Manchester United

[PaulPowersTash]

Is there something about City's colours of sky blue being consistent with the first three levels of Freemasonry? Busby as a player I think refused to join. I am open to correction!

No. No connection at all.
The club originates from a methodist church team called St Marks to promote temperance.
Nothing to do with Freemasonry at all. I'm a lifelong City fan who's
started watching them in the 60's and I have never, ever heard of that connection
before.

 

[Bluerover]

No. No connection at all.
The club originates from a methodist church team called St Marks to promote temperance.
Nothing to do with Freemasonry at all. I'm a lifelong City fan who's
started watching them in the 60's and I have never, ever heard of that connection
before.

Well we live and learn mate....

MQ MAGAZINE Issue 3 - Manchester City: Masons achieve their goal

www.mqmagazine.co.uk

Football and it connections with Freemasonry. | SURREY FREEMASONS

Football and it connections with Freemasonry. Even Gareth Southgate started his young playing days at a Surrey youth team sponsored by Surrey Freemasons! Come on England!

surreyfreemasons.org.uk

The blue colours of the Manchester City kit look familiar!​

Manchester City Originally formed in 1880 and were then known as St Mark’s in West Gorton playing in red and black colours. In 1887 they then changed the club name to Ardwick – an area close to West Gorton.

However, it is reported that in 1894 the club found itself in financial hardship and had to be rescued from bankruptcy by the then club secretary, Joshua Parlby.

The club adopted the name Manchester City at the same time the Masonic colours of pale blue shirts and white shorts.

Because of the lack of detailed records, there is no irrefutable proof that either Parlby or his predecessor Lawrence Furniss (also thought to have been closely linked Freemasonry) were Masons, but Sidney Rose, lifetime president of the club and a director for much of the last 30 years, has no such doubts.

‘It’s always been my understanding,’ says Sidney, a member of the Old Mancunians’ Lodge, ‘that the real founders of the club became involved in 1894 when there was some sort of financial crisis, and that they were Masons, or certainly had close Masonic connections.

‘That was why they started playing in pale blue, the colours of Freemasonry.

 

[PaulPowersTash]

Well we live and learn mate....

MQ MAGAZINE Issue 3 - Manchester City: Masons achieve their goal

www.mqmagazine.co.uk

Football and it connections with Freemasonry. | SURREY FREEMASONS

Football and it connections with Freemasonry. Even Gareth Southgate started his young playing days at a Surrey youth team sponsored by Surrey Freemasons! Come on England!

surreyfreemasons.org.uk

The blue colours of the Manchester City kit look familiar!​

Manchester City Originally formed in 1880 and were then known as St Mark’s in West Gorton playing in red and black colours. In 1887 they then changed the club name to Ardwick – an area close to West Gorton.

However, it is reported that in 1894 the club found itself in financial hardship and had to be rescued from bankruptcy by the then club secretary, Joshua Parlby.

The club adopted the name Manchester City at the same time the Masonic colours of pale blue shirts and white shorts.

Because of the lack of detailed records, there is no irrefutable proof that either Parlby or his predecessor Lawrence Furniss (also thought to have been closely linked Freemasonry) were Masons, but Sidney Rose, lifetime president of the club and a director for much of the last 30 years, has no such doubts.

‘It’s always been my understanding,’ says Sidney, a member of the Old Mancunians’ Lodge, ‘that the real founders of the club became involved in 1894 when there was some sort of financial crisis, and that they were Masons, or certainly had close Masonic connections...

‘That was why they started playing in pale blue, the colours of Freemasonry.

Well... Every day is a school day.
I have honestly never heard that before and I'm fairly certain that all my City supporting family and friends haven't either.
But there you go

 

[Bluerover]

Well... Every day is a school day.
I have honestly never heard that before and I'm fairly certain that all my City supporting family and friends haven't either.
But there you go

Happy to help and btw I have nothing against "the Craft" although I would not join myself. As the cliche goes, I have friends who are Masons.

The history of the split between Everton and the RS is a very interesting sociological study of late 19th century Liverrpool. The Chairman, John Houlding was an Orangeman, anti Home Ruler, Freemason, Conservative, Brewer, C of E, while those who voted him out, and moved to Goodison were mostly a mix of pro-Home Rule Liberals, pro-temperance, Methodist and Catholic. We also had a few Masons, but not as many as the RS .

This is a great read if you are interested. We also started out of a Methodist Church known as St Domingo's, before changing the name to Everton because players from other denominations wanted to join.

