Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Palace fans embarrassing themselves again
Comments
-
Jordan is starting to see gain wisdom with his age, who saw that coming?!MStuartPerm said:Even Simon Jordan is saying they are lucky to have only been demoted to the Conference.
i never get bored of watching this
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5QQRAejgXvo&pp=ygUScGFsYWNlIHVsdHJhcyBqb2tl3 -
No just a bunch of cnuts 🤬JustFloydRoad said:Dave2l said:https://www.gbnews.com/sport/football/crystal-palace-europa-league-ban-uefa-rules-multi-club-ownership
The rules are the rules
Its time for them all to cancel that non refundable unlimited annual eurostar train ticket.
Croydon has luxery illegal immigrant hotels, kebab shops, empty barbers and general depression swimming in the grey sky clouds of palace.
The sunlight is waiting for Charlton.
Legit protest or Split brats
4 -
Brilliant....spat tea all over the keyboard laughing so hard.SporadicAddick said:
Only three in the front row have mummies that let them wear long trousers.Friend Or Defoe said:
School photo pre cup-final.
0 -
Friend Or Defoe said:There must be some nigels who look at the ultra with complete embarrassment.
Shall we assist with a legal appeal? Nah, time to get the drum out with our winter coats in July.
I worked with a couple of Palace fans (both really good people btw), neither of them were keen on the 'hf'. One said the only advantage is that the police spend so much time searching them, running around with sniffer dogs looking for pyrotechnics, etc, that they don't seem to bother with holding anyone else up getting in to grounds.1 -
I've read on a FB group that whilst some don't like all that bullshit they do enjoy the atmosphere they produce....other fans from other prem teams have said the same. Wife's cousin went to the SF v Villa (she is a Villa fan) and was very complimentary about the atmosphere from the Palace end....told how pissed off I was with her teams performance.jimmymelrose said:
Do they really? Have they tried to do anything about them? Can they?Croydon said:
More than some tbf mate. A lot of them outright hate them.Friend Or Defoe said:There must be some nigels who look at the ultra with complete embarrassment.
Shall we assist with a legal appeal? Nah, time to get the drum out with our winter coats in July.
Maybe we shoukd have a contingency plan in place to stamp it out should we become more successful and the local yoof decide to come along as ’ultras’
I loath this ’ultra culture.’ I can grudgingly accept it in France but it is so disconnected from English football culture. I mean, just what have a skull and crossbones got to do with football anyway?0 -
Ultras derived from Italy i think not FranceHastingsRed said:
I've read on a FB group that whilst some don't like all that bullshit they do enjoy the atmosphere they produce....other fans from other prem teams have said the same. Wife's cousin went to the SF v Villa (she is a Villa fan) and was very complimentary about the atmosphere from the Palace end....told how pissed off I was with her teams performance.jimmymelrose said:
Do they really? Have they tried to do anything about them? Can they?Croydon said:
More than some tbf mate. A lot of them outright hate them.Friend Or Defoe said:There must be some nigels who look at the ultra with complete embarrassment.
Shall we assist with a legal appeal? Nah, time to get the drum out with our winter coats in July.
Maybe we shoukd have a contingency plan in place to stamp it out should we become more successful and the local yoof decide to come along as ’ultras’
I loath this ’ultra culture.’ I can grudgingly accept it in France but it is so disconnected from English football culture. I mean, just what have a skull and crossbones got to do with football anyway?2 -
The Ultras are moving in on our area… they are playing at Woolwich works in September.
2 -
'Street brass carnival and festival of horns', sounds like a red light area.4
-
-
Sponsored links:
-
I wouldn't say their Palace fans (or even endorsed by the club). This is just another independent business trying to make buck on their Cup victory.cafcfan said:0 -
How much?!0
-
Sometimes you have to hope that global capitalism will just...stop.
At NOTCH®, we believe that life is made of moments — not just the big, headline ones, but the quiet triumphs, personal milestones, and everything in between.
