Talk:List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics

Sandy Bell - South African?

Alexander "Sandy" Bell is listed amongst the Top Ten non-UK players for appearences, but checking his profile, although born in SA, he played for Scotland. Isn't the convention within Wikipedia that players are "counted" as the country they play for (for example, Owen Hargreaves)? Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 17:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is. I guess that's my bad for not checking whether he actually played for Scotland or not. - PeeJay 18:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Record transfer fees paid

Both Sporting and Porto stated that the transfers of Nani and Anderson were higher that writen here.

FC Porto communicated to CMVM (The Portuguese Securities Market Commission) that Anderson was sold for 30 million Euros (more or less 20 million pounds) and Sporting said that Nani was sold for 25,5 million Euros (around 15 million pounds).

http://web3.cmvm.pt/sdi2004/emitentes/docs/FR13708.pdf

http://web3.cmvm.pt/sdi2004/emitentes/docs/FR13758.pdf

Real12345 22:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

--- I think its a vague area when it comes to transfer fees, because they are usually a combination of up front money, money over a period of time, money for appearances, goals and success. I think that the fee could rise to 20 million IF the players meet certain criteria, but until then that is all we have paid..... I think! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.231.7 (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Appearence record

Possible revision to records here. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 15:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. – PeeJay 17:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Appearence records 2

Firstly will someone change to table due the news that Charlton played one less that first thought?

I don't think this will be updated for the time being. I mean, if it wasn't Charlton who played in that game against Bolton in January 1962, then who was it? Until we find that out, there's no way we can update the stats. – PeeJay 18:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, the way the table is laid out is hard to follow. By putting total starts with subs in brackets as oppose to total number of games means that you have to add up to records to see how far people are behind. As this reads Charlton 757(2) and Giggs 669(88) meaning Charlton has 757 starts plus two subs, usually stats would read Charlton 759(2) meaning 759 games including 2 as sub, Giggs 757(88) meaning 757 including 88 as sub. It's much easier then to see the complete total. JimmyMac82 (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. – PeeJay 18:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice one. I didn't wanna mess with it incase it wasn't what people wanted, just seemed to make more sense. JimmyMac82 (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Pique Transfer Fee

According to the BBC[1] Pique's transfer fee was £5m, therefore breaking into the top 10 transfer fees received, esclipsing the £4m payed for Lee Sharpe.

The reference says that it was "around £5m", which indicates that the true value of the transfer was not disclosed. Indeed, the ManUtd.com news story about this transfer makes no mention of a fee. Similarly, FC Barcelona's website also doesn't mention a fee. Therefore, we cannot say that the fee was definitely £5m. – PeeJay 17:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Consecutive league games scored in

The consecutive league games scored in needs to be updated as the club went on a 36 league game scoring streak until the 0-0 draw with Villa on 22nd Nov 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.173.185 (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, records are shown on stats.football365.com/2008/ENG/teams/ManchesterUtd.html and stats.football365.com/2009/ENG/teams/ManchesterUtd.html but I'm not sure how to reference so if someone could do that it would be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.165.132 (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Longest unbeaten home and away runs

These categories are missing from the article - can anyone find out what they are? I think they deserve a place (certainly the unbeaten home record), as it tends to be one of the things trotted out in match commentary - how invincible a team are at home (see Chelsea's recent four-year unbeaten home record), and how effective they are away from home. 194.35.186.254 (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

D'oh - that was me, didn't realise I wasn't logged in. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 08:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Table edits (nationality)

Peejay you've just undone all the table edits I was just making saying that "nationality is irrelevant" well for my money nationality is as relevant to the most appearences/goals tables as it is to all the transfer fee tables on the page. Besides it looked better with all the tables showing nationality and with nationality in a separate column (it's a seperate piece of information so should be displayed separately). It certainly would have been an improvement for the columns to all be sortable but never mind.

It's no wonder such a large percentage of the wikipedia edits are from such a small group of people. Other people try and contribute now and again and but are left wishing they hadn't bothered due to the dictatorial nature of the regular contributors. --86.5.96.179 (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What I meant to say is that nationality is not relevant enough for its own column. Furthermore, each list of transfers is already sorted by the relevant data and they are all short enough to see the majority of the rows all at the same time, so there is no need to make them sortable. – PeeJay 23:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Cristiano Ronaldo transfer

Should we add ronaldos tranfer to real of 80m I no its not done yet but theres no chance of him not signing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alzzo (talk • contribs) 09:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? You know for a fact that Ronaldo's transfer to Real will definitely go through? Don't talk rubbish. The transfer will be listed when it goes through, and not before. – PeeJay 11:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

We both know theres no chance of him saying he dosent want to agree personal terms I think putting it down wouldent be a bad idea after all no one has said they are not going to let him go. And don't say I talk rubbish its just an opinion.

