Talk:Manchester United F.C.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manchester United F.C. article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Good article Manchester United F.C. has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia There is a request, submitted by Darkson - BANG!, for an audio version of this article to be created.

See WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for further information.

The rationale behind the request is: "Important English football team".

See also: Category:Spoken Wikipedia requests and Wikipedia:Spoken articles.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Manchester United F.C. as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Korean language Wikipedia.

Pending tasks for Manchester United F.C.:

 edit - watch - purge
Archive

Archives
1 2 3 4 5

Contents

[edit] Ambiguity regarding the First team squad

Craig Cathcart was a first team player last season. So, technically he should be in it this season also right? Illidan reules 09:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Not according to the First team list on ManUtd.com, which is the reference we use to determine which players go in the list here. - PeeJay 11:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

btw anyone notice United's famous no 7 is conspicuously missing from the First Team squad as of this post? 121.7.52.254 02:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Adam Eckersley is listed as being a first team player. Adam is actually on loan and should be moved to the correct group. 198.123.41.42 (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. – PeeJay 21:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Should Daniel Welbeck be added to the first team squad? He is in their first team squad for their testimonial match in Saudi Arabia tomorrow. 76.103.43.3 (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

When the official web site add him to the first team squad page then he should be added to the article, but not until. It's not unusual for fringe players to gain experience in meaningless money making trips I mean friendly matches. Fd2006 (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The on loan section needs to be updated. I saw Lee Martin play for Sheffield United against Man City this afternoon and he is a United player on loan. I believe one of the Eckersly's is as well. 76.103.43.3 (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the squad list on the official website, Lee Martin isn't in the Man Utd first team squad, so he is not listed at all on this page. He is listed on the Manchester United F.C. Reserves & Academy page, however. – PeeJay 23:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, Adam Eckersley was recently sold, and Richard Eckersley is not on loan, so that's why they're not listed. – PeeJay 23:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Valter di Salvo

Valter di Salvo has moved to Real Madrid so I have removed him from the Manchester United page. consulrjo 12:30, 4 August 2007

[edit] Highest Attendance claim

I count 7 seasons since 1964-5 that MUFC haven't had the highest average attendance. I suspect that the author(s) missed out 1992-3. Also 65-6, 70-1, 71-2, 74-5, 87-8, 88-9, Since its in a prominent position on the page it is important to get it right.

I would have just changed this if I could.

I count six seasons: 65-66, 70-71, 71-72, 87-88, 88-89 and 92-93. In 74-75, United had the highest average attendance in England, recording an average of 48,389, beating Liverpool's average of 45,966 by 2,423. - PeeJay 16:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007/2008 Squad numbers

The squad numbers have not been announced on the sources given. Please change it back until they are officially announced. Plus Heinze has been omitted from the list and on his page, it claims he is Liverpool player, when as of right now, he is still a Manchester United player.

Please stop pre-empting events, wait until they happen, if they happen! --Madbassist 15:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The changes to Pique and Martin's squad numbers are based on the numbers they were given for the Community Shield today. Any others should be changed back. - PeeJay 16:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hargreaves had #23 on his shorts today when walking up to collect the Shield

Yes, maybe so, but he wasn't in the matchday squad, so we can't make assumptions like that. - PeeJay 16:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Surely the fact that a player is wearing a number in a competitive match is not making an assumption? And I wouldn't always go off what is on the official web shite either - it is frequently slow to update. Fd2006 19:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Why has no-one considered the possibility that he might, just might, have been given a random pair of shorts to wear for the day. I know it's unlikely, but until he's in a matchday squad with particular number, we can't afford to make assumptions. - PeeJay 19:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Eagles always wore #19 in the friendly matches. Hylian pirate 19:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
And Pique wore #19 today, while Eagles wore #33. What does that tell you? - PeeJay 20:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I think they might give Hargreaves the #4 shirt if Heinze leaves before the cutoff date, but that is my opinion and speculation. We will just have to wait and see. Madbassist 20:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, you'd be wrong - Hargreaves will wear #23 - the number he wore at Bayern. JPMJPMJPMJPM 11:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Nothing is certain with regard to Hargreaves' number yet. Same goes for Anderson, Foster and Tevez's numbers. - PeeJay 11:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of any of these comments, the OFFICIAL source, manutd.com, lists Pique at 28 and Martin at 46. Anderson, Foster, and Hargreaves have not been assigned numbers yet. Tevez isn't even on the team yet. As for Pique wearing #19, so has Eagles this pre-season. Nothing is certain until SAF makes the official announcement of squad numbers later this week. Is it likely that Hargreaves will get #23? Absolutely. But wikipedia cannot be publishing the "likely" information... only the definite. User:dsapery 14:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Since the Community Shield is a competitive match, it is certain that the numbers given to Pique and Martin will be the numbers they wear for the remainder of the season. I agree about Hargreaves, Anderson and Foster not being given numbers yet, however. - PeeJay 14:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
That's not certain. We shouldn't go off of the website for half the numbers, then a matchday roster for the others. The numbers should remain as they do on the official team site, regardless of whatever number somebody wore in a friendly or a pre-season tournament match. Once the season starts and the numbers are set for the season, then we can change the page to reflect that. Batman2005 22:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Haha - that's ridiculous - Martin and Piqué should be given those numbers. And the case for Hargreaves at #23 is pretty solid too. JPMJPMJPMJPM 23:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC) *** (I see you're American - explanation found! The word "goaltender" - brilliant! JPMJPMJPMJPM 23:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Your thinly veiled, and poorly executed, personal attack is noted. Nothing is definitive until it is published on the clubs website. Pre-season match numbers don't mean anything. Batman2005 07:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have heard from an official with the club that the numbers worn on Sunday for the Community Shield are NOT confirmed for the Premier League. Those lists are due to the league this week and are expected to be publicly released on Thursday. Is Hargreaves likely to be given #23? Yes. Definite? No. Information on Wikipedia needs to be VERIFIABLE and until the club issues an official press release, anything else at this point is purely speculation. User:dsapery

I know I'm right, but cannot be arsed to argue with you quite frankly. You can shout at me and show me a well executed personal attack if Piqué, Hargreaves and Martin aren't given those numbers. JPMJPMJPMJPM 10:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Added Anderson as number 8 today - I bought the (rip-off) Match programme from Sunday and Anderson is listed as number 8. SURELY this must count as an official source as this must be compiled from an official list. I mean, what if Manutd.com never updates the page with squad numbers, we would be reduced to not updating the squad list here. For info Owen Hargreaves was listed as TBC in the programme so I can concur with the opinion to not add his number yet. Seedybob2 07:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:2007communityshieldprog.jpg

No, that's evidence that during that pre-season match he was listed as #8. It does not say that it is his official number, or the number he'll wear all season. Manutd.com is our source for the numbers, not a pre-game program. Batman2005 08:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This is no ordinary pre-season match its the FA Community Shield - the squad list is based on the list submitted to the FA. However, just seen the comment at the bottom of the united squad - so perhaps you should go ahead and revert it again (sorry for problem, its not intentional vandalism!)Seedybob2 08:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The very fact that the programme lists Giuseppe Rossi in the United squad but omits Gerard Pique (who was actually selected in the matchday squad for that match) means that we can't rely on it. - PeeJay 09:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh my god everyone, in the friendly yesterday Darren Fletcher was wearing number 7, quick everyone assume that this is his number for the year and change the page, hurry. Morons. Batman2005 21:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Anderson is number 8 because I was in the Man Utd shop at Old Trafford for the Inter Milan game and they were selling jerseys with Anderson with number 8 pre printed on the back, they wouldn't sell these if he was another number, I have a picture of one of the jerseys on my phone which I'll upload tomorrow if someone wants the proof Adzer 01:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Manchester United Website states this http://www.manutd.com/default.sps?pagegid={B4CEE8FA-9A47-47BC-B069-3F7A2F35DB70}&newsid=462234&page=1 1 VAN DER SAR (GK) 2 NEVILLE 3 EVRA 4 HARGREAVES 5 FERDINAND 6 BROWN 7 RONALDO 8 ANDERSON 9 SAHA 10 ROONEY 11 GIGGS 12 FOSTER (GK) 13 J.S. PARK 14 HEINZE 15 VIDIC 16 CARRICK 17 NANI 18 SCHOLES 19 PIQUÉ 20 SOLSKJAER 21 DONG 22 O’SHEA 23 J. EVANS 24 FLETCHER 27 SILVESTRE 28 GIBSON 29 KUSZCZAK (GK) 30 MARTIN 33 EAGLES 35 LEE 36 GRAY 37 CATHCART 38 HEATON (GK) 39 CAMPBELL Vitruelugia 13:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the source code of that page, you'll see that Danny Simpson and Phil Bardsley were given #25 and #26 respectively. - PeeJay 16:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Why didn't you add the rest players (#35+)? Hylian pirate 16:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Because, according to the first team squad list at ManUtd.com, those players aren't in the first team squad. - PeeJay 16:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing squad numbers pre-season

