Talk:Oldest football clubs

message: An article in today's The Age newspaper indicates that there is new evidence showing that the Castlemaine Football Club is one month older than the Geelong Football Club, so I have just slipped it underneath the Geelong entry.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Castlemaine

message: Perhaps the word "oldest" should be defined better.  Clearly if a club no longer exists, then it cannot be considered "old", but more appropriately "dead".  This list could become exhaustive if it includes all defunct clubs.  Perhaps only the clubs that have some claim to continuous existence should be included here, or limit defunct clubs only to notable ones.  --Rulesfan 01:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There really weren't many clubs at all anywhere before 1870, so I don't think it's going to be a problem. If we exclude defunct clubs, then we are faced with the same definitional problem: is a club defunct if it is inactive for a while? What if it merges with another club, as South Yarra did? Grant | Talk 01:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "oldest".  Should defunct clubs be included ? 

message: The press reports which emanated from last year's World Cup in Germany are far from erroneous - John Hope founded his Foot Ball Club in Edinburgh in 1824 and it ran for at least ten years. The press reports relate to the 2006 "Fascination Football" exhibition in Hamburg. The story of John Hope's Foot Ball Club formed part of the exhibition, within Hamburg's Anthropological Museum, on Scotland's role in the development of football. The information and a facsimile of the 1824 expenses sheet was displayed through the efforts of the Scottish Football Museum in Glasgow. Evidence of the club can be found online at the National Archives of Scotland (reference number - GD253/183/1  - Foot Ball club lists of subscribers. Also containing expenses, 1824/5-1831). The archive is clear and detailed, and the first historic season gives the list of subscribers to the Foot Ball Club as well as the set of expenses. This makes the Foot Ball Club of Edinburgh the first known football club in the world. John Hope, as an old man, also helped to found the Third Edinburgh Rifle Volunteers team in 1874.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.11.214 (talk • contribs) June 16, 2007
:Thanks for the NAS reference, which I have now verified in their catalogue. Strange that the Scottish Football Museum website makes no mention of Hope. Anyway, I will change the text to reflect this significant information. Grant | Talk 03:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Foot Ball Club of Edinburgh, 1824 

message: The Sydney University Aussie Rules club and Rugby Union club are completely separate entities.  This article confuses users by trying to say that they are the same club, the rugby club, which dabbled in Australian Football in its formative stages.  Whereas they are clearly not.  --Rulesfan 01:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sydney University Football Club 

message: Would be great to have a column sorting system, so you could filter out the defunct clubs by default.  --Rulesfan 01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Column sorting 

message: I believe the article should be moved to a new title "The first football clubs" whilst maintaining a redirect for "Oldest Football Club".  The title of Oldest Football Club will still remain in dispute and this article remains useful to the football article as an elaboration of the history of early clubs.  It contains information on the first of the early code. --Rulesfan (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename ? 

message: The description of the playing rules of the club is unfortunately misleading although I can appreciate that it has been quoted straight from the NAS website. The reference to 'picking up of the ball' in the actual handwritten note of 1833 does not relate to the ball when in play. It quotes directly as '3) Allow the ball to be lifted directly between fields.', ie when it is out of bounds. 
Hope's more complete rules of 1854 echo this sentiment, 'The ball should not be kicked out of bounds. When this occurs, it should be lifted up by the hand, and brought within bounds. The party thus lifting it, is entitled to a "free kick", but the ball must not be lifted by the hand from the ground at any other time.' 
The reason for emphasising this is to point out that there is no evidence to portray the type of game played by Hope's club as a handling game. On the contrary Hope's philosophy was towards a kicking game even after the emergence and domination of the rugby school code within Edinburgh's private schools from the 1850s onwards. Hope associated himself with one of Edinburgh's first 'Association' clubs in 1874 and does not have any connections with the more numerous rugby football clubs that were already established in his home city - the opposite surely would have been the case if his philosophy had been slanted towards a handling game.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.130.136.16 (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A source for the 'lifted between field' quote can be found here  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39112907  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.105.164.99 (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: 1824 Foot Ball Club

message: There is no mention of the football games (soccer) played between Rutgers and the College of New Jersey (later renamed Princeton) in the 1860s?  A strange omission.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.91.226 (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rutgers versus College of New Jersey (later renamed Princeton) 

message: There has been a bit of back and fourth regarding Rangers FC (Glasgow). The club went into administration and subsequently liquidation. The assets of the club were passed to The Rangers FC, who were given a place in the Scottish Third Division. UEFA do not recognize this new club as the same entity (it has no coefficient and cannot play in UEFA competition without audited accounts).
This should be reflected in the tables.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgjmce (talk • contribs) 18:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It does have a co-efficiency they are 88th CO-EFFICIENCY. This has already been resolved on the Rangers page if you think it is a new club try to get consensus on that page. At the moment consensus points to it being the same club. 02:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rangers FC, Liquidation and Newco 

