History

[Blue Since 76]

Saw the attached from Gary James earlier and thought it might be useful the next time you're talking to a 'fan' of another club. Personally, I don't see a correlation between winning things and history, but some do so this should shut them up...

Interesting historical stat for mcfc & trophy success. Yesterday's win means that City have the 2nd longest span between their 1st major success & their most recent in English football. City's span is 112 years - 1904 (FAC) to yesterday.

No other Premier League team has a better span of success (though see Villa stat below).

Blackburn Rovers have the best span from 1st success to most recent = 118 years (1884 to 2002). Villa went from 1887 (Fac) to 2008 (Intertoto Cup) which equals 121 years, but whether the Intertoto counts as a major trophy is debatable. If it is then City are 3rd overall and 2nd in terms of PL clubs. Other spans between 1st success and most recent include - Spurs 107 years, Everton 104, Liverpool 111, Mufc 105, Chelsea 60 years (first success 1955) and Arsenal 85 years (first success 1930). Does this mean anything? It depends on your view, but those that suggest MCFC have no history may want to consider the facts.
Facebook.com/garyjames4

[london blue 2]

Far as I am concerned people that talk about "history" when they mean trophies are cunts. Every club has history regardless of success or failure. To ignore that is ignorant and arrogant.

[Hutch's Shoulder]

Far as I am concerned people that talk about "history" when they mean trophies are cunts. Every club has history regardless of success or failure. To ignore that is ignorant and arrogant.

Exactly. If history was everything then all the top players would want to play for Notts County. I have a degree in history and enjoy it, but when it comes down to it everyone prefers a future to a past.

[Blue Since 76]

Far as I am concerned people that talk about "history" when they mean trophies are cunts. Every club has history regardless of success or failure. To ignore that is ignorant and arrogant.

Fully agree - Steve Coppell running away after a few weeks is as much of our history as Aguero's goal. And when the likes of the dippers talk about history, they mean from the late 70s.

But it's nice when some numpty throws about trophies to be able to quote that to them. And it's only going to get worse for them.

[nottsblue]

Each and every club has History. It doesn't have to be defined by trophies, that would be success. It isn't defined by attendances, that would be support. It isn't defined by goals scored, that would come under entertainment.

History is the journey each and every club has gone on since their first game. What they have or haven't achieved as a club, or what their respective players have done, in the years since then is just a part of that. Being shit is as much as part of it as being successfull. In fact, if anything, having a crap period shapes the club more so than when it's successfull. Certainly as a fan I now appreciate our success all the more having been there when we were shit. That is not to say newer fans just starting on their life with City won't appreciate the success we have now, they will just appreciate it in a different way.

The rags and dippers will throw numbers such as 5x or 20titles or 11 FA cups or 49 trophies under GPC or most trophies by an English club. Bully for you. Your team is more successfull. It under no circumstance means your club has more history. Take our first league title. We were relegated the following year despite being top scorers in the league!! You could not make that shit up. We have also scored and conceded 100 league goals in the same season. These are things that will never be repeated, they are part of the tapestry of the club and part of our DNA.

All other clubs can point to things that has happened to them over the years that are unique to them and they are things which has helped to mould their identity. Blackpool with the 'Matthews' final. Spuds and their double in '61. Winning a European trophy in '63, the first British club to do so. Rochdale applying for re-election to the football league year in year out. Chelsea winning the league but being denied the opportunity to represent England in the European cup the following year by the FA. Burnley winning the league in '60 with an average crowd of 50k in a town with a population of less than 100k. Good and not so good but that is the point.

When rags and dippers bleat on about history, then really haven't a clue

[KinkyKinkladze]

I like this post, a lot. But imagine trying to use that in a pub argument. You'd look a right nob.

[Socrates]

I like this post, a lot. But imagine trying to use that in a pub argument. You'd look a right nob.

It would make you look upper class??? Not sure I understand. I just tell people that I can remember supporting the club through years and years and fucking years when history was all we had.

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

Notts Blue. Sadly Burnley's average crowd of 50k is not true.
It was still impressive at just short of 27,000, as you say, it's not the biggest town.
So that isn't 'history', it's more of a 'Trumpism'

[Foreverinbluedreams]

I like this post, a lot. But imagine trying to use that in a pub argument. You'd look a right nob.

Why would saying City are winning trophies longer than anyone else currently in the top flight make you look a nob? I already used it twice ( thanks Gary ) when faced with rags yesterday when they were trying to belittle our most recent trophy success.

[john@staustell]

There's 2 stats that also always leave them lost for words. The record English crowd (1934) and the winning of a European trophy before Liverpool.

By the way it's spelt wrong - EESTRY