Now that Hargreaves has been confirmed as number 4 for 07-08 and Heinze switched to 14 after most people got their edits wrong (including myself)- this dialogue should act as a guide to editing for future seasons regarding squad numbers (apart from Batman's totally unhelpful "moron" comment). Seedybob2 16:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, it was helpful. Everyone else was WRONG about squad numbers. JPMJPMJPMJPM SWORE that Hargreaves was going to be #23...WRONG. I was NEVER wrong about anything I posted, clearly I was one of the few who actually made sense and didn't make a wrong edit. Batman2005 00:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Never said you wasn't helpful - I said your "moron" comment was unhelpful. I was effectively saying that everyone has learned something from this but there was no need to call people morons. Just be happy and smug that you were right and everyone else was wrong - but they are NOT MORONS. Seedybob2 07:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The ones who SWORE UP AND DOWN that they were right, even going so far as to say that they had inside information to try to push their content onto the page...who then turned out to be flat out wrong. They're not morons? Hmmm...ok... Batman2005 21:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
They may be morons, but there's no need to call them that to their face. - PeeJay 21:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
WOW, you who can't be bothered to STOP personally attacking other users is trying to tell me not to? That's priceless. Batman2005 22:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Stick to the matter at hand. I've learned my lesson, but it seems you haven't. Grow up. - PeeJay 23:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
HA That'll be the day, you learned a lesson? Whatever. Regardless, everyone else was wrong, they SWORE they had the "inside information," they changed the page countless times to reflect what ultimately turned out to be wholly incorrect information. They were made to look like idiots. Batman2005 23:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they were wrong, and they probably realise that now, but there's absolutely no need to get all smug about it. By all means point out that what they did is the exact reason why we wait for official confirmation of things like this, but there was no need call anyone a moron or an idiot. It's just not fair. - PeeJay 23:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, I see. But it WAS fair to call me "abused as a child," or "a bitter cunt" or "a dick?" How fair was it to say that somebody had "reared their ugly head?" Of all people on wikipedia PeeJay, you should be the LAST to try to tell anyone that personal attacks aren't fair. Get real. Batman2005 23:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
You just couldn't let it lie, could you? I've served my sentence and learned from it. You blatantly have not learned a thing. You obviously have a massive chip on your shoulder about something, and having a go at people who were making edits in good faith, in this case to the Manchester United squad list, is obviously your defence mechanism. Evidently, there is no hope for you. - PeeJay 23:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Whatever you say. I've got no chip on my shoulder, just making sure EVERY OTHER editor sees right through your nonsensical edits and pointless name calling. By the way, good faith edits aren't ones that are made after being told time and time again (by numerous people, even you PeeJay) to wait until the squad numbers are announced. Had the BAD FAITH editors heeded the advice of those of us (Yes YOU and I, among others) there would have been no need for continued debate. I have ZERO patience for people who read a comment that says "do not change a number until it is listed on the official site" and then change it anyway. That's not good faith, that's disruptive editing and vandalism...and those people deserve having a go at. You say you "served your sentence," then on the Owen Hargreaves article you claim i'm being a dick? Which one is it? No, nevermind, don't answer that, I think I know. Batman2005 23:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I've had enough of this. You obviously haven't seen the point behind the Don't be a dick essay, and I refuse to even attempt to make you see it. You've made it fairly obvious that you have "ZERO patience", but perhaps you should rethink that philosophy, considering where it's getting you now. By the way, you seem to have ignored the fact that many different people made edits to the squad list, not just a couple "BAD FAITH editors". I agree that people should read before editing, but as you are no doubt aware, I have been guilty of editing before getting all the facts straight, as I'm sure you have. Just give people a bit of leeway in the future, eh? - PeeJay 23:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Lets make a deal PeeJay. I'll read the "don't be a dick" essay...only after you do. Lest you forget that your vile, disgusting, and wholly disrespectful personal attacks earned you a block. What's it getting me now? Except that I was EXACTLY right on this page about people making bad edits. You ended up being blocked as you certainly deserved. Also, anyone who makes an edit to a page without a source, only because they "THINK" that (for instance) Hargreaves will be #23. Is making a bad faith edit, plain and simple. Batman2005 23:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be linking you to the essay if I hadn't already read it myself (while I was blocked, I'll have you know). I recognise now that what I said was wholly inappropriate, and I hope you will accept my sincerest apologies. As for the squad numbers incident, people were editing Hargreaves as #23 because they, apparently, saw it on his shorts at the Community Shield. I didn't see it myself, but there you go. Seeing something on TV is quite difficult to prove, but I believe that this was the case, which is why I didn't see those edits as being in bad faith. See where I'm coming from? - PeeJay 00:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Because it's blatantly obvious that the numbers from ALL pre-season fixtures weren't their official numbers. Chris Eagles wore #9 in one pre-season match. Fletcher wore #7. Did anyone really think that Fletcher would take Ronaldo's number? No. There was a CLEARLY marked warning to ALL editors that we don't use any source other than the official website as the source for jersey numbers. Anyone who tried to edit that section HAD to see that before they edited. Meaning that people saw it, read it, then inserted the information against the sources. Those aren't good faith edits. Those are people making edits simply because they want something to be true and trying to use OR as a reason. I don't care if a million people saw Hargreaves with 23 on his shorts at the Community Shield, I don't care if he wore a #23 jersey today, if the website lists him as #78, then he's #78. Batman2005 00:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you're right that we should only use the official website as a source for this, but the Community Shield, while technically being a pre-season game, is a game where players must wear their submitted squad numbers. Therefore, when people saw Hargreaves wearing #23 on his shorts, they automatically assumed that that would be his number for the season. I'm not saying they were right to assume this, because as it turned out they were wrong, like you said. However, surely you are able to see where they were coming from in making that edit. - PeeJay 00:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
That may very well be. But in the pre-season friendlies they wore numbers which were their submitted squad numbers. Programs were printed for those games with their squad numbers. So for one game, Darren Fletcher was #7 for United, there's a source out there to prove it. Yet nobody made the change because the official site still listed Fletcher as #24. Hargreaves was never even listed on an official match sheet as #23. He was listed in the program for the Comm. Shield as "TBC." People were making changes because they WANTED Hargreaves to be #23, or they wanted to be right. Batman2005 00:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Board Changes

I am a member of One United which is the Manchester United Membership scheme and in the membership pack comes an official yearbook with the official positions of the board members. This includes the club having two boards. The Manchester United Limited Board handles business matters while the Football Board handles all football matters. So I have changed the page to match this. consulrjo 16:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need names of the board members of the business side of things, since the article refers to the club and not the business Adzer 01:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The club encompasses both the football side and the business side. These days, football is becoming more and more of a business anyway. - PeeJay 00:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar usage

