|
Post by JurgenVandeurzen on May 9, 2019 19:33:24 GMT
Best thing we can do is keep quiet and let these clowns crack on and just keep putting 1863 on the badge. No! Change the badge back to one of the old ones This is the perfect excuse to change the badge, surely?!
|
|
|
Post by Bojan Mackey on May 9, 2019 19:35:28 GMT
Don’t tell me Nottingham Forest fans are dwelling on the past, what a massive turn up for the books this is. If you built a time machine, and travelled back to the beginning of time, you still wouldn’t be further in the past than Nottingham Forest fans.
|
|
|
Post by Clem Fandango on May 9, 2019 20:19:31 GMT
Best thing we can do is keep quiet and let these clowns crack on and just keep putting 1863 on the badge. No! Change the badge back to one of the old ones I said the badge didn’t necessarily mean this one 😉
|
|
|
Post by Linx on May 9, 2019 21:58:40 GMT
Being proud of their status as the oldest league club didn’t do County much good in the end. I’m more interested in the next few years, rather than the last 151 or 156 years.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2019 22:25:25 GMT
Being proud of their status as the oldest league club didn’t do County much good in the end. I’m more interested in the next few years, rather than the last 151 or 156 years. I don't like being the oldest. Oldest in the pub, oldest at work, oldest in the old folks home. When you are old the prognosis is not good.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on May 9, 2019 22:46:06 GMT
the only advantage is a marketing one for being the oldest, it can if used correctly generate extra advertising revenue and also extra kit sales to foreign markets wanting the oldest clubs kit etc. especially in the china market
When notts county were in trouble years ago the thing that saved them then was a consortium that only bought into them because they were the oldest club.
so from a marketing point of view it matters
the other point and the historians seem to forget this a club can be formed but might not necessarily have played a game and if we were going to fake a year of formation why not go the whole hog and do it 2 months before notts county.
|
|
|
Post by dobber on May 9, 2019 23:02:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on May 10, 2019 4:43:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steinosjockstrap on May 10, 2019 6:18:24 GMT
Is this just the Nottingham media stirring things? I can find nothing on the EFL website , Sky or Official Stoke website that confirms this. All we have is that tweet.
|
|
|
Post by StokeTudoGuy on May 10, 2019 6:52:14 GMT
I like how the email from the un named 'source' at the EFL says 'We can confirm that Nottingham Forest was formed on an unknown date in 1865' Unknown date? If they don't know the date how can they prove it? What a load of old bollocks. Presumably County are still the oldest Pro Club anyway. WTF does it matter? Spot on Notts County claims of 1862 are then followed by the caveat of officially in 1864. People only appear to invest such mistrust if it's involving Stoke.
|
|
|
Post by peterthornesboots on May 10, 2019 7:48:43 GMT
the other point and the historians seem to forget this a club can be formed but might not necessarily have played a game and if we were going to fake a year of formation why not go the whole hog and do it 2 months before notts county. But the evidence (contemporary newspaper reports from 1868) literally state that Stoke Ramblers were formed in 1868 and were the first football club in the area. Furthermore, if a club was formed in 1863 (there wasn't) then that would mean that they did not play a single match for their first five years in existence! In terms of why the 1863 date came around: 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. www.playingpasts.co.uk/archival-research/myths-and-truths-in-the-history-of-sport-exploring-the-origins-of-stoke-city-football-club/
|
|
|
Post by StokeTudoGuy on May 10, 2019 8:21:37 GMT
the other point and the historians seem to forget this a club can be formed but might not necessarily have played a game and if we were going to fake a year of formation why not go the whole hog and do it 2 months before notts county. But the evidence (contemporary newspaper reports from 1868) literally state that Stoke Ramblers were formed in 1868 and were the first football club in the area. Furthermore, if a club was formed in 1863 (there wasn't) then that would mean that they did not play a single match for their first five years in existence! In terms of why the 1863 date came around: 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. www.playingpasts.co.uk/archival-research/myths-and-truths-in-the-history-of-sport-exploring-the-origins-of-stoke-city-football-club/Nots County weren't a football club in 1862 yet that's their claimed starting date. From my understanding their "Club" wasn't formed in any official capacity until 1864 and they still weren't playing "Football". Like I have been saying, this level of scrutiny only appears to apply to Stoke City.
|
|
|
Post by Cast no shadow on May 10, 2019 8:26:43 GMT
I don't remember forest clambering to be the 2nd oldest club, why the effort now?
