Rugby History Thread

[Padge]

 

4 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

It still is theirs. The first team play at Salford's ground, but the reserves & juniors use Heywood Road.

 

I didn't mean it to sound like it wasn't theirs, but I can see how it would.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Padge

[longboard]

33 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

It still is theirs. The first team play at Salford's ground, but the reserves & juniors use Heywood Road.

Sale play in National League 2 North. They may be in National League 1 next season. 

My understanding is that Sale Sharks is a separate entity.

[marklaspalmas]

2 minutes ago, longboard said:

Sale play in National League 2 North. They may be in National League 1 next season. 

My understanding is that Sale Sharks is a separate entity.

Im no expert on RU but there's obviously a strong historical connection .....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sale_Sharks

[Padge]

3 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

Im no expert on RU but there's obviously a strong historical connection .....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sale_Sharks

Sale Sharks used to play at the stadium before moving to Stockport, Sale Football Club is registered with company's house, Sale Sharks isn't.

Make of that what you will.

 

[longboard]

12 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

Im no expert on RU but there's obviously a strong historical connection .....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sale_Sharks

Indeed there is.

You may remember Sale Sharks being bought by B Kennedy and then that Orange chap.

[Oxford]

I love RL's history and heritage but why is there a discussion about a yawn team here? And especially one that has shown itself capable of doing the dirty if they're settling out of court as appears to be the case.

I don't want to debate yoonion or any other sport on here. I certainly don't like them interfering with our TGG legacy, culture, tradition, custom and inheritance. To use a movie metaphor or simile here, in historical importance terms they wouldn't merit a bit part or walk on role in our history they're more of the appearance of  Quentin Jerome Tarantino's thumb for film nerds.

And what's more I don't give a monkeys about how hugely chippy this sounds, although you might not believe this I'm not having a go at ru just reminding people this is a TGG forum and who cares where some outpost kfc plays or doesn't play?  

[longboard]

14 hours ago, Padge said:

Sale Sharks used to play at the stadium before moving to Stockport, Sale Football Club is registered with company's house, Sale Sharks isn't.

Make of that what you will.

 

Stockport RL used to play at Edgeley Park, IIRC, although their time there wasn't long.

[Trojan]

6 hours ago, Oxford said:

I love RL's history and heritage but why is there a discussion about a yawn team here? And especially one that has shown itself capable of doing the dirty if they're settling out of court as appears to be the case.

I don't want to debate yoonion or any other sport on here. I certainly don't like them interfering with our TGG legacy, culture, tradition, custom and inheritance. To use a movie metaphor or simile here, in historical importance terms they wouldn't merit a bit part or walk on role in our history they're more of the appearance of  Quentin Jerome Tarantino's thumb for film nerds.

And what's more I don't give a monkeys about how hugely chippy this sounds, although you might not believe this I'm not having a go at ru just reminding people this is a TGG forum and who cares where some outpost kfc plays or doesn't play?  

Fair comment. But this thread is about the history of the game so given that it grew out of Union you're bound to get some references to it.

[marklaspalmas]

10 minutes ago, longboard said:

Stockport RL used to play at Edgeley Park, IIRC, although their time there wasn't long.

Good call! Wikipedia has it that the RL club were the original owners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgeley_Park

[Hopping Mad]

1 hour ago, marklaspalmas said:

Good call! Wikipedia has it that the RL club were the original owners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgeley_Park

This thread is a super read, I must say. The Wiki entry regarding Edgeley Park doesn't accord with Trevor Delaney's account in 'The Grounds of Rugby League'. Trevor says the ground was in use for Northern Union games, including some Cheshire county championship fixtures, from August 1895. He does not mention the pre-1895 period, which is a shame. Wiki, however, states the Edgeley Park ground was built, for Stockport RL, in 1901. Stockport RL, Trevor says, disbanded on August 1, 1903 after finishing bottom of Division Two in 1902-03 and incurring large debts, owing largely to erecting a covered stand on the popular side (ie opposite Hardcastle Road, the main stand side). Stockport RL and Stockport County had shared Edgeley Park, playing on alternate Saturdays, since 1901, Trevor says. County gained sole control of the ground when Stockport RL folded.

Just to add to this: Simon Inglis, in 'Football Grounds of Britain', states Edgeley Park had been in use for 'rugby' since 1891. Further muddying the waters, Simon suggests County did not start sharing with Stockport RL until 1902. Simon also states the covered stand on the popular side of Edgeley Park was not erected until the summer of 1903. Does that mean Stockport RL paid for its construction then disbanded without playing a match in front of it?