Of course he wants to agree personal terms, but what if Real don't offer him as much money as he wants and they can't reach an agreement? And don't say I shouldn't say you talk rubbish; it's just an opinion. – PeeJay 17:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think all the money he wants was taken care of when they agreed to the transfers last year. And like i said your intiteled to your opinion as much as mine but the difference is you called my opinion 'rubbish'.

Who says the transfer was agreed to last year? There has been no indication that that is the case, at least not from outside the media. Furthermore, who's to say that Ronaldo's demands/Real's offer won't have changed in the last 12 months? We are in a global recession after all! – PeeJay 21:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Real madrid said it was agreed at the end of last season and real would have told man utd if their deal had changed and Ronaldo would'ent be celebraing with Paris Hilton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alzzo (talk • contribs) 23:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And you don't think Real Madrid might be telling porky pies? I highly doubt that there was a deal

last summer, especially when Ronaldo himself said only a few weeks ago that he thought he would be staying at Man Utd next season. Anyway, Ronaldo's personal terms with Real have nothing to do with Man Utd, so there would be no need for Real to tell United if there was any change in their wage offer! – PeeJay 00:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Why would real lie about something they know their are going to get a load of bad media for. And don't you think Ronaldo might have lied after all he says he enjoys jeers and if there was a problem with personal terms would'ent Ronaldo be sulking instead of celebrating? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alzzo (talk • contribs) 17:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This conversation is completely irrelevant and I'm stopping it now. There are many reasons why the transfer might yet fall through. I'm not denying that the transfer is looking very likely at this time, but it's not yet confirmed and will not be listed in this article until such time that it is completed. – PeeJay 22:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok and thats your decision (apparent king of wikipedia) but no need to be so agrresive about it.

Record attendance

Rather than edit warring it would be more productive to have a discussion before someone gets blocked. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt that, at one time, records showed that the attendance for United's game against Arsenal on 17 January 1948 was 83,260; in fact, it probably stated as such on the Manchester United stats site for quite some time. However, it appears that new information has come to light, and that the attendance for that game was actually 81,962. According to United's official stats site, the club's record attendance came at Maine Road against Bradford Park Avenue in the FA Cup on 29 January 1949, when 82,771 people watched the game. StretfordEnd.co.uk is extremely reliable when it comes to Manchester United stats, more so than the Football League's site or Citeh's site, and a website is much more easily updated than a book, so we really should stick with the Bradford PA attendance as the record. – PeeJay 11:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

More than happy to debate this. I'm fairly new to updating Wikipedia but I've been researching Manchester football for a couple of decades. All I was trying to do was correct an error on the United attendance record which initially said the highest crowd was 83,250 - it should be 83,260. So I corrected that and added some extra material that I thought might be of interest (including the correction of the other error about United playing all home games at Maine Road - they did play some FA Cup games at home elsewhere).

I was surprised to find that the attendance was not only undone but changed to the incorrect 81,962 (if I was wrong, why didn't it go back to 83,250?). Through work I've done with the MUFC museum I know the history of the 81,962 - it came from the Manchester United Complete Record book by Breedon (the copy I have is from 1990!)- but official Football League records, Manchester City's records (as venue), Rothman's/Sky Sports' Yearbook, other wikipedia entries etc. show the correct figure.

The attendance figure has been revised upwards in the modern era,not downward!

I'm sure most Reds would prefer to show the correct attendance as this remains the highest in the Football League. If the lower figure is shown then it is not the highest in the League - that honour would belong to Chelsea (also V Arsenal).

