Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

Crazy_Eagle said:
I mean that's what Textor said - but doesn't mean it's true and I can't say I trust his word based on a lot of contrasting statements.

SP has been on a couple of interviews now and not mentioned this being produced at the meeting, which is a significant piece of information (and evidence).
Click to expand...
To be honest you'd have to be a bit naive to assume Palace DIDN'T enter this meeting with UEFA armed with a legally binding document that outlined power control at the club, who has it and who doesn't. its kind of the corner stone of Palace's entire argument?
In fact scrub that, you'd have to be very naive.
 
est1905 said:
To be honest you'd have to be a bit naive to assume Palace DIDN'T enter this meeting with UEFA armed with a legally binding document that outlined power control at the club, who has it and who doesn't. its kind of the corner stone of Palace's entire argument?
In fact scrub that, you'd have to be very naive.
Click to expand...
It’s not very naive to question whether this document was actually presented to UEFA. It's being sceptical.


First, no such document has been made public, and SP hasn’t mentioned it in either of his two rather long interviews, despite having every incentive to reassure fans, possibly put pressure on UEFA via the media and reinforce Palace’s case. If the document truly was a silver bullet, you’d expect it to be front and centre in the PR effort that he's doing.


Second, John Textor has a history of exaggeration and inconsistency, especially when speaking to the media.

UEFA believed Textor still had influence so that raises legitimate questions about whether the evidence submitted was presented.
 
It's very unlikely that Palace went to the earlier meeting without being armed with substantial evidence that the club was not part of a multi ownership group in terms of It's operation.

It would appear that this has not been accepted otherwise we would not be in this position.

Thus,
1) are we going to appeal to CAS on the grounds that the original ruling was wrong?
2) are we going to produce additional evidence that wasn't available at the meeting (e.g Textor is no longer part of the club)?
3) are we going to plead that the punishment doesn't fit the 'crime ' ( which in reality we deny took place in the first place).

If CAS uphold the original ruling It's difficult to escape the conclusion that it's a UEFA stitch up and the whole exercise is a charade.
There is no conflict with Lyon - end of story.
 
Crazy_Eagle said:
It’s not very naive to question whether this document was actually presented to UEFA. It's being sceptical.


First, no such document has been made public, and SP hasn’t mentioned it in either of his two rather long interviews, despite having every incentive to reassure fans, possibly put pressure on UEFA via the media and reinforce Palace’s case. If the document truly was a silver bullet, you’d expect it to be front and centre in the PR effort that he's doing.


Second, John Textor has a history of exaggeration and inconsistency, especially when speaking to the media.

UEFA believed Textor still had influence so that raises legitimate questions about whether the evidence submitted was presented.
Click to expand...
no you dont start bragging about all your evidence ,Parish has said we have a very strong case in all interviews , thats why Parish said it was a major injustice after uefa didnt care about the evidence , and it was put together by our legal side not the owners , so your not going to hear to much before as its not a good idea before going into CAS , so dont worry
 
We can argue over Textors signed statement all night.He claims that statement exists that much is true. If it existed it would have been evidence to use. Well we know where that got us ,if it was used, true or not it wasn’t accepted as proof .
Maybe CAS will view it differently, that along with anything else that reinforces Parishes claim that ,there was, is, absolutely no connection in the running of the two clubs,this line is about all that Parish has got.
In any court of fair play he should have a case, but this is big money professional sport he deals with, and fair play is for amateurs
 
est1905 said:
It was! Textor produced it at his first meeting. He said so when talking to the media. Keep up!
Click to expand...
I don't trust what Textor says, he has away of being fast and loose with the truth. Parish hasn't spoken of any signed agreement being presented to UEFA, he had a long interview on TV last week, where you would of thought he would of mentioned it!
 
Like all tribunal's , they look at the rules , then the evidence , and see if they have applied it correctly ,

UEFA have to supply there reasoning behind there ruling , plus reasons for rejecting evidence ,

Palace have to put forward all there evidence and why its relevant to there case , so they will be there most of the day. unless you have seen it in practice its hard to understand
 
Eagleman13 said:
"The whole point is that UEFA have not been applying the rules consistently. The latest update from this whole shambles is that Nottingham Forest's owner, Evangelos Marinakis's father-in-law is Savvas Theodoridis, who is the vice-president of Olympiacos, the football club owned by Marinakis. Savvas Theodoridis's son, Theodore Theodoridis, is the acting general secretary of UEFA."

Copied this off the bbc, how true all this is . . .
Click to expand...

Found the circular sent out by UEFA back in October.

Signed Theodore Theodoridis. General Secretary.

Surely there's your conflict of interest?!

Incidentally, the second letter sent out in February (I guess the one mentioned by Textor in his TalkSport interview) didn't explicitly state any of the rules changes from the previous letter. There is, however, a broken link, which opens up an error page on the UEFA website!Screenshot_20250717_190948_Samsung Internet.webp
 

Attachments

Foxy82 said:
Found the circular sent out by UEFA back in October.

Signed Theodore Theodoridis. General Secretary.

Surely there's your conflict of interest?!

Incidentally, the second letter sent out in February (I guess the one mentioned by Textor in his TalkSport interview) didn't explicitly state any of the rules changes from the previous letter. There is, however, a broken link, which opens up an error page on the UEFA website!View attachment 1554
Click to expand...
Damn I can’t open those circular attachments. Were they on the UEFA website?
 
Surely the fact that Textor has sold his shares to Johnson means there’s no longer a conflict anymore when the competition starts. So CAS should overturn the decision.

I wonder if UEFA think that too as they still haven’t officially promoted Forest to the Europa League. Also, surely this’ll have to be resolved very soon as the qualifiers start in a few weeks.
 
maddog said:
But it was still not a valid deadline since as at 01/03/2025 Lyon were relegated and so could not qualify for Europa League.
Click to expand...
206 pages now of complete and utter guesswork (b******s) FFS nobody has a clue what was said, there is more B******T on this thread, than the labour party's manifesto.
 
tonypeers5 said:
Surely the fact that Textor has sold his shares to Johnson means there’s no longer a conflict anymore when the competition starts. So CAS should overturn the decision.

I wonder if UEFA think that too as they still haven’t officially promoted Forest to the Europa League. Also, surely this’ll have to be resolved very soon as the qualifiers start in a few weeks.
Click to expand...
they will look at that , but that is event that happened after being down graded , so it can be used as part of the recent events , and fact lyon was allowed to sort there appeal out , it would show lyon was allowed extra time before a decision was made , delaying our appeal unfairly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top