You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > Can we adopt our 1861 date of birth?
June 29 2022 4.28pm

Can we adopt our 1861 date of birth?

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 16 of 17 < 12 13 14 15 16 17 >

 

View Mine's A Harveys's Profile Mine's A Harveys Flag Sussex 23 Jun 22 10.25am Send a Private Message to Mine's A Harveys Add Mine's A Harveys as a friend

Steve Martyniuk wrote a very comprehensive history of Crystal Palace FC. There's a copy of "The Origin of Crystal Palace FC Volume 1"covering 1861 to 1895 for sale on E bay at the moment for anyone wishing to know more about the club in its early years and well worth a read for anyone who wants to know the minutiae.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View roman eagle's Profile roman eagle Flag South London 23 Jun 22 10.50am Send a Private Message to roman eagle Add roman eagle as a friend

Palaceexile - I had no idea what you meant by Triggers Broom so looked it up, and now itís opened up a whole new avenue of discussion involving Cartesian philosophy as well as input from Plutarch and Theseus [Link]

Anyone with a philosophy or classics degree out there to take this further? &#128512;

 


Audentis fortuna iuvat (Virgil, 19BC)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View CrazyBadger's Profile CrazyBadger Online Flag Ware 23 Jun 22 10.54am Send a Private Message to CrazyBadger Add CrazyBadger as a friend

Originally posted by roman eagle

The way I see it is the amateur club folded in 1876 because of the pitch problems, but 20 years later the landlords (Crystal Palace Company) think they can make some money if they re-form the club, which takes another ten years to actually happen in 1905. So strictly speaking itís not the same club. But strictly speaking the current club was started in 2010.

Many clubs and organisations are resurrected or re-formed after a break. In terms of football history both Wanderers and Clapham Rovers have been re-formed in 20th century. So we can regard CPFC1905 not as a continuation but a re-formation of CPFC1861. So in answer to the original question, on balance I think we can claim 1861 as our founding date.

If The '1861 Lie' article is Accurate, and it certainly reads that way to me, the Club was not Re-Formed in 1905, completely disassociating itself with any previous incarnations. It was a new entity. Quotes like
"To prevent misunderstanding, it should be pointed out that the Crystal Palace Club in existence before 1905, was a purely amateur concern and had no connection with the present Club." Glazier Gazette
and
"The Directors of the Crystal Palace Company have met the Company in a very generous manner, and there is every hope of launching successfully a first-class Football Club," wrote the South London Press (May 20, 1905)
pretty much put this to bed.

It's a great fairy tale, and one That I really Want to be true, but you can't change history to make it so.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View sydtheeagle's Profile sydtheeagle Flag England 23 Jun 22 8.15pm Send a Private Message to sydtheeagle Add sydtheeagle as a friend

Originally posted by roman eagle

Anyone with a philosophy or classics degree out there to take this further? &#128512;

Given how easy it is to critique the impure reasons that motivated the change, I see little point in taking it further. Any Kantian knows damn well we were founded in 1905. There's nothing left to talk about here.

 


Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View crvenaeagle's Profile crvenaeagle Flag 27 Jun 22 12.46am Send a Private Message to crvenaeagle Add crvenaeagle as a friend

Stevie P is is always desperately looking for new ways to make our club more marketable, which is appreciated as it's building blocks for our future, but this one however is just cringey for me. We can't fabricate a false history simply for the sake of claiming a title as "the oldest". It looks tacky to me, and it will look tacky to others.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View dorking's Profile dorking Flag 27 Jun 22 6.59am Send a Private Message to dorking Add dorking as a friend

Putting 1861 onto the club badge for me, however the club want to dress it up, isn't about celebrating it's role in modern football

For me it feels like a history grab. If you put a date on a club badge, you're saying that was the date your club was founded.

Edmund Goodman's minute book still exists and shows all the founding events of the current day club in 1905.

1905 is nothing to be ashamed of - Chelsea were formed then.

Leeds United were dissolved and then immediately reformed in the 1920's and don't try and claim an older date.