Your first race.
A dream achieved.
A promise kept.
A person you love.
A challenge you overcame.These are the stories that shape us.
And we believe they deserve to be seen, remembered, and worn with pride.We don't just make bracelets — we craft wearable reminders of what matters most. Every Notch is a symbol. A statement. A celebration.
Whether you're an athlete, a parent, a survivor, a dreamer, or a fighter — your journey is yours alone. And we’re here to help you wear it.
We stand for meaning over status.
Pride over perfection.
Authenticity over trends.From one wrist to another, across the world — we’re building a global movement of people who choose to wear their truth.
1 -
Hmmmm …… definately “one off the wrist!”2
-
I notice there isn’t an ‘I’ve lost my virginity’ notch. I guess very few of their fans reach that milestone.cafcfan said:1 -
At least the TNT Advert, ‘celebrating’ the uniqueness of their FA Cup win, refers to their 119 Year Old history.0
-
Here's a summary of Palace's appeal to CAS today. Decision due to be published on Monday.
1. Ownership Influence
Crystal Palace position: Textor had no "decisive influence".
UEFA's position: Textor's holding (43.9%) breached UEFA's multi-club ownership rules.
Likely CAS view: CAS is likely to defer to UEFA's definition, unless it is demonstrably unreasonable.
My view: Palace broke the fucking rules.2. Deadline dispute
Crystal Palace position: Believed the deadline was 30 April, not 1 March.
UEFA's position: 1 March was formally communicated and applied across all cases.
Likely CAS view: Likely to side with UEFA
My view: It doesn't matter whether the deadline was the 1 March or 30 April - Textor still had his shares in June.3. Email address
Crystal Palace position: UEFA sent emails to an unmonitored address (info@cpfc.co.uk).
UEFA's position: The email address was provided to UEFA by Crystal Palace.
Likely CAS view: CAS tends to uphold formal notice unless procedural fairness is clearly violated.
My view: I tried the "dog ate my homework" excuse once. I was eight. I should have known better. Palace claim to be 143.4. Comparable precedents
Crystal Palace position: Cite leniency for Man City-Girona, Red Bull clubs, INEOS.
UEFA's position: UEFA claims this situation is different in terms of influence and timing.
Likely CAS view: CAS rarely overrules UEFA discretion without clear bias or unequal treatment
My view: Crystal Palace may have a point here. But are they really asking for all previous cases to be re-litigated?5. Compliance Timing
Crystal Palace's position: Textor sold his shares in late June.
UEFA: The deadline was 1 March.Likely CAS view: Timing supports UEFA's view.
My view: If you want to claim that someone sold his shares before the deadline, make sure that person sold his shares before the deadline.Precedents
- Drogheda United (2024): Lost appeal after being removed from the Conference League over multi-club ownership.
- DAC Dunajská Streda: Also excluded due to Red Bull connections; CAS upheld UEFA’s ruling.
- Red Bull Leipzig vs. Salzburg (2017): Only allowed to both enter after demonstrable separation and early compliance.
1 -
I kind of disagree, like as much as i dislike the club, fans i feel they have been very hard done by here.Chizz said:Here's a summary of Palace's appeal to CAS today. Decision due to be published on Monday.1. Ownership Influence
Crystal Palace position: Textor had no "decisive influence".
UEFA's position: Textor's holding (43.9%) breached UEFA's multi-club ownership rules.
Likely CAS view: CAS is likely to defer to UEFA's definition, unless it is demonstrably unreasonable.
My view: Palace broke the fucking rules.2. Deadline dispute
Crystal Palace position: Believed the deadline was 30 April, not 1 March.
UEFA's position: 1 March was formally communicated and applied across all cases.
Likely CAS view: Likely to side with UEFA
My view: It doesn't matter whether the deadline was the 1 March or 30 April - Textor still had his shares in June.3. Email address
Crystal Palace position: UEFA sent emails to an unmonitored address (info@cpfc.co.uk).
