Crystal Palace 1861 (re-claim?)

[BringBackSasa]

Originally Posted by cpfc4evandeva

The 30 year hiatus is the big difference.

Everyone's entitled to a holiday.

[ElwissAtMemphis]

Originally Posted by sw16girl

The new Accrington Stanley was set up about 18 months to 2 years after the demise of the old one - same fans and is a continuation of the old one and was intended to be so when it was set up and I think it is the same team as well - that isn't the case with CP.

So when they recreated a Crystal Palace FC in 1905, do you seriously think that the founders specifically thought "we want nothing to do with the previous incarnation"?! The original (19th century) incarnation was created by workers at the Crystal Palace and played in the grounds of the Crystal Palace. The current (1905) incarnation was created by workers at the Crystal Palace and played in the grounds of the Crystal Palace.

I would imagine that any fans of the original team that were still resident in the area in 1905 would have said "great, my team's back in action" or do you honestly think that they'd have said something like "pah, my team used to wear blue and white hoops ... no way am I supporting that artificial edifice." 2 years for Accrington Stanley or 30 years for Crystal Palace. I don't really see the difference. I can't see how either of the new incarnations would have wanted to utterly disassociate themselves with the previous team. Did Edmund Goodman categorically state that his new club had no association whatsoever with the original Crystal Palace? I doubt it somehow.

Clearly, for whatever reason, CPFC chose to whitewash the original incarnation from their history (I wasn't even aware of it until about 10 years ago.) But if we'd all grown up reading in the matchday programs in the 60's and 70's that Palace had taken part in the first ever FA Cup tournament, who the hell would have questioned it? Personally, I think they could have quite reasonably done so. I accept that changing the official version so late in the day seems a wee bit dubious but it's hardly an outrageous re-writing of history is it?

For Christ's sake; if history showed that a team of dockers playing on the Isle of Dogs played in the first ever FA Cup under the name of Millwall and they then reorganized with the same name in the same location 30 years later, I wouldn't even begin to argue that they were essentially still Millwall FC. So why the hell are our own fans trying to sweep our own heritage under the carpet like this? It's taking self-loathing to previously un-chartered depths.

Sod Notts County. We're the oldest team still playing in the League. I sincerely believe that.

[Neil the Eagle]

Difficult to argue against that, Elwiss...

I make you right. If the fans now want to embrace the earlier club then so be it. Leeds survived a complete change of name and legal entity, then so can we.

Whether we return to the ancestral seat or not...

[BringBackSasa]

Originally Posted by ElwissAtMemphis

I would imagine that any fans of the original team that were still resident in the area in 1905 would have said "great, my team's back in action" or do you honestly think that they'd have said something like "pah, my team used to wear blue and white hoops ... no way am I supporting that artificial edifice."

What does Freddy Kurz say?

[Neil the Eagle]

No
idea,
but
I
bet
it'll
have
weird
line
spacing.

[BringBackSasa]

Speaking of which, has he posted recently? I get worried when he hasn't been on for a few days, hope he's OK. It has been cold.

[Neil the Eagle]

Originally Posted by cpfc4evandeva

The 30 year hiatus is the big difference.

Bradford Park Avenue had a 14 year difference, pretty big, but their current website still says founded 1907.

[eastlandsatbbs]

I'm one of the local residents who signed up here to have a read and make a post now and again. I'm avoiding posting on that subject because I think the point is now clear that we've got to wait for some details.

But onto this topic, which I think I can add something to. CP 1861 could not have played at the site of the current stadium, and its unlikely they played within the ground of the Crystal Palace.

The current site of the stadium and NSC were two huge lakes until 1895.



Up to that point the grounds had been designed as stately gardens, a place where you walked around slowly and looked at statues. In the beginning even classical music was banned from the main building because Paxton thought classical music was for chavs. By 1895 the new generation of owners new they had to diversify to make money, and realised if they drained the lakes they instantly created a massive football pitch with terraces. They did just that, created a professional football team and hosted the first of manyFA Cup Finals. So when your looking down into the area the Athletics Stadium is now built your looking at the site of lake drained in 1895.

CP 1861 were around between 1861 and 1875. Looking at the history of the site I think there was nowhere for them to play in the grounds. I am almost certain Paxton would have had a fit if he had seen people playing football in his beloved gardens, and churning up his manicured lawns. A large area of woodland was cleared to create the Cricket Pitch, but I think that was after 1861, and once again I think anti football prejudice would have stopped groundstaff using the area for football.