In the opening line of this article, it is stated that Manchester United F.C. is an.... Should'nt this be are? For example, the article on Arsenal F.C., which is a FA article, is using the term are in the opening sentence. The article on Aston Villa F.C., which is also a FA article, uses the same plural term as well. Any comments on this would be welcomed. --Siva1979Talk to me 11:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Many people say the usage of "is" and "are" is discretional in cases like this. However, I believe it all depends on context. When you say "Manchester United Football Club", you are referring to just one club, i.e. a singular entity, making "is" the appropriate verb for the sentence, e.g. "Manchester United Football Club is an English football club..." In fact, you could even drop the "Football Club" from that sentence altogether and still be referring to the singular entity, e.g. "Manchester United is an English football club..."
However, when you get into the realms of talking about recent events to do with the club - for example, signing a player, winning a match or competition - you are referring more to the people involved with the club, like the board members, and the players themselves. In this instance, "are" would be the appropriate verb, as you are referring more to a collection of people under the banner of Manchester United, rather than to the club itself.
I hope that has helped clear up my viewpoint on the situation. - PeeJay 12:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
So, should the term is be used here? Then, we also have to change the terms in Arsenal F.C. and Aston Villa F.C. to is as well, to make it more consistent. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, it does largely depend on context, so I'm not going to advise that you go around changing them all, willy-nilly. However, I will say that it should read "Arsenal Football Club is an English football club..." and "Aston Villa Football Club is an English football club..." - PeeJay 01:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
In conclusion, the term are should be used to follow the standard of British English for British related articles. Any views on this would be welcomed. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
What?! Who ever said that? Like I said, it's not a case of setting standards here. It depends on context, and you can't use the one verb in all instances that it is required. In effect, you should use the verb that sounds right. To me, saying "Manchester United Football Club are an English football club..." sounds wrong, but "Manchester United are on the verge of signing Carlos Tevez..." (for example) sounds right. - PeeJay 19:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Just my €0.02 on this matter after being asked for my opinion - this issue has come up before, both on Talk:Arsenal F.C. and that article's FAC (as well as other FACs such as this one). Consensus in all these discussions is that we should be consistent in use of either the singular or plural, and that in British English the discretionary plural is a preferable means of discussing collective entities such as teams, clubs or companies. The manual of style is clear that articles on British topics should be in British English, therefore a consistent use of the plural throughout is the most correct choice. Qwghlm 20:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Without wanting to sound like I'm insulting your intelligence, do you know what "discretionary plural" means? The item about the discretionary plural that you linked to says nothing about using the plural every time one refers to a club, team, band, army or Cabinet. In fact, it says quite the opposite. And if Wikipedia policy demands that we be consistent with verb form usage, then Wikipedia policy needs changing, as it is quite clearly wrong in this case. - PeeJay 23:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


I think PeeJay has a point there, because when you say: 'Manchester United Football Club is a ...' you are talking about the singular club. Whereas when you say 'Manchester United are..' you are talking about the numerous people that Manchester United represent.

[edit] On Hold

I think that this article is very near to being a Good Article, however there is just a slight problem that needs sorting. In the history section of the article several subsections need references which they currently lack. These include The Treble and The Malcolm Glazer Takeover. Once this is done I would be happy to pass the article. On another note there have been quite a lot of edits making changes to the current squad today. It would be better to decide once and for all who should be included, as otherwise the articles stability could be threatened and it would have to be failed. Thanks. Boy1jhn 18:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Squad numbers

The official Manchester United Website is controdicting its own information. On the homepage one of the headlines is the announcement of the squad numbers however when you clich players & staff and select first squad some of the numbers for players are different. Ex. Pique is #19 on the Ben Hibbs report but is #28 on the first squad list. This error also occurs for Lee Martin. I edited the page according to the first squad page information and not the Ben Hibbs. So which is right? I apologize for my editing and hopefully manutd.com will fix their error.Wstaldy 19:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The report by Ben Hibbs is correct. Those are the squad numbers that were released today, and hence they are the correct numbers for this season. The squad list page is often wrong, tbh. - PeeJay 20:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passed GA

Now that some more references have been added, and after adding some myself, I think this article does qualify as a good article, and I have now passed it. Congratulations. - Boy1jhn 08:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism regarding Heinze

Just reverted an edit that claimed Heinze had moved to Liverpool, and checking his own page, had to remove a lot of edits that claimed he'd moved (or was moving) to Real Madrid and/or Liverpool. Might be worth keeping an eye on them for a while.Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 17:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll stick Heinze's page on my watchlist. - PeeJay 17:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
He's signed for Real Madrid. http://www.manutd.com/default.sps?pagegid={B4CEE8FA-9A47-47BC-B069-3F7A2F35DB70}&newsid=465412 Fd2006 18:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Now also officially confirmed by Madrid http://www.realmadrid.com/articulo/rma42003.htm - Tomperc 02:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

They have agreed a fee he hasn't officially left the club. Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 08:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he really has. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Fd2006 17:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
He has now, but he hadn't when Skitzouk replied this morning. He was only confirmed as a Real Madrid player this afternoon, about 2 hours ago. - PeeJay 18:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me, I wasn't fortunate enough to be invited to watch him physically put pen to paper - did you see that happen at 4pm this afternoon? Or was that actually the time of the press conference? I suspect the latter... I think its pedantic to orchestrate a mass edit-war when a transfer had been confirmed by both clubs and every reliable media source on t'interweb. Fd2006 19:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Just because both clubs have said the transfer is going to go ahead doesn't necessarily mean it will. Medicals are sometimes failed, and when worst comes to the worst, the governing bodies can overrule the transfer. The hard-and-fast rule when it comes to transfers of this magnitude is that it's not official until the player is announced at a press conference. - PeeJay 19:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I know where you're coming from and nothing irritates me more than endless speculative transfer edits. Legally, the contract to transfer the players registration is between the two clubs and both announced yesterday that this was agreed, so legally I suspect Heinze was registered as a Madrid player before he had signed his employment contract with the club. Anyway, it's not relevant now as the press conference has happened (although BTW how long after the Anderson transfer was that press conference? And is this the Wiki hard and fast rule or just the PJ one?) Fd2006 20:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History errors and oversights

I have researched the early history of MUFC because my family lived on Park Street in 1878 and 2 generations of my family worked at the Newton Heath rail depot where the club was formed. Park Street was next to Monsall Road (which still exists today) and North Road (where United played their very first game). North Road does not exist anymore and the area has been radically redeveloped - especially in recent years. Northampton Road, however, is very close to the original site and I believe there was a blue plaque at some point. The origins of the club are sadly given scant attention and I often come across many errors on this subject. Piccadilly railway is 2.3 miles from North Road and so I have removed it from the article. The Manchester Daily Express building is a much closer landmark, but even this is a good 10 minute walk from the original pitch. It is also well documented that the St Bernard dog was lost and found by the clubs eventual owner. This fascinating part of the club's history was included in this article and has been removed (why?). Even the meticulous 'Motty' mentioned this in his 2007 FA Cup commentary - surely this 'early' history section deserves more respect and accuracy. Also there is not mention of the club's first nickname, the 'Heathens'. I would change these oversights but this being such a major article I will leave it open to discussion . . . Robdav69 11:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the brief-ish paragraph on this page, or the main article at Manchester_United_1878-1945? That one mentions the dog, though my cursory glance didn't see any mention of the Heathens. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 13:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
There are several conflicting stories regarding Major, the Saint Bernard, but the one that is generally accepted as fact is that Major was being shown off at a club fund-raising bazaar in 1901 when he ran away. He was recovered by John Henry Davies, whose daughter became so attached to the dog that when Major's owner and Newton Heath's captain, Harry Stafford, came looking for him, Davies asked to buy the dog. Stafford agreed on the condition that Davies invested in the club, and the rest is history. As for the stuff about North Road's proximity to Piccadilly Stadion, I simply took that information from the Official Illustrated History of Manchester United, and assumed it was the truth. If it is not the case, then that should be removed. - PeeJay 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heaton

