Steve Martyniuk

Page 1 of 2 1 2 > Last >>

glaziermart 02 Jul 22 11.01am
Interesting that Steve who is the author of the Origin of Crystal Palace FC has just posted on the BBS 1861 discussion that he believes the club were right to change their crest to 1861. Whilst he tried to present both sides of the argument in his book and he believes it can be left to Palace fans to interpret their stance on it, he does say that there is a connection with the Palace company with 1861 and 1905. I've noticed on this site, Gordon Law's article has recently been 'bumped' twice which means other news stories are being lost (I did not realise Ebowei had been signed the other day) - plus the article with lies printed all over it is appalling. I don't remember in all my time an article being 'bumped so much for an agenda. Basically may as well be saying our chairman is lying!! Steve has said it should be open to interpretation so nobody should be accused of fake news and lying. He points out, that to say there is NO Connection is wrong and the club are right to recognise the heritage.I must say the discussions on the BBS appear to be a lot more measured.
Alert a moderator to this post

glaziermart

02 Jul 22 11.01am

Interesting that Steve who is the author of the Origin of Crystal Palace FC has just posted on the BBS 1861 discussion that he believes the club were right to change their crest to 1861. Whilst he tried to present both sides of the argument in his book and he believes it can be left to Palace fans to interpret their stance on it, he does say that there is a connection with the Palace company with 1861 and 1905. I've noticed on this site, Gordon Law's article has recently been 'bumped' twice which means other news stories are being lost (I did not realise Ebowei had been signed the other day) - plus the article with lies printed all over it is appalling. I don't remember in all my time an article being 'bumped so much for an agenda. Basically may as well be saying our chairman is lying!! Steve has said it should be open to interpretation so nobody should be accused of fake news and lying. He points out, that to say there is NO Connection is wrong and the club are right to recognise the heritage.I must say the discussions on the BBS appear to be a lot more measured.

Alert a moderator to this post

glaziermart 02 Jul 22 1.53pm
The full BBS post from Steve is shown below; I’m Steve Martyniuk, the author of The Origin of Crystal Palace FC, currently in its 6th volume, with Volume 7 due this Christmas, available on eBay and in the club shop. Plug over, I’ve been asked to contribute to this discussion, and I’ve taken quite a bit of care to give my best, most thoughtful input. In the interests of clarity, I should say that I played no part in the decision to adopt 1861 on the club crest and my opinions are entirely my own. When I published Volume 1 in 2016 I decided on a policy as to how to deal with whether the 1861 Crystal Palace FC and the 1905 Crystal Palace FC are connected: I would present only facts, always supported by primary evidence, not to offer opinions or speculation in a history book, and to let the readers make their own minds up based on the available evidence. I still believe this policy is the correct one for a historian. Readers of my books sit on both sides of the 1861 equation. That having been said, the claim of the connection between the 1861 and 1905 Crystal Palace FC is a matter which is easy for any person to verify for themselves. The connection is the Crystal Palace Company, who set up Crystal Palace FC in each manifestation: 1861, 1895 and 1905. They used different financial models but in each case the objective was the same: to earn money for the Crystal Palace Company via a resident football club playing in their Park. The Company set-up the club in 1861, and again in 1895, and in 1905 financed and organised the launch of the professional Crystal Palace FC to play in their arena. They owned a controlling interest of 1,700 of Palace’s 3,000 shares (later inherited by the Trustees) for thirty years from 1905 to 1935, when there was a boardroom coup which intentionally diluted that majority shareholding to below 50%. Those are facts – now we come to the matter of opinion. Because of this straight-line continuum of the Crystal Palace Company – the original owners of the professional club - I believe that it is legitimate for Palace to hold the 1861 club as their “heritage”. I think this notion of heritage stands, even though, for extended periods, the Crystal Palace Company did not offer a resident football club among the attractions in its Park. I understand there are many who take a different view of the heritage issue – that it is not enough that the 1905 Crystal Palace FC was the third in a series of the Crystal Palace Company’s endeavours to incorporate an Association Football club as a part of their business - and that is a valid opinion. But the claim that the professional 1905 Crystal Palace FC and the amateur 1861 Crystal Palace FC are “not connected” is easily disproved. The connection through the Crystal Palace Company, in all manifestations of Crystal Palace FC, is a very simple matter of fact which is easily checked. I am glad to understand and respect both sides of the heritage discussion; everyone is entitled to an opinion on the heritage issue and it shouldn’t be a matter of divisiveness or hard feelings among the supporters of our club.
Alert a moderator to this post

glaziermart

02 Jul 22 1.53pm

The full BBS post from Steve is shown below;

I’m Steve Martyniuk, the author of The Origin of Crystal Palace FC, currently in its 6th volume, with Volume 7 due this Christmas, available on eBay and in the club shop.

