I can’t speak for everyone but I really think this ‘rivalry’ is very one sided. We haven’t done anything to palace other than reaped the reward of an incompetent owner who didn’t read his emails. The palace point of view seems to be pretty pissed off with us and keep doing mean things like singing songs and making pictures about our owner.
Did you not at least raise a wry smile when you appointed Glasner?
Not really, I was just a bit shocked at how a well run club like palace can keep losing players and managers as they don’t tie them up with contracts early enough and that once again, we have benefited from it.
We're a mid table Championship club playing in the Premier League because we have a proven track record of unearthing top talent and providing a stepping stone for players to get into the league and into top sides.
I totally agree with that. You've hit your ceiling as it stands and the only way that can change is by bringing in far more alternative revenue. Obviously Palace are looking towards some of that with the ground redevelopment.
It would be perhaps a bit more sensible from the perspective of the Palace fans if they looked from within and saw that the reason that they weren't allowed to take their place in the EL when winning the cup was because they did not comply with the rules on MCOs and blind trusts by the deadline which they had been told about. The fact remains that was their ownership situation and that they did not do it, and that this happened was down to either the club's administration thinking they did not need to for some reason, or that they gambled that they would not win the cup and qualify, or that they would somehow not be penalised for it. Whatever happened there is entirely the fault of the club, in fact they are quite lucky that the conference league place went to them, as UEFA could equally have simply expelled them from the EL and either left us in the CL or moved us to the EL and given the CL place to the next league side down or something like that, and they ended up winning it too. I doubt whether or not Forest got in touch with UEFA or anyone else about it had any impact on anything, other than the fact we were able to take their place because EM had followed the rules and put Forest into a blind trust by the deadline, even though ultimately he didn't need to.
100% agree with this. Brilliant post.
I'm not sure that there are many people on the planet who give less of a shit about what people think about him than Marinakis.
He does… but amongst the people that matter
All true, a few slip through the net though and I just can’t make signing someone for 35million in January then swapping them for someone you almost signed for 10million (1year left on his contract) in the same window… a straight swap? I can only think Everton came out of that really well?
If it does nothing else it fires a massive warning shot across the bows of anyone who wants to say, or write allegations about him as happened in Greece.
theesk.org
That was a very interesting read, the first I’ve seen from someone who apparently actually understands this stuff. Thanks for posting Trents!Everton & other writings by Paul Quinn, The Analysis Series, Talking the Blues & the esk PodcastsThe Analysis Series: Marinakis v Crystal Palace: when a banner becomes a balance sheet issue
12 August 2026 Two days ago, lawyers acting for Evangelos Marinakis lodged a defamation claim at the High Court against CPFC Limited, the company behind Crystal Palace, and “Persons Unknown&#…
A decent read on the case. Some extracts:
Personally, I have little sympathy for the banner. Terrace culture is precious and protest is legitimate, supporters mocking an owner, however savagely, is part of the game’s fabric, and any legal action that chills it deserves scrutiny. But imputing serious criminality to a named individual, and depicting him executing his own player, is not protesting in any sense that I recognise as legitimate. It is the kind of display that makes the eventual legal reckoning almost inevitable, and Palace’s ultras have handed a serial and well-resourced litigant exactly the vehicle he needed.
A banner took thirty seconds to unfurl. The litigation it produced will likely outlast the careers of several of the players who were on the pitch. Football’s disputes used to end at the final whistle. Increasingly, that is where they begin.
Good stuff. Yeah, thanks for posting, Trents.Everton & other writings by Paul Quinn, The Analysis Series, Talking the Blues & the esk PodcastsThe Analysis Series: Marinakis v Crystal Palace: when a banner becomes a balance sheet issue
12 August 2026 Two days ago, lawyers acting for Evangelos Marinakis lodged a defamation claim at the High Court against CPFC Limited, the company behind Crystal Palace, and “Persons Unknown&#…
A decent read on the case. Some extracts:
Personally, I have little sympathy for the banner. Terrace culture is precious and protest is legitimate, supporters mocking an owner, however savagely, is part of the game’s fabric, and any legal action that chills it deserves scrutiny. But imputing serious criminality to a named individual, and depicting him executing his own player, is not protesting in any sense that I recognise as legitimate. It is the kind of display that makes the eventual legal reckoning almost inevitable, and Palace’s ultras have handed a serial and well-resourced litigant exactly the vehicle he needed.
A banner took thirty seconds to unfurl. The litigation it produced will likely outlast the careers of several of the players who were on the pitch. Football’s disputes used to end at the final whistle. Increasingly, that is where they begin.
Yes. IIRC, (can't remember the guys name, but, he was named on one of the CPFC forums), he has a longstanding relationship with the group, and every banner that gets displayed within Selhurst Park has to be run past him (in the same way, I'm sure theres a guy at Forest who does similar, and every other club at this level), mainly for ground safety purposes, but, also, a legality/defamation purpose as well.