Wait a moment, doesn't the article on Tom Heaton say he is currently playing for Manchester United? One of these two articles is wrong, because the Manchester United article doesn't put him in the First-Team Squad section while his article claims he debuted for United in March. - Mjmclemore 25:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom Heaton has not played any competitive senior games for Man Utd. The match his article says he played in was a friendly, organised by UEFA. Heaton was in the United first team for a time last season, while Edwin van der Sar was out injured and we only had Tomasz Kuszczak for cover, but he has since been demoted back to the Reservess. I expect to see him back in the first team before too long though. Either way, both articles are factually correct. - PeeJay 10:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British English

This seems a little silly. Should I say "Manchester United is Premier Champion"? I think not. American and British English differences

In AmE, collective nouns are usually singular in construction: the committee was unable to agree ... AmE however may use plural pronouns in agreement with collective nouns: the team take their seats, rather than the team takes its seat(s). The rule of thumb is that a group acting as a unit is considered singular and a group of "individuals acting separately" is considered plural.[8] However, such a sentence would most likely be recast as the team members take their seats.

The difference occurs for all nouns of multitude, both general terms such as team and company and proper nouns (for example, where a place name is used to refer to a sports team). For instance,

BrE: The Clash are a well-known band; AmE: The Clash is a well known band. BrE: Indianapolis are the champions; AmE: Indianapolis is the champion.

It might be slightly acceptable to say "Manchester United is a football team" but in doing so, you must also say "Champion not Champions" oh and if this is all going to be consistant, you should also call the beautiful game that they play soccer not football.

They won the league, should I change that to "it won the league"?

It seems quite clear, if this article is going to be in British English, then make it all in British English. even some American based articles refer to Manchester United using "are" rather than "is"

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Manchester United are top with 54 points from 22 games, while second-placed Chelsea have 47 points from 21 before their game at Aston Villa on Tuesday.

Manchester United, worth about $800 million (£550 million), are already the richest soccer club in the world with revenue that dwarfs the rest of the English Premiership and major continental European rivals like Barcelona, Real Madrid and Juventus.

this seems pretty black and white to me, wikipedia makes it obvious how to refer to a team using British English and even the American sites that refer to them as a soccer team, use are and have, rather than is and has. Sennen goroshi 14:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There are different instances of referring to the club though. You can either be referring to the club, Manchester United Football Club, which is a singular entity, or you can refer to the team, Manchester United, which is a group of players. It's not as black-and-white as you would like to think. - PeeJay 18:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a silly edit. In British English and American English, Manchester United is singular, surely? — jacĸrм (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not as silly an edit as you might think. Sennen goroshi does have almost the right idea, but he is implementing it in the wrong way. See earlier discussions for info. - PeeJay 18:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
While I might agree that Manchester United the club can be treated as a single entity in certain circumstances, in other circumstances, it is not a natural way to use British English, to be honest it's not that natural while using American English either.
For example if you were talking about a company, it would be acceptable to use singular, but as soon as you talk about any sporting activity it should be treated as plural, if there is a single entity that is comprised of individuals who have different tasks, then it is treated as if it was plural.
Manchester United is/are worth a billion Pounds but Manchester United are the Champions. Is it really correct to mix the both? You could use either when talking about something financial, but to use singular when talking about sporting achievements is wrong - to most people MUFC = the team. To avoid confusion I think if/when people want to use the singular, they should use the full corporate title - Manchester United PLc(is that their current business name?) - when people use Manchester United/MUFC/anything similar, then use the plural form. It seems incorrect to use both singular and plural in the same article, when refering to the same team. oh and the game today.

There does need to be some consensus, it's not something I'm going to bitch about, however I do feel strongly that what I have stated above is the most logical,natural and correct way to refer to MUFC/Manchester United PLc. Sennen goroshi 19:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the club's "business name" is Manchester United Ltd as it is no longer a public limited company, but a private limited one. Nevertheless, the article has nothing to do with the business side of the club, but the footballing side. Anyway, to refer to a club (n.b. the singular form of the word "club") as a plural entity would be incorrect, hence why we say "Manchester United Football Club is an English football club..." rather than "Manchester United Football Club are a football club...". However, when referring to the group of players that plays under the banner of "Manchester United", then it would be correct to refer to them in the plural, i.e. "Manchester United are in second place in the Barclays Premier League table...". Suffice it to say, we shouldn't second guess vernacular grammar usage except when it is clearly in the wrong, and in this case, it is hardly clear. - PeeJay 20:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I still don't agree - asporting team is referred to in British English using the singular form (please tell me if we agree or disagree on that - if we don't agree at least we know what we are disagreeing about.

Wikipedia consensus seems to point (slightly) towards using plural, as the only Premier clubs that are refered to using singular are Villa, Everton, Man City, Sunderland, Spurs, West Ham and Wigan - 7 = singular, 13 = plural.

Not only does general usage point towards plural, but also wikipedia's article on the differences between British and American English, that (by lucky coincedence) deals with sporting teams/clubs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences

The rule of thumb is that a group acting as a unit is considered singular and a group of "individuals acting separately" is considered plural.

The difference occurs for all nouns of multitude, both general terms such as team and company and proper nouns (for example, where a place name is used to refer to a sports team). For instance,

BrE: Indianapolis are the champions; AmE: Indianapolis is the champion.

also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plural#Discretionary_plurals

I think there are arguements for either singular or plural in some cases, but what sways my opinion is the amount of times each form is used, in the press - plural, on wikipedia 65% plural 35% singular, the American press tend to treat it as if it were plural, and in spoken English it just sounds right, even when it is in the face of normal grammatical conventions - "The Arsenal are shit" is grammatically horrible, but that doesn't stop it from being the normal way to refer to that particular team.

regarding the term club refering to a single entity, yes of course it does, but I also see that as irrelevant - it is a single entity, made up of many individuals, each performing individual tasks - it's not a military unit all marching and turning in unision. Another single entity, would be a musical band, overwhelming consensus (feel free to check it out) points to refering to them using a plural form, in British English.Sennen goroshi 04:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I neither agree nor disagree with your assertion that "a sporting team is referred to in British English using the singular form" as it is my belief that sporting teams should be referred to using the discretionary plural. This means that either the singular or the plural can be used depending on what sounds right. I realise my rationale for choosing which to use may be a little sketchy, but it seems to work for me. As for your musical bands comment, again I would say it depends on the band. I would say "Blur is an English band...", while also saying "The Red Hot Chili Peppers are an American band...". See? - PeeJay 10:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Did I say singular or plural for a sporting team? I certainly can't be bothered to read all of the above to find out, but if I did say that, I didn't mean to. I think you are not using British English correctly, which nowadays is very easy, considering the amount of American English that is finding its way into British media. The way you are refering to bands, is the American way, they use singular unless the name is a plural - such as RHCP that will always be a plural in both British and American English. The discretionary plural is there so you can decide if the noun in question is acting as one, or is comprised of many people acting individualy...bah, I'm too lazy, drunk and tired after work to get into detail or give sources... at some time I will try to get a 3rd opinion or a definitive answer to this. It sucks, here I am with a BA in English and 6 years experience as an English teacher, but I'm having issues with shitty grammar. I guess after teaching English all day, I should find something better to do with my evening, than getting into grammar discussions online. anyway - watch this space, I shall either come back with something mindblowing, or concede the fact that you opinion is the better..Sennen goroshi 14:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

