• Existing user of old message board?

    Your username will have transferred over to this new message board, but your password will need to be reset. Visit our convert your account page, to transfer your old password over.

The 1861 nonsense

I understand the accepted account (myth?) is it was a works team for relocating the Crystal Palace.

Not sure the dates fit.

However the BBC appears to have bought in with 1861 and refers to the first major prize in our proud "164 year" history

Census records shows the players were not part of a works team and had well-paid jobs, living in large houses with servants. Many were well known in aristocratic circles and were very successful professionally. There are so many great stories about the players...

William Cloete was a South African, who had extensive mining properties in Mexico, was a race horse breeder whose horse came second in the 1885 Derby. He was a passenger on the Lusitania and sadly died when it sank in 1915. There's a town in Mexico named 'Cloete' in his honour.
 
Agree and to clarify it's 30 years, plus no documents about a holding company exist. Football was such a new sport back then, played by amateurs for fun and companies owning clubs wasn't a thing.

Is this the style of your book? Not impressed by the dialect, no wonder it hasn't sold.
 
I've always personally thought that there should be a connection with the original club. It's hardly a coincidence. However, I can quite understand there being tenuous written evidence. I can quite imagine there being issues trying to find any physical links as such. But I also don't find it any different to many of the clubs in the league.
When I look overall it seems to me that clubs can claim whatever they like, more or less. And as long as the club repeats it, and fans start to accept it, then it just becomes accepted by everyone.
So in ten years time or so, everyone will accept 1861 or whatever. 1905 will have been largely erased from our collective memories.
I've always been slightly inclined towards 1905 - as it's less time to be embarrassed about not winning anything much. But now, that has changed. I'm starting to warm to being an old, established, early club that has had some glory in it's 160 years.
 
While I was watching the open top parade coming down Whitehorse Lane via the app and the BBC iPlayer the BBC guy, I think his name was Matt Graveling made reference to 1861 as our foundation year.
 
I've always personally thought that there should be a connection with the original club. It's hardly a coincidence. However, I can quite understand there being tenuous written evidence. I can quite imagine there being issues trying to find any physical links as such. But I also don't find it any different to many of the clubs in the league.
When I look overall it seems to me that clubs can claim whatever they like, more or less. And as long as the club repeats it, and fans start to accept it, then it just becomes accepted by everyone.
So in ten years time or so, everyone will accept 1861 or whatever. 1905 will have been largely erased from our collective memories.
I've always been slightly inclined towards 1905 - as it's less time to be embarrassed about not winning anything much. But now, that has changed. I'm starting to warm to being an old, established, early club that has had some glory in it's 160 years.
If there was some proper history to explain what happened between the 1861ers and the 1905's, someone would have come up with some evidence.
 
If there was some proper history to explain what happened between the 1861ers and the 1905's, someone would have come up with some evidence.
I'm trying to bother to remember the whole story, but someone did? Yet, some think it's not really true or a bit tenuous. I haven't really read any of it by any means.
I guess my point boils down to, not who's right or wrong, the club using 1861 now will eventually mean it won't matter if anybody produces full evidence or not.
I'm not saying we can't debate it, we can. But the 1861 will end up accepted as it will become ingrained over the years.
 
I'm trying to bother to remember the whole story, but someone did? Yet, some think it's not really true or a bit tenuous. I haven't really read any of it by any means.
I guess my point boils down to, not who's right or wrong, the club using 1861 now will eventually mean it won't matter if anybody produces full evidence or not.
I'm not saying we can't debate it, we can. But the 1861 will end up accepted as it will become ingrained over the years.
Not true and tenuous are not history.
 

As it's 120 years today since the formation of the professional club, Palace have released this today.

Just to preface the response to the garbage article on the Palace website. 120 years ago in 1905, the present day Crystal Palace FC was founded – it did not turn professional from being an amateur side. This has no historical basis.

On January 17, 1883, The Athletic News reported the first Crystal Palace FC folded as they could not come to an agreement with the owners of their pitch in Crystal Palace Park.

This was divulged in a match report of a team calling itself Crystal Palace Rovers that played against the Pilgrims, in Walthamstow that month.

The writer says the idea of Crystal Palace Rovers was "to revive the past glories of the old Crystal Palace Club, which, in its day, was one of the strongest metropolitan societies, but eventually came to grief owing to a misunderstanding with the Palace authorities about their ground."

Regarding this latest article on the club website, Manning wrote this fabrication:

"[The Crystal Palace Company] fielded its amateur Crystal Palace football team, which had played on its cricket club’s pitch since the 1860s, taking on the leading clubs of the day, starting with Cup holders, Aston Villa, in 1895..."

