Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

redpalace91 said:
I thought I would check the Brighton fans forum - so far they have had 7,000 posts on Palace's European position and counting. Their team is so dull that they constantly have to talk about us.
Click to expand...
I have just realised that Brighton supporters have posted twice as many comments on this subject than we have! They obviously care a lot about us.
Oh look, another deck chair has just blown over!
 
If there were only five European spots thenthe FA would give the top 4 the Champions League spots and the Europa League spot to their own FA Cup winners and not the 5th place league team. So if winning the cup outdoes 5th in the league then we qualified above Lyon’s lowly 6th place. Shouldn’t it be down to the FA who they nominate to play in Europe ? Why aren’t they getting involved ? By the way I have been to our last 3 Wembley visits but cannot find any stomach to travel over for the Shield because of this.
 
redpalace91 said:
I thought I would check the Brighton fans forum - so far they have had 7,000 posts on Palace's European position and counting. Their team is so dull that they constantly have to talk about us.
Click to expand...
Nothing about how crap Joao Pedro is and how he would never do anything at Chelsea?
 
Jason Smith said:
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.
Click to expand...
So to recap ;

1. UEFA email rule change notification to the FA
2. FA forward to CPFC. To the Club Secretary ? Yes, that is my expectation. I would be surprised if it didn't. But you can't say that there's no doubt that it did. Like me, you don't know that for a fact.
3. UEFA then send a direct email communication to info@cpfc.co.uk. Why did they do that ? I don't know. As I posted earlier, did the email require a response to UEFA ? I don't know. Why did they keep resending it ? It suggests that they did require a response. But to continually send, send, send to the most unsuitable and unlikely email address makes little sense, at least to me.

I'm hopeful that there will be more clarity about all this in due course and we get to hear the facts of the matter.

Re Textor / ECA - I've no strong feelings about that at all. I admire your honesty regarding Palace/ECA and I'll be equally honest and admit that after that I didn't give the ECA angle much thought. Of course Textor could have utilised the advice available from the ECA. But he describes himself to be a ' disrupter ' that has little regard for the rule book. Add to that his belief that in any case Palace were not part of his MCO and you could arrive at the reason for his not engaging with the ECA.

Now whether you consider it realistic for either Textor or Blitzer to put their shares into a Blind Trust at that time is a debate that has been held on here more than once. And doesn't need revisiting.

Is it a '' hostile environment '' for MCOs ? I'd say not so much. UEFA don't want them but are then sending out guidance about how to navigate around their own unfit rules !
 
redpalace91 said:
I thought I would check the Brighton fans forum - so far they have had 7,000 posts on Palace's European position and counting. Their team is so dull that they constantly have to talk about us.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t resist going on to their forum. But as soon as I saw ‘coronavirus thread’ I thought, I need to get out of here!
 
I haven't bothered reading all of this thread, so I don't know if anyone has already made this point. I think would be helpful to say something like this to CAS in our appeal. 'Why does UEFA seek to discourage or disallow clubs as part of an MCO? One assumes it is because they don't want any club to enjoy any competitive advantages from such an arrangement within their competitions. Although technically UEFA believe Palace is part of an MCO, we have pointed out that in reality this isn't the case, as we have had no dealings with Lyon or any other club in Eagle holdings, as we have explained. Textor has never had any controlling interest in Palace and has even complained about this, so we do not see that we have infringed any rules. Yes, we missed the 1st March deadline, due to a communication breakdown, but we could not oblige Textor to put his shares in a blind trust even if we had tried to comply, yet it is CrystalPalace, the club, that UEFA are unfairly punishing, not Textor, who they see is the guilty party in this, due to his MCO set-up. So we request our ban is overturned, because UEFA's current rules re MCOs aren't fit for purpose and should not be applied to us, given our situation.'
 