To be quite honest, on here, whether or not you have a BA in English and six years of teaching experience is irrelevant. Sometimes, grammar "rules" have to be overlooked in lieu of what sounds right, and to me "Manchester United Football Club are an English football club..." couldn't sound more wrong. - PeeJay 14:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
That is strange, because "Manchester United Football Club are an English football club..." sounds fine to me, my initial edits were based purely on what sounds right not based on grammar. Don't read too much into what I said about my education or teaching experience, I was just frustrated that I was having issues based on grammar after spending all day having fuckwits look up to me, based on my grammatical knowledge. If you want to go on what sounds right, then shouldn't it be based on what sounds right for the majority of people? and if that is the case, then look at the rest of the Premier team wikipedia pages - 65% of them refer to their team using "are" - so the majority of editors don't seem to share your opinion on what does and does not sound/feel correct.Sennen goroshi 17:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It is also quite possible that 65% of Premier League team articles use "are" because they've been told to. The majority of people I've asked about this have agreed with me, but I suppose that counts as Original Research :-D - PeeJay 17:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] captaincy

it states in the intro paragraph that gary neville is the captain. i've got to point out that neville hasn't played this season yet! ryan giggs was captain today (against chelsea) and i can't remember anyone else apart from giggs, being captain this season so far (unless giggsy didn't play - i'm not fortunate enough to get to every game).

can you still say neville is captain, even though he clearly isn't at the moment? for all we know (and god forbid) neville might never play again.

just wondering if it's worth mentioning giggs in there somewhere. 77.101.18.129 22:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not he has played this season, Gary Neville is the club captain, and has been since November 2005. Giggs' position as vice-captain is informal at best, and so this is not worth mentioning in the lead section. - PeeJay 23:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


well the squad list has been played with by somebody. It has lan gao(whoever he is !) as captain in the list.Someone , please change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeahbeesee (talk • contribs) 11:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grey kit anecdote

The anecdote about the ill-fated grey kit is all well and good, other than the fact that the final score is wrong. We lost that game 6-3, changing kits because we were 3-1 down at half time. A relatively minor point, but one that needs making all the same! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.63.62 (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A common mistake, but you are wrong. The 6-3 loss came the season after the grey kit was abandoned. The match in which we played in the grey kit was lost 3-1. - PeeJay 19:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

PeeJay is correct - the grey kit game was in the 95/96 season and United were down 3-0 at half time when they changed kits. The 6-3 game was in the 96/97 season —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.26.20.222 (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

User:Boingsaclapper has just vandalised the page, but it is protected so I cannot revert it 195.171.82.195 11:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are concerned about combating vandalism, you should register an account on Wikipedia. An extra hand is always welcome. - PeeJay 12:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll just stop then :-) Cheers, 195.171.82.195 16:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Why? Creating an account is simple and takes all of about 2 minutes. - PeeJay 17:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stadium

Should be "Theatre of Dreams" NOT "Theatre of Silence" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macca3218 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. By the way, next time you see something that obviously needs fixing like that, please don't hesitate to edit it yourself. - PeeJay 14:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the heading stadium should precede history. This I think would provide proper background for the club and ground to jump to the history and achievements.

The stadium is just where the club plays. The club may have played there for almost 100 years now, but they have had other grounds, and to be quite honest, the history of the club as a whole is a bit more important than a history of where they have played. - PeeJay 12:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Just a thought: Manchester United removed the 'football club' from the club badge a few years ago, and it just says MANCHESTER UNITED on the outside of Old Trafford. The legal entity is MANCHESTER UNITED Ltd. The article should just be called 'Manchester United', not 'Manchester United F.C.'. Mjefm 13:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In some ways I'm tempted to agree. I mean, everyone knows Manchester United is a football club anyway, and we haven't been known as MUFC for years. - PeeJay 12:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
That depends - is this an article about the loathsome American corporate empire that is owned by the Glazers or is it an article about the current English league football champions? If the latter then Football Club should remain in the title.
IIRC the corporate structure is actually Red Football Ltd who own Manchester United Ltd who own Manchester United Football Club Ltd anyway. Fd2006 16:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep the article as Manchester United F.C.... if anything, change the F.C. to Football Club. Andre666 16:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I think changing the "F.C." to "Football Club" would be a step in the wrong direction, tbh. If anything, we should push for a consensus to remove the full stops from "F.C.", as they cause loads of punctuation issues. - PeeJay 17:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I think doing that unilaterally would be a mistake. Every other football club article uses the "F.C." style. The concensus would have to be to agree to make that change across the board. As it happens I don't like the full stops either, but I dislike ignoring the established naming convention even more. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I didn't make myself too clear just now. I wasn't proposing that we only remove the full stops from "Manchester United F.C.", but that we should push for a consensus to remove them from every football article name. - PeeJay 17:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
That would make formatting and coding a lot easier, but general grammatical errors then arise. The full stops/periods, in my opinion, should stay between the F and the C, as it is basic English grammar. Andre666 01:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Basic English grammar seems to go to the dogs anyway though in most sports articles. Singular subjects referred to inconsistently as either they or it, sometimes even in the same sentence ... OK, I'll get off my hobby horse now. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Sports teams take the discretional plural, so it's perfectly alright to refer to a club as "they" and "it", depending on the context. - PeeJay 07:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It would look daft having a full stop between the F and the C, but not after the C. Anyway, UEFA.com doesn't include the full stops at all in team names, but that could just be them. - PeeJay 07:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SONGS

How about adding some of the songs sung by the fans at the matches? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.75.137 (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not encyclopaedic information. - PeeJay 15:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supporters clubs

Is this website anymore deserving of being added than say (example - no idea if they exist or have websites) Supporters club of Norway or Supports Club of Thailand? No other national supporters club is listed in the external links. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 11:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My argument isn't the inclusion of it, it's the deletion that PeeJay made and his reason for. He said "not a links repository" and then chose some random link to delete...leaving all manner of fansites which serve no purpose. My point is, there are about 8 fansites listed, each substantially the same as the other, and there's no purpose for ANY Of them, let alone 8 of them. ONE would suffice, and would fit wikipedia standards of listing one fansite. There's no reason for the Supporters Club of America to be listed any more or less than one of the random fansites. The simple fact that PeeJay only deleted one, was my reason for putting it back it. Why only delete one worthless site, when you're staring at so many others? Batman2005 (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, let's go through each of the links and judge them on their individual merits. Obviously, the official links are untouchable as they link to the club's official site. Now, the independent media sites could do with a prune. I would say to remove the Manchester Evening News, SportNetwork.net, Football365, 4thegame and Carling links, and leave the BBC and PremierLeague.com links, as the BBC and PremierLeague.com are about as reliable as you can get, while the others are only good for the odd rumour, aside from the stuff you can find on the other two sites. I might also suggest that we add the club's page from SkySports.com to the list.
Now, here's the crux of the argument, the major fan sites. The MUST and IMUSA links should be left alone as they are the two biggest Man Utd supporters organisations in the country, nay the world! Then we get links to Red Issue, Red News and United We Stand, all of which are extremely popular fanzines that many people buy before matches. You can even buy United We Stand in certain WH Smith outlets! So, that's them left alone. Finally, we've got the Red Cafe link, which is for the biggest unofficial Manchester United forum on the net, so I'd say that one should be allowed to stay too.
So, what do you guys have to say about that? – PeeJay 18:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I say we need ONE fansite, the others are substantially the same as the first. Link to the Official Supporters Site and be done with it. Batman2005 (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
But there is no official supporters club website, other than that which is contained within the official website. As I said, MUST and IMUSA are the biggest independent supporters organisations, and the others are massively popular fanzines. I say they stay, for the reasons detailed above. – PeeJay 11:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
There are literally HUNDREDS of fansites for the large clubs (United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Barca, Real Madrid, Bayern, etc). One or two are appropriate, listing 5-10 is overkill. There's literally NOTHING different about one than the other. Batman2005 (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think there's a difference between the MUST/IMUSA and fansites, so I'd argue they shoulds stay, even if only one fansite link is used. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 19:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] nicknames

man utd isnt a nickname no one is going to call them that except on tv to shorten it. i think Man U should be up there cos that IS a nickname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.155.18 (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Man U is an extremely offensive nickname used by rival supporters to aggravate Manchester United fans. It involves the Munich air disaster. Could someone please look it up if they aren't aware of it and remove it from the page. I though the people managing the United page were real fans?