Plug over, I’ve been asked to contribute to this discussion, and I’ve taken quite a bit of care to give my best, most thoughtful input. In the interests of clarity, I should say that I played no part in the decision to adopt 1861 on the club crest and my opinions are entirely my own.

When I published Volume 1 in 2016 I decided on a policy as to how to deal with whether the 1861 Crystal Palace FC and the 1905 Crystal Palace FC are connected: I would present only facts, always supported by primary evidence, not to offer opinions or speculation in a history book, and to let the readers make their own minds up based on the available evidence. I still believe this policy is the correct one for a historian. Readers of my books sit on both sides of the 1861 equation.

That having been said, the claim of the connection between the 1861 and 1905 Crystal Palace FC is a matter which is easy for any person to verify for themselves.

The connection is the Crystal Palace Company, who set up Crystal Palace FC in each manifestation: 1861, 1895 and 1905. They used different financial models but in each case the objective was the same: to earn money for the Crystal Palace Company via a resident football club playing in their Park. The Company set-up the club in 1861, and again in 1895, and in 1905 financed and organised the launch of the professional Crystal Palace FC to play in their arena. They owned a controlling interest of 1,700 of Palace’s 3,000 shares (later inherited by the Trustees) for thirty years from 1905 to 1935, when there was a boardroom coup which intentionally diluted that majority shareholding to below 50%.

Those are facts – now we come to the matter of opinion. Because of this straight-line continuum of the Crystal Palace Company – the original owners of the professional club - I believe that it is legitimate for Palace to hold the 1861 club as their “heritage”. I think this notion of heritage stands, even though, for extended periods, the Crystal Palace Company did not offer a resident football club among the attractions in its Park.

I understand there are many who take a different view of the heritage issue – that it is not enough that the 1905 Crystal Palace FC was the third in a series of the Crystal Palace Company’s endeavours to incorporate an Association Football club as a part of their business - and that is a valid opinion. But the claim that the professional 1905 Crystal Palace FC and the amateur 1861 Crystal Palace FC are “not connected” is easily disproved. The connection through the Crystal Palace Company, in all manifestations of Crystal Palace FC, is a very simple matter of fact which is easily checked.

I am glad to understand and respect both sides of the heritage discussion; everyone is entitled to an opinion on the heritage issue and it shouldn’t be a matter of divisiveness or hard feelings among the supporters of our club.

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 02 Jul 22 1.59pm
Originally posted by glaziermart Interesting that Steve who is the author of the Origin of Crystal Palace FC has just posted on the BBS 1861 discussion that he believes the club were right to change their crest to 1861. Whilst he tried to present both sides of the argument in his book and he believes it can be left to Palace fans to interpret their stance on it, he does say that there is a connection with the Palace company with 1861 and 1905. I've noticed on this site, Gordon Law's article has recently been 'bumped' twice which means other news stories are being lost (I did not realise Ebowei had been signed the other day) - plus the article with lies printed all over it is appalling. I don't remember in all my time an article being 'bumped so much for an agenda. Basically may as well be saying our chairman is lying!! Steve has said it should be open to interpretation so nobody should be accused of fake news and lying. He points out, that to say there is NO Connection is wrong and the club are right to recognise the heritage.I must say the discussions on the BBS appear to be a lot more measured. Well, when you are the editor of the HOL you can choose to bump your own article
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 02 Jul 22 1.59pm

