Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

[crvenaeagle]

Problem is, we can say all this but:

1. UEFA assessed that we were MCO. They are clearly wrong. But, as an appeals tribunal, CAS cannot substitute their own subjective assessment of facts for those arrived at by UEFA.

2. Whether Forest are part of an MCO or not, they did not trigger the rules. The issue of applicable dates did not come into play and UEFA could stand by their arbitrary deadline.

3. Emailgate is also a non point. It is one down the rabbit hole I know but, to comply, we should have put Textor's interest on blind trust and released it from the trust when we were knocked out the Cup... or otherwise. I don't know if this would have negatively impacted the marketability of his shares but UEFA do not appear to have considered this and didn't have to as the rules are the rules.

I am saying this after the event and in retrospect as I was hoping and arguing for a different result. The one point that does upset me is that appeal tribunals can feel they are completely fettered. However, in a case that is so obviously perverse, prejudicial to a relatively small club and blatantly undermining of two major competitions, it is sad they could or would not find any hook onto which to hang a different decision.

It states in UEFAs rules that when you put your shares into blind trust you cannot just take them back out when you fail to qualify.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Problem is, we can say all this but:

1. UEFA assessed that we were MCO. They are clearly wrong. But, as an appeals tribunal, CAS cannot substitute their own subjective assessment of facts for those arrived at by UEFA.

2. Whether Forest are part of an MCO or not, they did not trigger the rules. The issue of applicable dates did not come into play and UEFA could stand by their arbitrary deadline.

3. Emailgate is also a non point. It is one down the rabbit hole I know but, to comply, we should have put Textor's interest on blind trust and released it from the trust when we were knocked out the Cup... or otherwise. I don't know if this would have negatively impacted the marketability of his shares but UEFA do not appear to have considered this and didn't have to as the rules are the rules.

I am saying this after the event and in retrospect as I was hoping and arguing for a different result. The one point that does upset me is that appeal tribunals can feel they are completely fettered. However, in a case that is so obviously perverse, prejudicial to a relatively small club and blatantly undermining of two major competitions, it is sad they could or would not find any hook onto which to hang a different decision.

How were "we" supposed to do that? Nobody but Textor himself could and if he chose not to, even if he knew about it and thought it was neccesary, there was nothing we could do. UEFA could have decided to ban him from ownership of affiliated clubs for failing to act in our best interests but banning us makes no sense at all.

This is the illogicality of all of this. You should never be punished in any way for something that is totally outside your control.

 

[Eagleman13]

Assuming you mean Atlantica Golden Beach then nearest pubs would be in Coral Bay a 10mins drive or plenty of local buses go there. There are 5/6 pubs which show PL most show multiable games on different screens with sound off. Your hotel is on the main road between pafos and coral bay. Driven it load of times but don't remember seeing pubs along there. Hotel staff should know if there are any maybe down a side road.
Enjoy your stay and have fun. We love it here but miss Selhurst

As an aside, there is a Palace mad woman who lives in Polis, her name is Trisha, ex-firefighter with Northants FB.

 

[cyprussteve]

As an aside, there is a Palace mad woman who lives in Polis, her name is Trisha, ex-firefighter with Northants FB.

I'm one of three eagles who live in Anarita plus there are a couple in Mandria. Small world

 

[HughReds]

Blimey. The Grauniad think we're going to nick your perch in the Premier League too!

12th.

Have a good season me ducks.

 

[ASCPFC]

Blimey. The Grauniad think we're going to nick your perch in the Premier League too!

12th.

Have a good season me ducks.

Your manager will be gone by Christmas. Enjoy.

 

[chris123]

It states in UEFAs rules that when you put your shares into blind trust you cannot just take them back out when you fail to qualify.

I'm not sure I understand that ?

 

[Eagleman13]

Blimey. The Grauniad think we're going to nick your perch in the Premier League too!

12th.

Have a good season me ducks.

Excuse me, that is a Northamptonian saying, not you pretenders the other side of Leicestershire.

 

[Brighton8r]

Blimey. The Grauniad think we're going to nick your perch in the Premier League too!

12th.

Have a good season me ducks.

Would you ever f*** off you f***ing sperm stain .

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Blimey. The Grauniad think we're going to nick your perch in the Premier League too!

12th.

Have a good season me ducks.

I’ll tell you what most football supporters think, whatever team that’s especially close to their hearts.

Which is that they know Palace and not Forest should be playing in the Europa League. Whether they were cheated by the application of stupid and inappropriate rules that failed to achieve a stated objective, or by the shenanigans of another club pulling strings, remains unknown, at least for now. If it’s decided that the matter can be disclosed by legal action then expect that it will be.

Most supporters can tell whether a club is well run by honest people or by shady characters sportswashing dodgy wealth.

Most supporters would be ashamed if the club that’s especially close to their hearts had been stolen from them by such a character.

Ever thought of supporting County?

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Excuse me, that is a Northamptonian saying, not you pretenders the other side of Leicestershire.

