feeb
13-05-2019, 02:00 PM
It seems that the EFL have erroneously,
stated that those banished from our fair city south of the river
should inherit The epithet of The oldest Football League Club in the World
Which was previously held by Notts County up to the end of last season.
The title Nottingham forrist should have been allotted is the following,
The Oldest Football Club in the World Playing in the Football League.
Which is radically different, bear with me as I will now explain;
A Radio report I heard Together with other articles by many other media presenters and journalists. Used this phrase
Notts County The Worlds Oldest Professional Football League Team,
and one of the twelve original founder members of the football league.
This is a statement quoted over and over again in articles and reports about the club.
A statement that was universally accepted.
So to, me there are two categories running in that statement, that is universally accepted
as being the prerequisites holding this title,
which are as follows.
1 Age ie the date of which the Club was formed and who is the oldest of
2 Being a Founder Member
So which of these two is the dominant?,
If its purely judged on 1 Age, then its Sheffield FC 1857, which it is not, as they are non league and not a founder member of the football league back in 1888. ***
And as you can see from the initial accepted Universally accepted Criteria.
It must be premise 2, that’s the dominant factor, that of being a Founder Member,
Which then Narrows it down to one of the original twelve member clubs.
Now surely having set those parameters there comes a third?
That being, ‘Continuous membership of the Football league since its inception’ .
ie having served the full term of 131 years since 1888 to which nine now qualify.
As Accrington and Stoke City, both founder members, cannot claim to either being the same club as they were formed or continuous members of the Football League,
So any claim to the title, from either of these two Clubs can be discounted
So Now we now have to discover from those nine clubs (after removing Notts as well) , and Using those established parameters, As to which club Is the next oldest to inherit the title that Notts County held from 1888, and ‘had put in a shift of 131 continuous years
as founder members of the football league?’
Using category 1 Age to do this; We then have to sort through that list of the nine remaining clubs and with that find the next oldest, and jump forward to
1874 with the Inception of both Aston Villa, And Bolton Wanders.
So it can only be one of these two clubs.
Aston Villa were formed Early in 1874 *
[ Aston villa 1874-1988 isbn 0 600 595298 3 page 9 Graham Mc Coll ]
internet says formed 21st November 1874
And In March of 1874 played their first game against Aston Brook St Marys. but then in those early games they played 15 a side for both halves, football first half and rugby second half, as their opposition was a rugby club. So does that makes them older than Bolton as a pure football club ?, Obviously not, that is until the next season, later in 1874, when they dedicated their selves to football and with no specific date specified. so what do we accept?
But I am unable find evidence of the actual day and month of the formation of Bolton Wanderers* only that that it is 1874 .
This is Ironic as that there’s a good chance that as Villa only have a small window of 5-6 weeks in that year ‘to put in their claim’, Bolton could be inheriting the title of Oldest Professional League Club with continuous membership, only to see it taken away from them by their recent off field difficulties!.
***Other Claimants to the title Nottingham Forest 1865 and Sheffield Wednesday 1867 seem to be next in line, But neither were Founder Members. In the case of Forest not being accepted into the structure until 1889-90 which means they will always be one year short of Continuous League membership of the nine longest serving Clubs of the football league.
**As in the case of Stoke there is little or no evidence that they were formed prior to 26th September 1868 (not as traditionally claimed 1863) ref; The Field Magazine of that date.
Add to this that in 189-91 stoke having failed to gain re-election to the football league after relegation played in the Alliance League; and again in1908 Stoke fell out of the league went bust and reformed and played non league until their return on the formation of the two lower north and south divisions after the first world war. A-Z Of Stoke City, Breedon Books Tony Matthews isbn 1 85983 100 1 page 221; first game as Stoke Ramblers 7/10/1868 dropped name 1870 merged with Stoke Victoria 1877 so it cannot possible be the same Stoke as nowadays.
Stoke (1863 now accepted 1868 date,) as previously mentioned, amalgamated with another team after their inception, this of course would annul any previous formation date for either team, those teams now being extant.
To take the example of this in action, the other Magpies, West End amalgamated with East End In Newcastle, and in 1892 formed the team we now know as Newcastle United.
So It is the joining of football clubs amalgamation date that is accepted as the birth of that new team.
Many sporting Clubs were formed a long time before they sub formed football teams who later on became the dominant reason for that clubs existence, Forest for instance were originally a Shinty club, who predated The Notts Club, Notts County. who played on the forest, others were cricket clubs who also formed football teams. So caution has to be exercised in determining dates. Here endeth the lesson.
Now continuing the debate;
Another two or three recent articles came out with;
‘If / can Notts County get back into the league to reclaim their title of Oldest Professional Football League Team In The World’.
Is to my mind, quite an assumption
And that would mean therefore their absence goes un-noticed in
The Continuous Membership stakes of the EFL
To accept that Notts County can just dart out of the football league and back in again one or more season later.
Also it seems the goalposts have been moved, to assist Forests case to 'not being a founder member’ accepted as a criteria for this the title.
So with this judgement from the EFL From now on historical statistical Chaos reigns.
