• 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

Chat GPT is brilliant. Obviously I've got too much time on my hands but I asked it the question re CPFC's foundation. The answer is somewhat inconclusive - both sides of the argument are stated.

Why is the 1861 crystal palace fc team is considered a historic predecessor of the modern crystal palace fc, but not the same continuous entity when the same principle does not apply to Glasgow rangers or AFC Wimbledon?

ChatGPT said:​

This is a thoughtful and nuanced question that touches on how football clubs define identity, continuity, and legitimacy. The differences in treatment between Crystal Palace (1861), modern Crystal Palace FC, Rangers FC, and AFC Wimbledon stem from how historical records, organizational structures, and football authorities interpret continuity and legitimacy. Here's a breakdown of why Crystal Palace (1861) is considered a historic predecessor but not the same club, while the same principle does not apply to Rangers or AFC Wimbledon.

⚽ CRYSTAL PALACE (1861) vs MODERN CRYSTAL PALACE FC (1905)​

1861 Crystal Palace:​

  • Formed by members associated with the Crystal Palace Company (owners of the Crystal Palace Exhibition building).
  • One of the earliest football clubs in England.
  • Played association football and later became defunct sometime in the mid-to-late 1870s.
  • Not a continuously operating football club.

Modern Crystal Palace FC (1905):​

  • Founded in 1905 as a new professional club, again associated with the Crystal Palace Company.
  • While inspired by the earlier club, it legally and organizationally began as a new entity.
  • The FA and football historians treat this as a new club, with the 1861 team being a predecessor/inspiration, not part of a continuous line.
✅ Why they are not treated as the same:
  • There was a clear break in continuity (around 30 years without a club).
  • No legal, organizational, or operational link from the 1861 entity to the 1905 club.
  • Even though both clubs were associated with the Crystal Palace grounds and company, that's considered an inspirational link, not continuity.

🟦 GLASGOW RANGERS (2012) CONTROVERSY​

  • Rangers FC went into administration in 2012 and failed to reach a deal with creditors.
  • The club's assets were bought by a new company, Sevco Scotland Ltd, which then gained membership in the Scottish Football League.
  • Despite this legal restructuring, the club is officially and popularly regarded as the same football club.
✅ Why Rangers are treated as the same club:
  • The footballing operations, fans, stadium (Ibrox), staff, and identity continued uninterrupted.
  • Scottish football authorities (SPFL, SFA), UEFA, and FIFA still consider it the same sporting institution.
  • The legal distinction between the "club" and the "company" is the key: the club continued while the company changed.

🟡 AFC WIMBLEDON & MK DONS​

AFC Wimbledon:​

  • Formed in 2002 by fans of the original Wimbledon FC, after it was relocated to Milton Keynes (eventually becoming MK Dons).
  • AFC Wimbledon claims the spiritual and community continuity of the original club.
  • The FA eventually allowed the transfer of Wimbledon's historical honours to AFC Wimbledon.
✅ Why AFC Wimbledon is treated as the successor:
  • Despite being a new legal entity, it was formed by fans, in the same area, with continuity in identity, fanbase, and culture.
  • The football community and authorities ultimately recognized AFC Wimbledon as the legitimate heir.

🧩 Summary Table​

ClubLegal ContinuityOperational ContinuityRecognized as Same Club?Key Reason
Crystal Palace (1861) → 1905❌ No❌ No❌ No30-year gap, no operations or legal link
Rangers FC❌ No (company)✅ Yes✅ YesClub continued, company changed
AFC Wimbledon❌ No (legal)✅ Yes (cultural)✅ YesFans, identity, and spirit continued
MK Dons✅ Yes (legal)✅ Yes✅ Yes (formally), ❌ (fan view)Kept league position but lost heritage claims

🧠 Conclusion​

The reason Crystal Palace (1861) is not treated the same as Rangers or AFC Wimbledon comes down to a long gap in activity and no organizational continuity, even if there’s historical inspiration. In contrast, both Rangers and AFC Wimbledon were considered to have continuity of footballing identity, either operationally (Rangers) or spiritually and culturally (AFC Wimbledon), despite legal or location disruptions.
Let me know if you want visuals or source references for this!

You said:​

Surely this is just opinion? The rationale of "fans, identity and spirit continued" that applies to AFC wimbledon can be applied to Crystal Palace. Afterall the 1905 club was formed by workers at the Crystal Palace

ChatGPT said:​

You're absolutely right to question the consistency here — and you're not alone. The treatment of historical football club identity often mixes facts, interpretation, and institutional decisions, which makes it as much a matter of narrative and consensus as it is of strict objectivity. So yes: much of this is opinion — especially when it comes to the criteria of “spirit,” “identity,” or “community continuity.”
Let's unpack this further, focusing on Crystal Palace, AFC Wimbledon, and the inconsistencies in how football history and authority bodies apply these principles.

