rss twitter facebook mobile

Edwards Statue In United Shirt – Appropriate?

Duncan Edwards statueIn Duncan Edwards’ home town of Dudley, a statue of the United legend was erected in 1999, which was unveiled by his mother and Sir Bobby Charlton. For those who watched Edwards play, he is the greatest ever, and he is in the thoughts of many with the anniversary of the Munich Air Disaster falling tomorrow.

However, am I the only one who feels it’s slightly inappropriate to dress Edwards’ statue up in a United shirt? This season’s United shirt, with ‘Legend – Not forgotten’, has today been put on the statue by obviously a well meaning fan. There is no doubting it was done with the best of intentions, but it doesn’t sit well with me. With the recent fuss concerning the corporate label of AIG placed on the picture of the Babes which hangs from the East Stand, I’m sure they’ll be one or two fans not best pleased with the move to dress up Edwards’ statue in this shirt.

What do you think?

About Scott

Scott is the editor of Red Matters - 50 Years of Supporting Manchester United and an author of Play Like Fergie's Boys and Not Nineteen Forever. He writes for ESPN, The Metro and Bleacher Report. Follow @R_o_M on Twitter.

View all posts by Scott »



  1. jsos says:

    omg is this a joke? somebody sort this..

  2. jimmy Bob says:

    the guys proably meant it as a compliment, but not a good idea

  3. Tom F says:

    I think it is all done in good taste, somebody wouldn’t spend 40 quid on a shirt to upset somebody. It was probably meant to tie in the fact that United will always be one for bringing through the best, young talent.

    Manchester United, youth, courage, sucess is something that will never change. It hasn’t over the years. I really admire Duncun Edwards for all I know of him and still find myself being the first person who is not offended by this.

    it wasn’t an ideal thing to do, though it definately wasn’t offensive. As for the AIG ranting, We just have to get used to the fact we live in 2008. I hate sponsership in general but It won’t change.

  4. mav_9me says:

    Hopefully a shirt without a sponsors logo will replace it?

  5. OMelhorDoMundo says:

    The AIG logo, as disturbing as it may be, is part of the current United kit. The person who put the kit on Edwards meant that even now, Edwards is part of the club. Whether the AIG is there or not is irrelevant compared to the message he’s trying to convey.

  6. ... says:

    he was one of the finest wev had and i dont see any harm in his statue donning a united shirt..

    its the crest that counts.. not the sponsors

  7. Tom F says:

    *Duncan. Sorry :o /

  8. Paul says:

    look at the top right of this page and you will see an advert to buy a t-shirt about duncan edwards or the babes etc.

    complaining about the aig logo here and on the mural is a tad hipocritical.

  9. denton davey says:

    If Duncan Edwards was as good as Bobby Charlton claims, he could still be playing in the first-eleven as a striker. So, why not have this legendary player kitted up in contemporary garb ?

  10. spiritof1983 says:

    Firstly the the Munich Mural is also non profit generating to either MUFC or AIG. To my understanding AIG paid for it to be commisioned as a visible tribute of their involvement, for the club and its supporters. To this I would think thank you to AIG is in order, for providing such a unique creation for the 50th anniversary.

    However I do have issues on where both the MUFC and AIG logos are placed (on either side of the key message “They Play On In Our Memories” and would have placed both at extreme bottom right corner away from any of the wordings, so as not to distract the message. Obviously the wordings would have to be smaller for the spacing required. This too would be better both aesthetically and in conformity with acceptable convention.

    As to putting a United kit over the statue of Duncan Edwards (over his England kit), the person doing it is misguided. Duncan remains in our memory despite what kit he is depicted in wearing and doing this is attention seeking and brings us (MUFC) into disrepute for attempting to rob him of his loss to England as well. Totally unnecesary, at a time when we are hoping that England supporters also acknowledge him as a England player 9as his rightful legacy) along with other colleagues losed to the tragedy and pay tribute in accordance in the Wembley game and thereafter in memory.

    What ever else on the jersey adds to the abomination as it is unfitting to his era, but what I find stark is the contrast of red over what was clearly intended to be a sombre coloured and toned monument.

    Placing a wreath, scarf or the jersey with a prop (frame) beside the monument would have been more appropriate.


You must be logged in to post a comment.