|
|
Post by spoton on Nov 1, 2019 19:42:03 GMT
So it looks like we even didn't get the year right that we were formed, so we still only second best to Forests now
|
|
|
|
Post by sheds1862 on Nov 1, 2019 19:43:27 GMT
Care to elaborate ?
|
|
|
|
Post by spoton on Nov 1, 2019 19:49:29 GMT
If you go on bbc football website and look for jones sacking, in the comments after the article you will find a post regarding nottingham post saying their side of it
|
|
|
|
Post by Boothen on Nov 1, 2019 19:51:24 GMT
This shit again? It says 1863 on the badge and that's all there is to it. Anybody who says anything different can just fuck right off.
|
|
|
|
Post by spoton on Nov 1, 2019 19:58:43 GMT
Unfortunately Boothen the facts need to be correct and if it is proven that we are displaying a year on our merchandise then it really really embarrassing
|
|
|
|
Post by FbrgVaStkFan on Nov 1, 2019 21:03:25 GMT
^ Wait, displaying the wrong year is the really really embarrassing thing? Christ, I was way off...
|
|
|
|
Post by Linx on Nov 1, 2019 21:29:43 GMT
My mate has a PhD in football and is an acknowledged authority on the 19th Century roots and development of the game. He is adamant that Stoke were not established until 1868 - and had the temerity to argue the point in a lecture at a local sports education college a couple of years ago - and he can come up with all sorts of reasons why, rather than preferring the lazy legend version which suits our marketing department.
|
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheboothen on Nov 1, 2019 22:01:13 GMT
Funny the tree huggers from robin hood land only bought this up after Notts county went down out of the football league isn't it. Fuck off Forest
|
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Nov 1, 2019 22:06:36 GMT
My mate has a PhD in football and is an acknowledged authority on the 19th Century roots and development of the game. He is adamant that Stoke were not established until 1868 - and had the temerity to argue the point in a lecture at a local sports education college a couple of years ago - and he can come up with all sorts of reasons why, rather than preferring the lazy legend version which suits our marketing department. Who does he support? |
|
|
|
Post by spoton on Nov 1, 2019 22:09:21 GMT
All i know it's a f**king disgrace if we have been lied to all these years if it is true, I'm old school and that would be the end for me, over the years ive been proud to say that we were formed in 1863 its disgraceful if we have been lied to
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2019 22:18:13 GMT
This shit again? It says 1863 on the badge and that's all there is to it. Anybody who says anything different can just fuck right off. I think we should change it to 1862 just to piss them off further, and a 'trees are shite' in latin as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Boothen on Nov 1, 2019 22:25:44 GMT
This shit again? It says 1863 on the badge and that's all there is to it. Anybody who says anything different can just fuck right off. I think we should change it to 1862 just to piss them off further, and a 'trees are shite' in latin as well. Arbores sunt stercore. Does have a certain ring to it. |
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Nov 1, 2019 22:58:54 GMT
If in the 1870s local folk thought the club was founded in 1863 then that is good enough for me. They are more likely to be correct than any 21st Century academic.
Not finding concrete proof for an event is not cast iron evidence that the event didn’t happen. Even a GCSE History student knows that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 1, 2019 23:55:29 GMT
All i know it's a f**king disgrace if we have been lied to all these years if it is true, I'm old school and that would be the end for me, over the years ive been proud to say that we were formed in 1863 its disgraceful if we have been lied to I think lied to is far too strong. There is a debate about it, and it's not open and shut, but those who have looked in detail at the evidence do seem to come down on the side of '68 rather than '63. |
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Nov 1, 2019 23:57:39 GMT
All i know it's a f**king disgrace if we have been lied to all these years if it is true, I'm old school and that would be the end for me, over the years ive been proud to say that we were formed in 1863 its disgraceful if we have been lied to I think lied to is far too strong. There is a debate about it, and it's not open and shut, but those who have looked in detail at the evidence do seem to come down on the side of '68 rather than '63. What they say Malcolm is that they can find no evidence of the club being formed before 1868. That is not the same as saying they have evidence that the club was formed in 1868. |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Nov 2, 2019 0:11:07 GMT
Be interesting to know when the first record was of us claiming to be founded in 1863?