[917L]

Originally Posted by eastlandsatbbs

CP 1861 were around between 1861 and 1875. Looking at the history of the site I think there was nowhere for them to play in the grounds.

Quoted from HOL

"Founded in 1861, the amateur Crystal Palace played friendlies on the east side of the Palace grounds near Penge Common"

I dont think there is any doubt the original club played in the grounds of CPP. Though as you say it appears they may well not have played on the site of the NSC

[Dorking .Eagle]

I was always led to believe they played on the cricket pitch at the bottom end of the park.

Think there was a WG Grace connection to both CP Park and the formation of CPFC too

[No.16]

This is all news to me! Will the local studies libraries in Lewisham/Bromley throw any light on this? This would make a great museum exhibition for the new stadium or CPP masterplan museum envisioned for the upper station vaults site.

You'll have to hurry mind there will be no libraries left soon under the ConDems.

[Crozzy71]

Originally Posted by sw16girl

We are not debt free - there are four mortgages registered against the Company - that will be directors loans I would guess without having downloaded them - the position now however is that the monies loaned are soft loans from the owners rather than hard loans from the banks and hedge funds - the loans will have been expected and are probably the amount need to fund the takeover plus running costs for this year for the pre-paid ST's.

And I think suddenly retrospectively claiming the history of a completely different club with no actual links other than the name is about as naff as you can get. We are Crystal Palace we were founded in 1905 - to pretend otherwise will only lead to ridicule.

That said there is no reason not to give a nod to the older club but it wasn't us - 30 years is a long time.

I don't think we need to worry about the 'debt' issue. Having not seen the balance sheet it simply appears that CPFC2010 have injected loans alongside equity. As the owners this is effectively equity as they would presumably only withdraw those loans if the trading business is solvent and profitable.

The charges you mention aren't charges as such, just debentures in favour on either the individual members of CPFC2010 or the entity which holds their interests.

[britabroad]

Originally Posted by BringBackSasa

What does Freddy Kurz say?

dot dot dash dot dash dash

[sw16girl]

Originally Posted by Crozzy71

I don't think we need to worry about the 'debt' issue. Having not seen the balance sheet it simply appears that CPFC2010 have injected loans alongside equity. As the owners this is effectively equity as they would presumably only withdraw those loans if the trading business is solvent and profitable.

The charges you mention aren't charges as such, just debentures in favour on either the individual members of CPFC2010 or the entity which holds their interests.

I'm not in the slightest bit worried about it - as I said it is soft debt and not hard debt however whether you call them debentures or charges it amounts to the same thing - the owners are owed money by the club - worth remembering for those who are already moaning that they need to get the chequebook out - they have already.

[mrgins]

Originally Posted by Biggineagle

Jeez all we need is a beret and some onions.

PMSL

[Crunchie]

Originally Posted by Dorking .Eagle

I was always led to believe they played on the cricket pitch at the bottom end of the park.

Think there was a WG Grace connection to both CP Park and the formation of CPFC too

Me too Dorking. I am not sure when the Lakes were drained, but Crystal Palace Park was a cricket ground in Crystal Palace, London (formerly Kent). Located in the shadow of The Crystal Palace, the ground was established on June 3, 1857. The first recorded match on the ground was in 1864, when Kent played Nottinghamshire in the grounds first first-class match. Kent next at the ground in 1869, when they played Surrey. From 1869 to 1870, Kent played 3 further first-class matches at the ground, with their final match there coming against Sussex. The site is today covered by the National Sports Centre, which was built in 1964.

The current athletics stadium is on the same land as a previous football ground, home of the original Crystal Palace football club from 1861. It also hosted the FA Cup final from 1895 to 1914 as well as other sports. In 1905, the owners wanted a professional club to play at the venue, so a new Crystal Palace FC, was formed. They were forced to leave by the military, in 1915, and now play at nearby Selhurst Park, though the Reserve side did play at the NSC in the 2000–01 season.

However the NSC is on where the west lake was and the old Cricket/Football Ground are on the land where the east lake was.

Here is the map in 1862.

To view the link you have to Register or Login

Here is the map stating where the old Cricket/Football Ground was.



So if we just swap our design around by 180 degrees then we will be on the same exact spot, as the old Cricket/Football Ground

Not that it's important (but it maybe to protesters stating we are not coming home), if we were to do this, we would basically be playing on the same spot, as the original Crystal Palace 1861 team did, playing football on the east side of the Palace grounds near Penge Common.

[CP Satellite]

Originally Posted by eastlandsatbbs

I'm one of the local residents who signed up here to have a read and make a post now and again. I'm avoiding posting on that subject because I think the point is now clear that we've got to wait for some details.

