Talk:David Beckham/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Question

FIFA spokesman in the article cited that said FIFA told Lalas that England would get Beckham when they wanted him (even if that conflicted with the Galaxy's scheduale) said that it's the same with all internationals on the calendar. I then ask why the US hardly ever gets it's European players back (unless it's something really important or they're out of season). Or am I missing something?

Bargaining power, fame? --ukexpat 20:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

neutrality

I think i've pretty much fixed that problem-so...should we delete that template for the england recall?--Camelcast 14:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Contract

Please note, per this article on SI.com [[1]], the $50 million a year is total, not his salary. (The total includes his profit-sharing with MLS, his endorsement contracts, etcetera. The base salary is up to $10 million a year. SirFozzie 22:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


Indeed Beckham could earn more than $250m, perhaps as much as $275m, over the period of his contract.

I understand his yearly income from next season, when he leaves Spain for America, will be:

An annual salary of $10m

His existing sponsorship contracts with his four sponsors - Motorola, Pepsi, Gillette and Volkswagen - are estimated to be worth $25m

His merchandising shirt sales will bring in $10m

His share of the club profits: $10m

That adds up to $55m. Multiply it by five and you get well over $275m. taken from http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/6253829.stm

Yes, but that's ALL outside his direct salary. Derek Jeter's contract doesn't include all his endorsements. It's just what the Yankees pay him. This is a similar situation. The Galaxy only pay him $10 million a year for playing for them SirFozzie 00:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Change

David beckham has left Real Madrid to Los Anagalis(excuse my spelling) This is ligit. I saw it on the news.

He is gonna Make 250million for his 5 year contract.

Can you edit it please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.139.19.189 (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

No. please read the notes above. That figure includes outside income, NOT salary.

And he hasn't "left" Real Madrid, he is "leaving" Real Madrid when his contracts finishes. At the moment, he is a RM player. Darkson - BANG! 23:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"Golden Balls"?

It said on the nickname section he's been called "Golden Balls". Is that a joke? Just H 03:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it's true. that's what the UK Tabloids call him. 04:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Not sure when it was removved, but I'm adding it back in. Darkson - BANG! 18:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The easiest way to prevent this being removed again is to source the nickname. Any of these could be used, someone with more time than me can insert them in in to the article as proper sources. 1 , 2 , 3 Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 18:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

David Beckham Los Angeles Galaxy contract

Could some of the editors here give some input? Cheers!--HamedogTalk|@ 09:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC) What a bad end of career.. Money vs. Visibility..

I would like to merge the summary as has been already done. --Brand спойт 19:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's worthy of a merge. It is an awfully large and detailed article that simply doesn't have a place in the main article. I vote that it stays separate--NPswimdude500 23:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge.--JohnO 00:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support a merging the content to here and other relevant articles (Designated Player Rule, Los Angeles Galaxy, etc.) As it stands, I think the seperate article is a news article and not an encyclopedia article. In fact, I put it up for afd, and you can see the afd discussion here- however the afd was closed because the article is currently linked from the main page. In the 20 minutes or so before the afd was closed, there were already several voices supporting merging the content. Robotforaday 02:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • No Merge. This is an event similar to Gretzky going to the Kings. It deserves its own page. JAF1970 03:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm really not sure if it is a similar situation, but regardless, it's worth noting that that move doesn't have its own page- it seems to be very reasonably dealt with within the Wayne Gretzky article. Surely if what you say stands, the same can be done within the David Beckham article?Robotforaday 03:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No -- Unprecedented contract in size, length and terms, for world's most recognisable player at the moment. Manderiko 03:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Summarize and Merge - It's a news article, not an encyclopedic article. --Targetter (Lock On) 03:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
That's the point I indicated above - merging only summary :) --Brand спойт 03:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Then I just agreed with you and reinforced your stance, like a "per Brandспойт". Be happy. =) --Targetter (Lock On) 03:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong merge The move to the LA Galaxy should just be a new section in the current David Beckham article. AEMoreira042281 04:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely Merge, but leave alone for now,. Let the kids have fun. Once everyone gets over it, it will be cleaned up, made encyclopedic, and brought into here. Shit, Pele's international career section is shorter than the Galaxy move article. Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry. --ChaChaFut 06:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
your condescending attitude is hardly helpful. Chensiyuan 07:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • MERGE IS FOR FOOLSSS 137.132.3.11 07:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong merge no reason for having one more article--TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delay Merge I think we should keep the article separate until it is off the news section of the main page. Then merge the articles. Hohohob 11:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Immediatly - news, not encyclopedic in content. Rgds - Trident13 13:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge not all of the information in the David Beckham move to Los Angeles Galaxy article has to be retained. This is an encyclopedia, not a news magazine. For that see Wikinews. Just make a section here about the move and mention the important aspects. --Epaphroditus Ph. M. 15:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge The content is more appropriate for wikinews.org (where I did not find an article on the topic). The info here could be condensed into one encyclopedic paragraph for Beckham's main article. This whole current article could be moved to wikinews with a link from Beckham's main article. --Mikebrand 16:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong merge - this is not worthy of an encyclopedic article on its own. Páraic Maguire 17:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Once ready, the front page can link to the subsection in the David Beckham article. LukeSurl 18:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge The move article shouldn't stand on its own.198.24.31.108 19:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No Merge Biggest internatioal star at the moment
  • Keep Its one of - if not the - biggest sporting contract in history, has recieved massive media attention and is a very high profile and note worthy move; therefore I think the move warrents its own article - especially when its covered in lots of detail as it is at the moment. Rimmers 21:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Decat 18:32, 14 January 2007 (

