• Existing user of old message board?

    Your username will have transferred over to this new message board, but your password will need to be reset. Visit our convert your account page, to transfer your old password over.

Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

NEILLO said:
Says who ?

There appears to be some contradictions in your post.

To rehash this yet again, do you think Palace could have taken remedial action to avoid this situation in February ? When we had only just got through to the FA Cup 5th round - game to be played on 1/3/25.

Why would they seek '' legal advice '' at that point. With 4 games to be played before possibly winning a cup for the first time in our history ?

Where is the evidence that the CFCB have decided to take disciplinary measures against Palace ? Unless I've missed something, no decision has been either made or announced as to whether Palace are in breach of the rules.

As for your statement regarding ECA and Textor, there was no obligation on his part to seek legal advice from the ECA. And what '' appropriate action '' would that be then ? And when would he have been expected to take it ??

And how on earth can Textor be deemed to be '' unreasonable " ??

The rule has become unfit for purpose thanks to the deadline change. And therein is the contradiction between the first highlighted paragraph and this one.

And you are wrong about Forest. They didn't miss the Blind Trust deadline. As long as the intent is registered by 1/3 and completed by end of April. I understand their owners letter to UEFA was seeking clarification about their position should Palace be excluded. And if that's the case, I don't think that's unreasonable to seek clarification.

And, trying hard to stay polite here, but there is no consolation in Palace not competing in the Europa League. That's just nonsense.

And '' emerging as a stronger club etc '' - well I don't know how you work that out either. The effect could well be an unsettled manager and players - I fail to see an upside.
Click to expand...
Saved me responding to that post. Cheers 👍
 
Jason Smith, thank you for your well-informed and articulate post, alongside Neillo's also financial observations.
I was just perusing the tank museum in Bovington (online) and wondering if I could garner enough armour to enhance Palace's European credentials, with perhaps another unauthorised jaunt across the European mainland.

I must admit, after Neillo's and now Jason's posts I am almost resigned to not being in Europe next season.

But we have the FA cup in our trophy cabinet. And even Mark Clattenburg at his worst, it would still be a whistle too late to try and bring play back to an infringement in the FA cup final.
 
Forest Hillbilly said:
Jason Smith, thank you for your well-informed and articulate post, alongside Neillo's also financial observations.
I was just perusing the tank museum in Bovington (online) and wondering if I could garner enough armour to enhance Palace's European credentials, with perhaps another unauthorised jaunt across the European mainland.

I must admit, after Neillo's and now Jason's posts I am almost resigned to not being in Europe next season.

But we have the FA cup in our trophy cabinet. And even Mark Clattenburg at his worst, it would still be a whistle too late to try and bring play back to an infringement in the FA cup final.
Click to expand...
Hmmm - it didn't come across that way to me....
 
Regarding Glasner's contract extension, it might not be based entirely around him holding out for certain things (such as Europa football) but more a case of the terms of his contract might detail expectation of him which can't be determined until we know what competition we'll be in (or not). It might not be him playing hardball essentially.

I am always optimistic and also play too much Football Manager 2015, so this could just be a load of guff.
 
Part Time James said:
Regarding Glasner's contract extension, it might not be based entirely around him holding out for certain things (such as Europa football) but more a case of the terms of his contract might detail expectation of him which can't be determined until we know what competition we'll be in (or not). It might not be him playing hardball essentially.

I am always optimistic and also play too much Football Manager 2015, so this could just be a load of guff.
Click to expand...
He wants a clear plan in place - and to follow it. He also has no interest in interference with his job. Listen up Woody.
 
Part Time James said:
Right, but they can't give him a clear plan when we're in the middle of a 'sliding doors' moment. I guess they'll shape that when they know what's going to happen over the next 12 months.
Click to expand...
Glasner must wonder what sort of sh1t show he’s landed in. Last year we left business until late, he didn’t get a proper pre-season and made his feelings known about it. Now we are faced with an uncertain period not knowing whether to assemble a European challenging squad, a difficult budget (because we don’t know if extra money is likely to be coming our way) and players eyeing us and wondering whether they should be joining the club. Add to that, two of our players strongly linked with moves away and it’s not looking fantastic at this moment.