Not really, it’s in general use anywhere in the wastelands of the East Midlands by the rustic and unsophisticated. Including ignorant football supporters in Nottingham who don’t know a Friar Tuck about much at all.

 

[FrankieD108]

Blimey. The Grauniad think we're going to nick your perch in the Premier League too!

12th.

Have a good season me ducks.

Something tells me you've never seen Forest win a trophy.
There are 6 month old kids in Croydon that has seen Crystal Palace win two! 😆

 

[Painter]

Now the dust has settled, the judgement could be a blessing in disguise. We haven't the squad to take on the quality of teams in Europa League and play in the Premier and would get knocked out fairly quickly, not making that much money. In the Conference League, most teams are below our level, so offers opportunities to play some squad players without too much risk and there's a good chance we could get to the semi's and earn more than we would in the Europa.
This time last year, Europe was just a pipe dream for fans, now we are there its time to move on from moaning about UEFA, they were never going to let us back after Lyon managed to wriggle out of relegation.

 

[mtp1958]

Now the dust has settled, the judgement could be a blessing in disguise. We haven't the squad to take on the quality of teams in Europa League and play in the Premier and would get knocked out fairly quickly, not making that much money. In the Conference League, most teams are below our level, so offers opportunities to play some squad players without too much risk and there's a good chance we could get to the semi's and earn more than we would in the Europa.
This time last year, Europe was just a pipe dream for fans, now we are there its time to move on from moaning about UEFA, they were never going to let us back after Lyon managed to wriggle out of relegation.

Nor did spuds and they won it

 

[cryrst]

Assuming you mean Atlantica Golden Beach then nearest pubs would be in Coral Bay a 10mins drive or plenty of local buses go there. There are 5/6 pubs which show PL most show multiable games on different screens with sound off. Your hotel is on the main road between pafos and coral bay. Driven it load of times but don't remember seeing pubs along there. Hotel staff should know if there are any maybe down a side road.
Enjoy your stay and have fun. We love it here but miss Selhurst

That’s the one. Thanks for the info and got my factor 50 and 30. I am sure I will enjoy it very much, although I’m going with the old lady but she’s almost part of the family so felt it only right to invite her 😀

 

[Jason Smith]

what does this addendum say? Please post it.

Thanks for posting this. A very interesting document, to say the least.

Firstly, it is dated 14 May 2024 and addressed: FTAO Licensing Managers. As far as I am aware Palace do not employ a licensing manager, let alone employ a dedicated body of staff.

Licensing is a highly specialised profession, and the top clubs will have a team of staff, usually based in London, dedicated to this very important aspect of a club’s function. It has also, in recent years, been expanding fast as the ever increasing sophistication of managing a global brand requires marketing offices and football schools situated all over the world that are dedicated to their particular brand development.

It should be said that these elite clubs are not just a successful version of ourselves. They are a part of a highly sophisticated network of vested interests that ensures most of the money generated within the game is distributed back to these elite clubs. A good example of this are the fines that regularly get handed out to top clubs, but in reality this money is just redistributed back to them.

As the chief executive of Lokomotiva Zagreb is reported as saying, the current unchallenged system means that “Uefa has distributed €22 billion in prize money in the last 25 years and €7 billion [around one third] of that has gone to just 12 clubs.” We might add that three quarters of all the money has gone to just 50 clubs.

Needless to say, elite European clubs have no interest whatsoever in the aspirations of smaller clubs. Yes, they like to see the underdog win, but not at their expense. Indeed, these clubs run a business that is more similar to the corporate world of entertainment giants like Disney, Marvel, or Warner Bros, where IP (intellectual property) is king.

Nottingham Forest is, without question, a primary example of what happens to a very successful European club that is not also an established global brand. Back in 1984 they were in the UEFA Cup semi-final against Anderlecht, but were defeated thanks to a bribed referee. UEFA knew about it for years but chose to ignore it. Eventually, in 1997, they banned Anderlecht from all European competitions for a year. No way would this have happened to a club like Real Madrid or Manchester United! I remember that match, and it was probably the most bizarre match I have ever watched.

Now, to this document, which covers regulations for the 2024-25 season, with ramifications for subsequent seasons. It was sent out by the CFCB, and was emailed to all European league associations, who then forwarded it to all league clubs. It was also emailed to the ECA, who have two ex officio members on UEFA’s executive board, which means they have access to privileged information not available to non ECA members. It should be noted a club cannot choose to join the ECA, they can only apply to join, as an associate member, once they have qualified for a UEFA competition. And in the the absence of a licensing manager, this document would have been forwarded to the club secretary, via that well known email address info@cpfc.co.uk, which in our case should have been forwarded by a member of the admin team to Christine Dowdeswell, who would then be obliged to provide suitable legal advice to all directors, with particular attention paid to David Blitzer and John Textor. This document carried the heading, in bold and underlined: Admission procedure to the 2024/25 UEFA men’s club competitions Multi-Club Ownership rule and related interpretation of “decisive influence”.