But onto this topic, which I think I can add something to. CP 1861 could not have played at the site of the current stadium, and its unlikely they played within the ground of the Crystal Palace.

The current site of the stadium and NSC were two huge lakes until 1895.
A large area of woodland was cleared to create the Cricket Pitch, but I think that was after 1861, and once again I think anti football prejudice would have stopped groundstaff using the area for football.

Well, this a point I would have to challenge you on. There are records for the Crystal Palace Cricket Club dating back to 1857 - so it would be interesting to know exactly where they played if you say the Cricket Pitch at CPP was made after 1861.

Many clubs that were formed in the Victorian era were originally Cricket clubs. It makes absolute sense that the original Crystal Palace FC would have used the cricket pitch at the bottom of Crystal Palace Park - cricket, as we well know, is a summer game and the original Crystal Palace FC would not have played in a League - no League existed before 1888 - so it is very doubtful that there was any clash with football fixtures - why would cricketers be concerned by what happened to outfield in the months they were not playing?

Facts bare this out - from the top of my head, without research, I can name you Burnley, Darlington, Northampton and Sheffield United where I know cricket pitches have been placed on or right next to the grounds these clubs have played on.

The answer to wether Palace (1861) played within the boundaries of what we now recognise as Crystal Palace Park lies in the fact that, before 1875, the Park was not properly enclosed - that was the year in which the Crystal Palace Company reached agreement with Penge Council to fence the Park off with it's current boundary along Crystal Palace Parade, Crystal Palace Park Road, Thickett Road and Anerly Hill.

It was also the year Crystal Palace FC (1861) ceased to exist according to records.

Coincidence? I think not.

[ChristalPalace]

Originally Posted by Brumie Allan

I believe they stopped in 1875 due to residents complaining.

Originally Posted by ElwissAtMemphis

if history showed that a team of dockers playing on the Isle of Dogs played in the first ever FA Cup under the name of Millwall and they then reorganized with the same name in the same location 30 years later, I wouldn't even begin to argue that they were essentially still Millwall FC.

Moreover, Millwall changed their name from Millwall Rovers as well as moving south of the river.

Originally Posted by CP Satellite

Many clubs that were formed in the Victorian era were originally Cricket clubs. It makes absolute sense that the original Crystal Palace FC would have used the cricket pitch at the bottom of Crystal Palace Park - cricket, as we well know, is a summer game and the original Crystal Palace FC would not have played in a League - no League existed before 1888 - so it is very doubtful that there was any clash with football fixtures - why would cricketers be concerned by what happened to outfield in the months they were not playing?

This, some footballers were also cricketers in the summer months (or they were cricketers who also played football in winter) well into the 20th Century, let alone the 19th.

[CP Satellite]

Perhaps the point that some of us are missing is that Crystal Palace 1861 would have been amateurs, playing football purely as a pastime after they had
finished their work.

Many have said that they were workers at the Crystal Palace building - but the facts are that we know who some of the players are by name - they certainly don't seem like ordinary labourers - they were amongst the top sportsmen of their time, more likely to have gone to Public schools and had well paid careers or income from wealthy families.

The 1905 Crystal Palace FC was set up as a purely commercial enterprise - with players paid to come and play for the Club (all the original 1905 team had played professionally for teams in Scotland, the North or the Midlands) exactly the opposite to the amateur ideals of the early Victorians.

So it is very possible that the original people involved with Crystal Palace FC 1861 would have been opposed to professional football, with the same arguments that seperated Rugby Union and Rugby League around the same time.

That said - my reason for linking the two clubs is very simple - Crystal Palace. There is no actual place called Crystal Palace - the existence of the name relies entirely on the fact that there was a building by that name.

Why didn't the original club just call themselves 'Penge' or 'Penge Common' if that is where they played? They were obviously happy to use the name of the building that was even more famous around the world 150 years ago than it is today - the same building that remains on the CPFC badge to this very day. There is your link.

[Louis]

Originally Posted by leelouca

The problem is people associate the modern CPFC, Selhurst and our Badge with failure especially the new badge as it has seen 2 administrations.

I think we need to go back to our beginnings to move forward reinvent ourselves.

A new Stadium with our new found heritage with a new brand which is the 1861 brand is the way of the new winning modern historical Crystal Palace F.C. 1861!!!

It is modern but has more history than the 1905 side!

I'm certainly with you and think CPFC2010 should look into all this, particularly if we do move back to Crystal Palace