Edited February 28, 2017 by Hopping Mad

[Padge]

2 hours ago, Hopping Mad said:

This thread is a super read, I must say. The Wiki entry regarding Edgeley Park doesn't accord with Trevor Delaney's account in 'The Grounds of Rugby League'. Trevor says the ground was in use for Northern Union games, including some Cheshire county championship fixtures, from August 1895. He does not mention the pre-1895 period, which is a shame. Wiki, however, states the Edgeley Park ground was built, for Stockport RL, in 1901. Stockport RL, Trevor says, disbanded on August 1, 1903 after finishing bottom of Division Two in 1902-03 and incurring large debts, owing largely to erecting a covered stand on the popular side (ie opposite Hardcastle Road, the main stand side). Stockport RL and Stockport County had shared Edgeley Park, playing on alternate Saturdays, since 1901, Trevor says. County gained sole control of the ground when Stockport RL folded.

Just to add to this: Simon Inglis, in 'Football Grounds of Britain', states Edgeley Park had been in use for 'rugby' since 1891. Further muddying the waters, Simon suggests County did not start sharing with Stockport RL until 1902. Simon also states the covered stand on the popular side of Edgeley Park was not erected until the summer of 1903. Does that mean Stockport RL paid for its construction then disbanded without playing a match in front of it?

 

Stockport RL left the Seniors Competition at the end of the 1902/03 season after they finished at the bottom of the second division. It would appear that they continued as a club in the Lancashire Seconds Competition* until they folded some time during the 1905/06 season. They were joined at Edgely Park by the soccer mob at the start of their 1902/03 season, thus they only ground shared for one season as a Senior team but shared for a further 3 seasons after that. 

 

*The Lancashire Seconds Competition really ended in 1901 but clubs still played in a minor competition which I refered to as Seconds.

 

Edited February 28, 2017 by Padge

[Oxford]

3 hours ago, Trojan said:

Fair comment. But this thread is about the history of the game so given that it grew out of Union you're bound to get some references to it.

I expect references to the dark side and giving it some good natured stick for not being the real thing but not whole swathes of discussion. It struck me how little of our history actually has anything to do with the dirty word.

[Neil_Ormston]

On ‎27‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 8:47 PM, Padge said:

I am not saying that broken time wasn't an issue and that discussions didn't take place between the Lancashire and Yorkshire clubs, these meetings did take place. What I am saying is that the main driving force behind the split was the desire for the senior clubs to control their own fixtures and competitions. All of this was a local matter as far as the RFU was concerned, they were looking at the game as a whole and professionalism. The clubs broke away because they wanted to be in control of fixtures not because they wanted to be professional and not even because they wanted broken time payments. 

The RFU and the Southern press either mischievously or ignorantly only reported about broken time and professionalism. The clubs deciding to leave over the fixture issue was ideal for the RFU, they got rid of the clubs that were the biggest threat to the amateur status of the game and it showed them as being firmly against professionalism. The rules brought in by the Northern Union were more draconian about professionalism than the RFUs.

That's not how Tony Collins see things.

I see a few pages back you referred to Mike Latham's book (Rugby League Myth) which I think pedalled a similar line, and from speaking to TC on this, he gave the idea pretty short shrift.  For some reason, I'm struggling to paste the link to the specific page, but if you go here: http://www.tony-collins.org/ and the onto his blog 'Rugby Reloaded', and scroll down to 2013, there's a piece titled "Broken Time 'not an issue' in the 1895 split?" where you can see TC's view in more detail.

In relation to your statement: "Hence the clubs didn't resign from the RFU on 28th August 1895 but much earlier that year.", where is your evidence?  You refer to the Lancashire clubs resigning before then, but my understanding was that they resigned from the First Class Competition, rather than the Union itself.  TC also addresses the point of the date of leaving the RFU in the same above article.

You mentioned above Padge that you discussed your views with TC, but didn't say what his response was.  Are you able to share?

My own view is that most likely it was the cumulative effect of these matters and others (a desire to determine their own destiny, a rise in the self-assuredness of northern provincial towns, etc) that precipitated the split, and the relative weight of these would be different amongst the clubs themselves.

[Neil_Ormston]

A quick request for help please: does anyone have details of the final league tables or results from the West Lancashire League (1889/90 - 1891/2) or Lancashire First Class Competition (1892/3 - 1894/5)?

I'm also keen to track down any information on the West Lancashire & Border Towns RFU, which was formed in 1884; anything anyone has would be much appreciated.

[Neil_Ormston]

On ‎27‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 4:03 PM, Lobbygobbler said:

I can't understand why any RL fan would argue against the case for saying Bradford's heritage goes back to 1863. The fans, some players and some backroom staff continued the NU in 1907. In fact this is an even stronger argument than clubs who take a break but are reformed with the same fans and backroom people. So long as the fans remain then the line continues. Btw Huddersfield est. 1864 is also older than Hull FC!

Where do you get Huddersfield being established in 1864 from?  I can't find any reference to this, and 1866 seems to be the most commonly quoted formation year.