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on May 10, 2019 9:19:57 GMT
the other point and the historians seem to forget this a club can be formed but might not necessarily have played a game and if we were going to fake a year of formation why not go the whole hog and do it 2 months before notts county. But the evidence (contemporary newspaper reports from 1868) literally state that Stoke Ramblers were formed in 1868 and were the first football club in the area. Furthermore, if a club was formed in 1863 (there wasn't) then that would mean that they did not play a single match for their first five years in existence! In terms of why the 1863 date came around: 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. www.playingpasts.co.uk/archival-research/myths-and-truths-in-the-history-of-sport-exploring-the-origins-of-stoke-city-football-club/The thing is mate it doesn't really matter one way or the other apart from to Martyn Cooke who has made a decent career out of it and of course now suddenly to Notts Forest. Notts County still remain the oldest professional club despite relegation to the Conference. Forest are simply now the oldest League club. Whoop de bloody doo. It's not as if it's done any of us much good recently has it? The news from The Sunday Times Rich List is currently of far more importance as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on May 10, 2019 11:56:05 GMT
I think the point is there is a firm record of them playing a game in 1865 whereas the earliest recorded game for us is I think 1868. The point I was making was the report said they played there first game in 1866 which presumably was documented but that they were formed on an 'unknown date' in 1865. If it was 'unknown' how do they prove it. Presumably they can't but the EFL have accepted it so why not similarly accept we say we were formed in 1863 even though we can't prove it either? If they played a game in 1865 it proves they were formed at some point prior to that game so supports their claim of 1865, our playing a game in 1868 doesn't support our claim of being founded in 1863.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on May 10, 2019 12:21:28 GMT
Will the Nottingham be providing full documentation to prove the existence of their clubs at that stated dates?
I would change the design of our kit so that it says 'oldest football league club in the world' in huge letters on the front.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on May 10, 2019 13:35:34 GMT
The point I was making was the report said they played there first game in 1866 which presumably was documented but that they were formed on an 'unknown date' in 1865. If it was 'unknown' how do they prove it. Presumably they can't but the EFL have accepted it so why not similarly accept we say we were formed in 1863 even though we can't prove it either? If they played a game in 1865 it proves they were formed at some point prior to that game so supports their claim of 1865, our playing a game in 1868 doesn't support our claim of being founded in 1863. Mate To be honest I can't be arsed with it any more. I'm really not that bothered. It's all a bit meaningless anyway as County are still the oldest professional club whether they're in the league or not.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on May 10, 2019 13:41:01 GMT
The point I was making was the report said they played there first game in 1866 which presumably was documented but that they were formed on an 'unknown date' in 1865. If it was 'unknown' how do they prove it. Presumably they can't but the EFL have accepted it so why not similarly accept we say we were formed in 1863 even though we can't prove it either? If they played a game in 1865 it proves they were formed at some point prior to that game so supports their claim of 1865, our playing a game in 1868 doesn't support our claim of being founded in 1863. Mate To be honest I can't be arsed with it any more. I'm really not that bothered. It's all a bit meaningless anyway as County are still the oldest professional club whether they're in the league or not.