I think this is becoming over complicated. The fundamental reason for UEFA’s rules in this situation is an attempt to stop multi club ownership encouraging a position where match fixing can occur through decisive influence at more than one club in the same competition.

As at 1st March 2025 did Textor have decisive influence at Lyon, yes. Did Textor have decisive influence at Palace at the same date, no.

UEFA must look at the Palace board structure rather than rigidly applying their own share ownership percentages rules because it is the Palace structure that would prevent Textor from the possibility of influencing a Palace result and not the number of shares held.

Of course, the situation has now become ridiculous in that a ball has not been kicked in the competition and the potential protagonist no longer has any influence at Palace so UEFA’s doomsday scenario simply cannot happen.

So what is UEFA’s problem? Palace can already show that:

1) As at 1st March the Palace board structure prevented Textor from having decisive influence in the club.

2) Prior to the competition beginning Textor has been removed altogether and therefore there is no possibility of him influencing any games through multi club ownership.

To punish Palace for something that has never happened and is never going to happen seems utterly ludicrous and I would hope that CAS sees it this way.
 
Eaglecoops said:
I think this is becoming over complicated. The fundamental reason for UEFA’s rules in this situation is an attempt to stop multi club ownership encouraging a position where match fixing can occur through decisive influence at more than one club in the same competition.

As at 1st March 2025 did Textor have decisive influence at Lyon, yes. Did Textor have decisive influence at Palace at the same date, no.

UEFA must look at the Palace board structure rather than rigidly applying their own share ownership percentages rules because it is the Palace structure that would prevent Textor from the possibility of influencing a Palace result and not the number of shares held.

Of course, the situation has now become ridiculous in that a ball has not been kicked in the competition and the potential protagonist no longer has any influence at Palace so UEFA’s doomsday scenario simply cannot happen.

So what is UEFA’s problem? Palace can already show that:

1) As at 1st March the Palace board structure prevented Textor from having decisive influence in the club.

2) Prior to the competition beginning Textor has been removed altogether and therefore there is no possibility of him influencing any games through multi club ownership.

To punish Palace for something that has never happened and is never going to happen seems utterly ludicrous and I would hope that CAS sees it this way.
Click to expand...
UEFA's stance is totally based around their share ownership rules. So no amount of proof that Textor had no decisive influence, of which there must be plenty, is going to make them shift their position.

Having an arbitrary deadline of March 1st for their rule evasion makes no sense given that their competitions don't start for another 5 months after that date.

If common sense was to prevail here, which I think is what Steve Parish is rather optimistically hoping for, UEFA could agree that the only real transgression in all this is a missed date.

In which case I don't think the punishment fits the crime. Especially when it is rumoured that UEFA are now looking at amending their rules in light of recent events.
 
Palacesince64 said:
Worst case scenario for this season
1.We are the FA Cup holders.
2.Were playing in Europe
3.Textor has gone
Click to expand...

Not quite the worst.
1. Glasner gets the hump and leaves.
2. Eze, Guehi, Munoz & Mateta are sold.
3. The squad is knackered from travelling/playing in a third tier European competition.
4. Johnson turns out to be worse than Textor.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
Not quite the worst.
1. Glasner gets the hump and leaves.
2. Eze, Guehi, Munoz & Mateta are sold.
3. The squad is knackered from travelling/playing in a third tier European competition.
4. Johnson turns out to be worse than Textor.
Click to expand...
I’m the world’s biggest pessimist, but even I’d struggle to top that!
 
Teddy Eagle said:
Not quite the worst.

3. The squad is knackered from travelling/playing in a third tier European competition.
Click to expand...
Treat as an U21 Tournament and utilise U21 squad and fringe squad players for valuable game time.

Make it clear to the fan base - charge minimal gate price allowed for match days - Membership etc not required to purchase match day tickets - get some more local / young kids / school groups in for free to experience the Selhurst match day experience.

Complying with Uefa but also putting two fingers up to them / the competition whilst giving something back to the community.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top