Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

maddog said:
When exactly did we break the rules on multiple ownership? Up until 9th July there was no breach since Lyon had not qualified for Europa League due to their confirmed relegation to Ligue 2. Only once that was overturned were both Teams in the Europa League but by this time Textor had agreed to to sell his stake in Palace pending FA approval and had stepped down as a director at Lyon. So when was it that the rules were broken? If you say 1st March I will point out that neither team had qualified for anything then and Lyon were in any ineligible due to their relegation.

And Crystal Palace were not in breach, John Textor may have been, but he no longer has any involvement in any capacity with Crystal Palace.
Click to expand...
As we all know it’s a lash up. They make it up as they go along. Multiple club ownership is widespread, the breaking of the initial rules is common place by a number of very obvious candidates. On UEFA,s part it’s common place to use any excuse to allow the actual rules to be broken by mutually contrived means as long as the club concerned is a recognised financial big hitter.
 
doombear said:
I read somewhere recently that you earn twice as much from the EL as you do from the ECL. How true that is, I don't know.
Click to expand...
Spurs earned about 26m for winning the EL, plus Champions League Qualification, Chelsea about 15m from the CL, but didn't need the EL Place 😒
 
I have just read the UEFA rules, on the Premier League website, which makes it clear. In such instances, the club ranked highest in their domestic competition is allowed to participate the the relevant UEFA competition.

The domestic competition that Crystal Palace qualified through was by coming FIRST in the FA cup.
The domestic competition that Lyon qualified through was by coming SIXTH in their league.

I have always understood that First is higher than Sixth. So, as UEFA have not stipulated domestic LEAGUE they have deliberately ignored their own rules and Crystal Palace MUST be reinstated along with a public apology and considerable compensation for the damage to our transfer window and our costs.
 
whatton said:
I don’t think there are similarities.

Drogheda and Silkeborg are both owned by Trivela. Our case is based on the shares that Textor had before the competition started.

There is a web page on the Drogheda case on the Irish Law Society site.

Law Society of Ireland Gazette

www.lawsociety.ie www.lawsociety.ie

It doesn’t look good as it seems Drogheda tried to use the notification issue, and were brushed aside.

I think we would be better off looking at the solid mitigations we put in place, and whether we really were in an MCO.

I think there is an issue with Strasbourg v Le Havre, but the burden of proof required from us is high.
Click to expand...
The rules regarding MCO are pretty comprehensive. And Textor was skating around this very issue in his Talk Sport interview: “It’s not about percentages.” “Steve does not have a golden ticket.” In other words, it was a long established gentleman’s agreement regarding operational control, for which there is ample evidence.

The issue then is ‘decisive influence’ through shares held and voting rights granted. John Textor’s strategic objectives were for Crystal Palace to be a fully incorporated MCO entity. And, as we all know, he lost that battle, but he lost it as the main shareholder with equal voting rights to Steve Parish. And the fact also that two directors have MCO interests that have a direct bearing upon Palace’s European entry status makes this is a very dangerous and compromising situation for the club to be in.

In legal parlance, the case is ‘sui generis’ translated as ‘of its own kind’, which means the precedents set by Drogheda and Lyon are significantly different.

UEFA made it clear they were only looking at this from a compliance perspective, up to the 1st of March, which means all legal argument ended on that date. In other words, all subsequent actions made to mitigate and resolve the situation cannot, legally speaking, be taken into consideration.

Palace might not be a high profile club, but they are not a low profile club, either. The Drogheda and Lyon cases are only highly significant because Crystal Palace’s case was very high profile, indeed. And so what was a ripple effect of specialist interest about the status of MCO in world football quickly turned into a tidal wave of far reaching implications both for UEFA and FIFA.

It was both Textor’s and Blitzer’s primary responsibility to know exactly what are UEFA’s strategic interests regarding MCO and its place in European football, which they could have found out through their membership of the ECA, but they chose not to do that.

The only case that Palace really have is based around its unique nature, and how that impacts upon proportionality. I think Palace do have a case worth pursuing, but it’s still a bit of a long shot.

