Thought this theesk.org/2026/08/12/the-analysis-series-marinakis-v-crystal-palace-when-a-banner-becomes-a-balance-sheet-issue/ was quite interesting on the Marinakis/Palace defamation case.
-
Yeah, very interesting, and, to a layman, seems to know what he is talking about.
-
Nice to know the morons which made and unfurled the banner will be shitting themselves now. A few giggles from their mates, a bit of national exposure and now realising actions have consequences.
-
Nah, fuck that. Normies should be able to poke fun at billionaires without shit like this. Absolute dick move by EM.. embarrassing for the club and embarrassing for the English legal system that this is a thing.
-
I'm a bit conflicted. On the whole, I don't think Palace should have any argument with us. UEFA enforced their rules and we benefited as a result. It seems delusional to think that they wouldn't have bothered if we didn't ask them to (if we even did) but I understand the desire to have someone else to blame.
I'd prefer it if Marinakis let it slide, took the league's fine as a vindication and forgot about it but the banner isn't just poking fun - it's accusing him of blackmail, match-fixing, drug-trafficking and corruption (rule of three, lads, drop one of those). I can understand him being a bit sensitive about that. Without that text, I'd be 100% with you.
-
That feels very binary. At what levels of wealth differential is this approach allowed?
-
As long as someone has less money than you they have free pass to do whatever they want to you without repercussion?
-
Put like that, it's the exact opposite of the way the world works.
