Re: St Marks' 1880 or MCFC 1894?...Latest!
Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:14 amAs for history...MCVITA was the main reason I was introduced to the internet in -94. 1994 that was!
The mancityfans.net football forum
The BEST FORUM in all the land and all the world
http://www.mancityfans.net/mcfnet/
St Marks' 1880 or MCFC 1894?...Latest!
http://www.mancityfans.net/mcfnet/viewtopic.php?f=119&t=28732
Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:14 amRe: St Marks' 1880 or MCFC 1894?...Latest!
Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:47 amIf you can't get hold of Gary James he posts on bluemoon quite regulary under the name Gary James.
Re: St Marks' 1880 or MCFC 1894?...Latest!
Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 8:31 pmJust to change the subject and take a bit of heat off the present goings on...the latest.
I have received an email from Gary James which was most comprehensive and covered just about all aspects of the issue.
Gary worked at the club and fought a 7 year battle to have the earlier date of 1880 accpted and reinstated....he failed for a variety of reason. Some of those reasons are personal to him and I don't feel at liberty to publicise them until he gives me permission to.
Safe to say, the opposition came from within the club and was substantial.
Regardingg the arguments over dates. Gary makes the point I partially alluded to earlier, that When Ardwick failed. Manchester City had to apply to the League for entry to Division 2 (the following season) as a seperate club. So legally, Manchester City and Ardwick AFC are seperate entities and actually coexisted for a brief spell opposing each other. This ignores the fact that the 2 opposing factions eventually came together.
The other argument he brought up goes back to the very start of our club and he informs me that there is information that St Mark's football team was formed from the St Mark's cricket team. The cricket team was formed in 1875, which preceded the "Working Mens Meetings" set up by Anna Connell by 5 years. It is possible that St Mark's were playing football as early as 1875, though there is no record of any actual games. In Gary's view, this weakens the 1880 argument because we are unable to be specific about our actual founding date.
Another point Gary raised is about the founding of the rags as Newton Heath. The rags accept 1878 as their founding date but evidence shows that they formed a cricket team. The 1st recorded football match played by Newton Heath, was sctually played 1 week AFTER the 1st recorded game by St mark's Vs Macclesfield Baptist Church.
If Manchester City accepted the same criteria as the rags, we would actually precede them by 3 years and could rightly claim to be the senior club.
Clearly there is still a lot of work to be done and I have asked Gary to clarify some other details regarding this part of our history.
THE SEARCH GOES ON.
I have received an email from Gary James which was most comprehensive and covered just about all aspects of the issue.
Gary worked at the club and fought a 7 year battle to have the earlier date of 1880 accpted and reinstated....he failed for a variety of reason. Some of those reasons are personal to him and I don't feel at liberty to publicise them until he gives me permission to.
Safe to say, the opposition came from within the club and was substantial.
Regardingg the arguments over dates. Gary makes the point I partially alluded to earlier, that When Ardwick failed. Manchester City had to apply to the League for entry to Division 2 (the following season) as a seperate club. So legally, Manchester City and Ardwick AFC are seperate entities and actually coexisted for a brief spell opposing each other. This ignores the fact that the 2 opposing factions eventually came together.
The other argument he brought up goes back to the very start of our club and he informs me that there is information that St Mark's football team was formed from the St Mark's cricket team. The cricket team was formed in 1875, which preceded the "Working Mens Meetings" set up by Anna Connell by 5 years. It is possible that St Mark's were playing football as early as 1875, though there is no record of any actual games. In Gary's view, this weakens the 1880 argument because we are unable to be specific about our actual founding date.
Another point Gary raised is about the founding of the rags as Newton Heath. The rags accept 1878 as their founding date but evidence shows that they formed a cricket team. The 1st recorded football match played by Newton Heath, was sctually played 1 week AFTER the 1st recorded game by St mark's Vs Macclesfield Baptist Church.
If Manchester City accepted the same criteria as the rags, we would actually precede them by 3 years and could rightly claim to be the senior club.
Clearly there is still a lot of work to be done and I have asked Gary to clarify some other details regarding this part of our history.
THE SEARCH GOES ON.
Re: St Marks' 1880 or MCFC 1894?...Latest!
Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 8:56 pmWhat does it matter. Football wasn't invented until 1991...
Re: St Marks' 1880 or MCFC 1894?...Latest!
Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 6:32 amSocrates wrote:What does it matter. Football wasn't invented until 1991...
If yer not arsed...why post?
Re: St Marks' 1880 or MCFC 1894?...Latest!
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 3:18 pmI have just recieved a phone call fron the club, courtesy of Danny Wilson, who has given me a progress report.
He informs me that this matter has been discussed with Gary James and the issue of our founding date is now under discussion at a higher level within the club.
Danny has promised to keep me informed rgarding progress.
Cheers Danny, your effort is appreciated. We may well get our lost years back.
On a side note, Gary James is apparently still researching the events surrounding our foundation and as posted earlier has found evidence of links to St mark's as far back as 1875, as a cricket team. The actual date of a St Mark's football team may in fact predate 1880.
He informs me that this matter has been discussed with Gary James and the issue of our founding date is now under discussion at a higher level within the club.
Danny has promised to keep me informed rgarding progress.
Cheers Danny, your effort is appreciated. We may well get our lost years back.
On a side note, Gary James is apparently still researching the events surrounding our foundation and as posted earlier has found evidence of links to St mark's as far back as 1875, as a cricket team. The actual date of a St Mark's football team may in fact predate 1880.
Re: St Marks' 1880 or MCFC 1894?...Latest!
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 3:24 pmjohn68 wrote:Socrates wrote:What does it matter. Football wasn't invented until 1991...
If yer not arsed...why post?
Just seen this. Was your sarcasm detector on the blink that day? hint: What does it say in my profile thingie under "supporter of"
Good work by the way. Wish you wouldn't keep mentioning Danny Wilson though, last time you did I had "Mary's Prayer" in my head for a fucling week;o)
Re: St Marks' 1880 or MCFC 1894?...Latest!
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 3:31 pmSocrates wrote:john68 wrote:Socrates wrote:What does it matter. Football wasn't invented until 1991...
If yer not arsed...why post?
Just seen this. Was your sarcasm detector on the blink that day? hint: What does it say in my profile thingie under "supporter of"
Good work by the way. Wish you wouldn't keep mentioning Danny Wilson though, last time you did I had "Mary's Prayer" in my head for a fucling week;o)
Sorry Socs, I just noticed that too and thought..."worra pillock"...me not you in this instance!
Must have my serious "sense of humour bypass" head on that day. Again...Sorry mate.
Re: St Marks' 1880 or MCFC 1894?...Latest!
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 4:10 pmjohn68 wrote:Socrates wrote:john68 wrote:Socrates wrote:What does it matter. Football wasn't invented until 1991...
If yer not arsed...why post?
Just seen this. Was your sarcasm detector on the blink that day? hint: What does it say in my profile thingie under "supporter of"
Good work by the way. Wish you wouldn't keep mentioning Danny Wilson though, last time you did I had "Mary's Prayer" in my head for a fucling week;o)
Sorry Socs, I just noticed that too and thought..."worra pillock"...me not you in this instance!
Must have my serious "sense of humour bypass" head on that day. Again...Sorry mate.
ney worry :O)