As a new contributor, I'm unhappy that the facts are not accepted. This has left me thinking I shouldn't bother with Wikipedia.Beanoboggs (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, this summary is possibly redundant now) So, we have two possible figures for the record attendance. 83,260 against Arsenal, or 82,771 against Bradford PA, both at Maine Road. [2] states the latter, and puts the Arsenal attendance as 81962. [3] and [4] use the former. The 83,260 figure is also used by the books Farewell to Maine Road (2003), Manchester City: The Complete Record (2006) and Manchester: A Football History (2008), all by Gary James. If the higher figure is correct, it is a league record. Both 83,260 and 81,962 have been used at the Arsenal end [5], [6]. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Other publications that show the 83,260 include Rothman's/Sky Sports Football Yearbook (I have the 2006-07 version in front of me - page 24) and Football Through The Turnstiles by Brian Tabner. Both books are recognised as definitive, authoritive works. It's true websites can be updated quicker than books, but they can also carry errors. As I said before I know where the 81,962 came from - it's not a newer revised statistic. Beanoboggs (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised at your insistence that the 83,260 figure is the "correct" one, since we appear to have official sources on three different sides (The Football League, Man Utd and Man Citeh) claiming different amounts. Anyway, the 81,962 figure is used also by "Manchester United: The Complete Record" (2007) by Andrew Endlar, "Manchester United: The Complete Fact Book" (1999) by Michael Crick, "The Official Illustrated History of Manchester United" (2006) by Alex Murphy and "The Official Manchester United Illustrated Encyclopedia" (2001) by Adam Bostock et al. There are a couple of sources that use other figures, including 82,950 and 83,250, but those can be discounted. – PeeJay 12:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Jumping to a conclusion is the last thing we want to do. This is an area where one transcription error can easily get replicated elsewhere. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is true. My other qualms with the figures other than 81,962 are that they are not as accurate. They all seem to be rounded to the nearest 10, whereas 81,962 is an exact figure. I'm not discounting the possibility that the actual attendance was a multiple of 10, but there is (effectively) a 1/10 chance of that happening at any given match, making it much more likely that the actual attendance would not end with a 0. Flimsy reasoning, I know, but this is where I'm coming from. – PeeJay 12:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

For a figure ending in 000 or 00 maybe, but the amount of work saved by rounding by 1 significant figure would be tiny. If I get the chance this weekend, I might pop to Manchester Central Library and see what the newspapers of the time reported. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a long debate about why I'm so certain 83,260 is correct. Previously, this article had the 83,250 stat on it - that was clearly wrong (based on a typo elsewhere). I corrected it to 83,260. I don't understand why the attendace was then changed to 81,962 - a figure that contributors to this article had not shown before.

I think other contributors need to decide what is shown here. Are we happy to say that United do not have the official League attendance record? If we are then go with your 81,962. It'll make Chelsea fans happy!

Incidentally, the difference between the two figures is believed to be season ticket holders (81,962 paid on the day - it's all to do with what the host club declared as income for tax purposes on the day). Beanoboggs (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not particularly fussed about whether the attendance gives United the league record or not; what I am concerned about is the accuracy of the facts given. As things stand, there are enough sources on both sides to make either figure potentially correct. For argument's sake, though, and to make Chelsea fans angry, we may as well go with 83,260. – PeeJay 13:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, I think other contributors should decide, not either of us involved in this debate. It's worth stating that www.manutd.com (http://www.manutd.com/default.sps?pagegid=%7B6DDFCB6E-3471-4E45-9385-F04D05F4A70D%7D&newsid=295462&page=1) refers to 83,260. As this is the official MUFC site, managed and run directly for United, then this should satisfy your earlier doubts. The entire article says: "17 January 1948 - When Old Trafford was bombed during World War II, the Reds were forced to play their peace-time 'home' games at Maine Road - then home to Manchester City, United's biggest rivals. Not only did United entertain league leaders Arsenal on this day in 1948, but the game entered the record books for drawing the largest crowd for an English football league match. A massive 83,260 turned out to enjoy the 1-1 draw." Beanoboggs (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup, fair enough. In that case, I think I'd better get in touch with the guys at StretfordEnd.co.uk. – PeeJay 14:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I'm a bit of an attendance anorak! I've done a lot of detailed research on Manchester attendances and history and want to contribute a lot more to the articles on all the Manchester sides but don't really want to get in to long drawn out debates. So am reluctant to write too much. There's a lot of myths and errors out there that have been compounded over the years by books and websites repeating the same errors. If I can help let me know.Beanoboggs (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the guys at StretfordEnd.co.uk claim that the figure of 81,962 comes from official club records, but while I would prefer all of the Man Utd stats on Wikipedia to come from the same source, the figure of 83,260 is adequately sourced too. Anyway, let's consider this matter over with, and I apologise for my conduct. I don't suppose you have any info about North Road or Bank Street that could be added to those articles? – PeeJay 10:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Tables order - going up or going down?

