• 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?

Part Time James said:
I have joked about us sticking two fingers up at UEFA but whatever the board decide they need to make sure Glasner and the players are happy. They're likely to prefer the Conference to nothing at all.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't joke as its an option I would go with . Why disrupt our whole season with a Thursday / Sunday rota for what amounts to the European ZDS ? I cant see it having much interest for the fans and would rather push on in the league and hope for qualification into one of the big two European competitions .

I am sticking to my view though that we will be in the Europa league .Nothing has been said by either UEFA or Palace that changes that . All we have heard is media stories and fans and pundits opinions on media stories .

It is now though a slight worry that UEFA haven't cleared this up with a statement as to whats going on ,their silence is whats leading to the speculation . As was mentioned about 60 pages ago they are kicking the can down the road in the hope they don't have to make a decision and set a precedent
 
NEILLO said:
We are starting to see reports of Palace considering legal action against UEFA.

That's entirely logical when you look at how clubs have successfully challenged regulatory rules set by the EPL and UEFA.

All of the Lyon relegation / finances issues should not have any direct bearing on Palace's situation.

I think it boils down to this ;

* UEFA don't think we were MCO compliant come 1/3/25. But if that's the case, then adjudicate on it !
* Palace believe that their Board structure proves that there was not a MCO breach

I think the legal challenge will centre on those points as Palace will think they have provided sufficient evidence that Textor did not have the level of interest that UEFA think he did.

But a further challenge surely must be around the rules themselves and their application. Not fit for purpose.
Click to expand...
If the MCO cut off date (01/03/25) is so relevant in keeping Palace out of the Europa League then surely it equally applies to Lyon. Both teams should be chucked out or allowed in. Lyon’s problem with the French FA is a separate matter. Wigan played in Europe after winning the FA Cup and being relegated.

I suspect Uefa have dug themselves into a big hole by not kicking Palace out when Parish and Textor visited. They led them to believe that by taking relevant action all would be OK irrespective of the 1st March deadline. To go back three weeks later and use the deadline as the reason would not look good especially in court.
 
Dogburger said:
I wouldn't joke as its an option I would go with . Why disrupt our whole season with a Thursday / Sunday rota for what amounts to the European ZDS ? I cant see it having much interest for the fans and would rather push on in the league and hope for qualification into one of the big two European competitions .

I am sticking to my view though that we will be in the Europa league .Nothing has been said by either UEFA or Palace that changes that . All we have heard is media stories and fans and pundits opinions on media stories .

It is now though a slight worry that UEFA haven't cleared this up with a statement as to whats going on ,their silence is whats leading to the speculation . As was mentioned about 60 pages ago they are kicking the can down the road in the hope they don't have to make a decision and set a precedent
Click to expand...
Would you still go with it if Oli Glasner said "right then, I'm off"? Innocent question, but for me his opinion matters.
 
NEILLO said:
We are starting to see reports of Palace considering legal action against UEFA.

That's entirely logical when you look at how clubs have successfully challenged regulatory rules set by the EPL and UEFA.

All of the Lyon relegation / finances issues should not have any direct bearing on Palace's situation.

I think it boils down to this ;

* UEFA don't think we were MCO compliant come 1/3/25. But if that's the case, then adjudicate on it !
* Palace believe that their Board structure proves that there was not a MCO breach

I think the legal challenge will centre on those points as Palace will think they have provided sufficient evidence that Textor did not have the level of interest that UEFA think he did.

But a further challenge surely must be around the rules themselves and their application. Not fit for purpose.
Click to expand...
I think UEAFA are desperate not to go to court of arbitration so will be looking for way out. They see easy way out is to let French authorities make decision on Lyon as this may mean their rules are not challenged.
If Palace are excluded they will go to the court and the rules will be examined and in my view ripped to shreds.
If Palace are not excluded will Forest go to court. In my view No as they don't have case. They will have to explain why their owner put his shares into a blind trust where from memory they need to stay for a period of 12 months and then withdrew them. The answer will be as different competitions no conflict but on 1st of March there was. This supports our arguments that this deadline is not workable and on 1st of March we had no conflicts. In my view the court will decide that if this date is set in stone both forest and olympiacos must be removed from Europe for the cancellation of the blind trust. Forest owner will not take that risk.
The other current scenario is will Palace go to court anyway because of delay and financial implications. I think this is what they are threatening and have reasonable grounds for success.
What UEAFA will try to do is kick can down road till Friday and hope that removes conflicts. Lyons financial situation has not changed in any real sense Eagle has sold CP shares and there is no guarantee they will invest that in Lyon. Far more likely to invest elsewhere possibly Sheffield Wednesday. Eagle still own shares in Lyon and whilst this is ongoing they are worthless. Eagle no longer have directors on Palace or Lyon Board so no control. One of definitions of control is can shareholder sack a director could Textor ever have sacked Parish?
 
