[Wooden Spoon]

fill yer boots

[dalekpete]

death, on 27 June 2013 - 07:20 PM, said:

fill yer boots

That is the problem with history! How about "who do you want to be the "official" winner of the 2010 World Cup?"

[Spired]

dalekpete, on 27 June 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:

That is the problem with history! How about "who do you want to be the "official" winner of the 2010 World Cup?"

Spain because they won it.

If the year was 2163 though, I would like to think nobody would suggest Catalonia won it in the face of a newspaper article from that actual period.

[Wooden Spoon]

dalekpete, on 27 June 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:

That is the problem with history! How about "who do you want to be the "official" winner of the 2010 World Cup?"

erm.........spain? as they won it?



I think your trying to compete with RPL for the most ridiculous post of the year award.

[dalekpete]

death, on 28 June 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

erm.........spain? as they won it?

Yes there is evidence in the same way as there is evidence that the current CFC was formed in 1919 by the council.

Now if someone asked "What should be the "traditional" formation?" Then undoubtedly 1866!

[Wooden Spoon]

dalekpete, on 28 June 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

Yes there is evidence in the same way as there is evidence that the current CFC was formed in 1919 by the council.

Now if someone asked "What should be the "traditional" formation?" Then undoubtedly 1866!

Pete, if back in the day there was a fella who had been watching town since his early teens, and by 1919 he was a pensioner, do you think he would say :-

1) hey....there's a new club starting up the road, I`ll go and see what the fuss is about?

2) brilliant, after the hardship of the war years I can start watching town again?



depending on which you think is more likely, for me, is the correct date that we should have as our formation date.

[dalekpete]

death, on 28 June 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

Pete, if back in the day there was a fella who had been watching town since his early teens, and by 1919 he was a pensioner, do you think he would say :-

1) hey....there's a new club starting up the road, I`ll go and see what the fuss is about?

2) brilliant, after the hardship of the war years I can start watching town again?



depending on which you think is more likely, for me, is the correct date that we should have as our formation date.

While the Chesterfield Town that was closed down in 1917 was effectively a continuation of the one that folded in 1915 I am not sure the same can be said for the 1919 Chesterfield Municipal.

Often there are links through players and officials to new set-ups even with gaps of a couple of seasons. However all the players, management and Board of Chesterfield Town were banned by the FA as a result of the irregularities. In setting up Municipal the Council made sure it was a clean break to establish probity.

What the fans thought I do not know. It wasn’t the war that caused the hiatus, although it wouldn’t have helped a reformation, but the misdemeanours of the previous club. Perhaps the situation was closer to the Leeds City and Leeds United one where United do not consider themselves to have any continuity with the disgraced predecessor? For our new Club only the ground and the fans would be the same. I do consider the role of the latter to be significant and so maintain 1866 to be our traditional or spiritual founding.

[Wooden Spoon]

dalekpete, on 28 June 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

While the Chesterfield Town that was closed down in 1917 was effectively a continuation of the one that folded in 1915 I am not sure the same can be said for the 1919 Chesterfield Municipal.

Often there are links through players and officials to new set-ups even with gaps of a couple of seasons. However all the players, management and Board of Chesterfield Town were banned by the FA as a result of the irregularities. In setting up Municipal the Council made sure it was a clean break to establish probity.

What the fans thought I do not know. It wasn't the war that caused the hiatus, although it wouldn't have helped a reformation, but the misdemeanours of the previous club. Perhaps the situation was closer to the Leeds City and Leeds United one where United do not consider themselves to have any continuity with the disgraced predecessor? For our new Club only the ground and the fans would be the same. I do consider the role of the latter to be significant and so maintain 1866 to be our traditional or spiritual founding.

"only the fans and ground would be the same"

Well that's the life blood of any football club, somewhere to play and someone to watch them play.

I think there is a ratio of a few thousand to 1 in terms of the founding date of CFC, but the one appears to outweigh the many. I hope your talks went some way to rectify this.

[Town_Fan]

death, on 28 June 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

"only the fans and ground would be the same"

Isn't that the same argument for not saying we were formed in 2001 though?

[Wooden Spoon]

Town_Fan, on 02 July 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

Isn't that the same argument for not saying we were formed in 2001 though?

well I would have thought so......

[Spire2001]

1866.
The clue is in the stadium address.