UEFA's position: The email address was provided to UEFA by Crystal Palace.
Likely CAS view: CAS tends to uphold formal notice unless procedural fairness is clearly violated.
My view: I tried the "dog ate my homework" excuse once. I was eight. I should have known better. Palace claim to be 143.4. Comparable precedents
Crystal Palace position: Cite leniency for Man City-Girona, Red Bull clubs, INEOS.
UEFA's position: UEFA claims this situation is different in terms of influence and timing.
Likely CAS view: CAS rarely overrules UEFA discretion without clear bias or unequal treatment
My view: Crystal Palace may have a point here. But are they really asking for all previous cases to be re-litigated?5. Compliance Timing
Crystal Palace's position: Textor sold his shares in late June.
UEFA: The deadline was 1 March.Likely CAS view: Timing supports UEFA's view.
My view: If you want to claim that someone sold his shares before the deadline, make sure that person sold his shares before the deadline.Precedents
- Drogheda United (2024): Lost appeal after being removed from the Conference League over multi-club ownership.
- DAC Dunajská Streda: Also excluded due to Red Bull connections; CAS upheld UEFA’s ruling.
- Red Bull Leipzig vs. Salzburg (2017): Only allowed to both enter after demonstrable separation and early compliance.
One point, they could never have foreseen they would end up in Europe, they couldn't really remove the person involved until it was too late. Personally i feel as long as he is no longer in charge of any affairs or has no involvement prior to this season it should be fine, have a look at City/ Girona and other clubs that have got away with similar, how long did Redbull have a couple of teams both in the Champions league.
Also take into account the fact Lyon were not expected to qualify but have due to PSG etc. i think its just one of those if it was a big club like Chelsea/ City/ Arsenal, they would have just worked it out and allowed them to play, Palace are a victim of this in my opinion, similar to if Charlton ever were in a similar position.
As much as i don't like them, i hope their appeal is successful, equally they get thumped every game whatever competition they end up.7 -
I believe my MOT expires at the end of October, rather than September.. Does that mean I can still drive it?10
-
Nah they were still in the FA Cup, and have reached recent Finals, so wasn't within the realms of possibility that they'd get into Europe. Not to mention what a complete lack of faith from the owner, not to submit the application to move the shares... JUST IN CASE!!johnnybev1987 said:
I kind of disagree, like as much as i dislike the club, fans i feel they have been very hard done by here.Chizz said:Here's a summary of Palace's appeal to CAS today. Decision due to be published on Monday.1. Ownership Influence
Crystal Palace position: Textor had no "decisive influence".
UEFA's position: Textor's holding (43.9%) breached UEFA's multi-club ownership rules.
Likely CAS view: CAS is likely to defer to UEFA's definition, unless it is demonstrably unreasonable.
My view: Palace broke the fucking rules.2. Deadline dispute
Crystal Palace position: Believed the deadline was 30 April, not 1 March.
UEFA's position: 1 March was formally communicated and applied across all cases.
Likely CAS view: Likely to side with UEFA
My view: It doesn't matter whether the deadline was the 1 March or 30 April - Textor still had his shares in June.3. Email address
Crystal Palace position: UEFA sent emails to an unmonitored address (info@cpfc.co.uk).
UEFA's position: The email address was provided to UEFA by Crystal Palace.
Likely CAS view: CAS tends to uphold formal notice unless procedural fairness is clearly violated.
My view: I tried the "dog ate my homework" excuse once. I was eight. I should have known better. Palace claim to be 143.4. Comparable precedents
Crystal Palace position: Cite leniency for Man City-Girona, Red Bull clubs, INEOS.
UEFA's position: UEFA claims this situation is different in terms of influence and timing.
