Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

[pssguy]

Imagine being the opponent team in the playoffs. "Who we playing?"
"Someone... probably someone from England...even then we're not sure"

Up until recently, plenty of Cup draws were made where the opponents were unknown as the draw for the coming round was before replays were completed

 

[Palace in the Blood]

They were both in the Champions League so we're questioning whether Forest can play in the Europa League next season? Seems odd.

You are missing point if they want to take date of 1st March Forest had conflict We didn't. On 1st March Forest had taken no steps so logically why should we no conflict , not in Europe and Lyon relegated

 

[Part Time James]

You are missing point if they want to take date of 1st March Forest had conflict We didn't. On 1st March Forest had taken no steps so logically why should we no conflict , not in Europe and Lyon relegated

No, the conflict of interest only manifests when both teams are in the same tournament (see the rules that have been posted). At that point they retrospectively examine whether any business could've been transacted unlawfully (I use the term loosely) between those teams since their arbitrary cutoff point, which, bizarrely, was back in March.

If Forest had been in the Champions League they could look back and argue that Forest and Olympiacos could have transacted, and continue to transact, in the lead up to and duration of the tournament. I suspect they'd then have to make a decision about allowing both teams to compete in the CL. And frankly who knows which way the wind would have blown?

What possible relevance can there be that the Forest owner owns a club in a different tournament? That'd be an incredibly weird application of the rule and presumably not even close to what it set out to prevent.

 

[Part Time James]

Up until recently, plenty of Cup draws were made where the opponents were unknown as the draw for the coming round was before replays were completed

Yeah fair comment. I can't remember how soon after the draw the game actually gets played but I suppose logistically these things can be arranged quite swiftly.

 

[est1905]

Stooping to insults suggests you just have no case. In fact, if you look back at the conversation, you are now in complete agreement with my argument i.e. lawyers will have no problem taking a case that they are likely to lose as there will be no hit to their reputation and they still collect their fee. Basically, you are now arguing against your previous point of view, which is quite amusing

Again more rubbish. Its like arguing with a child. So I wont bother. Just go to bed 🤣 🤣 🤣

 

[Palace in the Blood]

No, the conflict of interest only manifests when both teams are in the same tournament (see the rules that have been posted). At that point they retrospectively examine whether any business could've been transacted unlawfully (I use the term loosely) between those teams since their arbitrary cutoff point, which, bizarrely, was back in March.

If Forest had been in the Champions League they could look back and argue that Forest and Olympiacos could have transacted, and continue to transact, in the lead up to and duration of the tournament. I suspect they'd then have to make a decision about allowing both teams to compete in the CL. And frankly who knows which way the wind would have blown?

What possible relevance can there be that the Forest owner owns a club in a different tournament? That'd be an incredibly weird application of the rule and presumably not even close to what it set out to prevent.

I am sorry but you are 100% wrong. I am fairly sure this will be basis of one if our legal arguments.

 

[cryrst]

Look what fights this is causing ffs.
Who cares what cup we go for. It wasn’t even a thought back in may.
Stop bickering amongst each other !!!!!

 

[Part Time James]

I am sorry but you are 100% wrong. I am fairly sure this will be basis of one if our legal arguments.

I might be wrong admittedly. But by your argument the tournament status of the teams on March 1st has relevance. We weren't in the Europa League on March 1st, yet they demoted us in July.

We'll see whether Forest get kicked out of Europe because Olympiacos are in the Champions League. I'm still convinced that it's not at all possible.

 

[Band Geek]

I might be wrong admittedly. But by your argument the tournament status of the teams on March 1st has relevance. We weren't in the Europa League on March 1st, yet they demoted us in July.

We'll see whether Forest get kicked out of Europe because Olympiacos are in the Champions League. I'm still convinced that it's not at all possible.

Forest notified UEFA by March 1st of their intention to enter a blind trust and that was all that was required at that point due to their league position & potential CL qualification. The trust was implemented by the 30th April, again what was required by UEFA, Forest's blind trust is totally irrelevant to any argument Palace have as it was done with the possibility of playing CL football next season along with Olympiacos & was all completed within the specified time requirements. I think you're correct, Forest won't get demoted anywhere on the basis of Olympiacos being in the CL - there is no conflict of interest now, and there never was at the point of season end. Forest will only go into the Conference League if CAS rule in favour of Palace.

 

[Part Time James]

Forest notified UEFA by March 1st of their intention to enter a blind trust and that was all that was required at that point due to their league position & potential CL qualification. The trust was implemented by the 30th April, again what was required by UEFA, Forest's blind trust is totally irrelevant to any argument Palace have as it was done with the possibility of playing CL football next season along with Olympiacos & was all completed within the specified time requirements. I think you're correct, Forest won't get demoted anywhere on the basis of Olympiacos being in the CL - there is no conflict of interest now, and there never was at the point of season end. Forest will only go into the Conference League if CAS rule in favour of Palace.

