Talk:Manchester United F.C./Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Ambiguity regarding the First team squad

Craig Cathcartwas a first team player last season. So, technically he should be in it this season also right? Illidan reules09:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Not according to the First team list on ManUtd, which is the reference we use to determine which players go in the list here. -PeeJay11:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

btw anyone notice United's famous no 7 is conspicuously missing from the First Team squad as of this post?121.7.52.25402:27, 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. –PeeJay21:06, 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 theManchester United F.C. Reserves & Academypage, however. –PeeJay23:05, 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. –PeeJay23:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Valter di Salvo

Valter di Salvohas moved toReal Madridso I have removed him from theManchester Unitedpage.consulrjo12:30, 4 August 2007

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. -PeeJay16:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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! --Madbassist15:50, 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. -PeeJay16:26, 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. -PeeJay16:51, 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.Fd200619:22, 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. -PeeJay19:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Eagles always wore #19 in the friendly matches.Hylian pirate19:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

And Pique wore #19 today, while Eagles wore #33. What does that tell you? -PeeJay20:02, 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.Madbassist20:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you'd be wrong - Hargreaves will wear #23 - the number he wore at Bayern.JPMJPMJPMJPM11:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Nothing is certain with regard to Hargreaves' number yet. Same goes for Anderson, Foster and Tevez's numbers. -PeeJay11:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of any of these comments, the OFFICIAL source, manutd, 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:dsapery14:41, 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. -PeeJay14:46, 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.Batman200522:53, 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.JPMJPMJPMJPM23:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC) *** (I see you're American - explanation found! The word "goaltender" - brilliant!JPMJPMJPMJPM23:46, 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.Batman200507:58, 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.JPMJPMJPMJPM10:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Added Anderson as number 8today - 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 never updates the page with squad numbers, we would be reduced to not updating the squad list here. For info Owen Hargreaves was listed asTBCin the programme so I can concur with the opinion to not add his number yet.Seedybob207:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

File: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 is our source for the numbers, not a pre-game program.Batman200508:00, 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!)Seedybob208:21, 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. -PeeJay09:04, 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.Batman200521:44, 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 proofAdzer01:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Manchester United Website states this http:// manutd /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 Vitruelugia13:51, 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. -PeeJay16:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't you add the rest players (#35+)?Hylian pirate16:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Because, according to the first team squad list atManUtd,those players aren't in the first team squad. -PeeJay16:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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).Seedybob216:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, it was helpful. Everyone else wasWRONGabout squad numbers.JPMJPMJPMJPMSWORE 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.Batman200500:34, 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.Seedybob207:36, 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...Batman200521:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

They may be morons, but there's no need to call them that to their face. -PeeJay21:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

WOW, you who can't be bothered toSTOPpersonally attacking other users is trying to tell me not to? That's priceless.Batman200522:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Stick to the matter at hand. I've learned my lesson, but it seems you haven't. Grow up. -PeeJay23:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

HAThat'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.Batman200523:27, 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. -PeeJay23:31, 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.Batman200523:35, 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 editsin good faith,in this case to the Manchester United squad list, is obviously your defence mechanism. Evidently, there is no hope for you. -PeeJay23:41, 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.Batman200523:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had enough of this. You obviously haven't seen the point behind theDon't be a dickessay, 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? -PeeJay23:55, 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.Batman200523:58, 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? -PeeJay00:06, 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.Batman200500:14, 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. -PeeJay00:23, 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.Batman200500:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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.consulrjo16:00, 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 businessAdzer01:08, 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. -PeeJay00:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Grammar usage

In the opening line of this article, it is stated that Manchester United F.C.isan.... Should'nt this beare?For example, the article onArsenal F.C.,which is a FA article, is using the termarein the opening sentence. The article onAston Villa F.C.,which is also a FA article, uses the same plural term as well. Any comments on this would be welcomed. --Siva1979^{Talk 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. -PeeJay12:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So, should the termisbe used here? Then, we also have to change the terms inArsenal F.C.andAston Villa F.C.toisas well, to make it more consistent. --Siva1979^{Talk 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..." -PeeJay01:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

In conclusion, the termareshould be used to follow the standard ofBritish Englishfor British related articles. Any views on this would be welcomed. --Siva1979^{Talk 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 thatsounds 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.-PeeJay19:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Just my €0.02 on this matter after being asked for my opinion - this issue has come up before, both onTalk:Arsenal F.C.and that article'sFAC(as well as other FACs such asthis one). Consensus in all these discussions is that we should be consistent in use of either the singular or plural, and that inBritish Englishthediscretionary pluralis a preferable means of discussing collective entities such as teams, clubs or companies. Themanual of styleis clear that articles on British topics should be in British English, therefore a consistent use of the plural throughout is the most correct choice.Qwghlm20:31, 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. -PeeJay23:14, 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.

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 includeThe TrebleandThe 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.Boy1jhn18:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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 will fix their error.Wstaldy19:00, 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. -PeeJay20:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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. -Boy1jhn08:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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. -PeeJay17:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

He's signed for Real Madrid.http:// manutd /default.sps?pagegid={B4CEE8FA-9A47-47BC-B069-3F7A2F35DB70}&newsid=465412Fd200618:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Now also officially confirmed by Madridhttp:// realmadrid /articulo/rma42003.htm-Tomperc02:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

They have agreed a fee he hasn't officially left the club.Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU08:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he really has. Trust me, I'm a doctor.Fd200617:36, 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. -PeeJay18:01, 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.Fd200619:56, 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. -PeeJay19:59, 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?)Fd200620:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)