The Whole point of the word ‘League’ being printed on the front of the Jimmy Sirrel stand, is to show first and foremost membership of the English Football League, formed in 1888, and that two conditions apply, membership from its conception 1888 to date, and that of course was Notts County who were oldest of those original 12 member formed at that date and so qualified for this title..
So why has this claim from the city ground been ratified by the EFL,
If continuous membership of the Football league from 1888 is laid aside to accommodate Forest does this not also apply in future? If so it could then mean Wrexham formed earlier that year 1864, would take first place in the queue on age.
And If the relatively recently amended date of Notts County’s formation of Dec 7th1864 #
is now accepted ( see plaque on hotel wall in George Street Nottingham), Then Wrexham are older than Notts County so Notts will now never get the title back if they ever returned to the EFL.
Which in my opinion they are not entitled to do and neither are Wrexham also a ex EFL club , which a formation date prior to Notts.
So the best Notts County can do is to paint over the word ‘League’ from Jimmy Sirrel Stand Front and marketing and become the Worlds Oldest Professional Football Team
So to regain some stability (that no one else gives a ‘F’ about Sept for me)
its Back to the clear leaders for the title.
Villa and Bolton. Who meet all the accepted criteria.
Not straight forward is it,? we can’t have a penalty shoot out on this to decide the winner,
but unless someone delves deeper into the archives to prove either way
the result has to be a draw between Villa or Bolton.
Then there’s TSV Munich formed 1860 if we are researching for the Oldest in the World
just to chuck a spanner in the works.
#(If I remember correctly Keith Warsop’s book ( shouldn’t that also be Michael West’s book with all the graft he put in on his behalf) The Magpies I believe stated it as 1862, but as you know history, is not a constant but a fluid, as new evidence data and artefacts are unearthed)
And just as a minor footnote to my treatise as to anyone disagreeing with the above, may I be so bold to proffer Sirs (and Siresses) That means that you are unwittingly, or not, in favour of NFFC, and ought to wass off across the river you little lickspittle and buy a Trent End season ticket thou Traitor on behalf of the most unworthy team in this province.
So taking all things into consideration, wouldn’t you now agree with me, that you would rather see Bolton (my uncles Jack And Horace) or Villa (Jack Grealish, Jimmy Cantrell,Tony Hateley etc) take the title from those whos name should not be spoken?
( Sammy Chapman, Justin Fashanu, Stanley collymore etc)
Thank you Gentlemen for your unanimous Support, now go write a stiff letter to the EFL.
Telling them They are totally and utterly wrong and The Feeb is right ,… as usual.
stated that those banished from our fair city south of the river
should inherit The epithet of The oldest Football League Club in the World
Which was previously held by Notts County up to the end of last season.
The title Nottingham forrist should have been allotted is the following,
The Oldest Football Club in the World Playing in the Football League.
Which is radically different, bear with me as I will now explain;
A Radio report I heard Together with other articles by many other media presenters and journalists. Used this phrase
Notts County The Worlds Oldest Professional Football League Team,
and one of the twelve original founder members of the football league.
This is a statement quoted over and over again in articles and reports about the club.
A statement that was universally accepted.
So to, me there are two categories running in that statement, that is universally accepted
as being the prerequisites holding this title,
which are as follows.
1 Age ie the date of which the Club was formed and who is the oldest of
2 Being a Founder Member
So which of these two is the dominant?,
If its purely judged on 1 Age, then its Sheffield FC 1857, which it is not, as they are non league and not a founder member of the football league back in 1888. ***
And as you can see from the initial accepted Universally accepted Criteria.
It must be premise 2, that’s the dominant factor, that of being a Founder Member,
Which then Narrows it down to one of the original twelve member clubs.
Now surely having set those parameters there comes a third?
That being, ‘Continuous membership of the Football league since its inception’ .
ie having served the full term of 131 years since 1888 to which nine now qualify.
As Accrington and Stoke City, both founder members, cannot claim to either being the same club as they were formed or continuous members of the Football League,
So any claim to the title, from either of these two Clubs can be discounted
So Now we now have to discover from those nine clubs (after removing Notts as well) , and Using those established parameters, As to which club Is the next oldest to inherit the title that Notts County held from 1888, and ‘had put in a shift of 131 continuous years
as founder members of the football league?’
Using category 1 Age to do this; We then have to sort through that list of the nine remaining clubs and with that find the next oldest, and jump forward to
1874 with the Inception of both Aston Villa, And Bolton Wanders.
So it can only be one of these two clubs.
Aston Villa were formed Early in 1874 *
[ Aston villa 1874-1988 isbn 0 600 595298 3 page 9 Graham Mc Coll ]
internet says formed 21st November 1874
And In March of 1874 played their first game against Aston Brook St Marys. but then in those early games they played 15 a side for both halves, football first half and rugby second half, as their opposition was a rugby club. So does that makes them older than Bolton as a pure football club ?, Obviously not, that is until the next season, later in 1874, when they dedicated their selves to football and with no specific date specified. so what do we accept?
