|
|
Post by Kenilworth_Stokies on May 14, 2019 16:44:28 GMT
Presumably the earliest clubs played games within their own membership (Stoke Ramblers A vs Stoke Ramblers B) as there was literally nobody else to play against.
So it's perfectly plausible that we had a club that local people could join to play football in 1863 but did not have a recorded competitive match against somebody else until 1868. I mean, where can you find records of Stoke training matches even today?
|
|
|
|
Post by shipshape on May 14, 2019 22:07:25 GMT
Presumably the earliest clubs played games within their own membership (Stoke Ramblers A vs Stoke Ramblers B) as there was literally nobody else to play against. So it's perfectly plausible that we had a club that local people could join to play football in 1863 but did not have a recorded competitive match against somebody else until 1868. I mean, where can you find records of Stoke training matches even today? Maybe there were clubs around then that aren't today. |
|
|
|
Post by kelw on May 14, 2019 22:25:01 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!?! Any kind of team would be a start |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on May 14, 2019 23:04:46 GMT
Presumably the earliest clubs played games within their own membership (Stoke Ramblers A vs Stoke Ramblers B) as there was literally nobody else to play against. So it's perfectly plausible that we had a club that local people could join to play football in 1863 but did not have a recorded competitive match against somebody else until 1868. I mean, where can you find records of Stoke training matches even today? Maybe there were clubs around then that aren't today. Exactly, Stoke wasn’t literally the second place (or fourth or fifth or whatever) anyone ever had the idea to make a football team 😁 there were loads of other sports/football clubs around at the time, they just didn’t last the distance (or they did but they’re small amateur outfits). It’s funny how often this simple bit of reasoning evades people when this is brought up 😅 |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on May 14, 2019 23:19:39 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!?! Hate to state the obvious, but for it to be libel you have to prove that it is untrue....... |
|
|
|
Post by Kenilworth_Stokies on May 15, 2019 7:06:49 GMT
Maybe there were clubs around then that aren't today. Exactly, Stoke wasn’t literally the second place (or fourth or fifth or whatever) anyone ever had the idea to make a football team 😁 there were loads of other sports/football clubs around at the time, they just didn’t last the distance (or they did but they’re small amateur outfits). It’s funny how often this simple bit of reasoning evades people when this is brought up 😅 That's why I said 'earliest clubs'. There has to have been an early stage where clubs were too few and far between for formal, recorded matches to have been a thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Davef on May 15, 2019 8:38:15 GMT
Blackpool Tower is 150 years old today.
Have Nottingham claimed their tower is older yet?
|
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on May 15, 2019 10:05:13 GMT
Presumably the earliest clubs played games within their own membership (Stoke Ramblers A vs Stoke Ramblers B) as there was literally nobody else to play against. So it's perfectly plausible that we had a club that local people could join to play football in 1863 but did not have a recorded competitive match against somebody else until 1868. I mean, where can you find records of Stoke training matches even today? Exactly. And the research for this is based entirely on the internet. Which relies entirely on what is input onto it. It does not reflect what isn't put onto it. Who's to say that they local rag at the time didn't keep an accurate archive or they simply weren't retained to be put onto the internet. After all there's no one around any longer who remembers it. There was however, plenty around in 1905 when the Stoke founding date appears to have been accepted by the league. Shirley if we'd exaggerated the date by a whole 5 years someone would have said 'Whoaa that's bollocks lads'? Perhaps then might have been the time for Forest to complain. |
|
|
|
Post by Etain Tur-Mukan on May 15, 2019 10:40:31 GMT
Presumably the earliest clubs played games within their own membership (Stoke Ramblers A vs Stoke Ramblers B) as there was literally nobody else to play against. So it's perfectly plausible that we had a club that local people could join to play football in 1863 but did not have a recorded competitive match against somebody else until 1868. I mean, where can you find records of Stoke training matches even today? Exactly. And the research for this is based entirely on the internet. Which relies entirely on what is input onto it. It does not reflect what isn't put onto it. Who's to say that they local rag at the time didn't keep an accurate archive or they simply weren't retained to be put onto the internet. After all there's no one around any longer who remembers it. There was however, plenty around in 1905 when the Stoke founding date appears to have been accepted by the league. Shirley if we'd exaggerated the date by a whole 5 years someone would have said 'Whoaa that's bollocks lads'? Perhaps then might have been the time for Forest to complain. Similar to when we celebrated our 100th...there would surely have been supporters who's parents or grandparents supported us and who were around in 1863 and would have confirmed or denied this date. Or maybe nobody talked to each other back then! |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on May 15, 2019 10:59:46 GMT
