The mancityfans.net football forum

Some time ago on here, I asked Chris Nield to look into why our foundation date had been changed (sometime in the late 1970s) from 1880 to 1894...and for a while, there was no response, despite a coulple of reminders. I also attempted to contact former City historian and football writer Gary James, who had done most of the research into this era but again got no response.

This week I spoke with Chris who is unable to help on this issue but he did give me some contacts, better placed within the club to push this issue forwards. On Tuesday, I had a good conversation with Danny Wilson at the club and laid out some of the facts behind our 1880 founding and gave him the reasons why it is important to the club that thr earlier date is reinstated. Danny has now promised to take this matter on board and to approach the City heritage department and higher club officials to see what can be done.

Danny is aware that this issue is being publicised on here and has promised to get back to me as soon as he has some info.
In the meantime, i am continuing to try and contact Gary James ( no reply yet) and to put some form of dossier together about the lost 14 years to possibly present to the club if necessary to convince them of the continuous links between St Mark's (West Gorton) and the present Manchester City FC.

Good work. I suspect your contacts from the era have long since gone thou

were you alive when the club was founded John?

haha

Great work though in all seriousness and top stuff from the club

We might not be able to win a raffle but we got classsssss

Being around then, would have suited plenty from here...around that time,

Our nickname was the "BREWERYMEN".
Our club address and headquarters for a time was a "PUB".
When we couldn't pay the rent on the Hyde Rd ground, Chester Brewery stepped in, sorted out our debts, rented the ground from the railway and sub let it to us....They didn't want to lose the beer concession or the custom of the fans.

NOWT HAS CHANGED... WE WERE HISTORICALLY, ALWAYS A BUNCH OF PISS HEADS

Excellent. Top Statto knowledge sir

Top stuff John. I agree that it is important that we don't lose such an important part of our history. Thank you for pursuing this, hopefully we can have our 14 years back!

John,

Apologies, but I don't quite get this. I have read quite a few posts from you on this subject and understand what you are trying to do, however, to my knowledge the Club acknowledges the St Marks period as well as the change over to Ardwick AFC which preceded our current name.

Like I say, I am not to sure what this is about so is there any chance you can clarify?

Cheers mate.

To clarify the issue.

Up and until the late 1970s, the club had always recognised and accepted the date of 1880 as our foundation date. 1880 was the date that St Mark's (West Gorton) was formed and their 1st fixture was played.

Sionce the late 1970s, the club officially accept the date of their foundation as 1894, 14 years later. This was the year that Ardwick AFC folded and the new club named Manchester City FC was formed.

The acceptance of the later date by City, denies our existance in those early 14 years, our foundation and our development into a Football league club. It denies the good efforts of our founders, Anna Connell, William Beastowe and Thomas Goodbehere and it denies the very reason we were born. It denies our club's trophy wins of 1891 and 1892 and even ignores our initial election to the Football league in 1892.

The founding of our club is a fascinating story. We were not just formed by a bunch of pissheads in a pub who fancied a game of footie. We were formed for a reason, we were formed in order to lift an area and its youth out of the gutter and give a meaning to the lives of the youth of West Goron. We were formed to take violence off the streets and give the local lads a purpose in life. We should be justly proud of why we were formed and the efforts of our founders to actually change lives.

john68 wrote:To clarify the issue.

Up and until the late 1970s, the club had always recognised and accepted the date of 1880 as our foundation date. 1880 was the date that St Mark's (West Gorton) was formed and their 1st fixture was played.

Sionce the late 1970s, the club officially accept the date of their foundation as 1894, 14 years later. This was the year that Ardwick AFC folded and the new club named Manchester City FC was formed.

The acceptance of the later date by City, denies our existance in those early 14 years, our foundation and our development into a Football league club. It denies the good efforts of our founders, Anna Connell, William Beastowe and Thomas Goodbehere and it denies the very reason we were born. It denies our club's trophy wins of 1891 and 1892 and even ignores our initial election to the Football league in 1892.

The founding of our club is a fascinating story. We were not just formed by a bunch of pissheads in a pub who fancied a game of footie. We were formed for a reason, we were formed in order to lift an area and its youth out of the gutter and give a meaning to the lives of the youth of West Goron. We were formed to take violence off the streets and give the local lads a purpose in life. We should be justly proud of why we were formed and the efforts of our founders to actually change lives.

Cheers mate, but that isn't what I wanted clarifying. Most Blues know the foundation of the club including the fact that we evolved from St Marks cricket team. What I am asking is why are the club not accepting our heritage, as I am sure the old OS used to have a full list of our history, including the formative years, meaning that they accept those 14 years prior to MCFC being established?

Edit: Just checked the OS and it's still there:

[urlnp=http://www.mcfc.co.uk/The-Club/Club-history]Club History[/urlnp]

Extract from Club History: 1875 - 1902

1880 St Mark’s Church forms a football team which would later evolve into MCFC.

1884 The first known ‘City shirt’ is created – in black, with a Maltese-style cross. Some say this is because of the club’s strong links with Freemasonry in the 1880s, others believe the white cross proves the link with St Mark’s was still strong.

1887 St Mark’s team evolves into Ardwick AFC and moves to Hyde Road.

1889 An explosion at the nearby Hyde Road coal mine results in the death of 23 miners – Ardwick and Newton Heath play a friendly match under floodlights in aid of the disaster fund.

1892 The second division of the English Football League is created, with Ardwick AFC as founder members.

1894 Ardwick AFC reforms as Manchester City Football Club, in a bid to represent the whole city.

1889 City finish champions of Division Two, becoming the first team to gain automatic promotion.

1904 The Blues beat Bolton Wanderers in the FA Cup final at Crystal Palace, becoming the first Manchester side to win a major trophy.