Thank you. I am prepared to admit I don't really know and might be wrong. I hope my posts to the other chap weren't seen as confrontational. I just can't get my head around anything relevant that Forest have done wrong, even with the most tenuous manipulation of the criteria set out in Rule 5 (I believe that was the parent condition).

Again, I can over simplify things in my mind at times, but if the Forest/Olympiacos conflict was sufficiently relevant for Forest not to play in the EL, then how can Palace play in the EC whilst Lyon remain in an unrelated tournament?

 

[silvertop]

Stooping to insults suggests you just have no case. In fact, if you look back at the conversation, you are now in complete agreement with my argument i.e. lawyers will have no problem taking a case that they are likely to lose as there will be no hit to their reputation and they still collect their fee. Basically, you are now arguing against your previous point of view, which is quite amusing

Lawyers din't decide to appeal the club did.

If the lawyers advised against and the club said appeal anyway, the lawyers will take the money while the club takes the risk.

Why would lawyers have to stand aside if their client wishes to proceed on bad points and did so with their eyes wide open to the potential outcome?

On reputation, if they lose the market will know they carried a dud. If they win against the odds, its a trophy for the boardroom wall.

Either way they get paid.

 

[Goalpost1]

I am sorry but you are 100% wrong. I am fairly sure this will be basis of one if our legal arguments.

I think the point of raising Forest is not that they have an existing MCO clash with another team in the Europa League it's more that UEFA have said by way of email that there is flexibility within the deadline. This is the email that went to a number of clubs including Lyon and Forest but not Palace.

 

[Common Sense Club]

I think the point of raising Forest is not that they have an existing MCO clash with another team in the Europa League it's more that UEFA have said by way of email that there is flexibility within the deadline. This is the email that went to a number of clubs including Lyon and Forest but not Palace.

Forest have been included as we want to see what was in the communication that their owner sent to UEFA. If UEFA were influenced by those words to the extent that it tipped the balance away from us, then bingo!

 

[Part Time James]

I think the point of raising Forest is not that they have an existing MCO clash with another team in the Europa League it's more that UEFA have said by way of email that there is flexibility within the deadline. This is the email that went to a number of clubs including Lyon and Forest but not Palace.

Exactly my understanding of why Forest are being brought into the debate. Palace want to query whether Forest (and others) were sent the same information and treated in the same way. As it happens Forest never needed their shares to be in a blind trust, but the argument I think Palace are tying to make is that they were given more information/different treatment.

 

[Goalpost1]

Forest have been included as we want to see what was in the communication that their owner sent to UEFA. If UEFA were influenced by those words to the extent that it tipped the balance away from us, then bingo!

I agree. I have had many an argument with Forest fans on social media who blindly accept it was just a clarification letter. There has been media speculation that it alluded to Palace and Lyon breaching MCO rules. If it was simply a clarification then Forest could have put all the speculation to bed by disclosing it to Palace or even publishing it, the fact they haven't speaks volumes. I hope it does get disclosed as part of the appeal.

 

[est1905]

I agree. I have had many an argument with Forest fans on social media who blindly accept it was just a clarification letter. There has been media speculation that it alluded to Palace and Lyon breaching MCO rules. If it was simply a clarification then Forest could have put all the speculation to bed by disclosing it to Palace or even publishing it, the fact they haven't speaks volumes. I hope it does get disclosed as part of the appeal.

Very good point. As you say, IF there was nothing sinister in that letter why have they not shown Palace's lawyers a copy of it?

 

[ASCPFC]

Forest have been included as we want to see what was in the communication that their owner sent to UEFA. If UEFA were influenced by those words to the extent that it tipped the balance away from us, then bingo!

They are bound to disclose completely truthfully.

 

[Eaglecoops]

Forest notified UEFA by March 1st of their intention to enter a blind trust and that was all that was required at that point due to their league position & potential CL qualification. The trust was implemented by the 30th April, again what was required by UEFA, Forest's blind trust is totally irrelevant to any argument Palace have as it was done with the possibility of playing CL football next season along with Olympiacos & was all completed within the specified time requirements. I think you're correct, Forest won't get demoted anywhere on the basis of Olympiacos being in the CL - there is no conflict of interest now, and there never was at the point of season end. Forest will only go into the Conference League if CAS rule in favour of Palace.

I disagree, it is very much a point of contention for Palace. Forest announced their intention to place their shares in trust and obviously couldn’t or didn’t want to do it by 1st March and were granted an extension to do so. In that case would it have been ok for Palace to say, “if we win the FA Cup we will put our shares in a trust!” It’s effectively the same thing, that is to say, dealing with the problem when it becomes an issue.