All emails sent to info@cpfc.co.uk are monitored by customer services. I know the guy who does this, and been in previous correspondence with him. He is a ‘same-day-reply’ person, so I have every confidence that all the directors would have had those emails sent by UEFA forwarded to them immediately. It was not an ideal situation, but as Steve Parish said, “In fifteen years, I have never once had any communication from UEFA.”
 
RednBlue Eagle said:
I have just read the UEFA rules, on the Premier League website, which makes it clear. In such instances, the club ranked highest in their domestic competition is allowed to participate the the relevant UEFA competition.

The domestic competition that Crystal Palace qualified through was by coming FIRST in the FA cup.
The domestic competition that Lyon qualified through was by coming SIXTH in their league.

I have always understood that First is higher than Sixth. So, as UEFA have not stipulated domestic LEAGUE they have deliberately ignored their own rules and Crystal Palace MUST be reinstated along with a public apology and considerable compensation for the damage to our transfer window and our costs.
Click to expand...
Nice idea.
 
RednBlue Eagle said:
I have just read the UEFA rules, on the Premier League website, which makes it clear. In such instances, the club ranked highest in their domestic competition is allowed to participate the the relevant UEFA competition.

The domestic competition that Crystal Palace qualified through was by coming FIRST in the FA cup.
The domestic competition that Lyon qualified through was by coming SIXTH in their league.

I have always understood that First is higher than Sixth. So, as UEFA have not stipulated domestic LEAGUE they have deliberately ignored their own rules and Crystal Palace MUST be reinstated along with a public apology and considerable compensation for the damage to our transfer window and our costs.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the rule says ”domestic championship”.
 
Jason Smith said:
The rules regarding MCO are pretty comprehensive. And Textor was skating around this very issue in his Talk Sport interview: “It’s not about percentages.” “Steve does not have a golden ticket.” In other words, it was a long established gentleman’s agreement regarding operational control, for which there is ample evidence.

The issue then is ‘decisive influence’ through shares held and voting rights granted. John Textor’s strategic objectives were for Crystal Palace to be a fully incorporated MCO entity. And, as we all know, he lost that battle, but he lost it as the main shareholder with equal voting rights to Steve Parish. And the fact also that two directors have MCO interests that have a direct bearing upon Palace’s European entry status makes this is a very dangerous and compromising situation for the club to be in.

In legal parlance, the case is ‘sui generis’ translated as ‘of its own kind’, which means the precedents set by Drogheda and Lyon are significantly different.

UEFA made it clear they were only looking at this from a compliance perspective, up to the 1st of March, which means all legal argument ended on that date. In other words, all subsequent actions made to mitigate and resolve the situation cannot, legally speaking, be taken into consideration.

Palace might not be a high profile club, but they are not a low profile club, either. The Drogheda and Lyon cases are only highly significant because Crystal Palace’s case was very high profile, indeed. And so what was a ripple effect of specialist interest about the status of MCO in world football quickly turned into a tidal wave of far reaching implications both for UEFA and FIFA.

It was both Textor’s and Blitzer’s primary responsibility to know exactly what are UEFA’s strategic interests regarding MCO and its place in European football, which they could have found out through their membership of the ECA, but they chose not to do that.

The only case that Palace really have is based around its unique nature, and how that impacts upon proportionality. I think Palace do have a case worth pursuing, but it’s still a bit of a long shot.

All emails sent to info@cpfc.co.uk are monitored by customer services. I know the guy who does this, and been in previous correspondence with him. He is a ‘same-day-reply’ person, so I have every confidence that all the directors would have had those emails sent by UEFA forwarded to them immediately. It was not an ideal situation, but as Steve Parish said, “In fifteen years, I have never once had any communication from UEFA.”
Click to expand...
This seems to be inconsistent if Forest are going to take our place: the Forest chairman placed his equity in a blind trust after this date, albeit supposedly communicated some sort of verbal intention earlier.
 
