Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

the one thing i have noticed all big names havent left us (yet) you never know they might stay and get us in champion lge and go up yours uefa , ok its a dream but dreamt 54 years that one day we will lift FA CUP
 
Listening to that interview it struck me just how woolly and muddled the thinking is at the very highest level of our ownership. Apart from confirming that the board had never discussed the issue of the rule change (which I find astonishing), Textor claimed (correctly in my view) that because he didn’t have decisive influence there was no need to avail himself of the convenient get around rules in any event. However, he then went on to say that as soon as we lifted the trophy he knew we had a problem coming our way. Why admit that in an open forum when your primary case is that there hasn’t been a breach? When asked by White if he was worried he should have just said, “Of course not Jim. Why would I be? I’ve never had decisive influence at Palace. It isn’t part of my MC operation. That’s why I’ve been looking to sell up.”
 
So uefa don't want multi club ownership but they don't want to prevent money from being invested in the game so have loopholes to allow multi club ownership. So as a billionaire I could buy 2 clubs who predominantly play in the Europa league, not bother putting my shares into a blind trust and both the clubs and fans suffer, how is this fair and why is there nothing In place to prevent this from happening.
 
rikz said:
So uefa don't want multi club ownership but they don't want to prevent money from being invested in the game so have loopholes to allow multi club ownership. So as a billionaire I could buy 2 clubs who predominantly play in the Europa league, not bother putting my shares into a blind trust and both the clubs and fans suffer, how is this fair and why is there nothing In place to prevent this from happening.
Click to expand...
Because everything was done to ensure that it would happen!
 
Kant said:
Listening to that interview it struck me just how woolly and muddled the thinking is at the very highest level of our ownership. Apart from confirming that the board had never discussed the issue of the rule change (which I find astonishing), Textor claimed (correctly in my view) that because he didn’t have decisive influence there was no need to avail himself of the convenient get around rules in any event. However, he then went on to say that as soon as we lifted the trophy he knew we had a problem coming our way. Why admit that in an open forum when your primary case is that there hasn’t been a breach? When asked by White if he was worried he should have just said, “Of course not Jim. Why would I be? I’ve never had decisive influence at Palace. It isn’t part of my MC operation. That’s why I’ve been looking to sell up.”
Click to expand...
because he knows the rules are weird..
 
mtp1958 said:

Article 5 Integrity of the competition/multi-club ownership​


5.01
To ensure the integrity of the UEFA club competitions (i.e. UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League and UEFA Conference League), the club must be able to prove that as at 1 March 2025 the below multi-club ownership criteria were met and the club must continue to comply with the below criteria from that date until the end of the competition season:

  1. No club participating in a UEFA club competition may, either directly or indirectly:
    1. hold or deal in the securities or shares of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition;
    2. be a member of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition;
    3. be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition; or
    4. have any power whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition.
  2. No one may simultaneously be involved, either directly or indirectly, in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition.
  3. No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition, such control or influence being defined in this context as:
    1. holding a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights;
    2. having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club;
    3. being a shareholder and alone controlling a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights pursuant to an agreement entered into with other shareholders of the club; or
    4. being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club.
5.02
If two or more clubs fail to meet the criteria aimed at ensuring the integrity of the competition, only one of them may be admitted to a UEFA club competition, in accordance with the following criteria (applicable in descending order) with the exception of the scenarios set out in Paragraph 5.04 and Paragraph 5.05:

  1. the club which qualifies on sporting merit for the most prestigious UEFA club competition (i.e., in descending order: UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League or UEFA Conference League);
  2. the club which was ranked highest in its domestic championship;
  3. the club whose association is ranked highest in the access list (see Annex A).
5.03
Clubs that are not admitted are replaced in accordance with Paragraph 4.10.

5.04
Exceptionally, provided that the relevant principles of Paragraph 5.01 are respected throughout, a club that was not admitted in application of Paragraph 5.02, and which is replaced in the competition in application of Paragraph 4.10, may still be admitted to another UEFA club competition (i.e. in descending order: UEFA Europa League or UEFA Conference League) to which the relevant national association has access, respecting the scenarios foreseen by Paragraph 5.05. The access of the respective association is adjusted accordingly.

5.05
This article is not applicable if any of the cases listed under Paragraph 5.01 happens between:

  1. a club qualifying (in accordance with Article 3) for the UEFA Champions League and entering the league phase directly and a club qualifying for the UEFA Europa League or UEFA Conference League (see Annex A);
  2. a club qualifying (in accordance with Article 3) for the UEFA Champions League and entering the playoffs (champions path or league path) or the third qualifying round of the league path directly or for the UEFA Europa League and entering the league phase directly and a club qualifying for the UEFA Conference League (see Annex A).
Click to expand...
Having read these rules. Nottingham Forest do not comply and should be banned. It defines European competition as the 3 . But when it uses term European competition it does not use word any or same anywhere. So if 2 clubs with common owners are involved in European competition rules apply. Forest and olympiakos are. Not same competition but rules do not say that. Blind trust applies to end of competition so by cancelling blind trust they remain in breach.
 
Kant said:
Listening to that interview it struck me just how woolly and muddled the thinking is at the very highest level of our ownership. Apart from confirming that the board had never discussed the issue of the rule change (which I find astonishing), Textor claimed (correctly in my view) that because he didn’t have decisive influence there was no need to avail himself of the convenient get around rules in any event. However, he then went on to say that as soon as we lifted the trophy he knew we had a problem coming our way. Why admit that in an open forum when your primary case is that there hasn’t been a breach? When asked by White if he was worried he should have just said, “Of course not Jim. Why would I be? I’ve never had decisive influence at Palace. It isn’t part of my MC operation. That’s why I’ve been looking to sell up.”
Click to expand...
This!! How idi0tic is this guy?
 
Palace in the Blood said:
Having read these rules. Nottingham Forest do not comply and should be banned. It defines European competition as the 3 . But when it uses term European competition it does not use word any or same anywhere. So if 2 clubs with common owners are involved in European competition rules apply. Forest and olympiakos are. Not same competition but rules do not say that. Blind trust applies to end of competition so by cancelling blind trust they remain in breach.
Click to expand...
Article 5.04 states in legalese that it's okay if they are in different competitions, so Forest are okay.
Palace are materially in breach and should according to their rules drop out entirely due to the conflict with Lyon and Bronby. But if that is plainly true why has UEFA not said so weeks ago. Makes you think they know the rules are daft because they have let other clubs ignore them through various get outs like blind trusts. Got themselves in a legal hole.
 
Palace in the Blood said:
Having read these rules. Nottingham Forest do not comply and should be banned. It defines European competition as the 3 . But when it uses term European competition it does not use word any or same anywhere. So if 2 clubs with common owners are involved in European competition rules apply. Forest and olympiakos are. Not same competition but rules do not say that. Blind trust applies to end of competition so by cancelling blind trust they remain in breach.
Click to expand...
One of the examples that shows that Textor is out to lunch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top