I just added Ronaldo's details to the table regarding transfer deals but notice the values increase by descending order down, whereas other tables increase by ascending order.

It's all a bit confusing. You have to keep scrolling the page up and down to follow the details between separate tables

I would have thought the logical way would be to have the largest value at the top, as Number one, with the dates descending.

Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.125.59 (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

One set of tables is chronological (earliest at the top, latest at the bottom), and the other set is by transfer fee (largest at the top, smallest at the bottom). There's no need for a change. – PeeJay 19:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Largest Premier League Defeat?

I was just looking at all the stats and the largest wins for both 1st Division and Premier League are there but only the largest defeat is present for 1st Division, can someone put this in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.191.224.102 (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If I could find a reference for United's record Premier League defeat, I would add it, but all I can find at the minute would probably push this into the realms of original research. – PeeJay 04:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Transfer fees

There's a lot of contradiction currently with the fees listed in this article and in the players' individual articles. Paul Ince for example. Here it says he cost £2.4m, but his own page (as well as several reliable sources) say he cost £1m (here, here, and here - third image).

Michael Carrick is listed as having cost £14m, but other fees listed include the whole fee to be paid including add-ons. We know that the add-ons take Carrick's fee to £18.6m (as it says in his own article). Given the number of appearances he has made so far and the trophies he's won at United I believe it is fair to say they have probably been met in any case. Giving the lower figure is wrong.

Nani: His article says Sporting announced an agreement with United in May 2007 for a deal costing €25.55. At the exchange rate then, that was equal to £17.3m (using xe.com for this historical conversion). However, the fee was not officially discosed by United and in an interview given after Nani's transfer had been agreed, Sporting Chairman Soares Franco states that "Nani had another two years on his contract with a 20 million euros (£13.5m) release clause... Manchester United acted on the release clause." Why would we have paid a further €5.5m if all we needed was to meet the clause? Still a bit of a mystery, but neither reference supports the fee used here.

Anderson: Like Nani, the transfer fee was officially undisclosed by United, most commonly reported as around £17m, but his former club issued a statement claiming the deal was worth €30 million which - as stated in the player's article - was worth £20.4 million as of May 2007. Another inconsistancy.

Rio Ferdinand: We have him down here as having cost £29.1m. The Ferdinand article says that according to the United accounts, his "book price" was £33m. I'm not sure how the "book price" is calculated, but those club accounts seem to suggest that several other fees listed in here are innacurate too. Nistelrooy is listed there at £19.79m for example. Reports at the time (eg here and here) usually quoted a fee of £29.3m. The BBC and the Guardian reported in 2004 that the final payment of £3.25m due on the transfer was reduced to £1.5m as Leeds were desperate for money to avoid going into administration. That reduced the total value of the transfer by £1.75m, meaning the final cost was £27.55m. Whether you look at the fee given in the accounts, the fee reported at the time by the reliable media outlets or the final reduced fee, the £29.1m listed here is clearly incorrect.

Wayne Rooney: The £25.6m listed here and in Rooney's article also comes from the 2005 accounts, but that figure comes from the addition of the unconditional transfer fee, the agent's fee and the Premier League levy. It does not take into consideration contingency payments based on United apprearances and achievements as well as contract renewals and international appearances. I do not believe most of the other figures listed here include the agents fees or levies, so it seems inconsistant to include them here. At the time of the transfer reports (here and here for example) stated the fee could rise to £27m with add-ons and that a further £1.5m in agents fees was paid. A basic fee of £20m (in two £10m instalments) was suggested with a further £7m in contingency payments. The add-ons are outlined here. Infact, the accounts show an outstanding "unrecognised conditional liability" of £4m still due in addition to the £23m unconditional transfer fee. Therefore, discounting agents fees and levies, the accounts confirm the basic cost of the transfer was £27m. I believe all conditions have been met now and the fee paid in full.