"The public would only turn out for competitive games against the top sides, so the only solution was to turn the amateur Crystal Palace F.C. into a professional outfit."


To be clear:

1. The Company did not own the 1861 team which disbanded in 1875/76;

2. The Company set up a new club and fielded three scratch teams in three years (1895-97) as a new club using mostly Corinthian FC players as they had no players of their own.

There is no recorded evidence to support the claim that the Crystal Palace Company owned the 1861 club. There are no match reports, news articles, books or magazines, player contracts or legal documents.

The Company placed daily newspaper adverts to promote its events and attractions and none can be found for CPFC matches. The day before the biggest recorded attendance against Maidenhead in the FA Cup on December 16, 1871, the CPC placed ads in The Morning Post for a concert, a Mendelssohn oratorio, a Christmas Fair, a pantomime and a billiards match.

In the May 10, 1945 edition, a Croydon Advertiser reporter tried to discover more about "this first Crystal Palace 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.

From the 1890s, the Company began looking into football as a commercial interest when it wanted to host the FA Cup Finals. Up to this point there are no documented CPFC results since 1876.

The success of the cup final inspired the CPC to set up a new football team and play exhibition games. On November 11, 1895, the Sheffield Telegraph reported there was the possibility of "a company being set up to promote soccer the following season at the Crystal Palace."

The Edinburgh Evening News (October 10, 1895) confirms it's a new club and also referred to the glories of old one.

"The Crystal Palace FC is the latest addition to Metropolitan clubs. It has been formed with the purpose of playing a good few matches on the beautiful ground at Sydenham, and will, we hear, include amongst its members most of the best amateur footballers in London. Years ago the old Crystal Palace Association was one of the best in London, and many of its players gained international honours."

The company invited cup holders Aston Villa to an exhibition match at the Palace on November 30, 1895. The directors enlisted London FA president Nicholas Lane Jackson, who had served on the FA’s committee and founded Corinthian FC, to "take a prominent part in the football arrangements." (The Sporting Life, October 9, 1895).

The newspapers report that this was a new club and not a continuation of an old one. There is no FA affiliation, league or cup results and no players. In fact the team for this exhibition match was made up of nine Corinthian FC players.

The Evening Star (December 2, 1895) added that: "JE Grievson (Framlingham College) was selected for the new Crystal Palace Club against Aston Villa."

"In their first match the newly-formed Crystal Palace club were opposed by Aston Villa." (Birmingham Daily Post, December 4, 1895).

"The Corinthians furnished the majority of the eleven which represented the newly formed Crystal Palace FC," wrote the Sporting Life. (December 4, 1895).

Aston Villa won the game 7-3 and the match report in The Athletic News (December 2, 1895) said: "to play the correct football under such conditions was absolutely impossible, and the heavy Corinthian (I beg pardon, Crystal Palace) forwards were seemingly far more handicapped than the Midlanders."

"The Londoners were described as the Crystal Palace Football Club, but it would have been more easily recognised as a respectable team of Corinthians." (Norwood News, December 7, 1895).

"This season a Crystal Palace Club has been formed." (Penny Illustrated Paper, December 7, 1895).

The match programme card mentions further Crystal Palace home fixtures against Sheffield United and Sheffield Wednesday in January 1896.

However, Old Carthusians replaced Palace as United’s opponents "owing to the inability of [Palace] to secure a strong team," reported The Field.

Then Sheffield Wednesday played Swindon at Crystal Palace instead as "cup ties and other things prevented the Crystal Palace from getting up a good side for this afternoon," said the Morning Post. The Corinthian players opted to play at Derby in John Goodall’s benefit match that day, and the so-called Crystal Palace side collapsed. If the Corinthians were not available, Palace could not field a side.

The Palace directors arranged matches against the cup finalists Wednesday and Wolves, plus fellow pro sides Derby, Bolton, Dundee, Nottingham Forest and Small Heath for the 1896/97 campaign. They only managed to play against Wednesday.

The Palace scratch team faced a line-up representing the German Football Association on September 5, 1896 and won 13-0.

FA Cup holders Sheffield Wednesday were 4-0 winners on March 27, 1897. Corinthian FC players were again borrowed for this game.

"The Sheffield Wednesday team brought their Southern tour to a conclusion with a match against a scratch side, including several Corinthians, at the Crystal Palace," wrote the Sheffield Independent.

"Unfortunately there were several defections from the advertised Crystal Palace team that had been selected to oppose the First Leaguers."

The Monmouthshire Beacon (April 2, 1897) described the side "in opposition to what was termed a Crystal Palace team."

There are no further 'Crystal Palace' matches played. In 1905, all the newspapers wrote about the new club that we know today being founded. They say nothing about it "turning professional" or mentions anything about a continuation of an amateur club.
 

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top