Presumably the earliest clubs played games within their own membership (Stoke Ramblers A vs Stoke Ramblers B) as there was literally nobody else to play against. So it's perfectly plausible that we had a club that local people could join to play football in 1863 but did not have a recorded competitive match against somebody else until 1868. I mean, where can you find records of Stoke training matches even today? Exactly. And the research for this is based entirely on the internet. Which relies entirely on what is input onto it. It does not reflect what isn't put onto it. Who's to say that they local rag at the time didn't keep an accurate archive or they simply weren't retained to be put onto the internet. . It’s not mate, someone off here wrote a doctoral thesis on it, they used all the physical sources possible and there’s basically no mention of us anywhere pre-68. |
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on May 15, 2019 11:20:00 GMT
Exactly. And the research for this is based entirely on the internet. Which relies entirely on what is input onto it. It does not reflect what isn't put onto it. Who's to say that they local rag at the time didn't keep an accurate archive or they simply weren't retained to be put onto the internet. . It’s not mate, someone off here wrote a doctoral thesis on it, they used all the physical sources possible and there’s basically no mention of us anywhere pre-68. I know mate. I've read a summary of it. I was just playing devils advocate. The serious point I was making though was just because there is no mention of us 156 years down the line doesn't mean we didn't exist, just that we can't prove it. |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on May 15, 2019 13:20:02 GMT
It’s not mate, someone off here wrote a doctoral thesis on it, they used all the physical sources possible and there’s basically no mention of us anywhere pre-68. I know mate. I've read a summary of it. I was just playing devils advocate. The serious point I was making though was just because there is no mention of us 156 years down the line doesn't mean we didn't exist, just that we can't prove it. That’s true, but then why stop at 156... to an extent that argument could apply to 157 years, or 180 or 300 years... its the old “prove a negative” thing, impossible to do. I know what you’re saying though. |
|
|
|
Post by owdestokie2 on May 15, 2019 15:04:54 GMT
The club must have had an inkling. That’s the only excuse they could have for the piss poor organisation and quality of the so called 150th anniversary. Mind you our intrepid, thoughtful and professional CEO would have overseen the fantastic (not) event
|
|
|
|
Post by northstaffycher on May 15, 2019 16:09:52 GMT
Fuck them all and fuck all you Stoke fans who want to roll over and hand over our new title as world’s oldest professional club to those twats in Nottingham 😁
I will persist...who’s with me? “We’ll play how we want, we’ll play how we want we’re the worlds oldest league club we’ll play how we want” Altogether now.
|
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on May 15, 2019 16:27:20 GMT
Presumably the earliest clubs played games within their own membership (Stoke Ramblers A vs Stoke Ramblers B) as there was literally nobody else to play against. So it's perfectly plausible that we had a club that local people could join to play football in 1863 but did not have a recorded competitive match against somebody else until 1868. I mean, where can you find records of Stoke training matches even today? Exactly. And the research for this is based entirely on the internet. Which relies entirely on what is input onto it. It does not reflect what isn't put onto it. Who's to say that they local rag at the time didn't keep an accurate archive or they simply weren't retained to be put onto the internet. After all there's no one around any longer who remembers it. There was however, plenty around in 1905 when the Stoke founding date appears to have been accepted by the league. Shirley if we'd exaggerated the date by a whole 5 years someone would have said 'Whoaa that's bollocks lads'? Perhaps then might have been the time for Forest to complain. Well said, they’ve had hundred+++ years to file a complaint & it’s beyond an absolute limit to do so now. With no real chance of definitive proof they can £@#&0££ |
|
