Just sounds like sour grapes. Should he have been sent off? Probably. These things happen. They won the FA Cup, whatever the circumstances, they have earned that European spot
[Football] If Palace can't play in the Europa League
- Thread starter B-right-on
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
pb21
Well-known member
- Apr 23, 2010
- 7,031
Sour grapes would be us, after not qualifying for Europe but palace doing so, saying playing in Europe is shit anyway.
Palace should only play in Europe if they followed the rules and are eligible. If they didn't, they don't deserve their place and haven't earned it, and it's not sour grapes to say so.
BrightonCottager
Well-known member
I can't begrudge Palace's FA Cup win. Fulham were dominant against them for 20 minutes then Eze got going (another good young schoolboy player released by Fulham) & we imploded. I wanted them to win the final rather than Citeh because it should be inspiration for clubs like Fulham (and Albion).
As for Football365's summary that 'Fulham have been unfathomably fun', it doesn't feel like that if you only attend home games and expect us to beat lower clubs (luckily I dont).
As for Football365's summary that 'Fulham have been unfathomably fun', it doesn't feel like that if you only attend home games and expect us to beat lower clubs (luckily I dont).
Yes, like Man City if they've broken the rules they should be punished, and no pointing that out isn't 'sour grapes'. Agreed.
However I think the point that @JBizzle was making is the Cup Final itself where Palace enjoyed the rub of the green. That's what happens in football, and moaning about that IS sour grapes. All this "He should have been sent off, City should have had a penalty, City were crap, Villa were crap, Fulham were crap, Palace had an easy run to the final" most definitely comes under the heading of 'sour grapes' and makes us look like a load of whingers.
I wonder what other rules teams can break and still be allowed into Europe. If the rules are not enforced then there is literally no reason having them so get rid. It is either a rule or it isn’t. This is in no way subjective like a crap VAR call, this is they comply or don’t.
I don’t understand the issue with rules being enforced. If people don’t like the rules then remove them but we can’t have organisations decide which rules apply and which don’t because they “don’t want to ruin a team’s European fun” in the way var can decide “not to ruin a cup final”.
Those who follow the rules and miss out on what they want to do e.g. bloom with USG are just being laughed at.
I don’t understand the issue with rules being enforced. If people don’t like the rules then remove them but we can’t have organisations decide which rules apply and which don’t because they “don’t want to ruin a team’s European fun” in the way var can decide “not to ruin a cup final”.
Those who follow the rules and miss out on what they want to do e.g. bloom with USG are just being laughed at.
kevo
Well-known member
- Mar 8, 2008
- 10,304
I think the (non) sending off is different. It was blatantly a red card. Would Palace have won with ten men and without Henderson? No.
Attwell and Gillett strike again.
- Jul 6, 2011
- 2,637
I imagine most Citeh fans have already let it go. Just some of our more jealous fans banging in about it now. 
pb21
Well-known member
- Apr 23, 2010
- 7,031
Even people moaning about palace enjoying the rub of the green isn't sour grapes though, although maybe I'm just being an unreasonable pedant!
"The Fox and the Grapes is one of Aesop's Fables,[1] numbered 15 in the Perry Index.[2] The narration is concise and subsequent retellings have often been equally so. The story concerns a fox that tries to eat grapes from a vine but cannot reach them. Rather than admit defeat, he states they are undesirable. The expression "sour grapes" originated from this fable.[3]"
The Fox and the Grapes - Wikipedia
So you dont know if there were any boos, therefore its not bollocks is it?
Have they been rightfully kicked out yet?
This feels like it's been dragging on as long as that similarly dodgy Man City thing.
This feels like it's been dragging on as long as that similarly dodgy Man City thing.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,694
It's easier to let it go when you average 2 Wembley trophy matches a season, rather than once in a generation event that is has been for Albion fans.I imagine most Citeh fans have already let it go. Just some of our more jealous fans banging in about it now.
Why rightfully kicked out?
Textor only has a 25% stake in the club, so he is not a majority shareholder, or am I missing something?
Surely the loan from Mr Bloom is twisting the rules in that case?
That is simply not true. The four horsemen of the crapocalypse do not own equal shares.
Textor owns more than 40% of Palace. They will try to argue that they meet the rules because he does not have majority CONTROL of the club (as Parrish retains control despite owning less) - but he is the largest shareholder.
nicko31
Well-known member
Kick em out, seems it’s just shy of 50 percent
Crystal Palace co-owner Textor's firm hit with strike-off notice
Crystal Palace shareholder John Textor’s Eagle Football Holdings company has been slapped with a strike-off notice.
www.cityam.com
Last edited:
- Jul 6, 2011
- 2,637
Yeah I know, that is why I imagine they have moved on.
Genuinely gutted for you, but rules are rules.