GMT)


  • No Merge м info 02:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge (Spshiralkar 17:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)) Should be shortened and merged into either the LA Galaxy page or the DB page. Doesn't really deserve an artice in its own right.
  • delay Merge they should both remain as individual articals at this moments until he is offically at LA Galaxy. it should be mention that beckham did sign in the David Beckham artical, but with a link to the the one about his signing. TipoBarra 02:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delay Merge Both arguments have merit, and I think that for the time being the seperate artical has sufficient content and relevance to warrant it's own page. Later it can be merged or moved to a David Beckham in the United States article as needed. SpaceAgeGhostKiller 20:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Before you merge it

Please consider moving the article itself to Los Angeles Galaxy in the 2007 Major League Soccer season or to David Beckham in the United States, which would be a sub article to David Beckham and would focus on his career in America, not just his contract/move to the United States. This would allow more information to be retained when compared to merging with David Beckham.--HamedogTalk|@ 22:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, but we don't know yet if Galaxy's 2007 season or Beckham's career in the US are going to be so notable as to require an article. As of now, Beckham's move to the MLS is historically not more notable than Di Stefano going to Real Madrid, or the Swedish trio at AC Milan, or Sivori and the cara sucias moving to Italy, to cite other comparable examples. I think it is only appropriate to merge these news into David Beckham, put them in context with the rest of his career, and wait to see what events related to his career worth of note happen in the future. If his career in the US becomes so notable (for instance, if there's much more to say about it than his career as an England international player, or his career at Manchester United), and the section becomes too large for this article, it is very easy to migrate it to an article again. --ChaChaFut 19:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Clubs listing

Before I retire for the night, can we just agree on the following facts regarding who he has worked/is working/will work for.

1: Despite Fabio Capello saying that Beckham won't play for Real Madrid again, until 30 June he is still contracted to them.
2: Although he has signed a contract with LA Galaxy, as things stand it doesn't come into effect until 1 July, therefore he is NOT currently a Galaxy player. If Galaxy manage to buy out some of his remaining Real contract, fine, but the time to include such detail will be then, not now. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. He could drop dead before 1 July for all we know.