But I am unable find evidence of the actual day and month of the formation of Bolton Wanderers* only that that it is 1874 .
This is Ironic as that there’s a good chance that as Villa only have a small window of 5-6 weeks in that year ‘to put in their claim’, Bolton could be inheriting the title of Oldest Professional League Club with continuous membership, only to see it taken away from them by their recent off field difficulties!.
***Other Claimants to the title Nottingham Forest 1865 and Sheffield Wednesday 1867 seem to be next in line, But neither were Founder Members. In the case of Forest not being accepted into the structure until 1889-90 which means they will always be one year short of Continuous League membership of the nine longest serving Clubs of the football league.
**As in the case of Stoke there is little or no evidence that they were formed prior to 26th September 1868 (not as traditionally claimed 1863) ref; The Field Magazine of that date.
Add to this that in 189-91 stoke having failed to gain re-election to the football league after relegation played in the Alliance League; and again in1908 Stoke fell out of the league went bust and reformed and played non league until their return on the formation of the two lower north and south divisions after the first world war. A-Z Of Stoke City, Breedon Books Tony Matthews isbn 1 85983 100 1 page 221; first game as Stoke Ramblers 7/10/1868 dropped name 1870 merged with Stoke Victoria 1877 so it cannot possible be the same Stoke as nowadays.
Stoke (1863 now accepted 1868 date,) as previously mentioned, amalgamated with another team after their inception, this of course would annul any previous formation date for either team, those teams now being extant.
To take the example of this in action, the other Magpies, West End amalgamated with East End In Newcastle, and in 1892 formed the team we now know as Newcastle United.
So It is the joining of football clubs amalgamation date that is accepted as the birth of that new team.
Many sporting Clubs were formed a long time before they sub formed football teams who later on became the dominant reason for that clubs existence, Forest for instance were originally a Shinty club, who predated The Notts Club, Notts County. who played on the forest, others were cricket clubs who also formed football teams. So caution has to be exercised in determining dates. Here endeth the lesson.
Now continuing the debate;
Another two or three recent articles came out with;
‘If / can Notts County get back into the league to reclaim their title of Oldest Professional Football League Team In The World’.
Is to my mind, quite an assumption
And that would mean therefore their absence goes un-noticed in
The Continuous Membership stakes of the EFL
To accept that Notts County can just dart out of the football league and back in again one or more season later.
Also it seems the goalposts have been moved, to assist Forests case to 'not being a founder member’ accepted as a criteria for this the title.
So with this judgement from the EFL From now on historical statistical Chaos reigns.
The Whole point of the word ‘League’ being printed on the front of the Jimmy Sirrel stand, is to show first and foremost membership of the English Football League, formed in 1888, and that two conditions apply, membership from its conception 1888 to date, and that of course was Notts County who were oldest of those original 12 member formed at that date and so qualified for this title..
So why has this claim from the city ground been ratified by the EFL,
If continuous membership of the Football league from 1888 is laid aside to accommodate Forest does this not also apply in future? If so it could then mean Wrexham formed earlier that year 1864, would take first place in the queue on age.
And If the relatively recently amended date of Notts County’s formation of Dec 7th1864 #
is now accepted ( see plaque on hotel wall in George Street Nottingham), Then Wrexham are older than Notts County so Notts will now never get the title back if they ever returned to the EFL.
Which in my opinion they are not entitled to do and neither are Wrexham also a ex EFL club , which a formation date prior to Notts.
So the best Notts County can do is to paint over the word ‘League’ from Jimmy Sirrel Stand Front and marketing and become the Worlds Oldest Professional Football Team
So to regain some stability (that no one else gives a ‘F’ about Sept for me)
its Back to the clear leaders for the title.
Villa and Bolton. Who meet all the accepted criteria.
Not straight forward is it,? we can’t have a penalty shoot out on this to decide the winner,
but unless someone delves deeper into the archives to prove either way
the result has to be a draw between Villa or Bolton.
Then there’s TSV Munich formed 1860 if we are researching for the Oldest in the World
just to chuck a spanner in the works.
#(If I remember correctly Keith Warsop’s book ( shouldn’t that also be Michael West’s book with all the graft he put in on his behalf) The Magpies I believe stated it as 1862, but as you know history, is not a constant but a fluid, as new evidence data and artefacts are unearthed)
And just as a minor footnote to my treatise as to anyone disagreeing with the above, may I be so bold to proffer Sirs (and Siresses) That means that you are unwittingly, or not, in favour of NFFC, and ought to wass off across the river you little lickspittle and buy a Trent End season ticket thou Traitor on behalf of the most unworthy team in this province.
So taking all things into consideration, wouldn’t you now agree with me, that you would rather see Bolton (my uncles Jack And Horace) or Villa (Jack Grealish, Jimmy Cantrell,Tony Hateley etc) take the title from those whos name should not be spoken?
( Sammy Chapman, Justin Fashanu, Stanley collymore etc)
Thank you Gentlemen for your unanimous Support, now go write a stiff letter to the EFL.
Telling them They are totally and utterly wrong and The Feeb is right ,… as usual.