If that date was close enough to 1863 then there would have been someone old enough to remember our foundation
As a starter my 1970 Rothamans football year book says 1863 so we have claimed it for at least 50 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 2, 2019 0:13:15 GMT
I think lied to is far too strong. There is a debate about it, and it's not open and shut, but those who have looked in detail at the evidence do seem to come down on the side of '68 rather than '63. What they say Malcolm is that they can find no evidence of the club being formed before 1868. That is not the same as saying they have evidence that the club was formed in 1868. Do they know when the 1863 date was first quoted ? If, as you said in your first post, people were saying at a relatively early date that it was 1863, then that is evidence in support of '63, albeit not contemporaneous documentary evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Nov 2, 2019 0:16:56 GMT
What they say Malcolm is that they can find no evidence of the club being formed before 1868. That is not the same as saying they have evidence that the club was formed in 1868. Do they know when the 1863 date was first quoted ? If, as you said in your first post, people were saying at a relatively early date that it was 1863, then that is evidence in support of '63, albeit not contemporaneous documentary evidence. Per my question immediately before Malcolm, if we were claiming 1863 in say 1903 then its very likely true. |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 2, 2019 0:25:30 GMT
Do they know when the 1863 date was first quoted ? If, as you said in your first post, people were saying at a relatively early date that it was 1863, then that is evidence in support of '63, albeit not contemporaneous documentary evidence. Per my question immediately before Malcolm, if we were claiming 1863 in say 1903 then its very likely true. I hadn't noticed that you beat me to it, Godfrey - great minds and all that  |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Nov 2, 2019 0:28:11 GMT
Per my question immediately before Malcolm, if we were claiming 1863 in say 1903 then its very likely true. I hadn't noticed that you beat me to it, Godfrey - great minds and all that It's the Keele University factor Malcolm, intellectual heavyweights, both of us |
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Nov 2, 2019 0:49:25 GMT
Sheffield FC is universally recognised as the oldest football club formed in 1857
|
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Nov 2, 2019 0:50:46 GMT
I think lied to is far too strong. There is a debate about it, and it's not open and shut, but those who have looked in detail at the evidence do seem to come down on the side of '68 rather than '63. What they say Malcolm is that they can find no evidence of the club being formed before 1868. That is not the same as saying they have evidence that the club was formed in 1868. so it could have been 1573? ....had to wait a while for a game though! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2019 1:01:10 GMT
All i know it's a f**king disgrace if we have been lied to all these years if it is true, I'm old school and that would be the end for me, over the years ive been proud to say that we were formed in 1863 its disgraceful if we have been lied to I think this is a bit of an over-reaction spoton. The club is so old that, before Stanley Matthews had even been born in 1915, there was likely nobody left alive with concrete recollection of the date of formation. In that context it's easy to see why this has become a contentious issue. Also you have to bear in mind that when those people met and formed the club way back in the 1860s, it's not as if they could've had any idea as to what football would become. I don't think in the wildest dreams of the original founders they could've imagined that, over a century and a half later, people would be debating and squabbling over the date of formation. I'm sure the formation was a very low key affair and the people who created the club did so completely oblivious to the fact that they were architects of a momentous occasion in history. I doubt strict record keeping for the annals of history even crossed their minds. It probably held a similar level of significance to them as it would today if a small group of people decided to form team in an emerging sport, and then in a century and a half that fledgling sport somehow becomes the most popular sport of all time and that fledgling team has somehow survived to become an internationally recognised brand in the said sport. |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 2, 2019 1:02:43 GMT
Anybody who’s done even a cursory bit of research into this knows there’s not a fucking chance we were formed in 1863. It’s complete nonsense. However off here, as long as it’s in the badge I’ll defend it to the death  |
|
|
|
Post by marrer on Nov 2, 2019 1:21:35 GMT
This shit again? It says 1863 on the badge and that's all there is to it. Anybody who says anything different can just fuck right off. I think we should change it to 1862 just to piss them off further, and a 'trees are shite' in latin as well. Save money, use the same figures - 1683. Job done. We just didn't play anyone for two centuries. No wonder we're so unfit |
|
|
|
Post by darksideofthemoon on Nov 2, 2019 1:28:24 GMT
Sheffield FC is universally recognised as the oldest football club formed in 1857 Who did they play against?? Anyhoo……….my car sticker says 1863, so that's that!!  |
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Nov 2, 2019 1:29:00 GMT
Anybody who’s done even a cursory bit of research into this knows there’s not a fucking chance we were formed in 1863. It’s complete nonsense. However off here, as long as it’s in the badge I’ll defend it to the death This, it’s just funny. Living in Nottingham it’s all they seem to talk about given the quality of football in the city in across the last 30 years.... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2019 8:46:09 GMT
Sheffield FC is universally recognised as the oldest football club formed in 1857 That's the thing, oldest in the football league is such a bullshit stipulation. There are a lot more teams outside it than in it, just because we're the ones on the money tap doesn't mean others are irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2019 8:52:17 GMT
I've got the longest cock in Stoke, measuring, ironically, 18.63cm
|
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 2, 2019 9:37:32 GMT
I’m no historian but what is the evidence for ‘68. ? If it is documentary evidence of a meeting, if it doesn’t refer to it being the first formation meeting wouldn’t that in itself be evidence that the correct formation date is earlier ?
|
|