I'd like to hope like the blue and white replica shirts last season, this date on the badge thing is a one year fad, but I have my doubts as the club is saying they are changing all signage.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Dubai Eagle's Profile Dubai Eagle Flag 27 Jun 22 8.51am Send a Private Message to Dubai Eagle Add Dubai Eagle as a friend

And realistically - it doesn't give us anything except perhaps bragging rights but if the links are as tenuous as they seem & that 20 year gap honestly to me it doesn't seem a good look -

Originally posted by crvenaeagle

Stevie P is is always desperately looking for new ways to make our club more marketable, which is appreciated as it's building blocks for our future, but this one however is just cringey for me. We can't fabricate a false history simply for the sake of claiming a title as "the oldest". It looks tacky to me, and it will look tacky to others.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Penge Eagle's Profile Penge Eagle Flag Beckenham 27 Jun 22 12.11pm Send a Private Message to Penge Eagle Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Penge Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by roman eagle

The way I see it is the amateur club folded in 1876 because of the pitch problems, but 20 years later the landlords (Crystal Palace Company) think they can make some money if they re-form the club, which takes another ten years to actually happen in 1905. So strictly speaking itís not the same club. But strictly speaking the current club was started in 2010.

Many clubs and organisations are resurrected or re-formed after a break. In terms of football history both Wanderers and Clapham Rovers have been re-formed in 20th century. So we can regard CPFC1905 not as a continuation but a re-formation of CPFC1861. So in answer to the original question, on balance I think we can claim 1861 as our founding date.

I have to respectfully disagree with your description of Wanderers as a "re-formed" club. This a new club that has simply plundered the football history dressing-up box. The same applies to the new Clapham Rovers club.

The current Wanderers club were founded in 2009 and chose their name in tribute to the Wanderers who won the FA Cup five times in the 1870s.The original Wanderers ceased to exist and played their last game in 1888 at the Oval.

The 2009 Wanderers have adopted, some might say stolen, the history of their namesakes and have backdated their foundation date by 150 years to 1859. Sounds familiar?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Rudi Hedman's Profile Rudi Hedman Flag Caterham 27 Jun 22 1.39pm Send a Private Message to Rudi Hedman Add Rudi Hedman as a friend

Originally posted by crvenaeagle

Stevie P is is always desperately looking for new ways to make our club more marketable, which is appreciated as it's building blocks for our future, but this one however is just cringey for me. We can't fabricate a false history simply for the sake of claiming a title as "the oldest". It looks tacky to me, and it will look tacky to others.

Yep.

 


COYP

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mapletree's Profile Mapletree Flag Croydon 27 Jun 22 11.00pm Send a Private Message to Mapletree Add Mapletree as a friend

Originally posted by CrazyBadger

If The '1861 Lie' article is Accurate, and it certainly reads that way to me, the Club was not Re-Formed in 1905, completely disassociating itself with any previous incarnations. It was a new entity. Quotes like
"To prevent misunderstanding, it should be pointed out that the Crystal Palace Club in existence before 1905, was a purely amateur concern and had no connection with the present Club." Glazier Gazette
and
"The Directors of the Crystal Palace Company have met the Company in a very generous manner, and there is every hope of launching successfully a first-class Football Club," wrote the South London Press (May 20, 1905)
pretty much put this to bed.

It's a great fairy tale, and one That I really Want to be true, but you can't change history to make it so.

For the avoidance of doubt the 1861 lie article was written by Gordon Law. Gordon is editor of The HOL (Penge Eagle). Gordon released a book in November called Palace Pioneers. I donít think the clubís line on its history matches what is in the book, although I havenít read it.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Dubai Eagle's Profile Dubai Eagle Flag Yesterday 6.21am Send a Private Message to Dubai Eagle Add Dubai Eagle as a friend

I doubt the people that wrote the bit about triggers broom ever considered it a discussion point for philosophy degrees.

I am assuming that your talking about the only fools & horses trigger & his broom ?

Or is this a whoooooosh moment?

Originally posted by roman eagle

Palaceexile - I had no idea what you meant by Triggers Broom so looked it up, and now itís opened up a whole new avenue of discussion involving Cartesian philosophy as well as input from Plutarch and Theseus [Link]

Anyone with a philosophy or classics degree out there to take this further? &#128512;

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Nicholas91's Profile Nicholas91 Flag The Democratic Republic of Kent Yesterday 7.49am Send a Private Message to Nicholas91 Add Nicholas91 as a friend

Originally posted by Dubai Eagle

I doubt the people that wrote the bit about triggers broom ever considered it a discussion point for philosophy degrees.

I am assuming that your talking about the only fools & horses trigger & his broom ?

Or is this a whoooooosh moment?

I'm afraid it might be Dave.

I think it was just a joke but there is solid ground for a philosophical discussion IMHO.

 


Here's to you the famous red and blue.....

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 16 of 17 < 12 13 14 15 16 17 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > Can we adopt our 1861 date of birth?