Before you all start clambering for my head on a spike at London Bridge, lets look at some recent history.
.
this is our first time up in 8 years. Charlton and Millwall are a joke. Isn't it very peculiar how such a massive population can be so modestly represented at the top levels ? by contrast North London has two massive clubs, East and West London also have big stadia with big money and lots of silverware.

I am just hoping that we stay up, Charlton & millwall get relegated to League Two forever. We increase Selhurst Park to a 36,000 seater and stay in the Prem forever.

So why has South London performed so poorly compared to North, East and West London ? my theory, too many clubs ( similar to the Two Sheffield clubs cancelling each other out). What are your thoughts ?

Laughing at Charlton - Every London Clyub's fourth or fifth most hated team -
[Link]

Not really sure about that. There's us, Charlton, Millwall and you can possibly add AFC Wimbledon, now they're in the football league.

West London also has 4. Chelsea, Fulham, QPR and Brentford. East London 3 (West Ham, Leyton Orient, Dagenham and Redbridge. North London just the 2.

But even then, Clubs cachement areas overlap into other parts of London other than their strict North, west etc. area.

Arguably, the London clubs with the most recent success draw on fans from more affluent parts of London. Perhaps that's more to do with it.

South London has around 2.8m inhabitants and 3 league/prem clubs.

By contrast Liverpool has about 800k-900k people and 3 league clubs, including of course Liverpool and Everton. So I don't think having 3 (or 4) clubs over that population is the problem.

Why point out the relatively successful teams in other parts of London and then, as if in protest, want Milwall and Charlton to enter a perpetual nowhere land? If Spurs went into free-fall would that make Arsenal a bigger club? Same with the Liverpool big clubs, practically on each others doorsteps. The close approximation of big companies in competition is an incentive to better performances very often. But this hasn't happened in Nottingham, Bristol or Sheffield, at least not often. So to bring up this subject is spurious. When I was born there were certain teams at the top, and, more or less they still are. It's all to do with history and therefore the assumption of people who support those clubs that those clubs are really meant to be the top boys. I think that is incentive enough for the owners of those clubs to invest in larger stadia and pay top dollar for both players and wages. Spurs pain out £26 million for Soldano, who is kind of average for a top player and West Ham, maybe by good luck, will finance to fill a 40,000 seater stadium. Orient could but, like smaller clubs, won't take that chance in the same place. Unfotunately Palace are probably in the same category as Orient. Even on here the hope is for a 36,000 seater at best. Hardly the talk of a bigger club. Your answer.

That's such a huge shame and it's probably one of the reason that stops us from growing. Thankfully we are in the premier league at the moment - it's the only place where our fan base can grow.

Maybe one day another club can crack the top 3 London clubs. Who knows, it could be us if we do things the correct way.

I'm tough. I'm ambitious. I know exactly what I want. If that makes me a bitch, I'm OK with that.

Whilst Palace are in the top tier, support may rise. However the vast majority of supporters of 'big' teams aren't actually supporters in the sense that they attend matches. The are armchair fans.
As long as football is such high profile on the tellybox, then people will gravitate to the top teams as they can see them week in week out on sky or staffietelly.

"now building a history" - give me strength