Crystal Palace 1861 (re-claim?)

[Adlerhorst]

That has to be disallowed

[cranesparkeagle]

You know apart from the pen theycve one shot worthy of mention all half

[hong_kong_hg]

Originally Posted by Spindle

Just exposing his own double standards

The very essence of projection, well done.

[hong_kong_hg]

Originally Posted by Adlerhorst

That has to be disallowed

Couldn't agree more. Drop this founded in 1861 boll*cks.

[dweedman]

Butland's not half bad

[Dorking .Eagle]

Anyone see Steve Parish's retweet yesterday?

It seemed to provide evidence that the 'amateur CPFC' wore light blue and white kits, due to a former player Hermann Hurni (who played for 'Crystal Palace' reserves in 1908/09) taking 'amateur CPFC' kits over to Italy where a club there (Spezia) then wore them.

To view the link you have to Register or Login

Having looked into this chap Hermann Hurni, an Italian wikipedia page says:

Spezia Calcio was founded in 1906 by the Swiss banker Hermann Hurni (or Hurny in some documents), who played for the early amateur teams of Crystal Palace in London during his time there as a student. He played for Crystal Palace again in 1909.

The first Spezia playing kit, light blue and white, was a second-hand amateur Crystal Palace kit donated to Hurny when he returned to La Spezia.

However I can't find record of any such player playing for CPFC Reserves.

Looking at Hurni's age (he was born in 1889) and that he came to England as a student, was he studying at the Crystal Palace School of Engineering in Crystal Palace Park? They certainly had a football team who played their games in the cycle-track arena, and reports of their matches appeared regularly in local newspapers - and maybe they took their colours from the Crystal Palace amateur team?

Can anyone else find out anything more about Spezia's claim to have got their light blue and white kit from 'amateur Crystal Palace' FC?

It seems like a bit of a stretch that a player who was in London 1908/09 would have got a kit that lasted all the way from the 1895-1897 version of CPFC (the last incarnation of 'amateur' CPFC?)

[congress]

Their nickname is the Little eagles.

[Penge Eagle]

In May 1945, a Croydon Advertiser reporter tried to find out more about "the first Palace" that existed "many years before the present club" by speaking with the General Manager of the Crystal Palace Company. However, Sir Henry Buckland could find no records in the company's archives.

[Kai]

Originally Posted by Penge Eagle

In May 1945, a Croydon Advertiser reporter tried to find out more about "the first Palace" that existed "many years before the present club" by speaking with the General Manager of the Crystal Palace Company. However, Sir Henry Buckland could find no records in the company's archives.

Very interesting. The fact that there is no mention in the Crystal Palace archives, at least should prove that the first venture was not part of the company, as some people are led to believe.

[Penge Eagle]

Originally Posted by Kai

Very interesting. The fact that there is no mention in the Crystal Palace archives, at least should prove that the first venture was not part of the company, as some people are led to believe.

100%

[in-exile]

So no rent agreement from the company for the pitch to this just renting a ground nothing to do with anything football club turned up also then .... so?
For me it's still a runner!

[palace_burger]

Originally Posted by hong_kong_hg

Wrong. Only the New Territories were leased. The original Hong Kong territory and Kowloon were ceded in perpetuity (in 1842 and 1860 respectively), until the UK elected to agree to hand them back in 1984.

Handed them back

[stujii]

Originally Posted by Penge Eagle

100%

Wow the smoking gun… I believe Screwfix have a deal on superglue at the moment

[palace_burger]

If we successful in reclaiming can we move back into the original stadium (a confirmed link strengthens our case to do this btw!).. it would be an upgrade on selhurst?

To view the link you have to Register or Login

[Penge Eagle]

Historical Kits has updated its Victorian clubs page: To view the link you have to Register or Login Virtually every club during the time of the first CPFC had thin hoops as their shirt design. The halves style became prevalent from the 1880s, long after Palace disbanded.

[Penge Eagle]

The FA website has an article on the Generation Cup, which Palace are competing in with Civil Service and Upton Park. The FA says that Civil Service FC is "the sole remaining club from the original 11 who met at the Freemason’s Tavern in Covent Garden on 26 October 1863 to establish the laws of the game and form the FA." To view the link you have to Register or Login

[tasty_snacks]

Originally Posted by Penge Eagle

The FA website has an article on the Generation Cup, which Palace are competing in with Civil Service and Upton Park. The FA says that Civil Service FC is "the sole remaining club from the original 11 who met at the Freemason’s Tavern in Covent Garden on 26 October 1863 to establish the laws of the game and form the FA." To view the link you have to Register or Login

Well, if the FA says so, that must settle the matter.

The FA position hasn't changed - yet. Using old points of view to justify your stance in the light of emerging evidence really is just fingers in the ears, "la la la" stuff. Do you denounce the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park because they looks nothing like the one in CP park?

[cpfc4evandeva]

Originally Posted by Kai

Very interesting. The fact that there is no mention in the Crystal Palace archives, at least should prove that the first venture was not part of the company, as some people are led to believe.

But it doesn't explicitly say that they weren't part of the original club, so ipso factso + a bizarre dinosaur analogy, means we were definitely founded in 1861. Definitely.

[PK1]

I don’t want this to be solved. If there is no link, that’s disappointing. If there is a solid link, for me our history is then a bunch of toffs who were occasionally bored when it was too cold to play cricket, more than being plucky amateur pioneers (I guess they’re both), which is also disappointing. The fact that there is mystery around whether we were original founders or not makes it better than the reality for me. A bit like the CP building itself - the unfilled gap it left is huge and majestic, whereas the tangible reality might just have been a rusty old greenhouse. Long live the myths!

[Penge Eagle]

Originally Posted by tasty_snacks

Well, if the FA says so, that must settle the matter.

The FA position hasn't changed - yet. Using old points of view to justify your stance in the light of emerging evidence really is just fingers in the ears, "la la la" stuff. Do you denounce the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park because they looks nothing like the one in CP park?

I thought the FA's stance might have changed as Palace have spent the season claiming they were formed in 1861 in the programme each week and on the website. It's a 2022 FA article so it clarifies the governing body's position if there was any doubt.

You're not going to know, but I'll ask anyway: What is this "emerging evidence"?