It's clearly a matter of opinion, but I've put forward a number of factors above that suggest BPA were the continuation of BFC (namely the fact they voted to leave the NU, ground & other asset retention, etc).  Tony Collins refers to the affair a fair bit in Rugby's Great Split (p187-8) and does state that at the end of it, the NU had "a new club", but it's not really conclusive.  What is clear though is that the club committee, the members & the Finance & Property Committee (it's ultimate governing body) all voted to leave the NU.  The fact that some former members then started BN seems pretty weak to say this was a continuation of 'the club' to me (and even on this point, I'm struggling to find evidence that the committee forming BN were actually former members on BFC). 

What evidence do you have Lobbygobbler that "the fans, some players and some backroom staff continue the NU (sic)"?  As I said above, what the fans did is likely to be difficult to prove one way or the other, but the new club was based 2.5 miles over the other side of the city; regardless, I wouldn't agree that retention of a fan base alone would constitute the continuation of a club.  I've yet to see any info on players, but I think it would need to be a good majority of these moving across to make any claim that BN in 1907/8 were the same club as BFC in 1906/7 carry any real weight.

Padge, where does TC say that he believes BN are a continuation of BFC, and do you know on what basis he concludes this?

I don't judge that being an RL fan or otherwise should matter in the assessment here; surely it's about the evidence available, and objectively reviewing it before arriving at a conclusion?

[Moomintroll]

Time to add to this thread, I reckon.

From the Bradford Daily Telegraph (19.12.1896), titled "Northern Union Clubs and Their Colours"

Yorkshire Senior Competition:

Bradford: white with red, amber and black stripe.

Batley: Cerise and fawn.

Brighouse Rangers: Red, amber and black.

Bramley: Amber and black.

Castleford: Blue and yellow quarters (1).

Heckmondwike: Black and white.

Halifax: Blue and white.

Huddersfield: Claret and gold.

Hull: Black jerseys.

Holbeck: Blue and white (2)

Hunslet: White (3)

Liversedge: Amber and maroon.

Leeds Parish Church: White (4).

Leeds: Amber and blue squares (quarters).

Manningham: Claret and amber.

Wakefield: Navy blue and scarlet bands.

 

(1) The original Castleford club, unrelated to the current club. They were however also nicknamed "The Glassblowers".

(2) It was always assumed that since Holbeck's soccer descendants Leeds City played in blue and amber, the rugby club also wore the city's official colours (i.e. the same as Leeds St Johns).

(3) Hunslet added brown to their white colours at some point after this, before adopting myrtle and flame later.

(4) The churchmen are also recorded as having played in blue and black stripes/hoops in a number of sources.

 

[Moomintroll]

Lancashire Senior Competition (from the same source):

Broughton Rangers: Navy blue and white hoops.

Leigh: White jerseys, blue shorts.

Morecambe: Royal blue and white.

Oldham: Red and white jerseys, blue shorts.

Rochdale Hornets: White jerseys, navy blue shorts.

Runcorn: Myrtle green.

Salford: "Turkey red" jerseys, white shorts.

St Helens: Blue and white.

Stockport: Claret

Swinton: Navy blue.

Tyldesley: White jerseys, blue shorts.

Warrington: Primrose and blue vertical stripes, white shorts.

Widnes: Black and white hoops.

Wigan: Cherry and white.

 

[Moomintroll]

Interestingly, it also goes on the give the colours of other prominent NRU clubs:

Allerton: Black and white jerseys, blue shorts.

Bradford Church Hill: Royal blue with red band and red collar.

Eastmoor: Black and white jerseys, white shorts.

Thornton Rangers: Blue and amber.

Crompton: Navy blue.

Dukinfield: Blue and white stripes.

Oldham Juniors: Green jerseys, blue shorts.

Radcliffe: Amber and black.

Rochdale St Clements: White jerseys, blue shorts.

Stockport Rangers: Scarlet and amber.

St Helens Recreation: Maroon and green (!)

Walkden: Chocolate and blue.

Werneth: Navy blue with white collar.

 

I also found some other sources that suggest Sowerby Bridge played in black and yellow hoops and Hebden Bridge in blue and white hoops/stripes.

[Moomintroll]

The NU had a rule that stated if two teams had similar jerseys, then the home team had to change theirs. Presumably this was to stop away teams bringing reams of kit with them - the home team would be more likely to have several sets of kit to hand.

There was also a rule in place later that new teams could not register the same colours as a current league member (this was similar to the rule in Association football).

Edited April 5, 2017 by Moomintroll

[Lobbygobbler]

On 03/03/2017 at 9:45 PM, ntw said:

Where do you get Huddersfield being established in 1864 from?  I can't find any reference to this, and 1866 seems to be the most commonly quoted formation year.