Therefore while we can mention all the juicy contract details in the main body of the article, in the future tense, we can not include Galaxy as one of his clubs in the infobox until his contract actually takes effect. -- Arwel (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed LA Galaxy again. Darkson - BANG! 05:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep, just removed LA Galaxy again. I agree, he hasn't moved yet so any LA Galaxy entry in his infobox is simply wrong. Smoothy 13:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
And again. Do people not bother to read the notes, or just feel that the rules don't apply to them? Darkson - BANG! 21:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Obviously not. The people who are editing it must have something wrong with them or they'd realise that putting LA Galaxy in his infobox is factually wrong, as he hasn't moved YET so therefore you can't say he plays for them when he's still contractually bound to Real Madrid. Smoothy 22:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Factually he is currently contracted with LA Galaxy for 2007+. To the comment that he could "drop dead before 1 July" (above)- nevertheless he would still have been contractually bound and my bet is the current contract with Galaxy would have clauses dealing with illness and death, including provisions for his family and estate - and most likely LA Galaxy would have life insurance. In other words, there are current factual and contractual arrangements in place. (People buy and sell on the futures market every day - it would be absurd to suggest these were not currently real.)Alan Davidson 07:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
However he has not played for LA Galaxy, and that list shows teams that a player has played for. No other player has "future" clubs included in their infobox. Why should Beckham be an exception? Again: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Arwel (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly Arwel, I completely agree with you. Beckham might be contractually bound to LA Galaxy, but that's from 1st July, he's contractually bound to Real Madrid NOW. If he drops dead NOW, his contract with Real Madrid will deal with the fallout. Fact is, he hasn't played for LA Galaxy YET and hasn't joined them YET. As someone else has pointed out several times already, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In any case the * next to the word Professional clubs explains that the data is counted for the domestic league only and correct as of 28 August 2006 so in any case it's factually wrong to put LA Galaxy in the infobox for this reason as well.Smoothy 10:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
If he was to drop dead, or suffer a career-ending injury between now and 30th June, it would be sorted out under his Real Madrid contract. His LA Galaxy contract has no bearing on him until it comes into effect on 1st July. Darkson - BANG! 14:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Correction - he is contactually bound to Galaxy NOW. You are guessing by saying the Galaxy contract would "have no bearing" on a current crippling injury. It may require Real Madrid to deal with the period to 30 June BUT the Galaxy contract as it CURRENTLY stands can also deal with present compensation for the future and that can include present injuries which would impact the contact period. The lawyers would be incompetent not to deal with such a position. They would have insurance. His current club may be Real Madrid but the presently existing contract with present consequence currently and factually exists. Why the fuss? It is not crystal ball gazing to include a significant existing contract. He is contractaully bound to galaxy NOW. Alan Davidson 02:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
No he ISN'T. He is contractually bound to Real Madrid till 30th June, that is a fact. His LA Galaxy contract starts on the 1st July! He isn't an LA Galaxy player and will not be till 1st July, where the contract will therefore be in full effect. Therefore listing LA Galaxy in his info box is factually wrong (as he hasn't played for them and is not playing for them AT THIS TIME). Besides, as I said earlier, the * next to the word Professional clubs explains that the data is counted for the domestic league only and correct as of 28 August 2006 so in any case it's factually wrong to put LA Galaxy in the infobox for this reason as well.Smoothy 11:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
You can't say no he isn't. He and Galaxy have signed the contract. It exists in the present. There is a presenting existing enforceable contract. This fact cannot be denied. Why everyone is trying is bizarre. I understand the underlying motivation but you cannot deny the existence of the announced, presently existing, presently enforceable, contract. (For example if one side announced TODAY that they intended not to honour this presently existing contract the other side could sue TODAY for anticipatory damages - they would not have th wait). The concern stems from other motivation. Other than removing the spurious term "summer" much earlier - I have made no change to this page - and will not do so. But do not deny the contract. Alan Davidson 12:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not denying the contract. I'm stating that the contract is not effective till his present contract is up, which is 30th June. Therefore he isn't an LA Galaxy player YET so you can't put it in the infobox. Smoothy 12:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
If I can comment - you are saying he is contracted to play; Galaxy is contraced to pay; the contract is operable TODAY; all must honour the contract; but you want omit refrence to it? What's the point? Every player in the world love to be listed as a player with LA Galaxy for THIS contract. 60.226.76.41 12:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you will find that Beckham has signed a pre-contract. He cannot sign a full contract till 1st July (according to the FIFA rules), therefore he isn't an LA Galaxy player. We are not omitting reference to the contract (as it's in the main body), but as of now you can't put it in the infobox as he's not an LA Galaxy player right now. Smoothy 12:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
In your previous comment you state "I'm not denying the contract". Now you do. You can't have it both ways. A pre-contract (if there is such a thing) is still a contract - it is still enforeable. Stop trying to deny this. If it doesn't exist, why all the reaction - especially by the coach. It is real NOW. 60.226.76.41 13:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not delying the contract. If you read my comments, I clarify the type of contract. This is FIFA rules, it's called a pre-contract. You can do research on it. In the meantime, it's clear that he is still a Real Madrid player till the 30th June and is not an LA Galaxy player till the 1st July so it would be inaccurate to put LA Galaxy in the infobox, especially as anything could happen between now and then. As someone else has said,

