One Thing I Hate About 'UNITED'

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LeazesParkProwler

Active Member
Feb 13, 2011
172
42
28
NULL
Let me start with some historical facts (I love them).

The first football 'United' was our friends in the centre of England - Sheffield. Newcastle was the second United. Manchester were the SIXTH. For completionists, S****horpe, Torquay and West Ham came third, fourth and fifth respectively On this basis, The Blades have first right to be known as United (especially since there are two clubs in that city).

I believe there are at least 15 professional Uniteds in English football so, by my reckoning, discussion of one United is - or at least SHOULD BE - confusing and dumbly inaccurate UNLESS it is between fans of the topical club or the subject has already been clearly defined from the outset.

So I can't tell you how much it irritates me when the media insist on talking about 'United' - particularly when they are playing another United. This has become so prevalent that it is now commonplace even for fans of NUFC to talk of United when meaning the club from Salford. This I hate beyond words.

I suggest all supporters of all Uniteds regain the initiative by talking only of United when discussing their own team. How confusing that would be for all fans of Salford and all other non-United football clubs. Ultimately, the media would have to start talking about ManU like they used to when using the diminutive form - and all other Uniteds could have some of the perceived bias of the media lifted.

So we are fans of United, and so are supporters of many other clubs - even those from Surrey.
 
a good point.
Unfortunately global branding has meant that most people, when asked to name one United... will pick the Man Utd one.
 
I hate it when our fans do it, but its so ingrained into people I bet I slip up one day and do it myself
 
Doctor Shakou Yanga-Mbiwa said:
I hate it when our fans do it, but its so ingrained into people I bet I slip up one day and do it myself
Click to expand...

I hate it too, but I've also been guilty as charged on occasions. Its been a double whammy too. The more Man Utd are referred to as United then the more you hear just Newcastle, West Ham or Leeds, etc, with no United in sight - or earshot.
 
I , personally have never called Manure United. It's a case of self-knowing for me, and an apparent innate disgust at the fact that our United is being discarded by everyone when in fact we are one of the two Uniteds facing off that day!
 
It's just confusing that Manchester United can be called United at all (same with Sheffield, and a lot of the other United's), since they are located in a City with two teams, so clearly aren't United anything, whereas our "United" suffix actually has meaning. West Ham especially can piss right off with being called "United", you can't move 5m without being accosted by a football stadium in London.

So what, these teams happened to "Unite" with a coalshed next door?

Nope, they're Manchester Red Devils ;);)
 
just manure allover and there media friends ... the mirror , the sun etc .. I never call them want they want to hear ....
 
The blame for this crap is SQUARELY on the Man U supporting rags and media in general. BBC and Daily Mirror the biggest offenders (the disgusting reporting by John Murray on Saturdays match being an example. Waddle being just what you'd expect) Man U fans singing theres only one United is understandable, but it's been since Fergie's reign, even more than Busby's the media has taken THAT seriously
 
Good point, JPF. Manchester City were already named as such before Newton Heath decided on a name change in 1902 - so this new name was nothing more than a superficial exercise in trying to glamourise a sub-standard product!
Sheffield United's case is a little different because, although Sheffield Wednesday is an older club (1867 - the fourth oldest professional club in England), they changed their name in 1929 having previously been known as The Wednesday. So the Blades were the second professional club based in Sheffield, but the first to name themselves after their home city.

From our point of view, in 1892 we applied for election to the First Division as Newcastle East End. This bid was unsuccessful and, partly because a certain Newton Heath's application WAS successful despite NEA seemingly having better credentials, we had a strop and refused to seek (the nailed-on) election to the newly-formed Second Division. So had we been elected to either division we may well still be known as Newcastle East End!
 
I believe that neither Sheffield FC and Hallam FC (the two oldest football clubs in the world) we're professional and that they certainly never played League football (i.e.. just amateur, non-league). One thing for sure is that Sheffield's place in football history deserves greater recognition and I believe that the national stadium should have been located there (history, cost, geography) - though that's pie in the sky, of course, when London gets to make every decision in this country. And certainly, it's a shame that no Sheffield club is currently placed in the top 40 league placings.
 
LeazesParkProwler said:
I believe that neither Sheffield FC and Hallam FC (the two oldest football clubs in the world) we're professional and that they certainly never played League football (i.e.. just amateur, non-league). One thing for sure is that Sheffield's place in football history deserves greater recognition and I believe that the national stadium should have been located there (history, cost, geography) - though that's pie in the sky, of course, when London gets to make every decision in this country. And certainly, it's a shame that no Sheffield club is currently placed in the top 40 league placings.
Click to expand...



cracking post I must say..
 
LeazesParkProwler said:
Let me start with some historical facts (I love them).

The first football 'United' was our friends in the centre of England - Sheffield. Newcastle was the second United. Manchester were the SIXTH. For completionists, S****horpe, Torquay and West Ham came third, fourth and fifth respectively On this basis, The Blades have first right to be known as United (especially since there are two clubs in that city).

I believe there are at least 15 professional Uniteds in English football so, by my reckoning, discussion of one United is - or at least SHOULD BE - confusing and dumbly inaccurate UNLESS it is between fans of the topical club or the subject has already been clearly defined from the outset.

So I can't tell you how much it irritates me when the media insist on talking about 'United' - particularly when they are playing another United. This has become so prevalent that it is now commonplace even for fans of NUFC to talk of United when meaning the club from Salford. This I hate beyond words.

I suggest all supporters of all Uniteds regain the initiative by talking only of United when discussing their own team. How confusing that would be for all fans of Salford and all other non-United football clubs. Ultimately, the media would have to start talking about ManU like they used to when using the diminutive form - and all other Uniteds could have some of the perceived bias of the media lifted.

So we are fans of United, and so are supporters of many other clubs - even those from Surrey.
Click to expand...

It is irritating but then I think that's why they do it!

There's not much love lost between yourself and ManUre, is there? ;)
 
I cant say I know anyone who refers to Man U as 'United', especially ourselves and Leeds fans.
I've worked a fair bit around the UK and I just don't hear it that often other than off the their own, which isn't unexpected.

For me, its more of a media and foreign thing and easy ignored.
 
Don't complain, your owners might go ahead and say that UNITED is common, lousy and irrelevant and then propose ideas to change your name to Newcastle Magpies...
 
Candy Man said:
Don't complain, your owners might go ahead and say that UNITED is common, lousy and irrelevant and then propose ideas to change your name to Newcastle Magpies...
Click to expand...

I see Allam has made formal request for the name change.
It shouldn't be be allowed to happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back