It's clearly a matter of opinion, but I've put forward a number of factors above that suggest BPA were the continuation of BFC (namely the fact they voted to leave the NU, ground & other asset retention, etc).  Tony Collins refers to the affair a fair bit in Rugby's Great Split (p187-8) and does state that at the end of it, the NU had "a new club", but it's not really conclusive.  What is clear though is that the club committee, the members & the Finance & Property Committee (it's ultimate governing body) all voted to leave the NU.  The fact that some former members then started BN seems pretty weak to say this was a continuation of 'the club' to me (and even on this point, I'm struggling to find evidence that the committee forming BN were actually former members on BFC). 

What evidence do you have Lobbygobbler that "the fans, some players and some backroom staff continue the NU (sic)"?  As I said above, what the fans did is likely to be difficult to prove one way or the other, but the new club was based 2.5 miles over the other side of the city; regardless, I wouldn't agree that retention of a fan base alone would constitute the continuation of a club.  I've yet to see any info on players, but I think it would need to be a good majority of these moving across to make any claim that BN in 1907/8 were the same club as BFC in 1906/7 carry any real weight.

Padge, where does TC say that he believes BN are a continuation of BFC, and do you know on what basis he concludes this?

I don't judge that being an RL fan or otherwise should matter in the assessment here; surely it's about the evidence available, and objectively reviewing it before arriving at a conclusion?

Huddersfield Athletic club was formed in 1864, which became Huddersfield Rugby

On a similar note, why do Huddersfield RU Claim that their club was reformed or reborn in 1909 (http://www.huddersfieldrugby.com/pages/huddersfield-rugby-club/history)? This club had nothing to do with the original club (now the Giants) which continued unbroken after the split and can be the only righful club to use the pre1895 rugby history and heritage. Huddersfield RU was simply a new club in 1909

[Neil_Ormston]

1 hour ago, Lobbygobbler said:

Huddersfield Athletic club was formed in 1864, which became Huddersfield Rugby

On a similar note, why do Huddersfield RU Claim that their club was reformed or reborn in 1909 (http://www.huddersfieldrugby.com/pages/huddersfield-rugby-club/history)? This club had nothing to do with the original club (now the Giants) which continued unbroken after the split and can be the only righful club to use the pre1895 rugby history and heritage. Huddersfield RU was simply a new club in 1909

Yes, but football wasn't played until 1866.  It's nonsensical on this basis to claim that they are an older rugby team than Hull FC

http://www.huddersfieldrlheritage.co.uk/Archive/Written/Club/Early_Years.html

[Neil_Ormston]

1 hour ago, Lobbygobbler said:

Huddersfield Athletic club was formed in 1864, which became Huddersfield Rugby

On a similar note, why do Huddersfield RU Claim that their club was reformed or reborn in 1909 (http://www.huddersfieldrugby.com/pages/huddersfield-rugby-club/history)? This club had nothing to do with the original club (now the Giants) which continued unbroken after the split and can be the only righful club to use the pre1895 rugby history and heritage. Huddersfield RU was simply a new club in 1909

On your second point, the website you link says: "A number of clubs affected by the breakaway re-formed subsequently and retained the original date of their formation. Not so Huddersfield. A break of 14 years elapsed before a new amateur rugby union club was formed."

So they don't appear to make any claim to the Gaints early heritage. I don't think anyone is contesting that point are they?

[Lobbygobbler]

2 minutes ago, ntw said:

On your second point, the website you link says: "A number of clubs affected by the breakaway re-formed subsequently and retained the original date of their formation. Not so Huddersfield. A break of 14 years elapsed before a new amateur rugby union club was formed."

So they don't appear to make any claim to the Gaints early heritage. I don't think anyone is contesting that point are they?

Immediately after your quote it says

HRUFC was re-born in 1909. The club was originally named Huddersfield Old Boys, matches were played at the United Cricket Club in Luck Lane, Marsh and players changed in the nearby Croppers Arms pub.

[Lobbygobbler]

10 minutes ago, ntw said:

Yes, but football wasn't played until 1866.  It's nonsensical on this basis to claim that they are an older rugby team than Hull FC

http://www.huddersfieldrlheritage.co.uk/Archive/Written/Club/Early_Years.html

I understand what you are saying but couldnt the same be argued about the oldest soccer club? On your basis they are only as old as their first game and their first opponents

[Neil_Ormston]

Just now, Lobbygobbler said:

Immediately after your quote it says

HRUFC was re-born in 1909. The club was originally named Huddersfield Old Boys, matches were played at the United Cricket Club in Luck Lane, Marsh and players changed in the nearby Croppers Arms pub.

Yes I saw that, and think the use of the term is clumsy, but nothing more.  They acknowledge that it's a new club, and they are not claiming to be anything to do with the club formed in 1866.

On the point they also make about other (RFU) club's laying claim to the pre-breakaway heritage of NU clubs, does anyone actually know of any club still currently doing this?