(PDF) The Split of Everton Football Club, 1892: The Creation of Distinct Patterns of Boardroom Formation at Everton and Liverpool Football Club Companies

PDF | On Jun 1, 2003, David Kennedy published The Split of Everton Football Club, 1892: The Creation of Distinct Patterns of Boardroom Formation at Everton and Liverpool Football Club Companies | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

 

[PaulPowersTash]

Happy to help and btw I have nothing against "the Craft" although I would not join myself. As the cliche goes, I have friends who are Masons.

The history of the split between Everton and the RS is a very interesting sociological study of late 19th century Liverrpool. The Chairman, John Houlding was an Orangeman, anti Home Ruler, Freemason, Conservative, Brewer, C of E, while those who voted him out, and moved to Goodison were mostly a mix of pro-Home Rule Liberals, pro-temperance, Methodist and Catholic. We also had a few Masons, but not as many as the RS .

This is a great read if you are interested. We also started out of a Methodist Church known as St Domingo's, before changing the name to Everton because players from other denominations wanted to join.

(PDF) The Split of Everton Football Club, 1892: The Creation of Distinct Patterns of Boardroom Formation at Everton and Liverpool Football Club Companies

PDF | On Jun 1, 2003, David Kennedy published The Split of Everton Football Club, 1892: The Creation of Distinct Patterns of Boardroom Formation at Everton and Liverpool Football Club Companies | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

Thanks for that.
I've downloaded it and I'll definately give it a read. I like things like that.
I find it amazing to discover how a lot of today's top clubs were actually formed
and came into being. Many thanks - much appreciated.

 

[TangerineToffee]

Well... Every day is a school day.
I have honestly never heard that before and I'm fairly certain that all my City supporting family and friends haven't either.
But there you go

Some of the details of manager masons are a bit off though. Stand out is Brother Don Revie leading dirty Leeds to a European Cup win in 1973. In a parallel universe perhaps lol

 

[PaulPowersTash]

Well we live and learn mate....

MQ MAGAZINE Issue 3 - Manchester City: Masons achieve their goal

www.mqmagazine.co.uk

Football and it connections with Freemasonry. | SURREY FREEMASONS

Football and it connections with Freemasonry. Even Gareth Southgate started his young playing days at a Surrey youth team sponsored by Surrey Freemasons! Come on England!

surreyfreemasons.org.uk

The blue colours of the Manchester City kit look familiar!​

Manchester City Originally formed in 1880 and were then known as St Mark’s in West Gorton playing in red and black colours. In 1887 they then changed the club name to Ardwick – an area close to West Gorton.

However, it is reported that in 1894 the club found itself in financial hardship and had to be rescued from bankruptcy by the then club secretary, Joshua Parlby.

The club adopted the name Manchester City at the same time the Masonic colours of pale blue shirts and white shorts.

Because of the lack of detailed records, there is no irrefutable proof that either Parlby or his predecessor Lawrence Furniss (also thought to have been closely linked Freemasonry) were Masons, but Sidney Rose, lifetime president of the club and a director for much of the last 30 years, has no such doubts.

‘It’s always been my understanding,’ says Sidney, a member of the Old Mancunians’ Lodge, ‘that the real founders of the club became involved in 1894 when there was some sort of financial crisis, and that they were Masons, or certainly had close Masonic connections.

‘That was why they started playing in pale blue, the colours of Freemasonry.

I downloaded and read that article - very interesting.
I was surprised that the breakaway was down to money and the management structure
and not religion. It does confirm that Liverpool are a Tory club from the start.
Good read!

 

[roydo]

I downloaded and read that article - very interesting.
I was surprised that the breakaway was down to money and the management structure
and not religion. It does confirm that Liverpool are a Tory club from the start.
Good read!

First club to win the league at Anfield as their ground?

Everton.

 

[Bluerover]

I downloaded and read that article - very interesting.
I was surprised that the breakaway was down to money and the management structure
and not religion. It does confirm that Liverpool are a Tory club from the start.
Good read!

Only need to see what they have done to working class people in housing near the pit to understand what a horrible outfit they are. This cascades down to their cultish fans, many of whom would be at home in Pyongyang. But then I am "bitter"

 

[catcherintherye]

I downloaded and read that article - very interesting.
I was surprised that the breakaway was down to money and the management structure
and not religion. It does confirm that Liverpool are a Tory club from the start.
Good read!

There were a number of things at play. I haven't read that link so will try to.

Houlding wanted a more (or completely) Protestant club, in the mould of Rangers. He actually brought down a lot of Protestant scots down to help him build the club in the early years.

