Nottingham Forest owner Evangelos Marinakis at the City Ground.NOTTINGHAM, ENGLAND – JANUARY 17: Nottingham Forest’s owner Evangelos Marinakis arriving at the stadium during the Premier League match between Nottingham Forest and Arsenal at City Ground on January 17, 2026 in Nottingham, England. (Photo by Andrew Kearns – CameraSport via Getty Images)Credit: Getty

CRYSTAL PALACE have been hit with a £50,000 fine after fans displayed an offensive banner aimed at Nottingham Forest owner Evangelos Marinakis.

Supporters in the Holmesdale Road End at Selhurst Park held up the banner during game with Forest on August 24 last year.

Nottingham Forest owner Evangelos Marinakis at the City Ground.Nottingham Forest’s owner Evangelos MarinakisCredit: Getty

The banner depicted the owner holding a gun to the head of midfielder and read: “Mr Marinakis is not involved in blackmail, match-fixing, drug trafficking or corruption.”

Marinakis has always denied any wrongdoing in relation to such allegations.

It also showed former Palace co-owner, John Textor, as a clown.

The match came just days after Crystal Palace had been demoted to the Conference League from the , with Forest taking their place having encouraged Uefa’s investigation.

The banner was only on display for two minutes, with stewards having intervened within 30 seconds of it being spotted by stadium security staff.

In a written submission, Palace admitted they did not know how the banner had made it into the stands but argued that the message was fans exercising freedom of speech.

All supporters entering the stand, the club said, are routinely searched.

Palace said they could not characterise whether the wording was offensive or not, but added: “It is clearly an expression of the exercise of the right to freedom of speech from the Crystal Palace supporters, and whilst the club acknowledges there are guardrails around freedom of expression that the club will always police, there must be a general presumption of freedom of expression.”

The independent panel assessing the case decided that the banner was, objectively, offensive and prohibited, though added that this was a minor breach and that Palace were not at serious fault, merely negligent.

Due to that the club were handed a smaller than usual fine for breaches of rule E21.