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Smoothy 13:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The club listing has a footnote that it is correct to August 2006 (that is it is out of date) yet it lists Becham as playing for Real Madrid to 2007. This is factually incorrect. He has not played this year and according to the coach will not. Unless it is crystal ball gazing. He is currently contracted to LA Galaxy - but has not played for Real Madrid (please correct me if I am wrong - has he played this year?) Alan Davidson 08:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
He is not currently contracted to Galaxy, he has a pre-contract with Galaxy. He is currently contracted to Madrid until 30th June 2007. Darkson - BANG! 14:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Not only that, his coach has only stated his opinion on whether he will play him, but he's still contracted to Real Madrid till 30th June 2007. He is still a Real Madrid Player. If he was an LA Galaxy player AT THIS PRESENT TIME, he'd be able to play in their season opener, however, they have acknowledged that he can't play in their season opener because he will be contracted to Real Madrid at that time! See http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6280133.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/6279755.stm (last few paragraphs on both pages) and especially http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/6265581.stm (specifically the first paragraph) for more details.Smoothy 22:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
That makes no sense. Are you saying that he should be listed with Real Madrid for 2007 only because he is "contacted"? I thought the list reflected games. Please check with a lawyer but Beckham is contractually obligated to play for LA Galaxy. He cannot get out of this contract, and neither can LA Galaxy. A contract to eneter into another contract is still a contract and it still obligates both parties. But the report quoted above includes many statements that Beckham has signed including this statement - "Beckham signed his contract before he spoke with Madrid and for me that doesn't seem right". Do you really think either party is not bound? It would be one of the firmest contracts in existence, and it is now. Why do you want to list him for being only contracted to Real Madrid and NOT playing, and maintain an out of date listing? Alan Davidson 02:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Because his contract with Galaxy does not come into force until the 1st of July, 2007. It's the way things work in football. You can sign a pre-contract with a new club 6 months before your current contract expires. So, yes, Beckham has a PRE-contract with Galaxy NOW, but he is currently contracted to Madrid. As for not playing, there's no legal reason why he can't play for Madrid between now and the end of the season, just the manager saying so. And if he did have a nasty accident before 1st July (and before anyone pipes up saying I'm "wishing evil on him", I am NOT saying I hope this happens) and had to retire, he would never have legally been a Galaxy player, because his Galaxy contract would not have been in force. Darkson - BANG! 14:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the way you emphasie "PRE" and "NOW" - it is so completely contradictory. You acknowledge the contract is now, and is a contract to enter into a contract - which amounts to the same thing; namely enforceable obligations which is "in force". Secondly, my comment remains that he has not played in 2007 and yet the listing states "Professional club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only and correct as of 20 January 2007". Well it is crystal ball gazing whether he will play for Real Madrid in 2007. That means it is factually wrong to 20 January 2007. Alan Davidson 15:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
No, you misunderstand me. He has signed a "pre-contract" with Galaxy now, which he is allowed to do under FIFA rules. This "pre-contract" is a (legal) understanding that he and Galaxy will sign a playing contract when his CURRENT playing contract with Madrid expires. As it stands now, he can no more play for Galaxy than I can. The only way this can change is for Madrid to loan him or sell him to Galaxy, or to cancel his contact. On your second point, he is a Madrid player into 2007, because the football seasons (in the majority of th Northern Hemisphere) are winter seasons, so encompass 2006 AND 2007 so saying the figures are correct as to 20 Jan 2007 is factually correct, as they are for the 2006/07 season. Wheter he plays in the year 2007 is irrelevent, as he has played in the 06/07 season. Darkson - BANG! 15:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Why do you contradict yourself. You say the list (of games played and goals scored) can include a hypothetical 2007 for Real Madrid but not for LA Galaxy. (And an understanding is not legally enforceable - Beckam and Galaxy have a contract (to contract in set terms - it is not hypothetical) - neither party can get out of it)Alan Davidson 16:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Once again, he is still contracted to Real at this present time so he's still officially a Real player (as stated by FIFA rules because his current contract runs till 30th June). He hasn't actually signed a proper FULL contract with LA Galaxy because he is not allowed to under FIFA rules, he has signed a PRE-contract, which stipulates that he will sign for them on 1st July (as allowed under FIFA rules). The fact that a lot of other publications are erronously stating that he has already signed doesn't alter the fact that he hasn't actually signed to play and cannot do so till 1st July (even LA Galaxy have said so, they have stated they can't bring him in until that date because that's when his contractual agreement with Real finishes). This is all down to the Bosman Ruling, which came into effect during the mid-90s. Therefore we cannot put LA Galaxy in the infobox YET (because he hasn't and is not playing for them at this present time). As for the date, normal procedure in publications is to leave the last year off (to denote the present). Quite why 2007 has been put on there I don't know as I have been deliberately been leaving it off to avoid confusion (such as what you have stated). I will alter this myself. Smoothy 17:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I note it has now been changed and is consistent. Alan Davidson 05:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Have added a cite to the "Fourth Season 2006/07" section, David Beckham played for Real Madrid at the weekend and scored. So as you can see, David is currently contracted to Real Madrid at this time. Smoothy 15:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
We agree. He is currently contracted to play for Real Madrd now; and he is currently contracted to play for Galaxy in July onwards. Both are real. Alan Davidson 10:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Contradicting Earnings