|
|
|
Post by mattador78 on May 10, 2019 14:34:18 GMT
If they played a game in 1865 it proves they were formed at some point prior to that game so supports their claim of 1865, our playing a game in 1868 doesn't support our claim of being founded in 1863. Mate To be honest I can't be arsed with it any more. I'm really not that bothered. It's all a bit meaningless anyway as County are still the oldest professional club whether they're in the league or not. Must have been reasonably bothered as you replied twice 😉
|
|
|
Post by mrred on May 10, 2019 14:40:17 GMT
Being proud of their status as the oldest league club didn’t do County much good in the end. I’m more interested in the next few years, rather than the last 151 or 156 years. I don't like being the oldest. Oldest in the pub, oldest at work, oldest in the old folks home. When you are old the prognosis is not good. Especially when you look back at your life and realised you've achieved nothing. /deep. I cant remember a single murmur being made when we celebrated our 150th Anniversary. I really don't see why it matters either.
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on May 10, 2019 15:52:40 GMT
And we still have a miserable FA Cup history!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2019 16:02:08 GMT
We clearly do no due diligence on anything in this club...players, seat providers, the actual bloody date they’ve whacked all over everything.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on May 10, 2019 16:16:36 GMT
Mate To be honest I can't be arsed with it any more. I'm really not that bothered. It's all a bit meaningless anyway as County are still the oldest professional club whether they're in the league or not. Must have been reasonably bothered as you replied twice 😉 What I mean is I'm not bothered whether it's us, Forest or the Vale for that matter. It's a bit of meaningless flim flam. I am interested in the debate surrounding the process, the concept of what constitutes the oldest club and the evidence produced to prove it. So ner ner ne ner ner. PS Ah just seen what you mean, double post. I deserve a big whoosh for that.
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on May 11, 2019 16:21:41 GMT
I don't think it dignifies either club to be picking over the bones of Notts County so soon. For my part I am proud that SCFC were founder members of the league, and without the other clubs there would have been no league, so think of them all equally If Forest were so well established, I wonder why they didn’t opt to join the football league in 1888? Indeed. The founder members are THE oldest clubs in my book.
|
|
|
Post by wolfinsheepsclothing on May 11, 2019 16:31:48 GMT
Surely the oldest club would have had to actually play another club at the time.
Or is it simply when formed, whether or not they were actually playing the game?
Which 2 pro clubs played the very first game?
|
|
|
Post by Davef on May 11, 2019 16:44:21 GMT
If Forest were so well established, I wonder why they didn’t opt to join the football league in 1888? Indeed. The founder members are THE oldest clubs in my book. Their application was rejected.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on May 11, 2019 16:45:26 GMT
But the evidence (contemporary newspaper reports from 1868) literally state that Stoke Ramblers were formed in 1868 and were the first football club in the area. Furthermore, if a club was formed in 1863 (there wasn't) then that would mean that they did not play a single match for their first five years in existence! In terms of why the 1863 date came around: 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. www.playingpasts.co.uk/archival-research/myths-and-truths-in-the-history-of-sport-exploring-the-origins-of-stoke-city-football-club/Nots County weren't a football club in 1862 yet that's their claimed starting date. From my understanding their "Club" wasn't formed in any official capacity until 1864 and they still weren't playing "Football". Like I have been saying, this level of scrutiny only appears to apply to Stoke City. Our legal team should be all over this with a libel claim. Have we got a legal team!?!
|
|
|
Post by stokeykez on May 12, 2019 10:34:22 GMT
Nots County weren't a football club in 1862 yet that's their claimed starting date. From my understanding their "Club" wasn't formed in any official capacity until 1864 and they still weren't playing "Football". Like I have been saying, this level of scrutiny only appears to apply to Stoke City. Our legal team should be all over this with a libel claim. Have we got a legal team!?! Probably busy still scratching their heads as to what to do with saido berahino
|
|
|
Post by mjg13x on May 12, 2019 11:41:29 GMT
We can't have nice things,
We can't have nice things,
We're Stoke City,
We can't have nice things.
|
|
|
Post by bigcashprizes on May 14, 2019 16:18:51 GMT
There’s only one man who can sort out this disagreement...
|
|