Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

[chris123]

Does anyone actually know (not guessing) WHEN the appeal is being heard please ?

The CFCB uefa decision came from the first chamber, there is a second chamber that hears appeals. With zero information coming out it is impossible to guess timings. Very frustrating.

 

[NEILLO]

This of course all assumes that we were actually doing anything with regard to a 1st March date as a large part of our defence will surely be that we were never part of a MCO group and the 1st March date is irrelevant.

There are two or 3 different directions that our defence can go but without knowing the detail of our exclusion we can’t really guess which direction will be used. I would hope it’s all in hand, but would really like to see some more detail.

Palace are rightly playing their cards close to their chest.
Just my opinion but I think our defence should be that the 1/3 is an arbitrary date and the comms from the ECA is surely in our favour too.
In a nutshell, we weren’t in a position as at 1/3 where we could comply, but have now removed all the obstacles weeks in advance of the draw and the EL starting.
Bound to be more twists and turns yet I’m sure

 

[Palace in the Blood]

My guess is Palace have already appealed with detailed grounds sent today. I think hearing will be Friday or Monday.

We have I suspect a number of grounds.
1) we are not and never been party to a MCO and UEFA have no grounds in Law to consider we were. Then the arguments against the UEFA rules which any decent legal mind can rip apart.
2) Is the date of 1st of March set in stone? The memo and Forest's breach
3)The practicality of this date when leagues and cups are not finished? The only way any club with any owners who own shares in any other club can comply is blind trust shares by 1st March irrespective of European qualification. This is clearly ridiculous so rule can not stand test of common law.
4)The rules clearly state blind trust must last till after completion of European competitions. No where does it say you can revoke if you don't qualify.
5) The disclosure of Forest memos and anything that shows.
6) Are Eagle Football and Forest a MCO ? Sales /Loans between Eagle Football Clubs and Forest. Forest owner owning shares in Botafago.
7) Lyon qualified for Europa as a result of 2 very unexpected results. Is this potentially suspicious?
8) The penalty CPFC have been given is grossly excessive in any event. It would make much more sense to seperate CPFC and Lyon in League phase to remove any suggestion of bias on results. No professional side will "throw" a match in knock out phase.
9)precedent of other decisions.
On rulings on date sides had qualified on 1st March so rules were possible
CAS has previously ruled on excessive nature of UEFA decisions and reduced penalty. This is another example where penalty exceeds any perceived crime
10) Leave of court to apply for damages as a result of this unfair judgement. Football now works on a system of FFP or subsequent changes. In essence the uncertainty for CPFC in regard to European competitions finance has prevented player recruitment and retention.

 

[Eaglecoops]

My guess is Palace have already appealed with detailed grounds sent today. I think hearing will be Friday or Monday.

We have I suspect a number of grounds.
1) we are not and never been party to a MCO and UEFA have no grounds in Law to consider we were. Then the arguments against the UEFA rules which any decent legal mind can rip apart.
2) Is the date of 1st of March set in stone? The memo and Forest's breach
3)The practicality of this date when leagues and cups are not finished? The only way any club with any owners who own shares in any other club can comply is blind trust shares by 1st March irrespective of European qualification. This is clearly ridiculous so rule can not stand test of common law.
4)The rules clearly state blind trust must last till after completion of European competitions. No where does it say you can revoke if you don't qualify.
5) The disclosure of Forest memos and anything that shows.
6) Are Eagle Football and Forest a MCO ? Sales /Loans between Eagle Football Clubs and Forest. Forest owner owning shares in Botafago.
7) Lyon qualified for Europa as a result of 2 very unexpected results. Is this potentially suspicious?
8) The penalty CPFC have been given is grossly excessive in any event. It would make much more sense to seperate CPFC and Lyon in League phase to remove any suggestion of bias on results. No professional side will "throw" a match in knock out phase.
9)precedent of other decisions.
On rulings on date sides had qualified on 1st March so rules were possible
CAS has previously ruled on excessive nature of UEFA decisions and reduced penalty. This is another example where penalty exceeds any perceived crime
10) Leave of court to apply for damages as a result of this unfair judgement. Football now works on a system of FFP or subsequent changes. In essence the uncertainty for CPFC in regard to European competitions finance has prevented player recruitment and retention.

