|
Post by peterthornesboots on May 4, 2019 22:20:52 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? I think that it's a mixture of natural confusion and plumping for the oldest date. After the original two years practically every player who had started the inaugural season had stopped playing (the founder only lasted one game!). After that, you can trace in the newspaper reports between 1868 and 1905 how the date gradually gets further and further away from the truth. Much of this is simply Chinese whispers - with none of the original team around the story gets (naturally) distorted as it is passed along. Then in 1905 club officials came out and accepted 1863. This was published in the Book of Football in 1905 (a collection of short club histories) and has been simply repeated ever since. However, it is worth noting that around this time the club were struggling on the pitch and off it (eventually leading to bankruptcy). The fact that club officials went with 1863 is probably down to the fact that they went with the oldest claimed date as it gave the club a facet of prestige at a point when it's future was in the balance. After that point the date just became entrenched. Even in the club's centenary annual it was accepted that there was no evidence of 1863, yet we persisted with it anyway. Now we are just at the point where either 1) people don't want to admit that the club's history books need to be rewritten or 2) simply don't care because it was 151 years ago!
|
|
|
Post by generationex on May 4, 2019 23:33:36 GMT
Until we became the oldest club in the football league the city of Nottingham never challenged that Stoke City were formed in 1863.
Now their city has lost that title it’s an issue.
All aboard for Agenda Central.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on May 4, 2019 23:37:13 GMT
I suspect no one will ever know the true answer to when we were formed.
However, why would our foundation fathers go for 1863 if it wasn’t true. It is a very random date. I could understand them making up a date to make us the oldest club. Why would you make up a date to make us second oldest?
We were formed in 1863 in my opinion until someone can provide firm evidence that we weren’t.
|
|
|
Post by hotterpotter on May 5, 2019 6:42:34 GMT
Whatever it is we need a couple of hip replacements and wholesale organ transplantation. 😉
|
|
|
Post by maninasuitcase on May 5, 2019 7:38:33 GMT
I suspect no one will ever know the true answer to when we were formed. However, why would our foundation fathers go for 1863 if it wasn’t true. It is a very random date. I could understand them making up a date to make us the oldest club. Why would you make up a date to make us second oldest? We were formed in 1863 in my opinion until someone can provide firm evidence that we weren’t. Spot on. And Jon Walters is definitely black until i see the evidence to prove differently. 😉
|
|
|
Post by somersetstokie on May 5, 2019 7:56:23 GMT
I suspect no one will ever know the true answer to when we were formed. However, why would our foundation fathers go for 1863 if it wasn’t true. It is a very random date. I could understand them making up a date to make us the oldest club. Why would you make up a date to make us second oldest? We were formed in 1863 in my opinion until someone can provide firm evidence that we weren’t. Photo or it didn't happen!
|
|
|
Post by scfc1863 on May 5, 2019 7:59:40 GMT
Just ask Zigger, wasn’t he around back then. Oh, and I’m not changing my user name either!
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on May 9, 2019 15:38:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on May 9, 2019 15:55:24 GMT
So that’s the EFL accusing one of its members of lying is it ? I think a little more ‘consultation’ might have been appropriate before issuing any such statement. I hope we object accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on May 9, 2019 16:01:55 GMT
Err wtf is that?? An unnamed “EFL spokesperson” “confirming” something contradictory to our club’s history with no other sources reporting other than the Nottingham Post? What a load of BS
|
|
|
Post by BuckRogers on May 9, 2019 16:06:48 GMT
So what happens now, with the badge ? Do we change the date on it? If we cant prove when we actually formed
|
|
|
Post by localloser on May 9, 2019 16:16:47 GMT
So what happens now, with the badge ? Do we change the date on it? If we cant prove when we actually formed It needs changing - it's bloody dreadful
|
|
borges
Academy Starlet
Posts: 104
|
Post by borges on May 9, 2019 16:30:09 GMT
So what happens now, with the badge ? Do we change the date on it? If we cant prove when we actually formed Keep on with the 1863 date, I say. We celebrated the centenary for the best part of 60 years ago and, as PeterThornesBoots says, we've been claiming 1863 officially for the last 114 years... it's hardly like we decided on the date last week to capitalise on Notts County dropping out of the league! When/if they return it'll go back to being a non-issue for all but a few interested historians. I think it's fair to acknowledge the date as being questionable (and you can add the effect of winding up/reformation of the club into that too) but it feels like an attack on the club's mythology to have it changed after it being the accepted date for so long. I'd view it a bit like Pele's 1000 career goals claim: not too outlandish, and so long established that it is essentially the truth, even if you acknowledge that there's a little artistic licence involved.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2019 17:49:18 GMT
Don’t tell me Nottingham Forest fans are dwelling on the past, what a massive turn up for the books this is.
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on May 9, 2019 18:03:31 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
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on May 9, 2019 18:06:00 GMT
It’s been a long time since, but I have literally $#!t on their ground & I have witnesses! 💩
|
|
|
Post by ParaPsych on May 9, 2019 18:27:46 GMT
It’s been a long time since, but I have literally $#!t on their ground & I have witnesses! 💩 You let someone watch you do a poo?
|
|
|
Post by terrorofturfmoor on May 9, 2019 18:36:22 GMT
So, all we need now is for Forest to get relegated to non-league!!!
Unless some other league club tries to claim it......
It's like an "I'msparticus-ism"!!!
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheboothen on May 9, 2019 18:40:01 GMT
Cheeky tree hugging bastards
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on May 9, 2019 18:50:21 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?
|
|
|
Post by nik80 on May 9, 2019 18:51:01 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?
|
|
|
Post by shrewspotter on May 9, 2019 18:53:23 GMT
Funny how nobody in Nottingham gave a toss about Forest being an older club than Stoke for 150 years, then just a few days after County are relegated they are putting a claim in.
The spineless lot at the EFL should have said, why’s it taken you 150 years and sent them packing, but nooooo
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on May 9, 2019 18:55:43 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? The league was set up on a one club per town/city basis and Notts County got the shout.
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on May 9, 2019 18:57:50 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? 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.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on May 9, 2019 19:10:14 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? 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?
|
|
|
Post by nik80 on May 9, 2019 19:11:22 GMT
If Forest were so well established, I wonder why they didn’t opt to join the football league in 1888? The league was set up on a one club per town/city basis and Notts County got the shout. Really? I’m very pleased about that now. No wonder they’re hankering after a pretty meaningless accolade, they’ve not contested for over one hundred years...
|
|
|
Post by Clem Fandango on May 9, 2019 19:13:19 GMT
Best thing we can do is keep quiet and let these clowns crack on and just keep putting 1863 on the badge.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on May 9, 2019 19:27:41 GMT
Best thing we can do is keep quiet and let these clowns crack on and just keep putting 1863 on the badge. They can't stop us putting 1863 on the badge. Whilst we can't prove we were founded then presumably no one can prove we weren't?
|
|
|
Post by JurgenVandeurzen on May 9, 2019 19:29:35 GMT
So what happens now, with the badge ? Do we change the date on it? If we cant prove when we actually formed Wish we'd change the whole thing!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2019 19:31:23 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
|
|