Is history cast in stone?

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Obadiah said:
Exactly, history has been rewritten because MK Dons no longer claim to have won the FA Cup and donated their trophy to Merton Council.
Click to expand...

nono history hasn't been rewritten, now the history of wimbledon has been added to
I am 100 % sure that the history books will just say Wimbledon 1800+ - 1990+ renamed MK Dons 1990+ till present day.
History is History, it cant be changed. ppl that quote inaccurate facts are just lazy, I cant see just what difference a name makes.
 
Mr. Hat said:
Hull City AFC as we know it has only been in existence since 1996.

In 1974 the club moved out of the East Riding of Yorkshire and into the new Humberside area. In 1996 the club moved out of Humberside and back into East Yorkshire.

Therefore Hull City AFC in Hull, East Yorkshire, has only existed for 18 years.
Click to expand...

^^ very good post for all you "history will change" mongers
 
PattyNchips2 said:
nono history hasn't been rewritten, now the history of wimbledon has been added to
I am 100 % sure that the history books will just say Wimbledon 1800+ - 1990+ renamed MK Dons 1990+ till present day.
History is History, it cant be changed. ppl that quote inaccurate facts are just lazy, I cant see just what difference a name makes.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken. The debate has moved on. MK Dons no longer claim to be Wimbledon. As time goes on and we all die away all that will be left in the records will be that MK Dons history started when they moved to Milton Keynes.
 
Obadiah said:
You are mistaken. The debate has moved on. MK Dons no longer claim to be Wimbledon. As time goes on and we all die away all that will be left in the records will be that MK Dons history started when they moved to Milton Keynes.
Click to expand...

and that means what to you?? you will be dead, so you will hardly care
 
For the moment I thinking of putting this name change to the back of my mind. It's never going to be anything other than Hull City to me no matter what the media or pundits on the tv call us. I can't see some kid on another continent want to follow "Hull Tigers" and if they do good luck to them.
 
PattyNchips2 said:
and that means what to you?? you will be dead, so you will hardly care
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean anything to me. It just shows that history isn't always what it seems. It also shows that the fans of Wimbledon who didn't accept the changes won a victory in that MK Dons is seen by the vast majority of football fans as a different team which is now recognised by the club itself.

Whether Hull Tigers is the same club as Hull City will not be decided on the date the FA approves the application, if it does, but by what follows. It took years before MK Dons gave their FA Cup trophy to Merton Council.
 
Obadiah said:
Doesn't mean anything to me. It just shows that history isn't always what it seems. It also shows that the fans of Wimbledon who didn't accept the changes won a victory in that MK Dons is seen by the vast majority of football fans as a different team which is now recognised by the club itself.

Whether Hull Tigers is the same club as Hull City will not be decided on the date the FA approves the application, if it does, but by what follows. It took years before MK Dons gave their FA Cup trophy to Merton Council.
Click to expand...

But it will be known to you, who the hell cares what future generations think?
 
Mr. Hat said:
Thank you Fez for confirming my point. It will still be the same club.

It's the exact same tactic and criteria you, Dutch and all the other Allam haters use to say it will be a different club if the name change goes ahead.
Click to expand...

More nonsense
 
I am shocked, that upon visiting Man City's ground, they still refer to their history whilst playing under the name Ardwick FC as Ardwick FC... I am stunned that they haven't retrospectively referred to themselves as Manchester City from inception.
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
I am shocked, that upon visiting Man City's ground, they still refer to their history whilst playing under the name Ardwick FC as Ardwick FC... I am stunned that they haven't retrospectively referred to themselves as Manchester City from inception.
Click to expand...

That's probably because they were only Ardwick FC between 1887 and 1894 and **** all happened.
 
originallambrettaman said:
It wasn't an argument and I misread your post, so it was bollocks anyway.

I thought this was another Woolwich Arsenal type debate.
Click to expand...

You were saying that my point was wrong and providing a reason for why it was wrong, call it what you like, it's semantics in the end.

As I've said all thread, these old clubs don't just do away with all references to their previous name, which is what some have suggested in this thread, then told me to go google if I disagree with them.
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
You were saying that my point was wrong and providing a reason for why it was wrong, call it what you like, it's semantics in the end.

As I've said all thread, these old clubs don't just do away with all references to their previous name, which is what some have suggested in this thread, then told me to go google if I disagree with them.
Click to expand...


The thread is asking if history is cast in stone. It isn't, it's changeable, and people have offered examples, including football name change related ones, to show why that's the case and suggested that there's a wealth of information at the finger tips of anyone replying that doubts that.

Finding the odd few examples that may or may not show something hasn't change isn't really proving anything at all.
 
Hull City AFC (DMD) said:
The thread is asking if history is cast in stone. It isn't, it's changeable, and people have offered examples, including football name change related ones, to show why that's the case and suggested that there's a wealth of information at the finger tips of anyone replying that doubts that.

Finding the odd few examples that may or may not show something hasn't change isn't really proving anything at all.
Click to expand...

It is when it's the point I've been making all along.
 
Hull Tigers is a **** name that sounds like a US franchise or rugby team thats why history matters and we don't become an irrelevance after 100 years plus of proudly being called Hull City AFC not Hull 'insert what the mad owner wants to call us'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back