I don't see how "Man U" "involves the Munich air disaster". I understand that the nickname is not looked upon favourably by the hardcore United fans, but it is still commonly used by many United fans, and members of the media. I don't like it myself, but there's no denying that it is used. – PeeJay 15:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand Man Utd is just for short. But Man U is a nickname on the Manchester city page it says Man City is a nickname. That means the man part must be a nickname. On [5] it calls them Man U. http://roosterton.myminicity.com/ please go onto it (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Tbh, I disagree with the assertion that "Man City" is a nickname. It's similar to Man Utd, IMO, in that it's just a contraction of "Manchester City". I mean, there's only so many ways to shorten the word "City", and "Man C" sounds a bit shit. Anyway, that's irrelevant to our discussion here. "Man U" is a commonly-used nickname for Manchester United, while "Man Utd" is just a contraction, and that's that. – PeeJay 17:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. - oahiyeel talk 18:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
As coincidence would have it, shortly before reading this I removed "Man City" from the nicknames in Manchester City F.C. on the grounds that it is a contraction, not a nickname. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Man U was the term used in chants mocking munich. Any Man Utd fans should never use that term. ANd it is not a nickname. Red Devils is nickname. http://www.unitedlounge.com/html/correctname.htm — Marcus leong (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether they should or not, I know numerous Man Utd fans who call the team "Man U". However, I have reservations over whether it is a nickname or just a contraction. – PeeJay 13:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Marcus leong (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)its a abbreaviation, not nickname. Red Devils is the nickname. Man Utd have fans all over the world, not everyone is aware of this. Try ask older match going fans about it, im sure they have a story or two to tell. Have you read the link i gave?Why not ask question in there, there quite a few knowledgeable fans there. Please, remove it. Thanks.

Why remove it? People use it to refer to the club, so it should be documented. We may not like it, but that's the way things are. – PeeJay 14:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
If you included every name that was regularly used to refer to the club you'd have a very long list, a lot of them insulting. Having lived in Manchester for a while, I know that United fans consider "Man U" somewhat insulting and would never use it themselves. Publications such as 4-4-2 and Football365 use "ManYoo" as a joking dig at the "fans" living miles from Manchester who use the term ([6] etc). BLACKKITE 15:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but "ManYoo" is intended to be mildly offensive. United fans who refer to the club as Man U are unlikely to be intending any malice. – PeeJay 16:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Marcus leong (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks for taking that out. Much appreciated.

Don't celebrate too soon. I'm reverting the edit as Wikipedia is not censored. – PeeJay 16:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
What next? ManYoo? ManUre? These are equally used by opposition fans and yet both would not be considered in the article. This is indeed an encyclopedia - spread of knowledge - an opportunity to teach people why the phrase is considered offensive rather than sit back smugly and say "that's the way things are." Hence the reason I referred to the explanatory link in my previous edit. I'm not going to start an edit war here but there needs to be a consensus of opinion, which there currently isn't - for either edit. Fd2006 (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Is that website citable? if you can find a citation that passes Wiki's policy, then you're probably more likely to win. As it is, it's the first time I've heard that story in 31 years of following United, so it's hardly well known, and I've heard Manchester United heard "Man U" more times from United fans than I've heard that story.
So wheter it's offensive or not, it is a nickname. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 17:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if its citable under Wiki policy. I've Googled though and come up with these other references to the same explanation...

http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/unions/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26135408&union_id=11474 http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/elfenomeno9/2007/08/11/To_all_fans_of_Manchester_United_READ_THIS http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070716192414AArdbSu http://mufc-fan.blogspot.com/2007/04/fact-do-not-refer-our-club-as-man-u.html http://www.gkclan.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-146758.html http://www.carigold.com/portal/forums/showthread.php?t=17558&page=414

Personally I'd say the only true nickname is the Red Devils.Fd2006 (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Pretty certain forums and blogs aren't acceptable, so you're looking for a book or magazine article. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 19:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I've just come across an article from issue 150 of the official Manchester United magazine that has a segment on why the team shouldn't be referred to as "Man U". It's been done in a slightly tongue-in-cheek manner, but it should suffice. – PeeJay 20:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"Man Utd" should be spoken as "man united", but it is popularly writen as "man utd". the club website is manutd.com not manchesterunited.com --Numberwang (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, some of you here call yourselves hardcore fans when you don't even know the true meaning of Man U. Man U is an inside joke: Man U Never Intended Coming Home = Munich. It's sick, ain't it? so REMOVE Man U NOW

Marcus leong (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Who put Man * back in? Please delete it!

Who made you the king of Wikipedia? A large proportion of Manchester United fans overseas (as well as in the UK) use the nickname "Man U" to refer to the team, and since Wikipedia is not censored, the term should stay in. – PeeJay 22:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Marcus leong (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC) check your dictionary. Theres a different between abbreaviation and nickname. Manchester United have only ONE NICKNAME= RED DEVILS. Theres plenty of AVBBREAVIATION, Man Utd, Man U, MU.

Forget it that you/someone else dont agree with what said. Man U is an ABBREAVIATION, not a nickname.

So now you're changing your argument? As it happens, I agree with you that "Man U" is an abbreviation rather than a nickname, but please try to remain civil. Thanks. – PeeJay 21:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that Man U is an abbreviation, however it is still used in the media. On Soccer Saturday on Sky Sports, they use Man U while showing goals or results. Eddie6705 (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Sky are also using "Man U" as an abbreviation rather than a nickname. My guess would be that "Manchester United", "Man United", "Manchester Utd" and "Man Utd" wouldn't fit on the screen, so they had to use "Man U". – PeeJay 23:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to Sky's use, it would be far more appropriate for them to use 'mutd' rather than Man *, it is literally the same number of characters and would avoid the entire Munich issue as Marcus has properly pointed out. It is used all the time in Australia, I couldn't count the number of letters I have sent SBS in an attempt to curb its usage. The term "is mostly only used by other supporters as a complete and utter insult" (Condor, http://www.unitedlounge.com/mb/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=268&st=0&sk=t&sd=a), the origin of the Man * term is a song to insult the deceased Duncan Edwards. Please refrain from using it and let our other fellow Manchester United supporters know about its origin. See this link for details: http://www.unitedlounge.com/html/correctname.htm Thank you. Anthony aka yusongo.

I heard the "Man U never..." wind up as "Manchester United never..." - so should we stop using the term "Manchester United" as it has the initials M.U., making the distasteful acronym work anyway? Jon Cummins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.56.203 (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] rivalries

just wondering if maybe roma could be put under rivalries as they seem to be intensifying with every match what with how some mu fans were just stabbed and the fan violence and what not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.186.40 (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The chances are that United will now go a few years without playing Roma again, and by then, whatever rivalry there is now will have subsided. – PeeJay 08:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

they are playing roma again next week —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumzzii (talk • contribs) 21:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manucho Gonçalves

This will need to be kept an eye on, as someone has already tried to add him to the first-team list.