From L.A. Galaxy and U.S. Soccer; "Beckham could earn up to $50 million a year and earning about 90 dollars every second on the field" From Trivia; "With his new MLS contract Beckham can make up to $1.6 per second thats $98.6 per minute." I don't know which one of these is correct so maybe it could be looked into. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.173.30.204 (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

The latter is approximately correct if you're counting every second of every minute of every hour of every day of the year. The first figure works out at just under $500k per 90-minute game; I don't know how many games there are in an MLS season, but surely not 100? -- Arwel (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Possible to ask that this article is protected? Darkson - BANG! 18:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Tattoos

Can anyone add a picture of his tattoos or list what all of them are?67.80.148.65 20:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Chris S.

Mentioned in the trivia section Darkson - BANG! 21:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir / Madam, Mr. Beckham has never won the Essex County Cross Country at any age. Please change the information above as legal action may take place against such spurious claims. The claims have been reputed by athletes and officials from the county and as the claims appear in the public domain they are challenged. Both Mr. Beckham and any web-site that post unsubstantiated claims are subject to legal action because of misrepresentation.

You have a duty to edit such claims.

This is a wiki. You can edit it yourself. -- Arwel (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:BLP, unsourced controversial material should be immediately removed from Wikipedia. If an anonymous user request the removal of unsourced material from a bio, it should be immediately removed by whoever sees the request firs (as you've done here) - It could be the subject or someone somehow connected to the subject (or in this case Essex County Cross Country) who is not familiar with the way Wikipedia works. Cogswobble 23:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"gay boy"???

can somebody clean up the "gay boy" spam some lifeless loser has put into the whole page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.10.243.61 (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Mother's family Jewish

I've added this source which states that his mother's side of the family is Jewish. While it does not say whether it is his maternal grandfather or grandmother is Jewish, I feel this source is better than no source.--NeilEvans 19:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I just added some information about his involvement in Philip Berg's Kabbalah Centre (Kabbalah is Jewish mysticism); the centre is based in Los Angeles, so I suppose that Beckham's recent move to LA will bode well for his Kabbalah studies since he'll be closer to the centre and the people/teachers associated with it. A BBC link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4158287.stm) shows that he wears the red bracelets typical of those that study with the Kabbalah Centre. His wife is also reported to be involved in Kabbalah studies as well. --172.148.57.67 18:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Studying at LA's Kabbalah centre does not make or enhance one's jewishness. The Kabbalah is rarely studied by Jews, and with exceptions has mostly been taken up by new age/Madonna types. Therefore, the Kabbalah info has little relation to whether Mr. Beckham may be considered (by himself or others) a jew or not.