Likely CAS view: CAS rarely overrules UEFA discretion without clear bias or unequal treatment
My view: Crystal Palace may have a point here. But are they really asking for all previous cases to be re-litigated?5. Compliance Timing
Crystal Palace's position: Textor sold his shares in late June.
UEFA: The deadline was 1 March.Likely CAS view: Timing supports UEFA's view.
My view: If you want to claim that someone sold his shares before the deadline, make sure that person sold his shares before the deadline.Precedents
- Drogheda United (2024): Lost appeal after being removed from the Conference League over multi-club ownership.
- DAC Dunajská Streda: Also excluded due to Red Bull connections; CAS upheld UEFA’s ruling.
- Red Bull Leipzig vs. Salzburg (2017): Only allowed to both enter after demonstrable separation and early compliance.
One point, they could never have foreseen they would end up in Europe, they couldn't really remove the person involved until it was too late. Personally i feel as long as he is no longer in charge of any affairs or has no involvement prior to this season it should be fine, have a look at City/ Girona and other clubs that have got away with similar, how long did Redbull have a couple of teams both in the Champions league.
Also take into account the fact Lyon were not expected to qualify but have due to PSG etc. i think its just one of those if it was a big club like Chelsea/ City/ Arsenal, they would have just worked it out and allowed them to play, Palace are a victim of this in my opinion, similar to if Charlton ever were in a similar position.
As much as i don't like them, i hope their appeal is successful, equally they get thumped every game whatever competition they end up.
They should be spitting feathers at their owners for not believing in the team and that a target was possible... I'd like to think that we'd be apoplectic if we learnt our owners didn't do something like that.
Point three, with the email address, shows the lack of common sense that was shown from Palace... As for Point four, do Palace really have a case? - I thought that the examples Chizz mention, were allowed, because their owners put the shares into holding (or whatever the correct term is), and is all Palace needed to do in the first place themselves.
I'd still love to know why they're allowed in the Conference League with Brondby in there?0 -
Sponsored links:
-
1. Ownership Influence
Crystal Palace position: Textor had no "decisive influence".
UEFA's position: Textor's holding (43.9%) breached UEFA's multi-club ownership rules.
How can owning nearly half the club mean "no decisive influence"?
He might have left Parrish to do all the decision making, but you can absolutely guarantee that wouldn't have remained the case if things started going badly.5 -
"How could we have known when we entered the FA Cup that we might win it?"ForeverAddickted said:
Nah they were still in the FA Cup, and have reached recent Finals, so wasn't within the realms of possibility that they'd get into Europe. Not to mention what a complete lack of faith from the owner, not to submit the application to move the shares... JUST IN CASE!!johnnybev1987 said:
I kind of disagree, like as much as i dislike the club, fans i feel they have been very hard done by here.Chizz said:Here's a summary of Palace's appeal to CAS today. Decision due to be published on Monday.1. Ownership Influence
Crystal Palace position: Textor had no "decisive influence".
UEFA's position: Textor's holding (43.9%) breached UEFA's multi-club ownership rules.
Likely CAS view: CAS is likely to defer to UEFA's definition, unless it is demonstrably unreasonable.
My view: Palace broke the fucking rules.2. Deadline dispute
Crystal Palace position: Believed the deadline was 30 April, not 1 March.
UEFA's position: 1 March was formally communicated and applied across all cases.
Likely CAS view: Likely to side with UEFA
My view: It doesn't matter whether the deadline was the 1 March or 30 April - Textor still had his shares in June.3. Email address
Crystal Palace position: UEFA sent emails to an unmonitored address (info@cpfc.co.uk).
UEFA's position: The email address was provided to UEFA by Crystal Palace.
Likely CAS view: CAS tends to uphold formal notice unless procedural fairness is clearly violated.
My view: I tried the "dog ate my homework" excuse once. I was eight. I should have known better. Palace claim to be 143.4. Comparable precedents
Crystal Palace position: Cite leniency for Man City-Girona, Red Bull clubs, INEOS.