Also, someone with more time (and energy!) needs to rewrite his article here on Wiki, as it currently reads that he's already at MU, as opposed to having signed for January, if a wrk permit is given. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 17:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be changed again. Gonvalves has been loaned to Panathinaikos of Greece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.43.3 (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No he hasn't. Not yet, anyway. Manucho is still currently a Petro Atlético player, and will not be moving to Man Utd or anyone else until 1 January 2008. – PeeJay 12:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

its jan 10th and he still hasnt officially signed it is very likely that he will be appearing in the "on loan" section. until he gets a work permit. but nothing should be changed unitl an announcement is made--Numberwang (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the Home Office will be reserving judgement on whether to give him a Work Permit until after they've seen him play at the African Cup of Nations. – PeeJay 18:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Club Captains

May I query the list of club captains. I have no documentary proof, however, from memory I recall Bill Foulkes gave up the captainacy not long after being appointed Club captain. He simply didnt like the responsibility. Dennis Violett became club captain from around 1959/60 up to 1962. Noel Cantwell was made club captain around 1962 which he retained despite his injury until 1966/67. Sir Bobby took over 1967 onwards. Can this be checked with credible sources please. Syncronyze (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I can find records that Cantwell was club captain from about 1962 to 1967, but I can't find anywhere that confirms what you say about Bill Foulkes giving up the captaincy, or indeed that Dennis Viollet was ever club captain. I shall amend the table accordingly. – PeeJay 01:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loan Players

Some clown has changed the loan players; I am unsure of who is away on loan and cannot change it. Just thought I'd point it out so someone more informed can correct this. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heracles2008 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


The article notes two players who are out on loan - Manucho and Jonny Evans. There are five more players on loan across the UK

Febian Brandy - Swansea City, Frazier Campbell - Hull City, Lee Martin - Sheffield United, Kieran Lee - Queen's Park Rangers, Darren Gibson - Wolverhampton Wanderers

Could this be added to the article?

Normally, these players would be included. However, since they are not listed as members of the first team at ManUtd.com, they are listed in the Manchester United F.C. Reserves & Academy article. – PeeJay 07:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The players PeeJay2K3 removed had previously (at the beginning of the season) been listed on the official website as first team players. It was only a couple of weeks after the Coventry match and the players being sent out on loan that they were removed from the manutd.com first team page. They also appeared on the official first team squad photo in August. They do not appear anywhere else on manutd.com, for instance in the reserves team. Manucho (who remains listed as on loan here) is not mentioned in the squad listing that you are siting as the only valid source either, so maybe he should be removed too? The same can be said of Danny Welbeck as he is listed as an Academy player on manutd.com and has never played for the first team. Evans only remains listed as the official site has not been updated since December. Fraizer Campbell has also played once for the first team this season before being sent out on loan. As you have said previously on this page the official site is often wrong.
The fact that there are inconsistencies in the players listed and the sources (or lack of them) that suggest they can be included here would indicate that the players I added should be reinstated.Decorativeedison (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested protection

I have just requested that this page be semi-protected again, due to the large amount of vandalism over the last few days. – PeeJay 12:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sponsorship

Don't United have a sponsorship with Air Asia, an Asian low cost airliner? Could that be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.26.20.222 (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A recent Peer Review of this article indicated that the list of club sponsors should be limited to as few as possible. Since very few people are likely to want to know who the club's "official low cost airline" is, Air Asia was removed from the list. – PeeJay 07:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Founding members...

It reads 1993 as the date of the premiership being founded... its 1992. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.75 (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nicknames

I've boldly reverted back to the correct nickname and sourced it. If others can be sourced from WP:RS then they can be added; this is an encyclopedia after all, and we don't want to end up in the position where Arsenal could have "The Arse" added, or "Barcodes" added to the Newcastle page. Black Kite 19:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Introduction

This section "The club is one of the most successful in English football; for over twenty years, since the 1986–87 season, they have won 18 major honours, which is more than any other Premier League club." reads very strangely. First of all it's not 'for over twenty years' it's 'in the last twenty years'. Secondly, why start counting from the 1986/87 season when United won nothing that year, or in the following two seasons either? Thirdly, why say more than any other Premier League club, when it's more than any other English club full stop? I would change it to something like "The club is the second most successful in the history of English football and by far the most successful of recent times, having won seventeen major honours since the 1989/90 season"

86.145.242.98 (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone going to change this?

81.153.2.248 (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you register an account and change it yourself? – PeeJay 13:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism Reguarding Munich Air Disaster

Someone has drastically cut out all of the information about Man Utd and have replaced it with a rather crude chant about Matt Busby and his boys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.53.16 (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So what? The vandalism was quickly removed, so what's the problem? There's nothing we can do to stop people from vandalising articles, short of fully protecting the page, so why the fuss? – PeeJay 22:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism is still there. And "so what"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VGorasia (talk • contribs) 23:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the vandalism is not still there. You just need to refresh your page. – PeeJay 23:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


No, it's still there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.232.21 (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If refreshing the page doesn't work, try going to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manchester_United_F.C.&action=purge. That should fix you. – PeeJay 23:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MUFC

I want to do a survey on moving MUFC page to MUFC (disambiguation). There is lots of ip user keep on Vandalism it. The problem should not be sloved in cyber cafe, but by a valid account. Matthew_hk tc 08:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I presume you mean changing the redirect MUFC to point to the dab page? (and not "moving" a page) Robert Ullmann (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Valuation of MUFC

The top (locked) section discusses the finacial valuations and contradicts itself:

"Since the late 1990s, the club has been one of the richest in the world with the highest revenue of any football club,[6], and is currently the second richest club in the world, based on revenue.[7]"

I suspect there's some confusion between value (shareholder value) and revenue. There may also be issues with revenue and revenue (excluding transfers).

This needs sorting by someone with access AND knowledge! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.171.87 (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support

There should be more postive notes on present support There are plenty of articles where Alex Ferguson has praised the Manchester United fans. There is also an article on the stretford end part of Wikipedia where it says the stretford end was measured to be as loud as a jumbo jet Manchester United away fans are stated to be the loudest away fans in England, they generally outsing many home fans, with the most recent being at anfield in December 2007 (Sumzi, 22.54, 30 march 08)

[edit] Appearance record

During today's match vs. West Ham, both 5 Live and Sky Sports mentioned that Giggs can break the United appearence record if he plays the remaining 2 matches of the season (vs Wigan and Cup final). The Sun newspaper also had a small article about it, supposedly because a historian has found that Charlton was wrongly credited with a FA Cup appearance vs Bolton (iirc).

Unfortunately, I've been unable to find a online refernce for it, but has anyone seen one somewhere? I'd change the record table, but without a citable reference, I assume it would have to be changed back.

(I do note that the United stat site still says 759 however.) Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 14:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

---> http://www.manutd.com/default.sps?pagegid={B4CEE8FA-9A47-47BC-B069-3F7A2F35DB70}&newsid=832725 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.209.34.200 (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This is quite an interesting revelation. I'll see about changing the stats on our various pages. – PeeJay 17:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Now reported on BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/7382189.stm
I think we can change the stats now. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 19:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Updated this page and the stats page. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 19:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced. They say that Charlton never played in that game back in 1962, but if it wasn't him, then who was it? All official statistics say that he played in that game. – PeeJay 19:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
To me this smacks of United fixing the statistics to give Giggs the record this season before he gets pensioned off... Anyway the team in question for that match is currently listed as:- Gaskell, Brennan, Dunne, Nicholson, Foulkes, Setters, Chisnall, Giles, Herd, Lawton, Bradley Fd2006 (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manegerial History

Obviously. It is also obvious that Frank O Farrell was the first non British manager as well, isn't it? (Namzie11 (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC))

The thing is that while he will always be the first non-British manager, it is extremely unlikely that he will be the club's only non-British manager for the rest of time. Therefore, there is no point in making the distinction. – PeeJay 01:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Cheers (Namzie11 (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Ryan Giggs - Record Breaker

Would it not be appropriate to mention the fact that Ryan Giggs equalled the club's record appearances total in the match against Wigan Athletic on 11th May 2008? He has had a distint career at Old Trafford and surely it would only be right to credit this on this page? Please find below a suggested snippet of text which may be included:

‘This particular match against Wigan Athletic can be noted as a significant moment in Manchester United history, as it was this match that signaled Ryan Giggs’ 758th game for the club, a record which he now shares with the great Sir Bobby Charlton.’

137.195.250.2 (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps on Giggs' page (but without the word "great"), but not really apprioiate for this article (imo of course).Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 15:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I would say that this info is better suited to Giggs' own article too, as the record relates more to him than it does to the club. If this article made mention of every club record in its history section, the article would be nearly two miles long! – PeeJay 23:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neville captain?

