Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

[Jason Smith]

Just in case no one has noticed, we’re nearly at page 200. Apparently, we’re taking almost as much interest as Brighton are. Can’t say I blame them though, counting seagulls all day can be a bit soul destroying!

 

[chris123]

Yes, Bilbao are a small nothing club aren't they

Bit like Yorkshire cricket used to be only playing locals

 

[Norbury Old Git]

Why do they have a threshold of 30% then?

It’s totally irrelevant how many shares you have. It depends what class of share you hold. Many large companies, and with £130m turnover Palace aren’t small, issue A, B, C etc with different rights to voting. Some have no voting rights but are permitted to attend the AGM (and get tea and biscuits) and receive a share of the dividends. So it’s up to the Company how they set their share offering.

I always understood that Parish, Blitzer and Harris set up a Legal Partnership which had 54% of the voting rights in equal shares. Parish now has 10%, an investor Robert Franco 5% and others, who include the original gang of four who saved the Club, about 4%. Textor had the rest but with only 25% voting rights. It was unlikely that any of the others had enough voting rights to upset the original partners.

It amazing that Uefa don’t seem to understand how businesses are set up and the complexities of voting rights. It is these rights that allow crooked directors of large businesses like The Post Office, Thames Water etc to pay themselves large bonuses, pensions and dividends and the shareholders cannot vote them out. But often it is the connivance between the Directors and Regulators that allow the status quo to continue. CAS is however the nearest football clubs and leagues are allowed to bring a legal case without breaking FIFA rules. They are independent and one would hope they are able to look beyond a flawed rule book, review the precedent set in other similar cases and find in favour of Palace.

 

[mtp1958]

That is the date that the sale took place, separately Woody Johnson needs to pass the Premier League fit and proper test, 2 separate but obviously related exercises

all 3 was applied to at same time so really at a loss whats happening with the news

 

[chris123]

all 3 was applied to at same time so really at a loss whats happening with the news

You can't start the Premier League part until the purchase is complete

 

[Eagleman13]

Yes, Bilbao are a small nothing club aren't they

 IF, you had read the post i was replying to, you wouldn't have posted this, nes par.

 

[Putitout]

Why do they have a threshold of 30% then?

That seems to be the general understanding. The real issue is, decisive influence, how anyone measures that isn’t clear. UEFA, seem to base it mainly on the size of a share holding, probably 30% or less. Either way it’s ridiculous, Parish, has decisive influence , everyone knows, his shares are rumoured to be no more than 10%. So much for shares equals influence.

 

[pssguy]

No wonder, as Textor said, a UEFA official pulled him aside, in the lunch break, and tried to pin on him decisive influence regarding the signing of Glasner. They’re looking for the smoking gun that will justify their predetermined outcome!

They would need pretty persuasive evidence of this. Palace are known for sacking managers when they are in trouble, the supporters were unhappy with Hodgson - who was also ill - and Glasner would have been one of the best not currently employed. Nobody was shocked that Palace went for him

 

[Painter]

It needs to be accepted that the club and Parish have been negligent in implementing changes to comply with UEFA rules. Claiming they weren't aware of the rules, isn't going going to wash with CAS, they were informed by the Premier League and UEFA last year of the changes. CAS isnt going to rescind UEFA's ruling.
The shares aren't the issue, its the fact we ignored the new rules.
We have a good chance in the Conference of reaching the semi's at least, which would of been very difficult in the Europa. If we hadn't won the FA Cup and reached the Conference by a final place in the League, everyone would of been happy to reach a European competition.

 

[Lanzo-Ad]

We appeal, we win, Forest appeal they win, we appeal about their appeal, and win, Forest appeal about the appeal they win, etc, its Christmas by then 🤣🤣

 

[PatrickA]

It needs to be accepted that the club and Parish have been negligent in implementing changes to comply with UEFA rules. Claiming they weren't aware of the rules, isn't going going to wash with CAS, they were informed by the Premier League and UEFA last year of the changes. CAS isnt going to rescind UEFA's ruling.
The shares aren't the issue, its the fact we ignored the new rules.
We have a good chance in the Conference of reaching the semi's at least, which would of been very difficult in the Europa. If we hadn't won the FA Cup and reached the Conference by a final place in the League, everyone would of been happy to reach a European competition.

But we did win the FA Cup and shouldn't have to settle for second prize.
Whether some fans may have happily taken the Conference earlier last season is beside the point

The rules in question are designed to prevent conflicts when clubs in the same competition are in the same multi ownership group (e.g to avoid collusion over results in the competition ).

This clearly does not apply in our case with Lyon and to pretend that it is the case is clearly wrong.

To me the punishment is akin to receiving a driving ban for a parking ticket.

If CAS dismiss the appeal fans would be quite entitled suspect foul play.

 

[Jason Smith]

It’s totally irrelevant how many shares you have. It depends what class of share you hold. Many large companies, and with £130m turnover Palace aren’t small, issue A, B, C etc with different rights to voting. Some have no voting rights but are permitted to attend the AGM (and get tea and biscuits) and receive a share of the dividends. So it’s up to the Company how they set their share offering.

