This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Can we adopt our 1861 date of birth?
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Mine's A Harveys  Sussex 23 Jun 22 10.25am |
  |
|---|---|
|
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 a moderator to this post |
  |
 roman eagle South London 23 Jun 22 10.50am |
|
|---|---|
|
Palaceexile - I had no idea what you meant by Triggers Broom so looked it up, and now it’s 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? 😀
Audentis fortuna iuvat (Virgil, 19BC) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| CrazyBadger Ware 23 Jun 22 10.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
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 it’s 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 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.
"It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| sydtheeagle England 23 Jun 22 8.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by roman eagle
Anyone with a philosophy or classics degree out there to take this further? 😀 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 a moderator to this post |
|
crvenaeagle  27 Jun 22 12.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
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 a moderator to this post |
|
| dorking 27 Jun 22 6.59am |
|
|---|---|
|
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 a moderator to this post |
|
| Dubai Eagle 27 Jun 22 8.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
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 a moderator to this post |
|
| Penge Eagle Beckenham 27 Jun 22 12.11pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
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 it’s 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 a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 27 Jun 22 1.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
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 a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 27 Jun 22 11.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
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 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 don’t think the club’s line on its history matches what is in the book, although I haven’t read it.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Dubai Eagle 28 Jun 22 6.21am |
|
|---|---|
|
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 it’s 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? 😀
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Nicholas91  The Democratic Republic of Kent 28 Jun 22 7.49am |
|
|---|---|
|
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.
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.