Jump to content

Happy Birthday - Sheffield Wednesday


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, ANDY said:

4 years ago this happened. 
 

 

 

Sadly a symbolic (some may say shambolic) moment in our recent history.

 

Happy birthday anyway (to SWFC, not that bloody cake).

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was reading an article about the oldest clubs in the world recently, and one gripe i have is that some of the clubs which claim to be older than Wednesday, for example Stoke and their claim of 1863 being based only on an article about reports from that time of a club, that may or may not be Stoke, playing a match in that year. Stoke weren't the only example, though i can't remember which clubs.

 

However, Wednesday can produce actual documents, minutes, and signatures of people who signed up to join the club, as well as contemporary local media reports of the meeting citing, notable signatories, key decisions made and even the venue of the formation of The Wednesday football club etc. Now, i was always taught in history classes (as well as at uni when studying for my B.A.) to weigh all the primary and seconday, even tertiary evidence and the reliability of sources cited when making bold claims. It seems that many clubs that claim an earlier formation based this on fairly weak sources, whilst Wednesday's claim is pretty concrete in terms of documentary evidence. 

 

Anyway, pet peeve or not, Happy Birthday Wednesday, WTID.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, alcock dived said:

I was reading an article about the oldest clubs in the world recently, and one gripe i have is that some of the clubs which claim to be older than Wednesday, for example Stoke and their claim of 1863 being based only on an article about reports from that time of a club, that may or may not be Stoke, playing a match in that year. Stoke weren't the only example, though i can't remember which clubs.

 

However, Wednesday can produce actual documents, minutes, and signatures of people who signed up to join the club, as well as contemporary local media reports of the meeting citing, notable signatories, key decisions made and even the venue of the formation of The Wednesday football club etc. Now, i was always taught in history classes (as well as at uni when studying for my B.A.) to weigh all the primary and seconday, even tertiary evidence and the reliability of sources cited when making bold claims. It seems that many clubs that claim an earlier formation based this on fairly weak sources, whilst Wednesday's claim is pretty concrete in terms of documentary evidence. 

 

Anyway, pet peeve or not, Happy Birthday Wednesday, WTID.

Chesterfield are another spurious one, claiming 1866 although currently not in the EFL so don't count, nor do Notts County - 1860. So in the league with a fully verifiable history that only leaves Notts Forest (1862).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Utah Owl said:

Chesterfield are another spurious one, claiming 1866 although currently not in the EFL so don't count, nor do Notts County - 1860. So in the league with a fully verifiable history that only leaves Notts Forest (1862).

 

Exactly, there's no problem with other clubs being older than Wednesday, whether in the league or not, whether in England or not, but when club's claims are based on dubious sources, it just annoys me. There's no shame in admitting they're not sure when their clubs were formed, even if they believe it's 1863 or 1868 or whatever, but surely sticking it on the badge or claiming it as somehow 'official' just seems really pathetic.

 

Personally i think it's great that some clubs may have been formed earlier, but 'may have been' is the operative phrase here, and my inner historian (ooer!) gets all wound up. 'I believe' and 'I know for a fact' are very different; i know for a fact Wednesday were formed in September 1867, there's lots of strong, contemporaneous evidence, but i can only believe The Wednesday cricket club were formed in 1820, because the sources are not strong or reliable enough, but using 'est 1820' on our official history/badge would apparently be acceptable by some other clubs' standards. I mean we may have tried to back date our accounts, and got punished for it, but thank fooook we aint resorted to back dating our entire history in some form of lazy one-upmanship!

 

UTO!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, alcock dived said:

 

Exactly, there's no problem with other clubs being older than Wednesday, whether in the league or not, whether in England or not, but when club's claims are based on dubious sources, it just annoys me. There's no shame in admitting they're not sure when their clubs were formed, even if they believe it's 1863 or 1868 or whatever, but surely sticking it on the badge or claiming it as somehow 'official' just seems really pathetic.

 

Personally i think it's great that some clubs may have been formed earlier, but 'may have been' is the operative phrase here, and my inner historian (ooer!) gets all wound up. 'I believe' and 'I know for a fact' are very different; i know for a fact Wednesday were formed in September 1867, there's lots of strong, contemporaneous evidence, but i can only believe The Wednesday cricket club were formed in 1820, because the sources are not strong or reliable enough, but using 'est 1820' on our official history/badge would apparently be acceptable by some other clubs' standards. I mean we may have tried to back date our accounts, and got punished for it, but thank fooook we aint resorted to back dating our entire history in some form of lazy one-upmanship!

 

UTO!

1820 it is then🤥

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...