No one’s fault really but this is yet again not the sort of pre season that Glasner will be looking for. I hope he shows as much patience with the current shenanigans as he does tenacity in his tactical approach.
 
Eaglecoops said:
Glasner must wonder what sort of sh1t show he’s landed in. Last year we left business until late, he didn’t get a proper pre-season and made his feelings known about it. Now we are faced with an uncertain period not knowing whether to assemble a European challenging squad, a difficult budget (because we don’t know if extra money is likely to be coming our way) and players eyeing us and wondering whether they should be joining the club. Add to that, two of our players strongly linked with moves away and it’s not looking fantastic at this moment.

No one’s fault really but this is yet again not the sort of pre season that Glasner will be looking for. I hope he shows as much patience with the current shenanigans as he does tenacity in his tactical approach.
Click to expand...
Agreed, the current situation helps nobody.

However, to look on the positives ;

* he's got the pre season venue of his choice
* there are no international tournaments to contend with
* there's not a great deal of activity in the transfer market at this time anyway

I'd like to think that potential deals are in place pending the UEFA outcome. You'd think I'd know better by now !
 
I keep trying to steer away from negativity. But this lack of transfer activity starts to worry me. Probably over thinking . Could it be that if Palace are in they would have had a nod to that, giving them the confidence to do some business and keep their manager happy.?
The fact that they have not moved in the market might indicate they really are in limbo, which is worrying ,because it could always have been the delay was merely to dot some I,s and cross the t,s. At least that was my hope.Not so hopeful now as it meanders on.
 
NEILLO said:
Says who ?

There appears to be some contradictions in your post.

To rehash this yet again, do you think Palace could have taken remedial action to avoid this situation in February ? When we had only just got through to the FA Cup 5th round - game to be played on 1/3/25.

Why would they seek '' legal advice '' at that point. With 4 games to be played before possibly winning a cup for the first time in our history ?

Where is the evidence that the CFCB have decided to take disciplinary measures against Palace ? Unless I've missed something, no decision has been either made or announced as to whether Palace are in breach of the rules.

As for your statement regarding ECA and Textor, there was no obligation on his part to seek legal advice from the ECA. And what '' appropriate action '' would that be then ? And when would he have been expected to take it ??

And how on earth can Textor be deemed to be '' unreasonable " ??

The rule has become unfit for purpose thanks to the deadline change. And therein is the contradiction between the first highlighted paragraph and this one.

And you are wrong about Forest. They didn't miss the Blind Trust deadline. As long as the intent is registered by 1/3 and completed by end of April. I understand their owners letter to UEFA was seeking clarification about their position should Palace be excluded. And if that's the case, I don't think that's unreasonable to seek clarification.

And, trying hard to stay polite here, but there is no consolation in Palace not competing in the Europa League. That's just nonsense.

And '' emerging as a stronger club etc '' - well I don't know how you work that out either. The effect could well be an unsettled manager and players - I fail to see an upside.
Click to expand...
UEFA have always said that they gave clubs plenty of notice to comply with MCO regulations. It was reasonable for Textor, in particular, to seek proper legal advice, and clearly he had an obligation to do so. If it were not reasonable, and they had acted appropriately, we wouldn't be in this situation.

This has got nothing to do with progression, or potential progression in the FA Cup.

The evidence regarding potential disciplinary measures is that they were not convinced that Textor had acted reasonably or appropriately, which strongly indicates the CFCB are heading towards disciplinary measures. Bear in mind, they have access to a lot more background information and data, than would be available to the public. These are closed meetings, hence the need to read between the lines.

And how else can it be interpreted regarding the 25% voting share that Textor had? Once the CFCB were not going to accept that argument, and deliver their verdict in our favour, then clearly something else is a subject of deep concern to them.

Figuring all this out from UEFA's perspective does not mean that I am contradicting what I am saying, still less supporting their position in one paragraph and criticising it in another. I don't believe changing the deadline date to the 1st March served any reasonable purpose. Having said that, UEFA have signalled their concerns over MCO by ensuring that clubs that do come under this type of ownership need to take this matter very seriously, which John Textor was negligent in doing, otherwise he would be flagging up the legal advice he should have sought from the ECA.