Originally posted by glaziermart

Well, when you are the editor of the HOL you can choose to bump your own article

Alert a moderator to this post

glaziermart 02 Jul 22 2.10pm
This site is for all CPFC members. I have been one for 7 years. We all have different opinions. It does not make us liars. All of us have now read Law's article a million times. He doesnot need to 'bump' it. He is basically shoving it down our throats now to suit his narrative. But Martyniuk who is a respected historian ( not saying Law is not, I think he is, which is why I am surprised he has done this in the manner he has ) But Martyniuk has tried to be respectful to both sides of the argument.
Alert a moderator to this post

glaziermart

02 Jul 22 2.10pm

This site is for all CPFC members. I have been one for 7 years. We all have different opinions. It does not make us liars. All of us have now read Law's article a million times. He doesnot need to 'bump' it. He is basically shoving it down our throats now to suit his narrative. But Martyniuk who is a respected historian ( not saying Law is not, I think he is, which is why I am surprised he has done this in the manner he has ) But Martyniuk has tried to be respectful to both sides of the argument.

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 02 Jul 22 11.29pm
Originally posted by glaziermart This site is for all CPFC members. I have been one for 7 years. We all have different opinions. It does not make us liars. All of us have now read Law's article a million times. He doesnot need to 'bump' it. He is basically shoving it down our throats now to suit his narrative. But Martyniuk who is a respected historian ( not saying Law is not, I think he is, which is why I am surprised he has done this in the manner he has ) But Martyniuk has tried to be respectful to both sides of the argument. This site is commercial. You don’t need to have any connection with cpfc to come onto it. The editorial decisions probably largely are to keep its participants in channel but I have no doubt also reflect the views of Gordon as editor and Peter as owner.
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 02 Jul 22 11.29pm

Originally posted by glaziermart

This site is commercial. You don’t need to have any connection with cpfc to come onto it. The editorial decisions probably largely are to keep its participants in channel but I have no doubt also reflect the views of Gordon as editor and Peter as owner.

Alert a moderator to this post

Ginger Pubic Wig Wickham de L'Ouest 03 Jul 22 8.56am
Thanks for posting. Interesting. The facts are the facts. I get the claim, but get the impression the FA says there has to be a history of continuous football to recognise the date. But there's a clear link between cp1861 amd cp1905. To really do this, we need to get into the history of other clubs to see if they have that historical continuosness all the way back. Assuming continuosness is a word. If you want to live in a world full of kindness, respect and love, try to show these qualities.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ginger Pubic Wig

Wickham de L'Ouest 03 Jul 22 8.56am

Send a Private Message to Ginger Pubic Wig

Thanks for posting. Interesting.

The facts are the facts. I get the claim, but get the impression the FA says there has to be a history of continuous football to recognise the date. But there's a clear link between cp1861 amd cp1905.

To really do this, we need to get into the history of other clubs to see if they have that historical continuosness all the way back. Assuming continuosness is a word.

If you want to live in a world full of kindness, respect and love, try to show these qualities.

Alert a moderator to this post

glaziermart 04 Jul 22 2.14pm
At the end of the day it is 2 respected historians who think there is a link against another respected one who doesn't. I have got a few of Gordon Law's books, so trust me I do think he is very good. I am certainly not anti. In any case the club are only recognising their heritage with the crest. The foundation date at the moment remains 1905 unless the FA recognise it differently. So I don't know why Gordon has reacted with the article dressed up in the way it has been done. It's the FA not the club that decide the title of the oldest club in the world. It was just interesting to see that Martyniek who previously was thought to agree with the likes of Gordon Law, actually as it turns out believes there is a link.
Alert a moderator to this post

glaziermart

04 Jul 22 2.14pm

At the end of the day it is 2 respected historians who think there is a link against another respected one who doesn't. I have got a few of Gordon Law's books, so trust me I do think he is very good. I am certainly not anti. In any case the club are only recognising their heritage with the crest. The foundation date at the moment remains 1905 unless the FA recognise it differently. So I don't know why Gordon has reacted with the article dressed up in the way it has been done. It's the FA not the club that decide the title of the oldest club in the world. It was just interesting to see that Martyniek who previously was thought to agree with the likes of Gordon Law, actually as it turns out believes there is a link.