Eaglecoops said:
The irony is not lost in that the recent winners of the most lowly competition in the UEFA calendar (Chelsea) have now beaten the all conquering champions of the Champions League in the World Club thingy.

Maybe, just maybe, the Conference might be worth playing in?
Click to expand...
Well, I happen to agree. Our first dip into a European competition through the Conference could bring us more success and kudos than being outsmarted early on in the Europa.
 
Those c**** at UEFA may as well just openly tell everyone that they're going to hand pick who they want in before a ball is kicked, bungs will help.

c****
 
PatrickA said:
I’ve reached the conclusion that if UEFA want us in they will find reasons to include us.

If they want us out they will find reasons to exclude us.

Simple really, and everything else is hot air (of which I’ve contributed a fair amount myself on this thread).
Click to expand...
I think this is exactly right.
 
RubinsCube said:
This seems to be inconsistent if Forest are going to take our place: the Forest chairman placed his equity in a blind trust after this date, albeit supposedly communicated some sort of verbal intention earlier.
Click to expand...
I do hope that the HF are at the design stage for a giant tifo featuring the fat guy who has no influence in his football club as he runs onto the pitch to remonstrate with the manager...
 
This from Kieran Magiure:

“This email was sent by the Football Association to all Premier League club secretaries in October 2024 advising them of changes to rules relating to UEFA Multi Club ownership rules. It would be difficult for a Premier League club to deny they receive emails from the FA.”

And, in my humble opinion, this is conclusive proof that Steve Parsh and John Textor have just fed us a load of BS!

Having said that, I have no doubt that UEFA did send emails to info@cpfc.co.uk but that was probably because they had heard nothing from any of the directors. I just wish we could access that attachment.


Image
 
Jason Smith said:
This from Kieran Magiure:

“This email was sent by the Football Association to all Premier League club secretaries in October 2024 advising them of changes to rules relating to UEFA Multi Club ownership rules. It would be difficult for a Premier League club to deny they receive emails from the FA.”

And, in my humble opinion, this is conclusive proof that Steve Parsh and John Textor have just fed us a load of BS!

Having said that, I have no doubt that UEFA did send emails to info@cpfc.co.uk but that was probably because they had heard nothing from any of the directors. I just wish we could access that attachment.
Image
Click to expand...
Anecdotally, I have always taken the email thing with a pinch of salt. I don't honestly believe the top bods of a Premier League football club are reactive to adhoc emails from UEFA, you'd expect them to be on top of rule changes for any competitions they are in, or could be in. If people on this forum were just able to Google the rules I'd expect a top football to be on top of stuff like this. Not that this is about apportioning blame, I think we've been rogered by some badly worded rules and a cowardly governing body but the email thing is something I don't feel is relevant to our case.
 
Part Time James said:
Anecdotally, I have always taken the email thing with a pinch of salt. I don't honestly believe the top bods of a Premier League football club are reactive to adhoc emails from UEFA, you'd expect them to be on top of rule changes for any competitions they are in, or could be in. If people on this forum were just able to Google the rules I'd expect a top football to be on top of stuff like this. Not that this is about apportioning blame, I think we've been rogered by some badly worded rules and a cowardly governing body but the email thing is something I don't feel is relevant to our case.
Click to expand...
If UEFA had an expectation regarding MCO, which they did, then Palace had a due diligence requirement to know exactly what that expectation is, regardless of whether they agree with it, or the prospects of falling foul of those expectations was an extremely low probability back in October 2024.
 
Jason Smith said:
This from Kieran Magiure:

“This email was sent by the Football Association to all Premier League club secretaries in October 2024 advising them of changes to rules relating to UEFA Multi Club ownership rules. It would be difficult for a Premier League club to deny they receive emails from the FA.”

And, in my humble opinion, this is conclusive proof that Steve Parsh and John Textor have just fed us a load of BS!

Having said that, I have no doubt that UEFA did send emails to info@cpfc.co.uk but that was probably because they had heard nothing from any of the directors. I just wish we could access that attachment.
Image
Click to expand...
March instead of June?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top