UEFA's position: UEFA claims this situation is different in terms of influence and timing.
Likely CAS view: CAS rarely overrules UEFA discretion without clear bias or unequal treatment
My view: Crystal Palace may have a point here. But are they really asking for all previous cases to be re-litigated?5. Compliance Timing
Crystal Palace's position: Textor sold his shares in late June.
UEFA: The deadline was 1 March.Likely CAS view: Timing supports UEFA's view.
My view: If you want to claim that someone sold his shares before the deadline, make sure that person sold his shares before the deadline.Precedents
- Drogheda United (2024): Lost appeal after being removed from the Conference League over multi-club ownership.
- DAC Dunajská Streda: Also excluded due to Red Bull connections; CAS upheld UEFA’s ruling.
- Red Bull Leipzig vs. Salzburg (2017): Only allowed to both enter after demonstrable separation and early compliance.
One point, they could never have foreseen they would end up in Europe, they couldn't really remove the person involved until it was too late. Personally i feel as long as he is no longer in charge of any affairs or has no involvement prior to this season it should be fine, have a look at City/ Girona and other clubs that have got away with similar, how long did Redbull have a couple of teams both in the Champions league.
Also take into account the fact Lyon were not expected to qualify but have due to PSG etc. i think its just one of those if it was a big club like Chelsea/ City/ Arsenal, they would have just worked it out and allowed them to play, Palace are a victim of this in my opinion, similar to if Charlton ever were in a similar position.
As much as i don't like them, i hope their appeal is successful, equally they get thumped every game whatever competition they end up.
They should be spitting feathers at their owners for not believing in the team and that a target was possible... I'd like to think that we'd be apoplectic if we learnt our owners didn't do something like that.
Point three, with the email address, shows the lack of common sense that was shown from Palace... As for Point four, do Palace really have a case? - I thought that the examples Chizz mention, were allowed, because their owners put the shares into holding (or whatever the correct term is), and is all Palace needed to do in the first place themselves.
I'd still love to know why they're allowed in the Conference League with Brondby in there?
"How could I know when I drove to the pub that I might drive back again, pissed?"
It's not a great defence, really.5 -
You know what, the Championship looks tough this season, why dont we give our First Team players the year off, we're probably going to get relegated anyway, so lets play the U21s for experience"Chizz said:
"How could we have known when we entered the FA Cup that we might win it?"ForeverAddickted said:
Nah they were still in the FA Cup, and have reached recent Finals, so wasn't within the realms of possibility that they'd get into Europe. Not to mention what a complete lack of faith from the owner, not to submit the application to move the shares... JUST IN CASE!!johnnybev1987 said:
I kind of disagree, like as much as i dislike the club, fans i feel they have been very hard done by here.Chizz said:Here's a summary of Palace's appeal to CAS today. Decision due to be published on Monday.1. Ownership Influence
Crystal Palace position: Textor had no "decisive influence".
UEFA's position: Textor's holding (43.9%) breached UEFA's multi-club ownership rules.
Likely CAS view: CAS is likely to defer to UEFA's definition, unless it is demonstrably unreasonable.
My view: Palace broke the fucking rules.2. Deadline dispute
Crystal Palace position: Believed the deadline was 30 April, not 1 March.
UEFA's position: 1 March was formally communicated and applied across all cases.
Likely CAS view: Likely to side with UEFA
My view: It doesn't matter whether the deadline was the 1 March or 30 April - Textor still had his shares in June.3. Email address
Crystal Palace position: UEFA sent emails to an unmonitored address (info@cpfc.co.uk).
UEFA's position: The email address was provided to UEFA by Crystal Palace.
Likely CAS view: CAS tends to uphold formal notice unless procedural fairness is clearly violated.
My view: I tried the "dog ate my homework" excuse once. I was eight. I should have known better. Palace claim to be 143.4. Comparable precedents
Crystal Palace position: Cite leniency for Man City-Girona, Red Bull clubs, INEOS.
