|
Post by skemstokie on May 4, 2019 16:07:06 GMT
We are a now the oldest pro league club in the world.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on May 4, 2019 16:12:29 GMT
And the greatest manager alive today pulled it off
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on May 4, 2019 16:15:32 GMT
And the greatest manager alive today pulled it off Whether you warm to him or not you have to admit he did a remarkable job.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on May 4, 2019 16:18:54 GMT
At the end of the day, who cares - but is there actually any evidence to support our 1863 claim?
I know we've all grown up thinking we were the 2nd oldest, but it seems very dubious at best
And the Nottingham press are now really pushing Forest forward and dismissing our 1863 story.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on May 4, 2019 16:19:58 GMT
And the greatest manager alive today pulled it off Whether you warm to him or not you have to admit he did a remarkable job. Indeed he did. I would be interested to see how he does with a summer window and pre-season. For his career he needs a good second year before moving on
|
|
|
Post by maninasuitcase on May 4, 2019 16:23:48 GMT
Well if its not 1863 and its 1868 we are the fourth oldest after notts county, forest and Sheffield wedensday. So after todays relegation for county, we are either 1st or 3rd depending on historians
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoeofalsager on May 4, 2019 16:26:43 GMT
At the end of the day, who cares - but is there actually any evidence to support our 1863 claim? I know we've all grown up thinking we were the 2nd oldest, but it seems very dubious at best And the Nottingham press are now really pushing Forest forward and dismissing our 1863 story. Isn't Stoke Ramblers the evidence? The controversial part is dropping out of the league and reforming in the early 1900's. However, I don't class it as a Wimbledon/AFC Wimbledon situation as I believe we just reformed as the same club with the same name as we went bankrupt.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on May 4, 2019 16:30:40 GMT
At the end of the day, who cares - but is there actually any evidence to support our 1863 claim? I know we've all grown up thinking we were the 2nd oldest, but it seems very dubious at best And the Nottingham press are now really pushing Forest forward and dismissing our 1863 story. Isn't Stoke Ramblers the evidence? The controversial part is dropping out of the league and reforming in the early 1900's. However, I don't class it as a Wimbledon/AFC Wimbledon situation as I believe we just reformed as the same club with the same name as we went bankrupt. www.stokesentinel.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/stoke-city-nottingham-forest-1863-2104401There's seemingly no evidence Stoke Ramblers existed before 1868.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoeofalsager on May 4, 2019 16:38:26 GMT
It is an interesting scenario. Although I'd tend to believe that Ramblers had been founded in 1863, despite the lack of evidence. Before the football league was founded it was hardly a formal affair by any means. EDIT: Forest didn't even play their first game (recorded or unrecorded) until 1866, so they're basing their founding year as their year of founding (obviously), but ours from our first recorded game.
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on May 4, 2019 16:41:49 GMT
Have we really become so obsessed with hating everything Stoke City that we now even want to talk ourselves out of being the oldest league club?!
|
|
|
Post by RICH68 on May 4, 2019 16:48:43 GMT
There is no documented evidence that Stoke were formed in 1863. Sad but true.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on May 4, 2019 16:49:11 GMT
Forest fans are certainly running with it....
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoeofalsager on May 4, 2019 17:04:09 GMT
Surely there's no reason to falsify our founding year though. If we did we'd have probably said we were founded in 1861 to trump Notts County.
|
|
|
Post by Boothen on May 4, 2019 17:05:36 GMT
It says 1863 on the badge. That's all the proof I need. Fuck all the naysayers.
|
|
|
Post by peterthornesboots on May 4, 2019 17:17:09 GMT
We are a now the oldest pro league club in the world. I'm afraid that is actually incorrect. Stoke Ramblers (the first precursor to Stoke City) were formed in 1868, not 1863. There is literally no evidence to support the claim that Stoke were created in 1863. However, there at multiple sources that prove that the club were established in 1868. www.playingpasts.co.uk/archival-research/myths-and-truths-in-the-history-of-sport-exploring-the-origins-of-stoke-city-football-club/My PhD is focusing on how sport developed in North Staffordshire and I've published a couple of academic articles that specifically look at the myths surrounding Stoke's origins. (There's no point me posting the links as they are behind paywalls unfortunately).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2019 17:21:18 GMT
Have we really become so obsessed with hating everything Stoke City that we now even want to talk ourselves out of being the oldest league club?! Of course. We are not allowed any nice things....