message: very confusing article title. it should be either "oldest sporting clubs" or keep the name and give rugby clubs a seperate page. no one calls rugby football.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.114.140 (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree. Many rugby clubs still keep their original names "football club". "Football" is a word not only applied to association football (with the exception of the USA with the awful "soccer" to name the sport) but used in Australia and other countries. See the article different uses of the word "football", which will clear you about the issue. - Fma12 (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I agree. I came to this article looking for the oldest football association club and it is likely most people do. 2001:A61:2473:1701:ACD6:B19D:DFC6:7678 (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename? 

message: I was told by a local that this Portuguese club has been around for ages and wikipedia says 1874 the debut date. Should it be added also?
84.241.248.128 (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academica de Coimbra 

message: The article correctly states in the lead that "almost all Australian rules football teams have also referred to themselves as football clubs". However, in the table they are listed with "F.C." on the end. These clubs never refer to themselves that way. Nor do their fans or the leagues they play in. For example, rather than "Melbourne F.C.", the club's name is really the "Melbourne Football Club" (and that's what the  "Melbourne F.C." in the table redirects to anyway). Is there a good reason for the F.C. style of name for the Australian Rules clubs? In recent times many Australian soccer clubs have chosen to stick "FC" on the ends of their names, as a way of distinguishing themselves from the Aussie Rules clubs. So that table really has it wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming the [[Australian Rules Football]] clubs 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Oldest football clubs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071109180748/http://www.theage.com.au:80/realfooty/news/afl/old-but-in-demand/2005/06/04/1117825103656.html to http://www.theage.com.au/realfooty/news/afl/old-but-in-demand/2005/06/04/1117825103656.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Oldest football clubs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130811080448/http://www.cuafc.org/Pages/History.html to http://www.cuafc.org/Pages/History.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150702013047/http://www.kb-boldklub.dk/om-kb/historie/ to http://www.kb-boldklub.dk/om-kb/historie/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927210342/http://www.sheffieldfc.com/famous_sons.htm to http://www.sheffieldfc.com/famous_sons.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070901171133/http://www.carltonfc.com.au/carltonfc/Season2007/News/NewsArticle/tabid/4311/Default.aspx?newsId=2467 to http://www.carltonfc.com.au/carltonfc/Season2007/News/NewsArticle/tabid/4311/Default.aspx?newsId=2467
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070228064050/http://www.footballcanada.com/history_timeline.asp to http://www.footballcanada.com/history_timeline.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501121005/http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/History/HistoryDetail/0%2C%2C10794~1357277%2C00.html to http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/History/HistoryDetail/0,,10794~1357277,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The recent change to several pages including this one about Nottingham Forest being officially recognised as the oldest football club in the EFL is reliant on a non-primary source: https://www.nottinghampost.com/sport/football/football-news/efl-confirm-nottingham-forest-now-2850883, which itself provides no other sources for. 
This is flimsy at best, especially given the inherent bias in a local newspaper publishing such a statement and the frequency with which it is known that newspapers report unsubstantiated claims, especially in regards to sporting matters such as football without conducting proper fact-checking. In fact, it is often the case and a commonly known fact that news outlets purposely embellish or even fabricate stories in order to draw more attention to themselves as that is how they make their profits. 
Given this, and the fact that such a source would never be accepted in an academic paper or similar, I believe that unless this claim can be corroborated with a primary source form the EFL, that this should either be removed from Wikipedia, or be explicitly mentioned as unverified.
130.88.240.81 (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia prefers secondary to primary sources, so this source is reliable. If you're worried about bias in the Nottingham local press, how about this one from the Stoke Sentinel. It has a different slant, but confirms that the EFL have recognised Nottingham Forest's claim. I think two reliable sources give us a lot of confidence in the statement. You present no evidence at all that casts doubt on these particular reports, so I see no reason to disregard them. Please read Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and the guidelines on what makes a reliable source. Railfan23 (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity of Sources 

message: This article says, as part of the entry for Crystal Palace F.C., that it claims to be the oldest professional football club in the world, having been founded in 1861. The article also says that the Melbourne Football Club was founded in 1859, and "is the world's oldest football club of any code that is now professional". The claim from Crystal Palace is false. I see no point in retaining it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any response here, I have boldly updated the article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

