Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I've always found it odd that our club's date of origin is recorded as being 1892 rather than 1881.

 

Stanley/East End, formed in 1881, is indisputably the foundation club of NUFC. The name change should not be the point of origin as it isn't for the many other clubs that have changed name. Manchester United, for example, are recorded as being founded in 1878, yet they changed their name from Newton Heath in 1902 at the point of liquidation and only moved to Old Trafford in 1910.

 

Some would cite it's because we merged with our neighbours West End, but that doesn't hold water; West End went bust and East End simply moved into their superior ground St. James's. East End changed their name for two reasons: to try and appease the  former rival fans of West End and to mark a new beginning as the sole club representing the city of Newcastle as a professional team. We immedoately applied for membership of the FL and joined the following year.

 

So, for those that care about the clubs factual history, should the records be changed to reflect the true date of birth of NUFC?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember it like it was yesterday. [emoji38]

 

I do get the argument that the East End team were a consistent one from 1881 and just moved locations.

 

However, I think that the act of changing the name to bring along the West End fans does in fact mean that is both symbolically and in reality the start of Newcastle United, i.e. a united Newcastle team.

 

But I'd like to hear what Gabby Agbonlahor thinks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TomYam said:

I've always found it odd that our club's date of origin is recorded as being 1892 rather than 1881.

 

Stanley/East End, formed in 1881, is indisputably the foundation club of NUFC. The name change should not be the point of origin as it isn't for the many other clubs that have changed name. Manchester United, for example, are recorded as being founded in 1878, yet they changed their name from Newton Heath in 1902 at the point of liquidation and only moved to Old Trafford in 1910.

 

Some would cite it's because we merged with our neighbours West End, but that doesn't hold water; West End went bust and East End simply moved into their superior ground St. James's. East End changed their name for two reasons: to try and appease the  former rival fans of West End and to mark a new beginning as the sole club representing the city of Newcastle as a professional team. We immedoately applied for membership of the FL and joined the following year.

 

So, for those that care about the clubs factual history, should the records be changed to reflect the true date of birth of NUFC?

 

 

It's not as simple as that though is it? It was a unification rather than East End just moving to SJP. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ste said:

According to Luke Edwards, we’re in talks with a few different years of origin but we’re not as close as Romano reports. 

His sources are telling him no quite there yet, but it’s definitely a date between today and the dawn of time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, FLUMPO235 said:

His sources are telling him no quite there yet, but it’s definitely a date between today and the dawn of time. 


One things clear, he’s sick of north east journalists such as his good self, receiving so much flack and spreading misinformation and posting click bait. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, madras said:

More of a takeover as I understand it.

 

Aye, but people from NWE were kept on. We didn't cease being Newcastle United when the Saudis took over so I think the same principle applies like. 

 

Not that I think it matters too much, but it's a case of this imo. 

 

Tyne Association/Newcastle East End 1881 - 1892

Newcastle West End 1882 - 1892

 

Newcastle United (unofficially) 1892 / (officially) 1895

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest HTT II

We were informally unofficially formed in 1881. Clubs and teams change their name all the time and move to locations. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Abacus said:

I remember it like it was yesterday. [emoji38]

 

I do get the argument that the East End team were a consistent one from 1881 and just moved locations.

 

However, I think that the act of changing the name to bring along the West End fans does in fact mean that is both symbolically and in reality the start of Newcastle United, i.e. a united Newcastle team.

 

But I'd like to hear what Gabby Agbonlahor thinks.

Yeah, I'd say 1881 would be the factual birthday but 1892 to be the symbolic birthday. 

 

At least either can be based in fact rather than the weapons grade horseshit Crystal Palace are trying to pull with their foundation date. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

Aye, but people from NWE were kept on. We didn't cease being Newcastle United when the Saudis took over so I think the same principle applies like. 

 

Not that I think it matters too much, but it's a case of this imo. 

 

Tyne Association/Newcastle East End 1881 - 1892

Newcastle West End 1882 - 1892

 

Newcastle United (unofficially) 1892 / (officially) 1895

I'll have to hunt the book out. What I mean by more of a takeover was it was something daft like 1 player and 1 board member made it from West End to the new club, all the rest were from the other club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of which. Tyneside Life gets a lot of love and he's good, but I think this guy gets much more into it, even if I do disagree with the 1881 founding year which is I think a bit disrespectful to Newcastle West End. 

 

 

Link to post
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
×
×
  • Create New...