I mean Everton were not immune from this pressure. We were founded by a Methodist Church (so Protestant too, but a different trajectory) but the majority of the board wanted a club that was free to all who wanted to be involved, whatever their faith (more in line with how Celtic operated). Those who kicked Houlding out really ranged from Protestants to Catholics but not really hard liners on either side (we actually had some peop,e on our board with links to Sinn Fein, but also Protestants, so it was a broader composition).

Houlding also wanted more drinking allowed and a far narrower ownership structure. He also wanted to to charge more rent for the ground, and massively increased rents. Anfield when we left it was probably the best football stadium in the world. We went and built the next best football stadium in the World of that time after we left. Anfield's stature has really diminished since that point, and while it's a very good stadium, it's nowhere near the best in the world now.

Houlding and Liverpool's board was also made up of Orange Lodge of Liverpool members and members of the Conservative and Unionist Party. So it's not an exegeration to say they were founded by Tories, it was inherent to the set up of their club, integral, they wanted that narrow, conservative leadership, compared to the broader structure of Everton.

One also has to acknowledge though, that Houlding was also very much the Abramovich of his day. He had foresight far beyond most owners of the time. He could see the opportunities for growth, from what had been an amateur sport played in southern public schools and mill towns into something more commercially viable (and could benefit his brewery empire). He gave Everton big money to spend, and eventually would do the same with Liverpool. He ultimately created the original powerhouse of the football league (Everton) and a latter challenger, who while by no means a powerhouse, were a very competitive club (Liverpool).

So there were quite a lot of disagreements at the start. Whats interesting is they kind of whither away and it doesn't develop in the same was as it did in Glasgow. I haven't looked at Glasgow enough to know why that might have been. The grounds being so close probably helped. Initially Everton probably had a monopoly on fans too, and were not the secterian team at board level, so welcomed all- Protestants/Catholics and anyone in between. So maybe there was just no need for division to occur. There was also a culture of watching the different teams each week, so I imagine most of Liverpool's early fans would have been Everton fans, just re-visiting our ground to watch the other local team when Everton played away.

In the early days we probably outnumbered Liverpool 10-1 in terms of support and attendences, and when you factor in the "1" Liverpool got in the ratio was likely to be an Everton fan primarily on occasions too it would be even more prenounced. They just didn't have much of a foothold in the early days, and as said relied upon the owner funding a lot of support, often from outside of the city and probably a through networks of quite extremist protestantism.

You speak to Evertonians who remmeber the 50's and early 60's and there's a sort of derision, as opposed to hatred for Liverpool. Many of them would have watched Liverpool every other week, they weren't really a threat. They were half way up the 2nd division with minimal relative unique local support. From the success they had in the 70's onwards that obviously changed a lot, and they were successful in an era where football began to role out, and away travel meant you supported one team more.

 

[royalblue66]

There were a number of things at play. I haven't read that link so will try to.

Houlding wanted a more (or completely) Protestant club, in the mould of Rangers. He actually brought down a lot of Protestant scots down to help him build the club in the early years.

I mean Everton were not immune from this pressure. We were founded by a Methodist Church (so Protestant too, but a different trajectory) but the majority of the board wanted a club that was free to all who wanted to be involved, whatever their faith (more in line with how Celtic operated). Those who kicked Houlding out really ranged from Protestants to Catholics but not really hard liners on either side (we actually had some peop,e on our board with links to Sinn Fein, but also Protestants, so it was a broader composition).

Houlding also wanted more drinking allowed and a far narrower ownership structure. He also wanted to to charge more rent for the ground, and massively increased rents. Anfield when we left it was probably the best football stadium in the world. We went and built the next best football stadium in the World of that time after we left. Anfield's stature has really diminished since that point, and while it's a very good stadium, it's nowhere near the best in the world now.

Houlding and Liverpool's board was also made up of Orange Lodge of Liverpool members and members of the Conservative and Unionist Party. So it's not an exegeration to say they were founded by Tories, it was inherent to the set up of their club, integral, they wanted that narrow, conservative leadership, compared to the broader structure of Everton.

One also has to acknowledge though, that Houlding was also very much the Abramovich of his day. He had foresight far beyond most owners of the time. He could see the opportunities for growth, from what had been an amateur sport played in southern public schools and mill towns into something more commercially viable (and could benefit his brewery empire). He gave Everton big money to spend, and eventually would do the same with Liverpool. He ultimately created the original powerhouse of the football league (Everton) and a latter challenger, who while by no means a powerhouse, were a very competitive club (Liverpool).