text: My change has now been reverted by three editors, becoming more abusive in their Edit summaries each time. NONE has chosen to discuss the issue here on the Talk page as I have requested in every one of my Edit summaries there. HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If they have not solid reference and they will not go to the talk page, then change it. Wisdom-inc (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The Crystal palace claim is no longer there. HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I am speaking a general sense. There is also a link to the modern Crystal Palace in the article, that needs removing.  Even on their web site they do not say they were founded in the 1800s. Wisdom-inc (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  False claim from Crystal Palace 

message: First the definition of what 'football' is must be at the top.  There are many codes. 
What we refer to and 'recognise' as 'Association Football', abbreviated to Soccer, needs defining. The prime points that differentiates the game sharply from other 'football' codes are:
# The ball cannot touch any part of the arm - apart from throw-ins and the goalkeeper in his area. 
# The balls is round not oval. 
These needs mentioning. Association football is set apart from the other codes, which are in the same sub group.  The club's should be in their respective football codes. 
What is important is the date Association Football adopted the no touching of the ball with any part of the arm.  In the first 1863 rules the ball could be touched. I believe it was about a year later that no touching with any part of the arm was incorporated into the rules.  From this date onwards was when Association Football (Soccer) clubs emerged. Any club playing before that date, even if a member of the Football Association, is not, a Soccer club, no matter when the "club" was founded. As they were not playing to the key rule of Association Football as we recognise today that differentiates the game to other football codes.  The oval rugby ball came into being as the Football Association rules (also known as the London rules) were formed, in the 1860s.
Some founding members of the Football Association dropped out before the no touching of the ball with any part of the arm was incorporated into the rules. So, being a founder member of the Football Association does not make you a "Soccer" club. Blackheath were a founder member but dropped out never ever playing Soccer. 
The first formalised football code for national adoption was from the Football Association which formed to formalise some form of national rules (referred to by those outside London as the London rules). Before this football was a hodge-podge of rules, some being specific to certain clubs - if you played them on their ground you played to their rules. There was the Sheffield rules played only in Sheffield (they had the rough, which was similar to try). Sheffield merged some of their rules with the Football Association forming the base of the rules we know today as Soccer. Sheffield insisted on their throw-in, goal kick, corner, penalty and free kick be in the Football Association rules, which they were.  But Sheffield rules were played for a number of years after merging with the Football Association, then dissolved. The Rugby Football Union rules came about in 1871 a number years after the Football Association (Soccer) rules, adopting a codified set of rules from the Rugby school.  Wisdom-inc (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor structure and confusing 

message: I don`t agree with the explanations concerning rugby in Germany. Heidelberger RK and 1872 can`t be right, because the HRK is a merger of the year 1875 between two or more rowing clubs. The main former club, founded in 1872, was the „Deutscher Flaggenclub“. First problem is, they all were rowing clubs. Also the name of the HRK expressly refers to the sports rowing. Second problem, we don`t know the year when they introduced rugby. Probably it happened already at the „Deutscher Flaggenclub“, but without a year it`s difficult to put the clubs into a ranking. Third problem, this mysterious information seems to be the only notice about rugby at the HRK for decades. Although in the quite nearby city Frankfurt there existed a big scene of rugby clubs from 1876 on, I didn`t find the HRK mentioned in that context in old sources. However, it is written that teams of the English Heidelberg schools „Neuenheim College“ and „Heidelberg College“ played against the teams of Frankfurt, what is in reverse one more hint towards non-existing rugby at the HRK. As I see the things, the HRK should not be considered having been a rugby club in the 19th century.      
In Hannover, English people maintained a rugby club named „Hanover FC“ since 1868. Ten years later, Germans formed the DFV Hannover („Deutscher Fußballverein“, today known as „Hannover 78“). But the DFV was a merger between three clubs. In the 50-years-chronicle of Hannover 78 I read a very meaningful and safe quote about the founding years. A contemporary witness said, they decided to choose the current year 1878 instead of the oldest date of foundation 1872, so not to become the „72ers“ but the „78ers“. The 1872 belonged to the first club called „FC Germania“. In my opinion, Hannover 78 is the oldest existing German rugby club with roots back to 1872. Followed by „Frankfurt 1880“, founded in 1880 under the name FC Frankfurt as a merger between two clubs, from which the first one - like in Hannover - was called „FC Germania“ and dated from 1876. In both cases, Hannover as well as Frankfurt, the early clubs that merged had been pupils organizations each of a certain school (no official institutions of the schools and anyway not led by adults), formal clubs indeed, but not open to everybody. 2A02:8109:B540:4A0:40B2:8563:DAC1:FCB4 (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rugby in Germany