As for Notts Forest registering their intent before the 1st March, I have not read that in any article that they did this; but if you are right, then good for them for complying on time.

But as for them supposedly just seeking clarification by registering a concern, my gut instinct tells me it is disingenuous and unethical of them to be doing that. They have no right to be interfering - if they benefit, they benefit; if they don't, they don't.

However, if they do take our place, well good for them for finishing higher than us in the league (which is a greater, if less prestigious, achievement than winning the FA Cup) and also for registering their intent before the 1st March and getting the blind trust registered before the 30th April.

As for the consolation points, I still stand by my second point. The third point is valid if you want to perceive this through a somewhat romantic notion of being cast out into the wilderness, and the refiner's fire of injustice tempers the metal into a hardened and steely resolve; but I do accept that somewhat poetic and subjective viewpoint will not appeal to everyone.

Finally, I commend you for your self-restraint in remaining polite.
 
Last edited:
NEILLO said:
I see the big issue with this is how clubs qualify for the Europa League. If it’s via a cup win , as I’ve said before, these are traditionally played late in the season with no opportunity for clubs with multi club ownership ( or suspected ! ) to make themselves compliant. Potentially this is one of the things UEFA are trying to get their legal heads around.

By comparison, while it stinks, the Lyon situation is easier for them to arrive at a decision
Click to expand...

By March the 1st the majority of clubs still have a mathematical possibility of qualifying for europe, it's an unreasonable deadline for all clubs in the top divisions.
 
Jason Smith said:
The only issue that CFCB can adjudicate on is that the Palace directors were given ample warning of MCO regulations well before the March 1st deadline; and they chose to interpret the rules without seeking proper legal advice from the European Club Association (ECA). This is significant, as Palace are one of the few PL clubs that are not members of the ECA: the only organisation that has the authority to represent football clubs in Europe, and has a comprehensive range of legal services at its disposal. This does not bode well for Palace, especially in light of the fact that its chairman, Nasser bin Ghanim Al-Khelaifi, has a particular dislike for John Textor's big money ego. I should add Al-Khelaifi is also one of two ECA representatives on UEFA's Executive Committee. This lack of incorporation leaves Palace particularly vulnerable, especially Parish and Harris, who could not seek any legal advice from the ECA regarding this matter. I should add that both Brøndby and Lyon are full members, which means that the ECA's legal services are available both to Blitzer and Textor. As the ECA aptly puts it: "Football is a social contract, not a legal contract." When the CFCB give their verdict, they cannot take into consideration any subsequent developments either; and if they do it would be a political decision not a legal one. After their initial meeting, the CFCB have already decided that they need to take disciplinary measures against Palace, primarily because John Textor chose not to seek any legal advice from the ECA, and take appropriate action, which would have been reasonable for him to do so. Hence Al-Khelaifi accusing Textor: "You don't know what you're doing. You're just a cowboy, John." And it is because of John Textor's unreasonable behaviour that Palace now face the real possibility of being disqualified from the Europa League. The subsequent delays are because UEFA know they are now sitting on top of a volcano that is about to erupt because of their inexplicable rule change for compliance from the 3rd June to the 1st March, which was always going to catch out a club like Palace. There are, however, three consolations: Forest cannot qualify for the Europa League, either, because they also missed the deadline by two months; but the downside is Brighton would qualify for the Europa League and Bournemouth would qualify for the Conference League (the only other established PL club that is not a member of the ECA). The second consolation is that Glasner is happier working with a smaller squad, which means that it would be extremely risky for Palace to be competing in Europe, anyway. The third consolation, and undoubtedly the biggest, is that Palace will emerge as a much stronger club because of this injustice.
Click to expand...

You are making a strong insinuation that Nasser bin Ghanim Al-Khelaifi is unprincipled and will make this decision based on personal feelings and not fairly considering all issues while avoiding the main issue that the rules are unfair and discriminatory

Is there a legal requirement to be in the ECA club?

Presumably not. In which case why would a be decision be made against you with that as a basis?

Whatever happens on Monday this is likely to go to CAS

And I wonder what they will make of the decision being influenced by personal feelings and a dislike of 'big money' while not being a member of the right 'club'

And big money in football. I'm shocked!
 