So there were quite a lot of disagreements at the start. Whats interesting is they kind of whither away and it doesn't develop in the same was as it did in Glasgow. I haven't looked at Glasgow enough to know why that might have been. The grounds being so close probably helped. Initially Everton probably had a monopoly on fans too, and were not the secterian team at board level, so welcomed all- Protestants/Catholics and anyone in between. So maybe there was just no need for division to occur. There was also a culture of watching the different teams each week, so I imagine most of Liverpool's early fans would have been Everton fans, just re-visiting our ground to watch the other local team when Everton played away.

In the early days we probably outnumbered Liverpool 10-1 in terms of support and attendences, and when you factor in the "1" Liverpool got in the ratio was likely to be an Everton fan primarily on occasions too it would be even more prenounced. They just didn't have much of a foothold in the early days, and as said relied upon the owner funding a lot of support, often from outside of the city and probably a through networks of quite extremist protestantism.

You speak to Evertonians who remmeber the 50's and early 60's and there's a sort of derision, as opposed to hatred for Liverpool. Many of them would have watched Liverpool every other week, they weren't really a threat. They were half way up the 2nd division with minimal relative unique local support. From the success they had in the 70's onwards that obviously changed a lot, and they were successful in an era where football began to role out, and away travel meant you supported one team more.

I used to go there a few times a Season when they were in the old second division, compared to Goodison it was like going back in time,a right dump.

 

[davids]

There were a number of things at play. I haven't read that link so will try to.

Houlding wanted a more (or completely) Protestant club, in the mould of Rangers. He actually brought down a lot of Protestant scots down to help him build the club in the early years.

I mean Everton were not immune from this pressure. We were founded by a Methodist Church (so Protestant too, but a different trajectory) but the majority of the board wanted a club that was free to all who wanted to be involved, whatever their faith (more in line with how Celtic operated). Those who kicked Houlding out really ranged from Protestants to Catholics but not really hard liners on either side (we actually had some peop,e on our board with links to Sinn Fein, but also Protestants, so it was a broader composition).

Houlding also wanted more drinking allowed and a far narrower ownership structure. He also wanted to to charge more rent for the ground, and massively increased rents. Anfield when we left it was probably the best football stadium in the world. We went and built the next best football stadium in the World of that time after we left. Anfield's stature has really diminished since that point, and while it's a very good stadium, it's nowhere near the best in the world now.

Houlding and Liverpool's board was also made up of Orange Lodge of Liverpool members and members of the Conservative and Unionist Party. So it's not an exegeration to say they were founded by Tories, it was inherent to the set up of their club, integral, they wanted that narrow, conservative leadership, compared to the broader structure of Everton.

One also has to acknowledge though, that Houlding was also very much the Abramovich of his day. He had foresight far beyond most owners of the time. He could see the opportunities for growth, from what had been an amateur sport played in southern public schools and mill towns into something more commercially viable (and could benefit his brewery empire). He gave Everton big money to spend, and eventually would do the same with Liverpool. He ultimately created the original powerhouse of the football league (Everton) and a latter challenger, who while by no means a powerhouse, were a very competitive club (Liverpool).

So there were quite a lot of disagreements at the start. Whats interesting is they kind of whither away and it doesn't develop in the same was as it did in Glasgow. I haven't looked at Glasgow enough to know why that might have been. The grounds being so close probably helped. Initially Everton probably had a monopoly on fans too, and were not the secterian team at board level, so welcomed all- Protestants/Catholics and anyone in between. So maybe there was just no need for division to occur. There was also a culture of watching the different teams each week, so I imagine most of Liverpool's early fans would have been Everton fans, just re-visiting our ground to watch the other local team when Everton played away.

In the early days we probably outnumbered Liverpool 10-1 in terms of support and attendences, and when you factor in the "1" Liverpool got in the ratio was likely to be an Everton fan primarily on occasions too it would be even more prenounced. They just didn't have much of a foothold in the early days, and as said relied upon the owner funding a lot of support, often from outside of the city and probably a through networks of quite extremist protestantism.

You speak to Evertonians who remmeber the 50's and early 60's and there's a sort of derision, as opposed to hatred for Liverpool. Many of them would have watched Liverpool every other week, they weren't really a threat. They were half way up the 2nd division with minimal relative unique local support. From the success they had in the 70's onwards that obviously changed a lot, and they were successful in an era where football began to role out, and away travel meant you supported one team more.

When I started watching us in the early 60s and went to Gwladys St CP Even though the catchment area was from around the ground some of the lads I hung around with at school were Kopites but would come to the boys pen and we would go the next week to theirs. Those days we were commonly referred to as The Priests Team which probably led to the idea of a Fenian connection. I do remember going back to the Reading, Silvester Stallone game my ex-mother-in-law got half price tickets for my daughter and I from the Catholic church on Green Lane.

