Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

silvertop said:
I believe an appeal will relate to our circumstances only.

We can identify uneven handedness and the nature of those who may profit from our demotion to undermine the legitimacy of the rules. But, essentially, that is just background. It can't be our case.

The questions for CAS are:

Did UEFA apply the correct rules?

Did UEFA apply those rules correctly?

It is on the second question where CAS will hopefully search for a hook to hang a successful appeal on. They may be keen to that given the surrounding politics, the risk of UEFA and the sport, once again, falling into disrepute and the fact that it is just wrong.

For that, I suspect it will concentrate on the corporate constitution of our club at the material time and questions of what constitutes "control".
Click to expand...
re the 1st March date i strongly believe you only had to provide evidence that you were in the process of applying with MCO by this date, and the change could be completed later - as per Forest changing ownership on 29/4/25. I suspect Forest informed UEFA of the proposed change prior to 1/3 which UEFA seem to have been happy with.

From Palace's perspective as UEFA don't accept that Textor didn't have any controlling influence at Palace then the 1/3 date/rules becomes the main focus of the appeal IMHO.

Now Textor has been trying to sale his shares for over a year (as evidenced by the offer to buy Everton etc). Are UEFA saying we didn't formally inform them of this by 1/3 - so an admin error, or the sale needed to be completed by a certain date (not defined in their rules BTW).
We could agree the sale has been completed now, prior to the tournament starting.

100% the 1/3 date is not set in stone, else Forest's ownership change would have been after this deadline and in breach of EUFA rules.

I think SP's argument that everyone knows CPFC is not part of a MCO is not necessarily the best approach for the appeal, even though we all know it is true.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
Doesn't the fact that he's sold his shares before the competition starts indicate a lack of any influence over results though?
Click to expand...
Exactly, and as Parish said in a recent interview even if UEFA were adamant that we have to be sanctioned for missing their precious deadline the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

For a club that would potentially enter a competition that now has zero connection with anyone else in that same competition I'd say a modest fine and a slap on the wrist is more than suitable. Banning Palace from the entire competition for missing a deadline which is now void is using a nuclear warhead to crack a nut!
 
NEILLO said:
The meeting that Parish and Textor held with UEFA in Nyon in June was to explain the detail behind the ' headline ' of the share ownership.

Palace have had to provide their evidence for UEFA to examine before they arrived at their conveniently delayed decision.

On the face of it, Palace are being punished for not adhering to that infamous 1/3/25 deadline.
Click to expand...
Which now Textor is gone is a void deadline anyway!
 
Painter said:
Unless there is a signed agreement of voting rights at Palace by all shareholders, we dont stand a chance of winning an appeal via CAS. I doubt it makes any difference to UEFA the standing of shares when the competition kicks off, they have a rule that 1st March is the date they assess the situation. The club know this, that is why they havent launched an appeal yet.
Click to expand...
Of course there will be. Contracts have to be drawn up for any investment of this size to pre determine potential future issues. If there was no signed agreement or proof any investor could start trying to take the club in a different direction and claim they have absolute power to do so. without a legally binding agreement no one could stop them. it would be his word against the others.
This is how Alan Sugar and Terry Venables got into such a massive public fall out. Venables wanted to run Spurs, Sugar said that was never the agreement, Venables said where's your proof and so the war began.
 
NEILLO said:
If I was Steve Parish I would ban Maranakis from the Board Room at our home game.

Let the fat f*** buy 2 seats in The Arthur
Click to expand...
Sadly board members have to be non paying guests at away games. Doesn't mean we have to welcome Marinakis specifically though.
 
maddog said:
Good to see that we have some support from at least one group in Parliament (spoiler it’s not Farage of course)

www.bbc.co.uk

Crystal Palace: Lib Dem MPs ask Lisa Nandy to intervene over Europa League demotion

A group of Liberal Democrat MPs ask the culture secretary Lisa Nandy to intervene over Crystal Palace's demotion from the Europa League.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
I would have said it would have been more likely to be Farage what with his son being a season ticket holder?
I cant see how the Culture secretary could apply any meaningful pressure on UEFA but I dont see how it can hurt our cause. As I said before, the more noise we can make over this the more embarrassed UEFA will start to become.
 
est1905 said:
Of course there will be. Contracts have to be drawn up for any investment of this size to pre determine potential future issues. If there was no signed agreement or proof any investor could start trying to take the club in a different direction and claim they have absolute power to do so. without a legally binding agreement no one could stop them. it would be his word against the others.
This is how Alan Sugar and Terry Venables got into such a massive public fall out. Venables wanted to run Spurs, Sugar said that was never the agreement, Venables said where's your proof and so the war began.
Click to expand...
There has never been any evidence of such a contract, otherwise it would of been produced by Palace as evidence in the initial meeting with UEFA.
 
Painter said:
There has never been any evidence of such a contract, otherwise it would of been produced by Palace as evidence in the initial meeting with UEFA.
Click to expand...
As I have written - for the umpteenth time ! - Textor claimed that he signed a document / contract in which it outlined Palace's governance structure - eg that final decisions are made by Parish.

You then have to take a leap of faith given who said it !
 
maddog said:
Good to see that we have some support from at least one group in Parliament (spoiler it’s not Farage of course)

www.bbc.co.uk

Crystal Palace: Lib Dem MPs ask Lisa Nandy to intervene over Europa League demotion

A group of Liberal Democrat MPs ask the culture secretary Lisa Nandy to intervene over Crystal Palace's demotion from the Europa League.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but it may be preferable not to involve Starmer in any negotiations on the dispute.
He’d probably end up giving away Selhurst for nothing and allowing Guehi to join Nottingham Forest for free for their hurty feelings.
 
NEILLO said:
As I have written - for the umpteenth time ! - Textor claimed that he signed a document / contract in which it outlined Palace's governance structure - eg that final decisions are made by Parish.

You then have to take a leap of faith given who said it !
Click to expand...
I think he claimed that document was put before UEFA.If so it didn’t help our case. Maybe CAS, might view it differently?
 
Painter said:
There has never been any evidence of such a contract, otherwise it would of been produced by Palace as evidence in the initial meeting with UEFA.
Click to expand...
oh do grow up will you , that was the first thing that would have been shown , sorry they didnt send you a copy , as a important person you are you must have missed the email they sent you
 
NMPalace said:
re the 1st March date i strongly believe you only had to provide evidence that you were in the process of applying with MCO by this date, and the change could be completed later - as per Forest changing ownership on 29/4/25. I suspect Forest informed UEFA of the proposed change prior to 1/3 which UEFA seem to have been happy with.

From Palace's perspective as UEFA don't accept that Textor didn't have any controlling influence at Palace then the 1/3 date/rules becomes the main focus of the appeal IMHO.

Now Textor has been trying to sale his shares for over a year (as evidenced by the offer to buy Everton etc). Are UEFA saying we didn't formally inform them of this by 1/3 - so an admin error, or the sale needed to be completed by a certain date (not defined in their rules BTW).
We could agree the sale has been completed now, prior to the tournament starting.

100% the 1/3 date is not set in stone, else Forest's ownership change would have been after this deadline and in breach of EUFA rules.

I think SP's argument that everyone knows CPFC is not part of a MCO is not necessarily the best approach for the appeal, even though we all know it is true.
Click to expand...

I’ll be honest, the more I look at this, John Textor has been played like a patsy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top