That is a very decent summary of all the points that have been made by various posters throughout this thread all of which have some merit. Nice one.

 

[NMPalace]

Irrelevant- at the Nyon meeting he apparently offered to put his shares into a Blind Trust immediately. UEFA said it made no difference- it all hinges on that ridiculous 1/3 date, when according to them we weren’t compliant

Not sure this is true. As Forest have shown they weren't compliant on 1/3, but on 29/4, so it appears by 1/3 you must have satisfied UEFA that steps were being put in place to resolve the issue.

So either we didn't respond by 1/3 as appears to have been suggested - an admin error or because we didn't think we had anything to respond to - or UEFA weren't happy with the share sell option, probably as there wasn't a potential buyer at that time.

The fact that 1/3 appears to be a 'soft' date should hopefully work in our favour.

 

[mtp1958]

My guess is Palace have already appealed with detailed grounds sent today. I think hearing will be Friday or Monday.

We have I suspect a number of grounds.
1) we are not and never been party to a MCO and UEFA have no grounds in Law to consider we were. Then the arguments against the UEFA rules which any decent legal mind can rip apart.
2) Is the date of 1st of March set in stone? The memo and Forest's breach
3)The practicality of this date when leagues and cups are not finished? The only way any club with any owners who own shares in any other club can comply is blind trust shares by 1st March irrespective of European qualification. This is clearly ridiculous so rule can not stand test of common law.
4)The rules clearly state blind trust must last till after completion of European competitions. No where does it say you can revoke if you don't qualify.
5) The disclosure of Forest memos and anything that shows.
6) Are Eagle Football and Forest a MCO ? Sales /Loans between Eagle Football Clubs and Forest. Forest owner owning shares in Botafago.
7) Lyon qualified for Europa as a result of 2 very unexpected results. Is this potentially suspicious?
8) The penalty CPFC have been given is grossly excessive in any event. It would make much more sense to seperate CPFC and Lyon in League phase to remove any suggestion of bias on results. No professional side will "throw" a match in knock out phase.
9)precedent of other decisions.
On rulings on date sides had qualified on 1st March so rules were possible
CAS has previously ruled on excessive nature of UEFA decisions and reduced penalty. This is another example where penalty exceeds any perceived crime
10) Leave of court to apply for damages as a result of this unfair judgement. Football now works on a system of FFP or subsequent changes. In essence the uncertainty for CPFC in regard to European competitions finance has prevented player recruitment and retention.

think palace will have more than them points , other cases will be quoted so on and so on , then Cas will throw out N/A , until we have all the strong key points left

 

[Knightstar]

One of the golden rules of negotiation is that you run with one string argument and you don't water it down with weaker, secondary arguments that the other party can attack whilst ignoring your primary argument.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Irrelevant- at the Nyon meeting he apparently offered to put his shares into a Blind Trust immediately. UEFA said it made no difference- it all hinges on that ridiculous 1/3 date, when according to them we weren’t compliant

Not if others were given to understand that their time to comply was being extended.

 

[NEILLO]

Not if others were given to understand that their time to comply was being extended.

Well as it turns out, clearly not - but we weren’t aware of that until after UEFA had made their decision

 

[Spindle]

What a mess UEFA made. An incompetent organisation.

 

[BelfastEagle]

What a mess UEFA made. An incompetent organisation.

Have to agree totally unfit for purpose

 

[Eaglecoops]

Have to agree totally unfit for purpose

It’s an old school tie club and we ain’t members.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

It’s an old school tie club and we ain’t members.

CAS isn’t though.

Parish also has had a decent relationship with Ceferin.

Stopping the potential for clubs in a conglomerate playing in the same competition is entirely sensible. Allowing them to use a device like a blind trust to whitewash the fact that they are is not sensible. It’s an insult to common sense, especially when the shares and board positions have been placed with people who are not independent but owe complete loyalty to the actual owner. Control hasn’t changed at all. It’s just been rerouted.

To then punish a club which has been outspokenly against the multi club concept on a technicality is to pile insult on insult.

How best to rectify this is beyond my area. Whether at UAFA, CAS, the FA, the government or the Courts is no doubt taxing the minds of some highly paid lawyers. That in the interests of football it must be done is beyond question.