|
|
|
Post by peterthornesboots on May 4, 2019 17:23:44 GMT
Surely there's no reason to falsify our founding year though. If we did we'd have probably said we were founded in 1861 to trump Notts County. After the initial two years of Stoke Ramblers being formed none of the original team members remained at the club. The founder (Harry John Almond) left after just one game. From that point there was gradual confusion over when the club was formed (a little like Chinese whispers) and the date just drifted further and further away. The 1863 date was nailed down in 1905 at just the time the club was going through financial issues off the pitch and struggling on it. It would appear that the club went with the oldest suggested date as it gave the team some prestige at a point where everything else was going pear shaped. Since then the date has just become entrenched. However, there is so much more important and interesting factors around our origins than the date alone. During the nineteenth century we played a massive role in shaping the nature of football in this country.
|
|
|
Post by Edward Tattsyrup on May 4, 2019 17:25:09 GMT
For over 150 years we have officially been recognised as formed in 1863. Anyone who thinks otherwise can go fuck themselves.
|
|
|
Post by liam007 on May 4, 2019 17:32:33 GMT
Stick your 2 European cups up your arse Forest,this accolade is ours.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2019 17:36:16 GMT
I don't really get what there is to be so proud of?
It just makes the fact that we've only won one major trophy in our history more embarrassing.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoeofalsager on May 4, 2019 18:01:30 GMT
Surely there's no reason to falsify our founding year though. If we did we'd have probably said we were founded in 1861 to trump Notts County. After the initial two years of Stoke Ramblers being formed none of the original team members remained at the club. The founder (Harry John Almond) left after just one game. From that point there was gradual confusion over when the club was formed (a little like Chinese whispers) and the date just drifted further and further away. The 1863 date was nailed down in 1905 at just the time the club was going through financial issues off the pitch and struggling on it. It would appear that the club went with the oldest suggested date as it gave the team some prestige at a point where everything else was going pear shaped. Since then the date has just become entrenched. However, there is so much more important and interesting factors around our origins than the date alone. During the nineteenth century we played a massive role in shaping the nature of football in this country. Ah thats interesting too. Suppose nobody will ever know the truth unless some documentation or record is somehow discovered. 1863 it is
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on May 4, 2019 18:15:01 GMT
Reuters are now reporting the oldest league club to be ......Nottingham Forest. Do we have to lose everything all the time ?????
|
|
|
Post by skemstokie on May 4, 2019 18:33:22 GMT
Reuters are now reporting the oldest league club to be ......Nottingham Forest. Do we have to lose everything all the time ????? I prefer wikipedia myself
|
|
|
Post by fca47 on May 4, 2019 18:35:11 GMT
1863 it is.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on May 4, 2019 18:44:01 GMT
You have to hand it to Scholes, not only did he organise the worst anniversary celebrations known to man, he even got the date wrong....
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoeofalsager on May 4, 2019 18:48:11 GMT
Lack of records doesn't necessarily suggest it isn't true though. Presumably when the 1863 date was first suggested in 1905, players and people associated from 40 years earlier verified that they played for and were involved with the club in 1863.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on May 4, 2019 18:54:57 GMT
Well Forest can belly ache all they like but it's on the flipping badge for goodness sake!
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on May 4, 2019 19:39:57 GMT
At the end of the day, who cares - but is there actually any evidence to support our 1863 claim? I know we've all grown up thinking we were the 2nd oldest, but it seems very dubious at best And the Nottingham press are now really pushing Forest forward and dismissing our 1863 story. Isn't Stoke Ramblers the evidence? The controversial part is dropping out of the league and reforming in the early 1900's. However, I don't class it as a Wimbledon/AFC Wimbledon situation as I believe we just reformed as the same club with the same name as we went bankrupt. We were the first pro club to go bankrupt! now that's something to brag about!
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on May 4, 2019 19:43:07 GMT
For over 150 years we have officially been recognised as formed in 1863. Anyone who thinks otherwise can go fuck themselves. You should write a PhD. mate, you've got a cracking opening sentence there for an academic text...Fuck the research!
|
|
|
Post by ParaPsych on May 4, 2019 19:47:43 GMT
Ok history boffins. If it IS 1868 does anyone know why we claim it's 1863 instead?
A deliberate lie at some point?
Or someone with dodgy handwriting wrote it down and the 8 looked a bit like a 3 and it just stuck?
Any ideas?
|
|