UEFA's position: UEFA claims this situation is different in terms of influence and timing.
Likely CAS view: CAS rarely overrules UEFA discretion without clear bias or unequal treatment
My view: Crystal Palace may have a point here. But are they really asking for all previous cases to be re-litigated?5. Compliance Timing
Crystal Palace's position: Textor sold his shares in late June.
UEFA: The deadline was 1 March.Likely CAS view: Timing supports UEFA's view.
My view: If you want to claim that someone sold his shares before the deadline, make sure that person sold his shares before the deadline.Precedents
- Drogheda United (2024): Lost appeal after being removed from the Conference League over multi-club ownership.
- DAC Dunajská Streda: Also excluded due to Red Bull connections; CAS upheld UEFA’s ruling.
- Red Bull Leipzig vs. Salzburg (2017): Only allowed to both enter after demonstrable separation and early compliance.
One point, they could never have foreseen they would end up in Europe, they couldn't really remove the person involved until it was too late. Personally i feel as long as he is no longer in charge of any affairs or has no involvement prior to this season it should be fine, have a look at City/ Girona and other clubs that have got away with similar, how long did Redbull have a couple of teams both in the Champions league.
Also take into account the fact Lyon were not expected to qualify but have due to PSG etc. i think its just one of those if it was a big club like Chelsea/ City/ Arsenal, they would have just worked it out and allowed them to play, Palace are a victim of this in my opinion, similar to if Charlton ever were in a similar position.
As much as i don't like them, i hope their appeal is successful, equally they get thumped every game whatever competition they end up.
They should be spitting feathers at their owners for not believing in the team and that a target was possible... I'd like to think that we'd be apoplectic if we learnt our owners didn't do something like that.
Point three, with the email address, shows the lack of common sense that was shown from Palace... As for Point four, do Palace really have a case? - I thought that the examples Chizz mention, were allowed, because their owners put the shares into holding (or whatever the correct term is), and is all Palace needed to do in the first place themselves.
I'd still love to know why they're allowed in the Conference League with Brondby in there?
"How could I know when I drove to the pub that I might drive back again, pissed?"
It's not a great defence, really.
On second thoughts, we did that to some extent back in 2019/200 -
Feck em3
-
I mean, they hadn't won it before... its one of those once in a lifetime scenarios, like Leicester winning the Premier league (probably not quite). It feels like there is a lot of bias on this thread, if the shoe was on the other foot so to speak i am sure you would all look at it differently.Chizz said:
"How could we have known when we entered the FA Cup that we might win it?"ForeverAddickted said:
Nah they were still in the FA Cup, and have reached recent Finals, so wasn't within the realms of possibility that they'd get into Europe. Not to mention what a complete lack of faith from the owner, not to submit the application to move the shares... JUST IN CASE!!johnnybev1987 said:
I kind of disagree, like as much as i dislike the club, fans i feel they have been very hard done by here.Chizz said:Here's a summary of Palace's appeal to CAS today. Decision due to be published on Monday.1. Ownership Influence
Crystal Palace position: Textor had no "decisive influence".
UEFA's position: Textor's holding (43.9%) breached UEFA's multi-club ownership rules.
Likely CAS view: CAS is likely to defer to UEFA's definition, unless it is demonstrably unreasonable.
My view: Palace broke the fucking rules.2. Deadline dispute
Crystal Palace position: Believed the deadline was 30 April, not 1 March.
UEFA's position: 1 March was formally communicated and applied across all cases.
Likely CAS view: Likely to side with UEFA
My view: It doesn't matter whether the deadline was the 1 March or 30 April - Textor still had his shares in June.3. Email address
Crystal Palace position: UEFA sent emails to an unmonitored address (info@cpfc.co.uk).
UEFA's position: The email address was provided to UEFA by Crystal Palace.
Likely CAS view: CAS tends to uphold formal notice unless procedural fairness is clearly violated.