This is something that really bugs me as well, I hope we get the 1880 back!

As a kid growing up in the 70's i was educated to the fact that we were formed in 1880 and i remember it because it was such an easy year to remember being a nice round number an all that. I'm also sure that i bought a badge to sew onto my denim jacket stating 1880 on it, maybe some memorabilia expert on here or elsewhere could verify that. i used to buy all my badges from the club shop at on Maine Road. I can understand why the club think it's 1894 as that is when they adopted the name Manchester City but it was a mis-guided decision and should be reversed.

Beefy,
Sorry Mate, I'd just come home from work, knackered and missed that part of your point completely. Hope this helps sort it.

The official web site is one of the few places where the club acknowledges the link beween the original St Marks and the present day club. Outside the site, it is usual for the club to publicise the later date of 1894. A point well made by Gary James in his book on Manchester football. In the club shop, there is actually a line of clothing containing the 1894 logo.

Why the decision was taken in the late 70s to change to the later date, is open to conjecture but it is my belief (which could be well wide of the mark) that Mr Swales didn't want our centenary (1980) to be celebrated at a time when the club was undergoing turmoil and for the 1st time in years, be seen to be failing. The Book era (as manager) was coming to a close and we near the bottom of the League.
I also believe that it was never changed back simply because it never became an issue and nobody questioned it. This is what I am trying to do now.

The 1894 date does have credibility as a founding date. Ardwick had failed and the new club, under the leadership of Joshua Parlby had to apply to the FL to remain in the league...as a new and seperate club. It was also the year that Manchester City became a limited company. The fact remains however that the new club was formed directly from the old one (Ardwick) with most of the same personnell, and at the same ground (Hyde Rd). The new club was simply the old club in a new guise.

Hope that little lot helps you.

john68 wrote:Beefy,
Sorry Mate, I'd just come home from work, knackered and missed that part of your point completely. Hope this helps sort it.

The official web site is one of the few places where the club acknowledges the link beween the original St Marks and the present day club. Outside the site, it is usual for the club to publicise the later date of 1894. A point well made by Gary James in his book on Manchester football. In the club shop, there is actually a line of clothing containing the 1894 logo.

Why the decision was taken in the late 70s to change to the later date, is open to conjecture but it is my belief (which could be well wide of the mark) that Mr Swales didn't want our centenary (1980) to be celebrated at a time when the club was undergoing turmoil and for the 1st time in years, be seen to be failing. The Book era (as manager) was coming to a close and we near the bottom of the League.
I also believe that it was never changed back simply because it never became an issue and nobody questioned it. This is what I am trying to do now.

The 1894 date does have credibility as a founding date. Ardwick had failed and the new club, under the leadership of Joshua Parlby had to apply to the FL to remain in the league...as a new and seperate club. It was also the year that Manchester City became a limited company. The fact remains however that the new club was formed directly from the old one (Ardwick) with most of the same personnell, and at the same ground (Hyde Rd). The new club was simply the old club in a new guise.

Hope that little lot helps you.

I get you now, cheers mate. I don't personally get bogged down with it as I am fully aware of our history and assumed this was the norm.

It's not something that keeps me awake at night, but I totally understand and agree with having our actual founding date of 1880 as the official one.

I mean, even ManUre are on top of these sorts of details nowadays, they even had the decency to take the words 'Football Club' from their badge. And left Satan on it.

Good work John and interesting information mate.

Why the decision was taken in the late 70s to change to the later date, is open to conjecture but it is my belief (which could be well wide of the mark) that Mr Swales didn't want our centenary (1980) to be celebrated at a time when the club was undergoing turmoil and for the 1st time in years, be seen to be failing. The Book era (as manager) was coming to a close and we near the bottom of the League.
I also believe that it was never changed back simply because it never became an issue and nobody questioned it. This is what I am trying to do now.

I don't know the facts, but must admit that these were my thoughts too around this issue. Peter Swales was the type of guy to rewrite history to suit his own needs.

As for our start. It is well documented not only by City's own official version up to the late seventies, but also in Gary James' books. The year of our formation should be 1880 and I'm sure it will be again one day.

This is good stuff. Please post the question and your argument on MCIVTA. I know people read both but many only see MCIVTA and it deserves a wide audience. Gary James goes on there quite a bit and he will probably reply if he sees his name mentioned in the post. Send it to Heidi, editor@mcivta.city-fans.org

BobbyJ1956 wrote:This is good stuff. Please post the question and your argument on MCIVTA. I know people read both but many only see MCIVTA and it deserves a wide audience. Gary James goes on there quite a bit and he will probably reply if he sees his name mentioned in the post. Send it to Heidi, editor@mcivta.city-fans.org

Cheeky fucler! We have quite a wide audience on this site thank you very much.

King Kev wrote:

BobbyJ1956 wrote:This is good stuff. Please post the question and your argument on MCIVTA. I know people read both but many only see MCIVTA and it deserves a wide audience. Gary James goes on there quite a bit and he will probably reply if he sees his name mentioned in the post. Send it to Heidi, editor@mcivta.city-fans.org

Cheeky fucler! We have quite a wide audience on this site thank you very much.

it seemslike a very active place,still advertising the bolton game ...

mr_nool wrote:

King Kev wrote:

BobbyJ1956 wrote:This is good stuff. Please post the question and your argument on MCIVTA. I know people read both but many only see MCIVTA and it deserves a wide audience. Gary James goes on there quite a bit and he will probably reply if he sees his name mentioned in the post. Send it to Heidi, editor@mcivta.city-fans.org

Cheeky fucler! We have quite a wide audience on this site thank you very much.

it seemslike a very active place,still advertising the bolton game ...

if were honest with ourselves we should take another crack at that one given the result tho.

cheers