Eagleman13 said:
We won't be allowed in the Conference League, because Blitzer owns Brondby.
Click to expand...
And to confirm, his share in Palace is considered to be high enough to be a conflict of interest is it? I don't know the answer, but if Textor owned 43% of Palace, how much could Blitzer own?

Don't say 57% because we know Harris and Parish own a portion each too.

Can Blitzer and Textor both be considered to have had a controlling influence over Palace? Maybe. Maybe I could have Googled it. Maybe I love asking on here instead.
 
Palace in the Blood said:
I think UEAFA are desperate not to go to court of arbitration so will be looking for way out. They see easy way out is to let French authorities make decision on Lyon as this may mean their rules are not challenged.
If Palace are excluded they will go to the court and the rules will be examined and in my view ripped to shreds.
If Palace are not excluded will Forest go to court. In my view No as they don't have case. They will have to explain why their owner put his shares into a blind trust where from memory they need to stay for a period of 12 months and then withdrew them. The answer will be as different competitions no conflict but on 1st of March there was. This supports our arguments that this deadline is not workable and on 1st of March we had no conflicts. In my view the court will decide that if this date is set in stone both forest and olympiacos must be removed from Europe for the cancellation of the blind trust. Forest owner will not take that risk.
The other current scenario is will Palace go to court anyway because of delay and financial implications. I think this is what they are threatening and have reasonable grounds for success.
What UEAFA will try to do is kick can down road till Friday and hope that removes conflicts. Lyons financial situation has not changed in any real sense Eagle has sold CP shares and there is no guarantee they will invest that in Lyon. Far more likely to invest elsewhere possibly Sheffield Wednesday. Eagle still own shares in Lyon and whilst this is ongoing they are worthless. Eagle no longer have directors on Palace or Lyon Board so no control. One of definitions of control is can shareholder sack a director could Textor ever have sacked Parish?
Click to expand...
Based on not very much, I think I generally agree with this write up.

My guess is that UEFA want to be watertight in terms of a challenge from Forest. The Lyon thing gives them a way to categorically tell Forest they have no case. If Lyon are reinstated then they know that whilst Forest have a very weak case, they will still fight a decision that allows Palace and Lyon to both compete.
 
As I understand it rules are different for conference. Palace winning FA Cup more prestigious than Brondby League position. However as we know rules are so fluid as to be meaningless

I wonder if this is a solution for EUFA, the money is less for us but would we accept if offered plus a financial settlement? Possibly what court of arbitration may decide
 
Part Time James said:
And to confirm, his share in Palace is considered to be high enough to be a conflict of interest is it? I don't know the answer, but if Textor owned 43% of Palace, how much could Blitzer own?

Don't say 57% because we know Harris and Parish own a portion each too.

Can Blitzer and Textor both be considered to have had a controlling influence over Palace? Maybe. Maybe I could have Googled it. Maybe I love asking on here instead.
Click to expand...
Blitzer and Harris each own 18% and Parish 10%.
 
Palace in the Blood said:
I think UEAFA are desperate not to go to court of arbitration so will be looking for way out. They see easy way out is to let French authorities make decision on Lyon as this may mean their rules are not challenged.
If Palace are excluded they will go to the court and the rules will be examined and in my view ripped to shreds.
If Palace are not excluded will Forest go to court. In my view No as they don't have case. They will have to explain why their owner put his shares into a blind trust where from memory they need to stay for a period of 12 months and then withdrew them. The answer will be as different competitions no conflict but on 1st of March there was. This supports our arguments that this deadline is not workable and on 1st of March we had no conflicts. In my view the court will decide that if this date is set in stone both forest and olympiacos must be removed from Europe for the cancellation of the blind trust. Forest owner will not take that risk.
The other current scenario is will Palace go to court anyway because of delay and financial implications. I think this is what they are threatening and have reasonable grounds for success.
What UEAFA will try to do is kick can down road till Friday and hope that removes conflicts. Lyons financial situation has not changed in any real sense Eagle has sold CP shares and there is no guarantee they will invest that in Lyon. Far more likely to invest elsewhere possibly Sheffield Wednesday. Eagle still own shares in Lyon and whilst this is ongoing they are worthless. Eagle no longer have directors on Palace or Lyon Board so no control. One of definitions of control is can shareholder sack a director could Textor ever have sacked Parish?
Click to expand...
Not on his own, no. A Majority (more than 50%) shareholder could do it by calling an Extraordinary General Meeting and having the majority vote, but less than 50% they would also need the backing of others to do this, and Textor only had a 25% share of the voting rights.
 
becky said:
Not on his own, no. A Majority (more than 50%) shareholder could do it by calling an Extraordinary General Meeting and having the majority vote, but less than 50% they would also need the backing of others to do this, and Textor only had a 25% share of the voting rights.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree to extent. On board he had 25% but at a shareholders meeting usually it relates to number of shares. This is not really an issue for Palace as he would need second backer but Lyon he wouldn't and could impose a director on club
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top