David Beckham's ASSUMED Squad Number With The Los Angeles Galaxy

Citation is clearly necessary for speculation about Beckham's future squad number with the Los Angeles Galaxy. The David Beckham entry currently states, "Beckham will wear the number 7 that he wore at Manchester United and for England," without citation.

I believe there is a high probability Beckham will assume the number 7 squad number with the Galaxy, as the MLS team's preseason has already begun and an inspection of the Galaxy's roster still shows no player has been assigned the number 7 (number 23 is already taken by veteran teammate Quavas Kirk). However, I have been following news of Beckham's arrival in Los Angeles very closely and I have yet to see an article directly quoting anyone authoritative that reveals Beckham's Galaxy squad number. In fact, at the press conference at the NSCAA announcing Beckham's arrival, the Galaxy's President/General Manager Alexi Lalas refused to answer a reporter's question about this very subject, only saying that Beckham would be making enough money to be able pay one of his future teammates for the right to wear the squad number of his choice.

Please either remove the sentence which asserts Beckham's future squad number with the Los Angeles Galaxy or preface the sentence with something along the lines of, "It is speculated that..."

To lend further weight to my request, I will remind you that the current sentence on this matter in the entry clearly violates two of Wikipedia's three core content policies:

1) "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, which is included in an article and appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation.'

"Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say."

2) "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations, and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged."

Thank you. Romeronc 03:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it not have been quicker to remove the sentence yourself, rather than type out this mini-epic? ;) Darkson - BANG! 20:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
As I am a new registrant, I was prevented from removing the sentence. Otherwise, I would have.Romeronc 07:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Completely agree Romeronc. No one knows what his squad number is going to be. Just cos the number 7 hasn't been assigned yet doesn't mean it's definitely going to Beckham. There could be a whole host of reasons and Wikipedia is not the place to put speculation, even though it's a very high probability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smoothy (talk • contribs) 21:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
I have removed the sentence. Thank you for your input.Romeronc 07:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, at some point between 1 April and 4 April 2007 a change was made to the Los Angeles Galaxy roster. Up until that point, squad number 7 had not been assigned to a player (leading people to believe that 7 would be Beckham's squad number). That is no longer the case. Ian Russell is now listed on the team roster associated with squad number 7. Quavas Kirk, who had previously been assigned squad number 23, is now associated with squad number 15. This may lead to speculation that Beckham will wear squad number 23, the squad number he has worn with Real Madrid. The Galaxy's Major League Soccer (MLS) season starts away at Houston Sunday, 8 April 2007.Romeronc 06:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Kirk had an article in either a UK newspaper or UK football magazine (I forget where I read it) a couple of weeks ago, saying he didn't want to give up 23 for personal reasons (which again I forget), but guessed it was likely to be taekn away from him when the numbers were announced for this season to make way for Beckham. DB proabably doesn't want 7 anymore seeing as he's been eclipsed as the best modern-day #7 at United. ;) Darkson - BANG! 20:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Beckham's first game in the MLS will be Aug 5, 2007 against the new Toronto FC. He will arrive in the US in July. 69.159.191.21 21:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Toronto FC Fan ~~17:15 April 9, 2007

Childrens' Birthdates

The exact dates of birth of his children are given. Per BLP, we would usually give just the year. I've removed all but the years, but if the feeling is that the parents want them widely known, the change can be reverted. DGG

David Beckham trivia I would like to add.

David Beckham is on the cover of Details magazine for the March 2007 issue, volume 25, no. 5. The caption on the cover reads "Can David Beckham by the greatest American hero?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JSSE (talk • contribs) 14:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

I wouldn't add it, as A)it truly is trivial, and B)until this phenomenon happens, is speculation (and not good speculation at that).

If anyone could tell me about his most recent injury I'd appreciate it. 5 of March, 2007.

