Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

Inquisitive Aquila said:
Today CAS released their Verdict on FK Dac 1904 appeal against UEFA banning them from the Conference league.

These things stand out:

  • The original decision by UEFA was made on the 26th June but released to the media on the 30th June.
  • Dac appealed on the grounds that firstly, UEFA did not have the right to move the assessment date to the 1st March. Secondly, that neither club had decisive influence over the other.
  • UEFA argued that they did have the right to move the assessment date and several members of the same family had shares in both clubs along with nfluence in the governance of each.
  • CAS dismissed the appeal on the grounds that UEFAs statutes allowed them to move the date. Along with the Managing and sole director of Gyori ETO was also the CEO, vice president and board member of Dac. I hope our case does not rely on the same arguments.
Click to expand...
On the basis of that judgement ,Palace still have a case as it was the same individual running both clubs. If Palace can prove and CAS believe that Textor came nowhere near running Palace then there has to be a chance, but it’s probably their only chance.
 
NEILLO said:
I would not expect that UEFA were expecting a reply either. Although in my professional life, if I wanted to ensure my email had been received, read and understood I would have enabled a read receipt and/or asked for confirmation from, in this case CPFC, that it had indeed been read and understood.

Saying you '' expect '' and then going onto say " that's not how these things operate " is a bit contrary but I'm nitpicking.

So an email is sent to CPFC - who are not members of the ECA. (That's the organisation that you were chastising Parish / Palace for for not taking out membership before you realised that it wasn't available to them).

If Steve Parish hasn't seen the email then there's no way Textor would have.

So I assume you are saying that Textor and Blitzer should have gone through the ECA ? My response to that is that Textor, rightly or wrongly thought that Palace were not a part of his MCO for the reasons we have been debating these last six weeks or so. As for Blitzer, he is passive in his ownership of his Palace shares, I don't think he would be even close to what goes on at Brondby.
Click to expand...
Surely Textor would have seen the one sent to Lyon though
 
pssguy said:
Exactly. If you feel you are dealing with a corrupt organization, you should do everything you can do to mitigate it. Palace didn't and are suffering the consequences
Click to expand...


Really. Like finishing 3rd and then having another team get their ban lifted early.
 
ex hibitionist said:
it's a good point you make, but they WERE demoted after March 1 and according to their own league's rules were ineligible to play in Europe, then UEFA gave them the time to appeal post the deadline, could we not be given time to make ourselves eligible as we have? I know one set of compliancy criteria are French and the other are European but Lyon knew last November they had to comply with French rules to avoid relegation and failed to do so - there is no necessity for insisting upon the March 1 deadline, the goal posts have already gone back and forth a bit, it is clearly flawed and the original July deadline gave latecomers like us reasonable time to make whatever adjustments are necessary. If the letter of the law is followed we will stay out, but CAS might prove that the letter of the law has not always been followed and it is almost impossible to follow. Insisting on our demotion is ridiculous - the rules are there for a specific reason and they have had the desired effect of completely separating the two clubs. But I do understand that is not normally how legal matters work - the efficacy is neither here nor there it's all about strict definitions and procedure.
Click to expand...
It is for the lower tribunal (EUFA,) to be stuck with rigidly applying their own rules.

Technically, it is also so for the appeal tribunal (CAS) whose remit is strictly limited to determining whether the lower tribunal erred in applying their own rules. It can't overturn a decision just because it doesn't like it.

However, a good appeal tribunal will strive to find a hook onto which to hang a decision that reverses bad rules and blatant injustice.
Let us hope that CAS is of that mould and that it finds one.
 
Canterbury Palace said:
If we are going to appeal surely we need to get on with it quickly. 27 days until the Community Shield (mad that's something that I care about this year) and so far we've signed a reserve goalkeeper and a reserve left back. We need a few big signings and that's even before we consider losing Guehi and Eze. This is taking over the entire summer.
Click to expand...
We wont appeal.
 
silvertop said:
Lyon's process was domestic and not EUFA/CAS.

Their successful appeal means they were never relegated. It never happened.

Lyon did not have to be compliant with anything before or after 1 March. They could be in blatant breach; but EUFA rules say one goes in of the conflicting pair and that has to be the highest placed in their respective leagues.

BTW I liked the superficial attraction from another poster of that rule being interpreted as Lyon coming 6th in their league and Palace coming first in our competition so we should be the one going through. A shame it doesn't work like that.
Click to expand...



OH MY f***ing GOD ARE YOU STILL CALLING THEM EUFA
It's U that's a "U", comes after T in the alphabet, sounds like "YOU"
E
FA

1752526456902.webp
 
NEILLO said:
Quote from the transcript of the Parish interview with Sky Sports ;

"We will appeal. I don't want to prejudge [whether they'd win]. When I say we'll appeal, we're looking at all of the options at the moment. That obviously is one option. What we would much prefer is if somebody intervened in this process. ''
Click to expand...
Which means, i reacted then thought, and its no.
 
Surely our argument should be nothing to do with the dates, we just need to prove that bespectacled, dodgy prick had no influence.

And given his dealings with Forest this summer frankly they're benefiting from his clubs much more than us. Kick those grasses out instead.
 
NEILLO said:
I would not expect that UEFA were expecting a reply either. Although in my professional life, if I wanted to ensure my email had been received, read and understood I would have enabled a read receipt and/or asked for confirmation from, in this case CPFC, that it had indeed been read and understood.

Saying you '' expect '' and then going onto say " that's not how these things operate " is a bit contrary but I'm nitpicking.

So an email is sent to CPFC - who are not members of the ECA. (That's the organisation that you were chastising Parish / Palace for for not taking out membership before you realised that it wasn't available to them).

If Steve Parish hasn't seen the email then there's no way Textor would have.

So I assume you are saying that Textor and Blitzer should have gone through the ECA ? My response to that is that Textor, rightly or wrongly thought that Palace were not a part of his MCO for the reasons we have been debating these last six weeks or so. As for Blitzer, he is passive in his ownership of his Palace shares, I don't think he would be even close to what goes on at Brondby.
Click to expand...
Needless to say we are all trying to figure out what is going on, and if I make a mistake I am the first to own up to it. And bear in mind, I was the one to point out my own error.

The first email was forwarded on by the FA to all club secretaries back in October 2024. I simply do not believe this was the first email sent by UEFA that came to the attention of Steve Parish. It then begs the question, what is the role of the club secretary in relation to this type of email? It must surely be to forward it on to the directors, with their own comments added. That’s what should have happened and no doubt that’s what did happen.

Then we fast forward to this info@cpfc.co.uk situation. Why did UEFA feel the need to use this account after having sent their initial change of policy notification to the club secretaries? Why was the same email then resent then sent again? Clearly, this was done out of an escalating sense of urgency, which none of the directors felt they needed to respond to or take any action on, and they were undoubtedly wrong in doing nothing. No, we are not an MCO club, but there are MCO issues that needed to be addressed and clarified.

You have never once accepted the validity of my assertion that John Textor, in particular, should have utilised the services of the ECA: why is that? What is so unreasonable about that assertion?

Both John Textor and David Blitzer had ample time to make up their minds as to what they intended to do, which should have been based upon a definitive understanding of what would be the possible consequences if they do not place their shares into a blind trust.

And this is not about crystal ball gazing, this is about the need to secure your business assets against potential risk, if you wish to retain those assets within an increasingly hostile environment for MCOs.

I have always maintained that this failure goes to the very heart of the case against Palace. If they had done this, the onus is then on UEFA to declare their intentions through the appropriate channels. But by not having that dialogue Palace left themselves vulnerable and ripe for exploitation by unscrupulous parties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top