 

[silvertop]

One of the golden rules of negotiation is that you run with one string argument and you don't water it down with weaker, secondary arguments that the other party can attack whilst ignoring your primary argument.

That is the all or nothing approach. Simple, cheap and often effective.

The other is present sacrificial secondary arguments. The tribunal will consider them but knock them out and (crucially) appear more objective and impartial when they uphold the primary argument.

I favour the second. CAS should be looking for a hook (given the decision being appealed is obviously wrong) and may surprise you by selecting a secondary argument for that purpose.

 

[Eaglecoops]

CAS isn’t though.

Parish also has had a decent relationship with Ceferin.

Stopping the potential for clubs in a conglomerate playing in the same competition is entirely sensible. Allowing them to use a device like a blind trust to whitewash the fact that they are is not sensible. It’s an insult to common sense, especially when the shares and board positions have been placed with people who are not independent but owe complete loyalty to the actual owner. Control hasn’t changed at all. It’s just been rerouted.

To then punish a club which has been outspokenly against the multi club concept on a technicality is to pile insult on insult.

How best to rectify this is beyond my area. Whether at UAFA, CAS, the FA, the government or the Courts is no doubt taxing the minds of some highly paid lawyers. That in the interests of football it must be done is beyond question.

I would hope it’s not, it’s a Court!

I would imagine the simple answer to the dilemma is that you either stop MCO teams playing one another by not allowing them into the competition to begin with (which would make investors think twice about entering into MCO), or you allow a maximum of 25% ownership in a 2nd or third club thereby removing the decisive influence issue.

Of course MCOs could still exist with 100% ownership of all clubs but then 2nd,3rd,4th teams would be in say North or South America, Australia or Asia.

One thing for sure and I 100% agree with you is that the current system is entirely broken, unjust and being fudged to suit those who are in the old school tie club.

 

[silvertop]

Not if others were given to understand that their time to comply was being extended.

CAS may apply the principle that, with deadlines, if you want to extend, you must apply in advance of the time. An extension will then only be granted if you demonstrate that you will be able to comply within that extended time frame.

Not what we did for the reasons expanded on in depth on this thread.

Did the others?

For our part, I still hope CAS will hold that the deadline did not apply to us as there was never a need to comply.

 

[Eaglecoops]

CAS may apply the principle that, with deadlines, if you want to extend, you must apply in advance of the time. An extension will then only be granted if you demonstrate that you will be able to comply within that extended time frame.

Not what we did for the reasons expanded on in depth on this thread.

Did the others?

For our part, I still hope CAS will hold that the deadline did not apply to us as there was never a need to comply.

If they are going to start interpreting matters regarding timescales, then they might want to question why teams in Cups aren’t given dispensation with regard to compliance by that date, because quite simply that date is impossible to comply with.

Unless of course your owner is happy to constantly keep the shares in blind trust on a just in case basis which I can’t see many owners being happy with.

I too hope your final point is backed by CAS.

 

[NMPalace]

CAS may apply the principle that, with deadlines, if you want to extend, you must apply in advance of the time. An extension will then only be granted if you demonstrate that you will be able to comply within that extended time frame.

Not what we did for the reasons expanded on in depth on this thread.

Did the others?

For our part, I still hope CAS will hold that the deadline did not apply to us as there was never a need to comply.

So a deadline that isn't a deadline then.

 

[chris123]

CAS isn’t though.

Parish also has had a decent relationship with Ceferin.

Stopping the potential for clubs in a conglomerate playing in the same competition is entirely sensible. Allowing them to use a device like a blind trust to whitewash the fact that they are is not sensible. It’s an insult to common sense, especially when the shares and board positions have been placed with people who are not independent but owe complete loyalty to the actual owner. Control hasn’t changed at all. It’s just been rerouted.

To then punish a club which has been outspokenly against the multi club concept on a technicality is to pile insult on insult.

How best to rectify this is beyond my area. Whether at UAFA, CAS, the FA, the government or the Courts is no doubt taxing the minds of some highly paid lawyers. That in the interests of football it must be done is beyond question.

Are you aware of the responsibilities of trustees?

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Are you aware of the responsibilities of trustees?

Yes. What’s your point?