Beckham appearances in the UEFA Champions League

After, "But in the next UEFA Champions League match vs Bayern Munich, he carried out two assists to help Real Madrid win by 3-2 and won fans' appreciation," I have added the following text: If Beckham moves to Los Angeles and transfers to the Galaxy as currently planned, this match would seem to mark his final appearance in the UEFA Champions League as Real Madrid were knocked out of the competition (by the away goals rule) at the conclusion of their second leg away tie in Munich on 7 March 2007. He has made a total of 103 appearances in the League, the third highest number of any player at the time. The appearance figure is taken directly from the "European Cup and Champions League statitics" entry on Wikipedia.

Please let me know if this meets your satisfaction.Romeronc 07:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please add the link to the article in Ido Wiki

io:David Beckham Thank you, io:User:Joao Xavier

Shy?

I heard that he's very shy. Is that true?--69.113.131.124 23:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Who on earth cares???

Gave up his captaincy???

I do not believe that db gave it up. I think he was told to give a confrence and announce his retirement as captain to save his football (soccer) career from a downfall. When beck got injured Aaron Lennon was up and togged within about 1 or 2 seconds. Usually when a player gets injured, a player would confer with them asking wether they are badly injured and think they need to go off and be replaced, when beck got injured, instantly gary neville asked for his replacement. that does not happen when a player is mid way of standing up after being on the ground for about 2 seconds. Throughout the tournament Beckham was getting terrible reviews, there was a huge outcry for Aaron Lennon to replace him. But for Beckham to be replaced by a (i think) 19 year old, it would have ended Beckhams career right there and then.Risteard B 14:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

He gave up his captaincy during a press conference. Everything else is just idle speculation. Smoothy 10:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Childhood and early career" section

The "childhood and early career" section was removed without an edit summary explanation (diff). I've restored it because I think a section addressing Beckham's childhood, background and pre-ManU career is of encyclopedic value. Please copyedit, source, and rewrite as needed if the section violates WP's content policies. --Muchness 13:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

LA Galaxy and US Soccer

Parts of that section look to be copied from somewhere, based on the wording, tenses, and the fact that some of the info is repeated from the previous section. Splamo 00:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

1998/99 Season

This was arguably his (and certainly Man Utd's) greatest season, but the section on it appears to be missing.

jf 26/04/07 86.145.242.16 18:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The section was vandalized and incorrectly reverted. I've restored the missing section. Thanks for bringing this up. --Muchness 19:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


Beckham's Real madrid Goal Total

Wikipedia has it listed as 11 goals while he's been with Real Madrid, but it is actually now 14 goals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Badboyz22 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Beckham's Height, CHANGE

What a pathetic oversight, how can he be 5 ft 12 inches, this is SIX FEET! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.232.182 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It is because his height on the Real Madrid site is 1.82m - Wiki works this out to be 5ft 11.6ins and rounds up the inches. I have changed the reference to one at Soccerbase that shows him to be "6ft" tall. Wiki now automatically converts this to 1.83cm. At least this isn't illogical. Can something be done to stop the rounding-up error? OTHH 14:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

urgent changes!

Beckham's been recalled into the england squad! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.155.203.127 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This info has been added to the article. --Muchness 14:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


FIFA have stated that LA Galaxy have no choice but to release him for ANY England International: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/sport.html?in_page_id=1771&in_article_id=458209 -by Steve Barnes

LA Galaxy in clubs?

I previously put LA Galaxy in the clubs, and you could easily tell it meant he will join them eventually. This was reverted, but the same has recently been done to the Owen Hargreaves article, and this is staying. Any reason why? And the article says : "It was confirmed on 11 January 2007 that David Beckham would be leaving Real Madrid to join MLS team Los Angeles Galaxy" Jackrm 01:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've answered your question on your talk page (as you asked me on mine). Darkson - BANG! 15:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright. It just seemed strange and messy to have some players with the future club (confirmed) in their club list, but i will bear this in mind for future editing, thanks. Jackrm 16:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Flag removal

Alot of people seem to be removing the England from his place of birth. Please see WP:FLAGCRUFT before removal of flags. Feel free to discuss this here, or with me on my talk page (here) —  TC Jackrm 16:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

The first paragraph is mostly OK - however this should be a quick overview of the subject. Yet for his England career it just really mentions his recall. Any one agree this should be changed to a brief description of his National career as a whole? --Mike Infinitum 22:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Beckham/Archive_2&oldid=1067022021"