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.
-
The differential between EM and a few random Palace fans is sufficiently vast that we don’t need to carry water for 0.001% by missing the point.
-
I don't think the Palace fans are the point or target of this litigation.
-
Yet they are (un)named in the action. Which means that, ‘targets’ or not, they are sat at home terrified that someone with limitless resources is going to try and fuck up their lives.
-
If it came to it, and it almost certainly won't, then surely Crystal Palace would stand whatever cost for damages was incurred by a small number of their supporters. As stated in the linked article, defamation payouts are usually in the low six-figures which the club could easily absorb.
Seems more symbolic on Marinakis's part and, while you can certainly debate the rights and wrongs of such an action, it surely doesn't suit either party for this to see the inside of a courtroom.
You'd expect a swift dismissal of proceedings or smaller out-of-court settlement. As the article says, the wider legacy and impact for football clubs in this country is more interesting than any amount of compensation.
-
Maybe. I think our beloved leader may want to make an example of them.
-
Did you read the article Simon posted? The unnamed doesn't refer to the fans with the banners was my understanding from that.
-
I think it is them actually?
-
Maybe I just took that to be trying to cause Palace (and Parish) a load of hassle rather than wanting to pursue them personally.
-
Yes same. Marinakis doesn't give a shit about a few fans, he's smart enough to know that the supply of opposing fans is limitless. I have no doubt that he's pissed at Palace and specifically Parish for painting him as the reason they got kicked out of the UEL and deflecting from the fact that it was their own ineptitude; there's also an angle that it was actually Textor who was the reason Palace broke the MCO rules, and we know that Textor and Marinakis are tight.
I am very sure this is everything to do with Marinakis wanting to embarrass and / or damage Parish, and nothing to do with the fans who actually held the banner.
-
Risk with that is that disclosure on his side means something he'd rather not be public moves into the public sphere. Although the case with the Aris guy (if that gets that far), has the same risk, Woody Johnson (the majority owner of Palace) is probably richer than Karipidis so can probably afford to push harder, if he really wants to.