Forest Hillbilly said:
Jason Smith, thank you for your well-informed and articulate post, alongside Neillo's also financial observations.
I was just perusing the tank museum in Bovington (online) and wondering if I could garner enough armour to enhance Palace's European credentials, with perhaps another unauthorised jaunt across the European mainland.

I must admit, after Neillo's and now Jason's posts I am almost resigned to not being in Europe next season.

But we have the FA cup in our trophy cabinet. And even Mark Clattenburg at his worst, it would still be a whistle too late to try and bring play back to an infringement in the FA cup final.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Forest Hillbilly.
 
Jason Smith said:
UEFA have always said that they gave clubs plenty of notice to comply with MCO regulations. It was reasonable for Textor, in particular, to seek proper legal advice, and clearly he had an obligation to do so. If it were not reasonable, and they had acted appropriately, we wouldn't be in this situation.

This has got nothing to do with progression, or potential progression in the FA Cup.

The evidence regarding potential disciplinary measures is that they were not convinced that Textor had acted reasonably or appropriately, which strongly indicates the CFCB are heading towards disciplinary measures. Bear in mind, they have access to a lot more background information and data, than would be available to the public. These are closed meetings, hence the need to read between the lines.

And how else can it be interpreted regarding the 25% voting share that Textor had? Once the CFCB were not going to accept that argument, and deliver their verdict in our favour, then clearly something else is a subject of deep concern to them.

Figuring all this out from UEFA's perspective does not mean that I am contradicting what I am saying, still less supporting their position in one paragraph and criticising it in another. I don't believe changing the deadline date to the 1st March served any reasonable purpose. Having said that, UEFA have signalled their concerns over MCO by ensuring that clubs that do come under this type of ownership need to take this matter very seriously, which John Textor was negligent in doing, otherwise he would be flagging up the legal advice he should have sought from the ECA.

As for Notts Forest registering their intent before the 1st March, I have not read that in any article that they did this; but if you are right, then good for them for complying on time.

But as for them supposedly just seeking clarification by registering a concern, my gut instinct tells me it is disingenuous and unethical of them to be doing that. They have no right to be interring - if they benefit, they benefit; if they don't, they don't.

However, if they do take our place, well good for them for finishing higher than us in the league (which is a greater, if less prestigious, achievement than winning the FA Cup) and also for registering their intent before the 1st March and getting the blind trust registered before the 30th April.

As for the consolation points, I still stand by my second point. The third point is valid if you want to perceive this through a somewhat romantic notion of being cast out into the wilderness, and the refiner's fire of injustice tempers the metal into a hardened and steely resolve; but I do accept that somewhat poetic and subjective viewpoint will not appeal to everyone.

Finally, I commend you for your self-restraint in remaining polite.
Click to expand...
You haven't really answered my questions, but let's see if I understand you correctly.

You think that Textor should have sought legal advice. To what end ? He has publicly stated his desire to sell his shareholding for some time now. Which he didn't do. Why ? - it's fair to assume that either he was asking too much or potential buyers ( ironically ) would have wanted more control over the club than he has had.
So, we began last season winless for the first 8 games and in the bottom 3 in the League. European qualification via a league position highly unlikely. That leaves the Carabao and FA cups as potential routes. Are you suggesting that Textor should have placed his shares into a Blind Trust well in advance of the 1/3/25 deadline ? Because that was the only solution available if he couldn't sell his shares. So I contend that progression in the cup is of relevance.

Highlighted Para 1 - You have NO evidence of disciplinary action do you ? You are interpreting events without any base for your statements '' strongly indicates '' is your opinion, nothing more.
Highlighted Para 2 - How do you know that the argument wasn't accepted ? The meeting in Nyon was to enable Palace to put their case forward. UEFA then stated they needed until end of June to consider and will pass judgement then. So from my perspective they neither accepted or rejected Palace's position.
Highlighted Para 3 - It comes back to the same question. What was Textor meant to do and when ?? really interested to hear your thoughts.
Highlighted Para 4 - Asking for clarification is not interfering if indeed that's all they did.

Fair enough for standing by your 2nd consolation point - but bear in my that Glasner's mentality is of a highly competitive nature. Oh, and he's won the Europa League previously. I doubt he would agree with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top