Forest were granted an extension to submit information, Palace however were told that because they didn’t by 1st March they are out. There is plenty of inequity in that scenario for a lawyer to work with as UEFA could have turned round to Forest and insisted on paperwork being in place by 1st March. This shows that there is scope for alternative interpretations of what should and shouldn’t happen by the 1st March date.

 

[Palace in the Blood]

Exactly my understanding of why Forest are being brought into the debate. Palace want to query whether Forest (and others) were sent the same information and treated in the same way. As it happens Forest never needed their shares to be in a blind trust, but the argument I think Palace are tying to make is that they were given more information/different treatment.

You are starting to see point.

We will never know complete detail unless it is part of published decision.

The first point on Forest is why were they named as parties? My view is this was done on legal advice and is a bit unusual. Forest's legal team will argue they are not part of dispute CPFC have with UEFA and should be removed from Action. This suggests to me we know something and it is serious enough to make them a party. If this is proved the ramifications for Forest are serious and potentially unlimited. If this was just about memo we haven't seen , we could have accessed that in arrears and used it as part of our appeal.

Our appeal against UEFA in many ways doesn't involve Forest at all other than our claim they were treated more favourably. Lyon are slightly different as they can be used as part of appeal to show that we had no real interaction.

As I said in original post there are a number of things that have to be proved or disproved and these follow logically in order and follow to next argument.

The importance of date is that is what UEFA have said, supported by precedent of CAS. A few points on these rules. They talk about taking part in European competitions then lists them. I may have missed it but on conflict it never says same individual competition. The rules and date are absolute supported by precedent no mention of this memo.

One portion of Appeal will be based on fairness of rule but by this point UEFA will have to have proved we were an MCO, and we breached the rules. If the judges reject UEFA on either of these points case is over.
My view is that CAS will decide we are an MCO but we have a fairly good chance of winning arguments on control by Eagle Football as part of this MCO.

This is point fairness of rules come into play in particular the date.
How does a club that is an MCO comply? ie Roma and Everton (the only way i can see is all MCO have to take steps irrespective of if they qualify for Europe)
The blind trust is supposed to last until European competitions finish and player sales etc extended to following transfer window. So why could Forest owner cancel trust and buy players from clubs where they had a financial interest
This date so long before we had a conflict is unworkable and the flexibility shown to Lyon and Forest Is contrary to natural justice

 

[Part Time James]

You are starting to see point.

We will never know complete detail unless it is part of published decision.

The first point on Forest is why were they named as parties? My view is this was done on legal advice and is a bit unusual. Forest's legal team will argue they are not part of dispute CPFC have with UEFA and should be removed from Action. This suggests to me we know something and it is serious enough to make them a party. If this is proved the ramifications for Forest are serious and potentially unlimited. If this was just about memo we haven't seen , we could have accessed that in arrears and used it as part of our appeal.

Our appeal against UEFA in many ways doesn't involve Forest at all other than our claim they were treated more favourably. Lyon are slightly different as they can be used as part of appeal to show that we had no real interaction.

As I said in original post there are a number of things that have to be proved or disproved and these follow logically in order and follow to next argument.

The importance of date is that is what UEFA have said, supported by precedent of CAS. A few points on these rules. They talk about taking part in European competitions then lists them. I may have missed it but on conflict it never says same individual competition. The rules and date are absolute supported by precedent no mention of this memo.

One portion of Appeal will be based on fairness of rule but by this point UEFA will have to have proved we were an MCO, and we breached the rules. If the judges reject UEFA on either of these points case is over.
My view is that CAS will decide we are an MCO but we have a fairly good chance of winning arguments on control by Eagle Football as part of this MCO.

This is point fairness of rules come into play in particular the date.
How does a club that is an MCO comply? ie Roma and Everton (the only way i can see is all MCO have to take steps irrespective of if they qualify for Europe)
The blind trust is supposed to last until European competitions finish and player sales etc extended to following transfer window. So why could Forest owner cancel trust and buy players from clubs where they had a financial interest
This date so long before we had a conflict is unworkable and the flexibility shown to Lyon and Forest Is contrary to natural justice

Your point was regarding Forest being kicked out on the grounds that Olympiacos are in the Champions League. Apologies, but no, I'm not seeing that point at all.

I have never disagreed with the notion that Forest may have received favourable treatment, albeit favourable treatment they never needed. It's important to Palace's case if it underpins something shady within UEFA, but my challenge was always "can Palace go to CAS asking for Forest to be thrown out because their shares might not have been in a blind trust in time for a specific deadline?" which some people seemed to be thinking was part of our legal case. I still don't believe we have gone to CAS to get Forest thrown out as a result of not having shares in a blind trust in time because they never ended up in an MCO situation as per rule 5.