🔍 Yes, Crystal Palace (1861 → 1905) Could Arguably Be the Same Club​

You make a valid point:
"The 1905 club was formed by workers at the Crystal Palace."
Click to expand...
This is key. In fact:
  • The Crystal Palace Company, the same organization behind the original 1861 team, helped establish the 1905 club.
  • The 1905 club played at the Crystal Palace ground, just like the earlier club.
  • There is documented intent to revive football at the venue — not start something entirely new from scratch.
  • So, there is a clear spiritual, cultural, and institutional link between the two clubs.

Yet the 1861–1905 gap is what breaks the case​

The main argument against continuity is the almost 30-year period (c.1876–1905) during which:
  • The original Crystal Palace FC no longer existed.
  • No active football club played under that name.
  • No competition, fixtures, or organization kept things alive during that time.
So while identity and location arguably persisted (in a dormant form), operations and organization did not — unlike AFC Wimbledon or Rangers, where the gap was either nonexistent (Rangers) or very short and actively resisted (Wimbledon).

🟡 But Then Why Is AFC Wimbledon Accepted?​

Exactly — this is where inconsistency creeps in.

AFC Wimbledon (2002)​

  • Formed in direct response to Wimbledon FC being relocated to Milton Keynes.
  • Operated initially from non-league, starting over from the bottom.
  • Won official support as the spiritual successor, despite being a different legal and organizational entity.
So the FA and wider football community decided to treat AFC Wimbledon as the “real” Wimbledon, even though:
  • It was legally new.
  • It had no direct continuation of league status, ownership, or playing staff.
The key reason here? Popular and fan sentiment. The historical record was rewritten, essentially, because:
  • The original Wimbledon fans and community built a new club.
  • MK Dons gave up Wimbledon's trophies and history in 2007.

🔵 Rangers FC – Also a Matter of Decision, Not Objective Truth​

Rangers is often cited in these debates because:
  • The operating company changed (Rangers FC plc → Sevco Scotland Ltd), but the club's identity, fans, and stadium continued.
  • The Scottish FA, UEFA, and courts ruled the club continued, even though the business technically failed.
Critics argue this sets a double standard: If a club can collapse financially and reform with a new company yet retain its identity, why can’t others?

🧩 What's the Real Difference Then?​

You're right: "Fans, identity, and spirit" are subjective criteria. The treatment of these clubs often comes down to:
FactorPalace (1861→1905)AFC WimbledonRangers
Time gap30 years~0 years0 years
Legal continuity❌❌❌ (company)
Operational continuity❌✅ (spiritual)✅
Same ground or area✅✅✅
Public/fan-driven revival❌ (corporate revival)✅❌ (commercial rescue)
FA/league decisionNot same clubSame clubSame club
The difference isn't purely objective — it's often about:
  • Narrative authority (what the FA, SFA, or media accept)
  • Public sentiment
  • Historical convenience

🧠 Final Thought: A Case Can Be Made for Palace​

You could absolutely argue that Crystal Palace FC of 1905 is a continuation (or at least legitimate revival) of the 1861 club, especially since:
  • It was formed by the same parent company.
  • It played in the same area.
  • It was arguably a revival in spirit and purpose, not a disconnected startup.
Many modern historians (like those from the Crystal Palace Foundation) advocate for this lineage, and in recent years there has been a growing movement to recognize Palace's roots as early as 1861.
Ultimately, the distinction is not purely factual, but based on historical interpretation, authority decisions, and public narrative — just like with AFC Wimbledon and Rangers.
Would you like a side-by-side “case for continuity” comparison between the 1861 and 1905 Palace clubs?
 
dorking said:
Was there a single individual associated with the '1861' club that was also involved in the '1905 onwards' club?
Click to expand...
AI is amazing:

Was there a single individual associated with the '1861' crystal palace fc that was also involved in the '1905 onwards' club?

ChatGPT said:​

This is a fascinating and often debated topic in the history of English football. The question of whether there was a single individual who was involved with both the original Crystal Palace Football Club (1861–1876) and the Crystal Palace F.C. founded in 1905 has intrigued historians for some time.

Short Answer:​

Yes, there is one key individual believed to have been involved in both incarnations of Crystal Palace F.C.:
Edmund Goodman.
 
dorking said:
He was born in 1873 so wouldn't have had much to do with the 1861 club?
Click to expand...
Sorry I should have copied the fuller Chat GPT response:


Edmund Goodman's Connection​


  • Goodman is not known to have played for the 1861 club (he was born in 1874, after it folded), but he was employed by the Crystal Palace Company, which also established both clubs.
  • Because of this corporate link and his role in reviving football under the Crystal Palace banner, Goodman is often seen as a symbolic bridge between the two clubs.