 

[catcherintherye]

When I started watching us in the early 60s and went to Gwladys St CP Even though the catchment area was from around the ground some of the lads I hung around with at school were Kopites but would come to the boys pen and we would go the next week to theirs. Those days we were commonly referred to as The Priests Team which probably led to the idea of a Fenian connection. I do remember going back to the Reading, Silvester Stallone game my ex-mother-in-law got half price tickets for my daughter and I from the Catholic church on Green Lane.

I went to the funeral of a really top red last year. Was chairman of the football club I started at, nicest fella you'll ever meet. Everton were his 2nd team, and was delighted a little Evertonian had turned up to play. Met his brothers at the funeral, and a mix of blues and reds, but all of them went to watch the other team each week. A different world to the one we now live in really. People would finish work Saturday morning, and head to the match whoever was on.

 

[royalblue66]

When I started watching us in the early 60s and went to Gwladys St CP Even though the catchment area was from around the ground some of the lads I hung around with at school were Kopites but would come to the boys pen and we would go the next week to theirs. Those days we were commonly referred to as The Priests Team which probably led to the idea of a Fenian connection. I do remember going back to the Reading, Silvester Stallone game my ex-mother-in-law got half price tickets for my daughter and I from the Catholic church on Green Lane.

Do you remember the row of Catholic fathers sitting in the main stand on match day ?

 

[Bluerover]

There were a number of things at play. I haven't read that link so will try to.

Houlding wanted a more (or completely) Protestant club, in the mould of Rangers. He actually brought down a lot of Protestant scots down to help him build the club in the early years.

I mean Everton were not immune from this pressure. We were founded by a Methodist Church (so Protestant too, but a different trajectory) but the majority of the board wanted a club that was free to all who wanted to be involved, whatever their faith (more in line with how Celtic operated). Those who kicked Houlding out really ranged from Protestants to Catholics but not really hard liners on either side (we actually had some peop,e on our board with links to Sinn Fein, but also Protestants, so it was a broader composition).

Houlding also wanted more drinking allowed and a far narrower ownership structure. He also wanted to to charge more rent for the ground, and massively increased rents. Anfield when we left it was probably the best football stadium in the world. We went and built the next best football stadium in the World of that time after we left. Anfield's stature has really diminished since that point, and while it's a very good stadium, it's nowhere near the best in the world now.

Houlding and Liverpool's board was also made up of Orange Lodge of Liverpool members and members of the Conservative and Unionist Party. So it's not an exegeration to say they were founded by Tories, it was inherent to the set up of their club, integral, they wanted that narrow, conservative leadership, compared to the broader structure of Everton.

One also has to acknowledge though, that Houlding was also very much the Abramovich of his day. He had foresight far beyond most owners of the time. He could see the opportunities for growth, from what had been an amateur sport played in southern public schools and mill towns into something more commercially viable (and could benefit his brewery empire). He gave Everton big money to spend, and eventually would do the same with Liverpool. He ultimately created the original powerhouse of the football league (Everton) and a latter challenger, who while by no means a powerhouse, were a very competitive club (Liverpool).

So there were quite a lot of disagreements at the start. Whats interesting is they kind of whither away and it doesn't develop in the same was as it did in Glasgow. I haven't looked at Glasgow enough to know why that might have been. The grounds being so close probably helped. Initially Everton probably had a monopoly on fans too, and were not the secterian team at board level, so welcomed all- Protestants/Catholics and anyone in between. So maybe there was just no need for division to occur. There was also a culture of watching the different teams each week, so I imagine most of Liverpool's early fans would have been Everton fans, just re-visiting our ground to watch the other local team when Everton played away.

In the early days we probably outnumbered Liverpool 10-1 in terms of support and attendences, and when you factor in the "1" Liverpool got in the ratio was likely to be an Everton fan primarily on occasions too it would be even more prenounced. They just didn't have much of a foothold in the early days, and as said relied upon the owner funding a lot of support, often from outside of the city and probably a through networks of quite extremist protestantism.

You speak to Evertonians who remmeber the 50's and early 60's and there's a sort of derision, as opposed to hatred for Liverpool. Many of them would have watched Liverpool every other week, they weren't really a threat. They were half way up the 2nd division with minimal relative unique local support. From the success they had in the 70's onwards that obviously changed a lot, and they were successful in an era where football began to role out, and away travel meant you supported one team more.

Excellent post. Try and find time to read Kennedy on the split. It is fascinating if you want a grasp on what happened.