The fees paid for Nani, Anderson and Valencia (and I believe Hargreaves also) were all officially undisclosed. So were the fees paid recently for Jones, De Gea and Young. As we are using media reports best-guessing at fees for the previously mentioned players, why are similar reports not being used to add the new players (if relevant - De Gea would certainly seem to be) to this list? De Gea is reported as having cost €20m, equivalent to £18.9m. Jones was reported to have cost £16m after United met his release clause (here, here, here). Young's situation is less clear as he was variously reported to have cost £15m , £16m or £17m.

A lot of work need doing to address inconsistancies between prices listed here and on the individual player's articles. Decorativeedison (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just realised the £29.1m fee for Ferdinand comes from this article, which is linked to at the top of the progression table, however the fees for Keane and Robson as listed in that article are both different from those in the table. We cannot pick and choose which figures to use and which not to from a single reference, surely? Decorativeedison (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a very difficult topic, to be honest. Often - particularly in recent times - the fees are officially undisclosed, and those reported in the media often vary quite a lot. I think we need to discuss each signing on a case-by-case basis. By the way, the Ince fee comes from this site. – PeeJay 16:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, we don't use fan sites for references in general, so that fee (not backed up anywhere else) for Ince should not have been used. I propose we:

• Add De Gea to the top ten transfers as most sources say we bought him for €20m, the only difference has been in the exchange rate conversion.
• Change Ferdinand to the most commonly reported £29.3m fee as per links above.
• Change Rooney to £27m as per links above and do the same on the player's article (the link on Rooney's page to the accounts is dead anyway).
• Change Carrick to the full £18.6m.
• Bring Nani and Anderson's fees in line with those used in the players' articles: £17.3m and £20.4m respectively.
• Include a reliable reference (BBC, Guardian, Independent etc) for every transfer on the list where possible.

What do you think? Decorativeedison (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Highest gate receipts: £576,494 v Southampton, FA Cup, 11 March 1996

This is clearly nonsense. I know that's what soccerbase says, but what they really mean is "We don't get that data anymore". This is the same for all clubs, eg Chelsea's figure is in 1995. I haven't the time to remove from all teams manually. Anyone got any thoughts? MikesPlant (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

All I can say is that I agree with you. It should be removed as those websites doesn't update those stats anymore. It's enough that 60,000 (out of 75,500) will come to see Crystal Palace in League Cup this season to pass that price. So 100% some game passed it already.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Corinthian FC, 1904

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to undo the revision.
Turns out...under three hours!
So, maybe not a lot of people saw what actually happened.

First this and then this.

Now, I like Man Utd. I have always enjoyed watching them play. But, football history is just that. And it has to be adhered to. The fact is that, in 1904, London's now defunct Corinthian FC dealt Man Utd their biggest ever defeat (there's no shame in it - Man U were in Division 2 at the time; and the Corinthians are widely regarded by football historians as one of the best football clubs that ever existed). But – facts are facts.

Now, according to the user who removed these facts, this page deals "only with official records and statistics". Yes, it is quite helpful to use such technicalities as a get-out clause. Especially as it is the team's worst ever result. But I think all of the true encyclopedists amongst you will agree that the result should be included, especially as it is sourced. After all, Man Utd surely took the match seriously back in 1904, as Corinthians regularly played league champions and cup winners, so it must actually have been quite an honour for Man Utd to play against one of the country's top sides. After all, Man U travelled to London, and the match was covered by the Times - not exactly your local paper (if we accept that the article is taken from there as, admittedly, there is no header to the page on the scan). However, according to the article, around the time they beat Man U, Corinthians also put 14 goals past a London XI and Portsouth - which, considering the fact that in 1904, Tottenham, Portsmouth and QPR finished 2nd, 4th and 5th, respectively, is quite impressive. Bear in mind also that Man Utd commemmorated the event in 2004 with a friendly against the Corinthian-Casuals. So they do not deny the match took place, even if they only played their reserves on the 100th anniversary. Also, nowhere on the List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics page does it say that it is "only includes official matches" (yes, I know someone can quite easily add it now that I've said it, but that's not the point). The point is to be encyclopedic: The match took place.

Furthermore, Corinthians were an amateur club who hardly ever played competitively. Should all of their results be discounted then? Don't rugby teams count their stats against Barbarians F.C.? Please think about it, without letting your heart get in the way. Thanks! BigSteve (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This page should be used as competetive stats and records only, same as we don't include the non-competetive games and trophies which United won, or adding the games and goals to the players statistics, we shouldn't add that info aswell. Just bcuz United played or travelled to London doesn't add anything, United also played in the US the past season.