My view: I tried the "dog ate my homework" excuse once. I was eight. I should have known better. Palace claim to be 143.4. Comparable precedents
Crystal Palace position: Cite leniency for Man City-Girona, Red Bull clubs, INEOS.
UEFA's position: UEFA claims this situation is different in terms of influence and timing.
Likely CAS view: CAS rarely overrules UEFA discretion without clear bias or unequal treatment
My view: Crystal Palace may have a point here. But are they really asking for all previous cases to be re-litigated?5. Compliance Timing
Crystal Palace's position: Textor sold his shares in late June.
UEFA: The deadline was 1 March.Likely CAS view: Timing supports UEFA's view.
My view: If you want to claim that someone sold his shares before the deadline, make sure that person sold his shares before the deadline.Precedents
- Drogheda United (2024): Lost appeal after being removed from the Conference League over multi-club ownership.
- DAC Dunajská Streda: Also excluded due to Red Bull connections; CAS upheld UEFA’s ruling.
- Red Bull Leipzig vs. Salzburg (2017): Only allowed to both enter after demonstrable separation and early compliance.
One point, they could never have foreseen they would end up in Europe, they couldn't really remove the person involved until it was too late. Personally i feel as long as he is no longer in charge of any affairs or has no involvement prior to this season it should be fine, have a look at City/ Girona and other clubs that have got away with similar, how long did Redbull have a couple of teams both in the Champions league.
Also take into account the fact Lyon were not expected to qualify but have due to PSG etc. i think its just one of those if it was a big club like Chelsea/ City/ Arsenal, they would have just worked it out and allowed them to play, Palace are a victim of this in my opinion, similar to if Charlton ever were in a similar position.
As much as i don't like them, i hope their appeal is successful, equally they get thumped every game whatever competition they end up.
They should be spitting feathers at their owners for not believing in the team and that a target was possible... I'd like to think that we'd be apoplectic if we learnt our owners didn't do something like that.
Point three, with the email address, shows the lack of common sense that was shown from Palace... As for Point four, do Palace really have a case? - I thought that the examples Chizz mention, were allowed, because their owners put the shares into holding (or whatever the correct term is), and is all Palace needed to do in the first place themselves.
I'd still love to know why they're allowed in the Conference League with Brondby in there?
"How could I know when I drove to the pub that I might drive back again, pissed?"
It's not a great defence, really.
Yep its a schoolboy error from them, but lets not pretend it hasn't happened with other clubs and it just gets brushed away, my whole point is if it happened to little Charlton/ palace, i doubt it would if it was a bigger club3 -
Palace basically fucked up by missing a deadline that they must have been aware off.
Even if they weren't aware of it they should have been.
No excuses Palace fucked up.9 -
It's a new season, surely that should factor. If the person has no more involvement in Palars, why should it matter now? I know there is a deadline but why, should be pretty straight forward if he is not involved anymore just let them have their moment (begrudgingly)2
-
Nojohnnybev1987 said:It's a new season, surely that should factor. If the person has no more involvement in Palars, why should it matter now? I know there is a deadline but why, should be pretty straight forward if he is not involved anymore just let them have their moment (begrudgingly)2 -
Imagine the prescient that would set. Break a law then sell it to a friend and escape punishment. Absolutely no way. Luton's new owners (at the time) found something wrong by the previous regime, reported it to the FA then were punished for it with a 30 points deduction.johnnybev1987 said:It's a new season, surely that should factor. If the person has no more involvement in Palars, why should it matter now? I know there is a deadline but why, should be pretty straight forward if he is not involved anymore just let them have their moment (begrudgingly)4 -
Fuck 'emjohnnybev1987 said:It's a new season, surely that should factor. If the person has no more involvement in Palars, why should it matter now? I know there is a deadline but why, should be pretty straight forward if he is not involved anymore just let them have their moment (begrudgingly)4