I always understood that Parish, Blitzer and Harris set up a Legal Partnership which had 54% of the voting rights in equal shares. Parish now has 10%, an investor Robert Franco 5% and others, who include the original gang of four who saved the Club, about 4%. Textor had the rest but with only 25% voting rights. It was unlikely that any of the others had enough voting rights to upset the original partners.

It amazing that Uefa don’t seem to understand how businesses are set up and the complexities of voting rights. It is these rights that allow crooked directors of large businesses like The Post Office, Thames Water etc to pay themselves large bonuses, pensions and dividends and the shareholders cannot vote them out. But often it is the connivance between the Directors and Regulators that allow the status quo to continue. CAS is however the nearest football clubs and leagues are allowed to bring a legal case without breaking FIFA rules. They are independent and one would hope they are able to look beyond a flawed rule book, review the precedent set in other similar cases and find in favour of Palace.

There is a very broad sweep of applicability regarding these rules, which is a catch all scenario. However, there is also a more nuanced interpretation, which is what Palace, not unreasonably, have focussed on. However, the CAS will see this interpretation as far too narrow, which crucially has no input from the ECA. Parish can argue that Palace are not members and should not be penalised, but he could have sought advice from both the FA and the Premier League.

 

[Norbury Old Git]

It needs to be accepted that the club and Parish have been negligent in implementing changes to comply with UEFA rules. Claiming they weren't aware of the rules, isn't going going to wash with CAS, they were informed by the Premier League and UEFA last year of the changes. CAS isnt going to rescind UEFA's ruling.
The shares aren't the issue, its the fact we ignored the new rules.
We have a good chance in the Conference of reaching the semi's at least, which would have been very difficult in the Europa. If we hadn't won the FA Cup and reached the Conference by a final place in the League, everyone would have been happy to reach a European competition.

The whole Palace argument is that the rule change did not apply so there was no change to make. My understanding of the arrangement is that Textor had only 25% of the voting rights and the other three 25% each but held in a partnership structure where the majority held sway. Therefore if say Harris agreed with Textor but Parish and Blitzer did not the majority was still Partnership 75% Textor 25%. Textor could never get control so he wanted out.

As I said UEFA don’t seem to understand complex arrangements hence why they allowed the Red Bull, Man City, BlueCo (Boehly) and other of their ECA mates down the road in Nyon to get away with it. Hopefully CAS will agree.

 

[silvertop]

That seems to be the general understanding. The real issue is, decisive influence, how anyone measures that isn’t clear. UEFA, seem to base it mainly on the size of a share holding, probably 30% or less. Either way it’s ridiculous, Parish, has decisive influence , everyone knows, his shares are rumoured to be no more than 10%. So much for shares equals influence.

Swiss law?

 

[Common Sense Club]

Notts Forest now showing with Aston Villa as Englands entries into the Europa League (as were Palace previously).

UEFA small print still saying that list is provisional:-
The list above is provisional, based purely on the ongoing sporting performance of the clubs concerned in domestic leagues and cup competitions and is without prejudice to the admission of clubs to the above-mentioned UEFA club competitions of the upcoming season and any potential disciplinary proceedings or licensing matters*. Any adaptations to the list based on the respective winners of the men's club competitions, i.e. titleholders, will be reflected at the end of the season.

Keep the faith.

 

[ASCPFC]

I thought that as well as "decisive influence", there was some partly defined "significant influence".

 

[Painter]

The whole Palace argument is that the rule change did not apply so there was no change to make. My understanding of the arrangement is that Textor had only 25% of the voting rights and the other three 25% each but held in a partnership structure where the majority held sway. Therefore if say Harris agreed with Textor but Parish and Blitzer did not the majority was still Partnership 75% Textor 25%. Textor could never get control so he wanted out.

As I said UEFA don’t seem to understand complex arrangements hence why they allowed the Red Bull, Man City, BlueCo (Boehly) and other of their ECA mates down the road in Nyon to get away with it. Hopefully CAS will agree.

The other clubs you state, have obviously taken measures to comply with the rules. Textor was a shareholder with 43% shares, he obviously had some influence at Palace, not decisive. Textor has admitted he was worried the moment we won the cup, that there could be a problem, so he knew the UEFA rules.

 

[ASCPFC]

Do people think this looks like opportunism and collusion between Textor and Marinakis? I'd like to hear what Johnson thinks.
I'm expecting Textor to get tax audited in the States.

 

[Putitout]

I thought that as well as "decisive influence", there was some partly defined "significant influence".

More than likely so that if you did by chance successfully argue one , they hit you with the other. Parish, seems to think ,it’s decisive influence ,or lack of he needs to prove, so maybe he is already walking into one.

 

[thegreatlardino]

Do people think this looks like opportunism and collusion between Textor and Marinakis? I'd like to hear what Johnson thinks.
I'm expecting Textor to get tax audited in the States.

Is funny that Forest have bought 2 players I think from Botafago?