In addition, United also beat 13-1 New Brighton in 1941 War League during WWII, and we don't include that aswell. Just becuz non-competetive games are not a factor.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know about the New Brighton 1941 result. I think that should be included as well. Maybe there should be a separate section called "non-competitive record" with these friendly best/worst stats. In all national team pages, the "biggest win"/"biggest defeat" stats include friendlies. Again, a result's a result. The team played. The result exists in the history books. Please, other people join the debate with 'propose'/'oppose' tags, I don't want this to be a two-way dispute. I would like to see some credible arguments. You can't say the page "should be used as an official stats page", because the lead doesn't specify this - and even if it did, anyone could just make another page called "unofficial results" and still add them. And what'd be the point in that? It'd be a silly compromise. An encyclopedia's there to inform, not to hide something that one particular person perceives as "shameful", just because they happen to support a given club. BigSteve (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Friendly results should not be included. There can be any number of reasons for a big result in a friendly; perhaps one team played a weakened team because they didn't value the fixture. Either way, friendly results are not part of the official record and should not be recorded. – PeeJay 17:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi again! I've started a general discussion on this page. Please add any more comments there. Cheers! BigSteve (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah you don;t want inlude statistics you don;t agree with because this is an encyclopedia of opinion not facts. It's all over the bloody internet that United's heaviest defeat ever was by the Corinthians but those who control this page make up their own petty rules. Even the Sun has reported this in 2017!. You don't learn shit on here, read the internet; it's either good and bad but at least there is information.81.141.61.126 (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Who cares about friendlies? This is pointless grandstanding by a tiny club that's never actually achieved anything in its entire existence. You can scream about this until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a competitive fixture and shouldn't be included here. Good work on dredging up a six-year-old thread, btw. – PeeJay 11:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Cristiano Ronaldo - FIFA Puskás Award

Should this be included with the individual awards? It may have been established only a few years ago but it is sanctioned by the sport's governing body. VEO^onefive 22:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I belive we should include it, as it is FIFA award.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Goalscorers and picture

Now that Ruud vN has been knocked out of the top ten of all-time goalscorers, would it not be better to include someone that's actually listed on the page (it's a top 10, not a top 11!). Not sure whether a pic of Bobby or a pic of an active player (Rooney) would be better? 86.186.85.218 (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Iv'e replaced it with Sir Bobby Charlton picture.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Goalkeeper's record

Would it be an idea to add clean-sheet-record for the club's goalkeepers? Anyone got any idea where to find such a fact? Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131205125241/http://www.premierleague.com/content/premierleague/en-gb/about/history.html to http://www.premierleague.com/content/premierleague/en-gb/about/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080926230954/http://www.manchester2002-uk.com/sports/footballers1.html to http://www.manchester2002-uk.com/sports/footballers1.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/668gUuuB9?url=http://www.gethome.no/redstat/ to http://www.gethome.no/redstat/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100419053505/http://blog.sport.co.uk/Football/213/Top_Ten_Manchester_United_shock_League_defeats.aspx to http://blog.sport.co.uk/Football/213/Top_Ten_Manchester_United_shock_League_defeats.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100831124505/http://en.archive.uefa.com/competitions/supercup/news/kind%3D1/newsid%3D877275.html to http://en.archive.uefa.com/competitions/supercup/news/kind=1/newsid=877275.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Top goalscorers

This is supposed to be a page for Manchester United statistics but somehow you want to limit all the tables to the top 10? That makes no sense to me. I added all the goalscorers with at least 100 goals for the club and it was undone with the justification "top 10 is standard". Actually, it should be standard to have as much information as possible. I will happily add all goalscorers with at least 50 goals, if that's what you are complaining about. That should be the goal. As much statistics and information as possible. Top 10 is standard sounds like someone is too lazy to put some effort into the article and add more information. Tkotw12 (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC).

Most assists

Where is the top assist leaders? 70.55.213.229 (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Assists are a relatively new statistic, and not every stats organisation records them the same way. I don't think we have any reason to add them here. – PeeJay 12:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Bangkok Century Cup

Whoever keeps adding the Bangkok Century Cup to the club's list of honours, please give a good reason why it should be listed before adding it again. From my perspective, it's a friendly competition no bigger than any other pre-season tournament United have won. – PeeJay 07:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)