I can't really see why there's so much argument about whether 1861 is right or wrong as pretty much everyone (pro-1861 and against-1861) agrees that there is no definitive claim to the earlier date; it's simply a question of how you interpret various facts. You either think the thread that runs from the earlier club to the 1905 club is strong enough to make the 1861 claim or you don't. But you can't absolutely prove the former beyond any reasonable doubt.

Personally, my view is that we shouldn't adopt 1861 as our date of birth (note; I said "shouldn't", not "can't" but that's simply because I err on the side of respecting a proven tradition rather than engaging in what can surely only be seen as revisionist history. I think you should only make the 1861 claim if the historical evidence for doing so is absolutely incontrovertible in support of the earlier date; nothing I've read persuades me that's the case.

However, as I've noted before the change to 1861 gives the club a nice little marketing/media opportunity and we all know that anything that looks like a new revenue stream is welcome. I suspect that's what's behind the club's enthusiasm for the earlier date as much as any interest in historical accuracy.

If we shout about 1861 and can't prove it then we will look like a bunch of c*nts...simple

They really need to change the signs outside of Thornton Heath Station that says 'Home of CPFC 1905-2005'

If we shout about 1861 and can't prove it then we will look like a bunch of c*nts...simple

FFS, if we,re going to support fake news let,s go to 1066 , sounds catchy