basically i've added a section on the stadium, added a colours/logo section (though it's still Template FC and undone.... feel free to add to it) and removed the award winners section (that will go on the yet-to-be-created Sydney FC Season 2005-06 page). I'm not sure about some of the stuff that i've added and it's significance/Wikiness (rumoured move to Telstra, well... most of the Stadium part, Notable managers list etc) but more importantly, before I change the actual article, is it worth the effort? Does anyone see a reason to change, or is it alright the way it is? On the one hand, I figured it should be more to the accepted template, but there's also that it's still a new club and there isn't THAT MUCH to say. So yeah, some feedback would be nice before I go and ruin a nice article with my rubbish :p. -[dM] 11:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, though I am not sure how serious the suggested move to Homebush was.Tancred 17:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed- Looks fine. I would leave the Homebush bit in (although I don't know if it would happen- I hope not!)Downunda 22:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the move being proposed but I don't think it needs the figures in there. Something more along the lines of "Media repots during the 2006 off-season suggested that the club was considering moving its home games to Sydney's other premier sporting ground, Telstra Stadium. However the lure of playing in one of Australia's largest stadiums did not outweigh the fan-friendly acoustic qualities of Aussie. As such, Aussie Stadium remains Sydney FC's home venue." Dulberf 01:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unreferencedsect

I have removed the above tag from the Cove section. What is said there is common knowledge. Anyone who has been to a home game knows what the Cove is all about. Anyone who follows sport in Australia knows how silent other sporting crowds are.Tancred 19:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Bingley

matthew bingley is back at Sydney FC(see [[1]]|Bingley called in). does anyone know what newcastle premier league team he came from.? thanksBoltonfan22 08:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Boltonfan22

Hamilton I'm pretty sure (if that is one of the clubs). – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 13:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restructuring

Hi all. I've restructured this article, according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs. Please help expand the sections that are empty or lacking in content. Also, please discuss the proposal to merge the article on former players into the 'Noted players' section. Normally, this would only include players who have had a significant impact (e.g. played over 100 games), but with only one season under their belts, most/all former players can be included. Fedgin 11:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think the Noted players section is necessary yet..... and I think a list of every player to have played would be a bit ugly. IMO that part should be kept as it was.... a 'Noted players' section can be added when there's more to put there. As for the clubs and badges, I was considering including it in my re-write a while ago... but considering I didn't have much beyond "blue is the traditional colour of Sydney" I didn't have much to say, and definitely nothing that I could cite. That does have a place in the article, so I agree with throwing it in with a request for expansion. -[dM] 11:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


Also, if we need a "Noted players" section, I think we keep it at just notable players. It doesn't make sense adding guys who basically warmed the bench, if that. Laurie, Salazar, Buonavoglia... combined they made one or two league appearances and seeing as they aren't involved with the club anymore I don't see the need for them to be mentioned in the article. I don't see why not just leave them on the list of players article. -[dM] 03:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I completely agree. The thing is, the 'list of Sydney FC players' is just duplicating the Category:Sydney FC players and it's the same for each of the A-League clubs. To be honest, I'm a Scot with an interest in the A-League, so I rely on finding stats rather than common local knowledge - I'm not sure who are household names, etc. Obviously, guys like Yorke deserve to be included here - I'd say for the moment, include those who have played some number of games and remove the lesser-known when more can be added. Fedgin 07:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/y/d/Talk%7ESydney_FC_f838.html"