Look there's no doubt Neville would of been captain for 2007/08 but he never started a game and so never captained united all season so surely before he does that Giggs should be listed. Although i'm pretty sure Ferdinand captained more games including the Champions League Final so maybe it should just be removed or All three should be listed. What is certain for me is neville shouldn't be solely listed if at all. Any thoughts on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.168.83 (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Gary Neville is the club captain. The fact that Rio Ferdinand was the team captain (notice the difference between club captain and team captain) on more occasions is immaterial. – PeeJay 07:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Swear Written Instead of Manchester United

Today, i opened the Manchester United page on wikipedia and found a totally unacceptable swear words instead of Manchester United F.C. As an adherent Manchester United fan, i found it totally offensive for any Manchester United fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchester united rules (talk • contribs) 20:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those swear words were offensive. However, the page was moved back to its correct location within two minutes of the original move, so you must have been one of very few people who actually saw it at the incorrect location. Actually, that begs the question, why did you wait 20 minutes after seeing the offensive title before coming onto the talk page to moan about it? Hardly a constructive contribution, I must say. – PeeJay 22:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It took me a little while to talk about the swear because i was creating my wikipedia account. I created my account as soon as i saw those offensive words and immediately wanted to talk about it. It's very sad to hear people saying bad things about Manchester United because to me Manchester United is like a religion, every matchday, waking up early in the morning to watch them playing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchester united rules (talk • contribs) 14:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, without wishing to offend, if those kinds of words hurt you then you need to man up. – PeeJay 14:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude, whoever you are, if you cannot appreciate anything then try to keep your sarcasm within you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.75.5 (talk • contribs)

I'm not being sarcastic. – PeeJay 16:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay2K3. Vandalism happens on Wikipedia and certainly by rival fans to any athletic teams' pages. I understand a fan's passion and loyalty to their team, but to take petty vandalism on the internet so personally is worrisome at best. Taking that much offense to a few swear words of vandalism on an article that's reverted quickly is childish. I wouldn't say "man-up", but rather grow-up. Vandalism should be taken seriously, but not personally. --68.77.15.214 (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrities

Perhaps a list of well-known supporters as I am in New Zealand, if someone else did it I think it would add to the quality. Tshiels1 (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I created a similar list months ago. However, it was removed as such information is unencyclopaedic and quite difficult to cite. Obviously there are a few celebrities who definitely support United, but there are also some whose support cannot be verified through reliable sources. – PeeJay 09:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Alex Ferguson Leaving

Is it worth going into to much detail as to create a section speculating about his retirement? I can see that there are three sources

  • The Mail Online David Gill denying speculation but suggesting Queiroz as replacement
  • The Mail Online transcript of the back page interview when fergie says he is off.
  • SkySports John O'shea expects him to make a U-turn

Should any section of this information appear at the begining of the manchester united entry or should it appear in the body of the report.

Should the subject of any new section concern just Ferguson leaving or include information about Quieroz taking over and his previous U-turn.PheonixRMB (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, until such time as Fergie confirms he's leaving, and gives some sort of timetable (and not just "before I'm 70") I don't think it needs mentioning, especially as it's not the first time he's said he's going to retire. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 00:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The main club history section should be for trophy wins and actual transfers of staff (inc. players). If this info must be included on Wikipedia, it would be best on Ferguson's own article, which actually needs more biographical stuff on there, instead of just a history of the club under him. – PeeJay 14:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

the I leave the original content below for people to see and comment on its worth and were it should go

After winning the [[UEFA_Champions_League_2007-08|UEFA Champions League 2007-08]] Ferguson has stated that his intention to leave Manchester United within the next three years.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1021771/Queiroz-step-boss-United-Sir-Alex-decides-day.html |title=Queiroz could step up to boss United when Sir Alex decides to call it a day |publisher=Mail Online (UK)|accessdate=2008-05-27 |date=[[2008-05-25]] }}</ref> Manchester United Chief Executive [[David Gill (executive)|David Gill]] has moved to calm some speculation about Alex Ferguson's retirement although he believes that Manchester United's Assistant Manager [[Carlos Queiroz]] would be ideally suited for the managers job.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1021832/Fergie-wont-retiring-insists-Manchester-United-chief-Gill.html |title=Fergie won't be retiring for some while yet, insists Manchester United chief Gill |publisher=Mail Online (UK)|accessdate=2008-05-27 |date=[[2008-05-25]] }}</ref>


I am sure this won't be the end of it PheonixRMB (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reserve Team Coaches:

I have on two seperate occasions changed the reserve team coaches from Brian McClair who is no longer the "Caretaker Reserve Team Coach". And replace him with Ole Gunnar Solskjaer and Warren Joyce as joint coaches of the team. This is confirmed on the Manchester United official website.

Consulrjo 12:45, 28 May 2008 (BST)

That Link Appears to be dead PheonixRMB (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Ole Gunnar Solskjær and Warren Joyce will not take over as managers of the Reserve team until the start of next season, which doesn't technically start until 1 July. Similarly, Tom Heaton is not actually on loan to Cardiff until then, so I will be changing that too (actually, Heaton probably won't be going on loan until after the tour of South Africa, as I assume he'll be going on that tour as United's fourth-choice keeper). – PeeJay 13:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
To all intensive pruposes then the reserve team management has changed seen as the season is over. Its the equivilant of signing a player for a future date knowing fulwell he won't take part in any other fixtures and hence he has "joined". I think it should be changed and I am with Consulrjo. PheonixRMB (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
As you can see by the reference Consulrjo provided, the article states that "United will have two coaches to guide the Reds' young charges in the Reserves league next season". The club acknowledges that the transition from 2007-08 to 2008-09 has not yet taken place, and so should we. The cut-off point is usually 1 July, so we should at least leave it until then. – PeeJay 21:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
@ PheonixRMB - actually, players shouldn't be changed as "joined" until their contract comes into effect regardless of wheter they're going to play any more games for their old team or not, as shown by the multiple problems with last seasons signings. If waiting for a contract change works for players, it should work for coaches to. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 10:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair Enough. I thought for a restructuring exercise whether it matters too much as thereis little difference between talking about future changes and the crystal ball rule.If a team says this is going to happen and there is a "plan to..." how much weight should be put upon these statements? I wish there was more of this disscussion so I can learn and to stop waring. Cheers PheonixRMB (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem with future events is that they miht not happen. For example: Joe Bloggs is leaving Liverpool to sign for MU, and his contract will start on July 1st. Tom and Dick keep changing his Wiki article (now) to say he's a MU player, Harry keeps reverting. Meanwhile, Joe has gone on holiday to Australia, goes surfing, and has his leg bitten off by a shark, and has to retire. So has he ever been a United player? No, but if Tom and Dick had got there way, his article would say yes.
Ok, an extreme example (taking the mickey out of a UK tabloid football strip), but if someone doesn't take up a position until date X, there's always the possibility that something could happen to prevent that.
So, in this case, saying Ole is the coach now is wrong. Saying that Choccy is the coach, and Ole is due to take up the role in July would be ok (imo at least). Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 14:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] refusal

Couldn't we put a bit in the history about the refusal to take part in the fa cup Itfc+canes=me (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Dr. Richard Hawkins

I was reading the Sheffield United website and came across this consulrjo 20:35, 7 June 2008 (BST)

That doesn't answer why he has the title "Head of Sports Science" though. – PeeJay 19:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] two contradictions

On this article it claims manchester united are the biggest and richest football club in the world, however on the real madrid article it makes exactly the same claim in the lead paragraph... Which one is true? 86.145.107.154 (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the way you look at it. IIRC, Real Madrid has the most paying members, and also the highest turnover, while a survey found that Man Utd has the most fans (whether paying members or not) and also the greatest profit. So both are true, in a way. – PeeJay 18:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)