Alert a moderator to this post

Frickin Saweet South Cronx 04 Jul 22 5.02pm
from what I can gather the 1861 is more about the parent company. We didn't always have a football team, and sometimes had a cricket team between then and 1905. Seems a bit tenuous. I'm sure a lot of clubs' founding year could be questions if you dug into it enough. Don't really care that much either way. Seems like there's a bit of 'we were founded first, so we're more important that you' about it.
Alert a moderator to this post

Frickin Saweet

South Cronx 04 Jul 22 5.02pm

Send a Private Message to Frickin Saweet

from what I can gather the 1861 is more about the parent company. We didn't always have a football team, and sometimes had a cricket team between then and 1905. Seems a bit tenuous.

I'm sure a lot of clubs' founding year could be questions if you dug into it enough. Don't really care that much either way. Seems like there's a bit of 'we were founded first, so we're more important that you' about it.

Alert a moderator to this post

glaziermart 04 Jul 22 6.19pm
I think you will find many clubs with much more tenuous links than we have. Stoke apparently claim their founding date of 1863 because allegedly some teenagers had a kick about in a local park!!! This was 10 or 15 years before they actually played a competitive match!! Yet they were allowed to change their founding date with no resentment from fans and it has been disputed by historians. I'm pretty sure there was something about Everton claiming their roots to St Domingos Church. There are many other examples.
Alert a moderator to this post

glaziermart

04 Jul 22 6.19pm

I think you will find many clubs with much more tenuous links than we have. Stoke apparently claim their founding date of 1863 because allegedly some teenagers had a kick about in a local park!!! This was 10 or 15 years before they actually played a competitive match!! Yet they were allowed to change their founding date with no resentment from fans and it has been disputed by historians. I'm pretty sure there was something about Everton claiming their roots to St Domingos Church. There are many other examples.

Alert a moderator to this post

Palace_Guard Kyiv 08 Jul 22 8.25am
im happy with 1861 , the only way we can settle this is by making an official claim to the FA, and if they accept it as our new foundation year, then all palace fans should welcome this. Any news if we will apply to the FA for this? Live in Melbourne or Victoria, Australia? Support Crystal Palace? Well join the Crystal Palace Melbourne Supporters Club: [Link] Adelaide, South Australia? Join here: [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Palace_Guard

Kyiv 08 Jul 22 8.25am

im happy with 1861 , the only way we can settle this is by making an official claim to the FA, and if they accept it as our new foundation year, then all palace fans should welcome this.

Any news if we will apply to the FA for this?

Live in Melbourne or Victoria, Australia?
Support Crystal Palace?

Well join the Crystal Palace Melbourne Supporters Club:
[Link]

Adelaide, South Australia? Join here:
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Ginger Pubic Wig Wickham de L'Ouest 08 Jul 22 2.47pm
Originally posted by Palace_Guard im happy with 1861 , the only way we can settle this is by making an official claim to the FA, and if they accept it as our new foundation year, then all palace fans should welcome this. Any news if we will apply to the FA for this? I thought we did and they said nyet If you want to live in a world full of kindness, respect and love, try to show these qualities.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ginger Pubic Wig

Wickham de L'Ouest 08 Jul 22 2.47pm

Originally posted by Palace_Guard

im happy with 1861 , the only way we can settle this is by making an official claim to the FA, and if they accept it as our new foundation year, then all palace fans should welcome this.

Any news if we will apply to the FA for this?

I thought we did and they said nyet

If you want to live in a world full of kindness, respect and love, try to show these qualities.

Alert a moderator to this post

Palace_Guard Kyiv 11 Jul 22 4.35am
Originally posted by Ginger Pubic Wig I thought we did and they said nyet Russian b@stards! Live in Melbourne or Victoria, Australia? Support Crystal Palace? Well join the Crystal Palace Melbourne Supporters Club: [Link] Adelaide, South Australia? Join here: [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Palace_Guard

Kyiv 11 Jul 22 4.35am

Originally posted by Ginger Pubic Wig

I thought we did and they said nyet

Russian b@stards!

Live in Melbourne or Victoria, Australia?
Support Crystal Palace?

Well join the Crystal Palace Melbourne Supporters Club:
[Link]

Adelaide, South Australia? Join here:
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 1 of 2 1 2 > Last >>

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Steve Martyniuk

Site Map

Sponsors