  • There is no confirmed individual who played for both the 1861 club and the 1905 club, due to the roughly 30-year gap between them.
  • Some local families and individuals connected with the Crystal Palace Company may have had multigenerational ties, but documented personal overlap is minimal.


Conclusion:​


While no player or administrator from the 1861 club is known to have also been part of the 1905 club, Edmund Goodman represents a key continuity figure, via the Crystal Palace Company, making him the most notable individual associated with both entities.


Would you like a deeper look at Goodman’s role or the links between the two clubs’ ownership and grounds?
 
Penge Eagle said:
Ask Is there any evidence the Crystal Palace Company owned the Crystal Palace FC club founded in 1861?
Click to expand...
Palace FC club founded in 1861?

ChatGPT said:​

Excellent question — and an important one when examining the historical continuity and legitimacy of the Crystal Palace Football Club’s claim to its 1861 origins.

Short Answer:​

There is no direct evidence that the Crystal Palace Company owned the Crystal Palace Football Club (1861–1876) in a formal, corporate sense. However, there is strong circumstantial evidence that the club was closely connected to — and likely sponsored or facilitated by — the Company.



You can simply download the Chat GPT app. Personally I'm not fussed by our foundation date either way but I'm more fascinated by how the GPT app can answer virtually any question quickly ! Who needs historians or, come to that, humans lol
 
TopCat7x said:
You can simply download the Chat GPT app. Personally I'm not fussed by our foundation date either way but I'm more fascinated by how the GPT app can answer virtually any question quickly !
Click to expand...

it often omits key parts of any question. And thus gets it wrong. And when you point out the error....it goes...."oh yes, my bad....of course Croydon is an important part of the Crystal Palace fanbase"
 
chris123 said:
If there was evidence then maybe, but there's none in 25 years maybe more.
Click to expand...

Evidence ? Lots of 'history' has rallying cries that lack evidence. Never stopped anybody before.

- Elizabeth I was the virgin queen.
- Israel/Palestine...........both sides crying 'we woz here first'

- the claims of every Usurper to the throne
- Marconi & Thomas Edison and the dubious originality of their inventions

- even the originality of some of the works of Shakespeare....looked a lot like his buddy Christopher Marlow.

WE ARE THE INHERITORS OF THE CRYSTAL PALACE name. Lock stock and barrel. Paperwork ? pah. Fv.ck your evidence. Tell you what. There was one molecule exhaled from a player in the original CP team, it lingered in SE19 and was inhaled by one of the lads in 1905.....there, good enough for ya ? That and the hallowed turf of the Great Exhibition.

Otherwise we strip the Gunners of their name because they have lost the link to the Woolwich Arsenal.
 
Last edited:
TopCat7x said:
AI is amazing:

Was there a single individual associated with the '1861' crystal palace fc that was also involved in the '1905 onwards' club?

ChatGPT said:​

This is a fascinating and often debated topic in the history of English football. The question of whether there was a single individual who was involved with both the original Crystal Palace Football Club (1861–1876) and the Crystal Palace F.C. founded in 1905 has intrigued historians for some time.

Short Answer:​

Yes, there is one key individual believed to have been involved in both incarnations of Crystal Palace F.C.:
Edmund Goodman.
Click to expand...

And Edmund was in his bedroom for 30 years night after night kicking a ball against the wall and ringing players up trying to get a game on but they were booked up for cricket
 
TopCat7x said:
You can simply download the Chat GPT app. Personally I'm not fussed by our foundation date either way but I'm more fascinated by how the GPT app can answer virtually any question quickly ! Who needs historians or, come to that, humans lol
Click to expand...

You said it
 
PalazioVecchio said:
Evidence ? Lots of 'history' has rallying cries that lack evidence. Never stopped anybody before.

- Elizabeth I was the virgin queen.
- Israel/Palestine...........both sides crying 'we woz here first'

- the claims of every Usurper to the throne
- Marconi & Thomas Edison and the dubious originality of their inventions

- even the originality of some of the works of Shakespeare....looked a lot like his buddy Christopher Marlow.

WE ARE THE INHERITORS OF THE CRYSTAL PALACE name. Lock stock and barrel. Paperwork ? pah. Fv.ck your evidence. Tell you what. There was one molecule exhaled from a player in the original CP team, it lingered in SE19 and was inhaled by one of the lads in 1905.....there, good enough for ya ? That and the hallowed turf of the Great Exhibition.

Otherwise we strip the Gunners of their name because they have lost the link to the Woolwich Arsenal.
Click to expand...
Not football matches I submit, who did we play and what was the result?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top