Paragraph four states: “As per the Competitions Regulations, if there is a doubt as to whether clubs fulfil the MCO rule, the case is referred to the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (“CFCB”), which then decides on the admission of the clubs concerned in accordance with the Procedural rules governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (“Procedural Rules”).”

This should therefore be self explanatory as to what were Christine Dowdeswell’s responsibilities regarding any doubt about the application of these regulations.

The critical area of concern is the sixth paragraph with the following clarification:

“Since its creation in July 2021, the CFCB First Chamber has applied the following indicators when assessing whether a party (i.e. a natural or legal person, a legal entity or a government), either alone or in aggregate together with a related party, directly or indirectly, has the capacity to exercise a decisive influence in the decision-making of a club:”

a. Decisive influence through shareholders’ or members’ rights

i If a party* holds 30% or more of the club’s total shares, the shareholders’ or members’ voting or economic rights.

* either alone or in aggregate together with a related party, directly or indirectly

From this we can clearly see that the CFCB would deem Crystal Palace to be an MCO club, which is based upon John Textor owning 43% of its shares. This is classified by the CFCB as a “de jure decisive influence over a club.” In other words, even though Steve Parish is the chairman and CEO and he has de facto overall control or influence, European law generally will sway towards the codified nature of regulations and will not give precedence to established practise.

Moreover, even if John Textor were below the 30% threshold, the CFCB would still need to investigate a possible “de facto decisive influence over such a club.” However, this circular does not make it clear how any such investigation would be initiated. But the inference must be drawn that the CFCB are expecting clubs to regulate themselves.

It also explains why it was we were demoted to the Conference League, and was not expelled from all European competitions, as David Blitzer owns 25% of voting shares and 18% of total shares, which is a part of his global MCO operation. However, even this would be called into question by the CFCB because of an assumed “decisive influence” that would need to be subject to further scrutiny.

Yes, the decision was grossly disproportionate for a first-time offence. Yes, other clubs have got away with little or no sanction. Yes, there is now no MCO conflict of interest. Yes, the general secretary of UEFA, Theodore Theodoridis, has close family ties to Evangelos Marinakis, but there is no getting away from this brutal truth that Palace were aware of the de jure reality that they were an MCO club in the eyes of UEFA on the 1 March 2025. But I do not hold either Christine Dowdeswell or John Textor to blame. Textor was in an impossible situation, which has been previously commented upon in other postings. He was caught up in a complex web of competing issues and interests, both within Palace and beyond.

But this is where it gets interesting: putting in place measures to ensure compliance, like selling your shares, either completely or by putting them into a blind trust, is a temporary measure that only applied to last season up to the final deadline of 3 June 2024; and this is only allowed if you have contravened none of its requirements. In other words, the CFCB is allowing club directors or legal entities to utilise this as a discretionary temporary option, which expired at the close of the 2024-25 season.

“For the avoidance of doubt, this temporary alternative is granted by the CFCB First Chamber on an exceptional basis for the 2024/25 UEFA competitions. As such, the CFCB will not be bound by this alternative when assessing clubs’ compliance with the MCO rule for participation in UEFA competitions in subsequent seasons.”

And unless someone can cite an updated document, this requirement still stands.

 

[crvenaeagle]

I'm not sure I understand that ?

Which is the problem with UEFAs rules.

 

[Palacesince64]

Thanks for posting this. A very interesting document, to say the least.

Firstly, it is dated 14 May 2024 and addressed: FTAO Licensing Managers. As far as I am aware Palace do not employ a licensing manager, let alone employ a dedicated body of staff.

Licensing is a highly specialised profession, and the top clubs will have a team of staff, usually based in London, dedicated to this very important aspect of a club’s function. It has also, in recent years, been expanding fast as the ever increasing sophistication of managing a global brand requires marketing offices and football schools situated all over the world that are dedicated to their particular brand development.

It should be said that these elite clubs are not just a successful version of ourselves. They are a part of a highly sophisticated network of vested interests that ensures most of the money generated within the game is distributed back to these elite clubs. A good example of this are the fines that regularly get handed out to top clubs, but in reality this money is just redistributed back to them.

As the chief executive of Lokomotiva Zagreb is reported as saying, the current unchallenged system means that “Uefa has distributed €22 billion in prize money in the last 25 years and €7 billion [around one third] of that has gone to just 12 clubs.” We might add that three quarters of all the money has gone to just 50 clubs.

Needless to say, elite European clubs have no interest whatsoever in the aspirations of smaller clubs. Yes, they like to see the underdog win, but not at their expense. Indeed, these clubs run a business that is more similar to the corporate world of entertainment giants like Disney, Marvel, or Warner Bros, where IP (intellectual property) is king.

Nottingham Forest is, without question, a primary example of what happens to a very successful European club that is not also an established global brand. Back in 1984 they were in the UEFA Cup semi-final against Anderlecht, but were defeated thanks to a bribed referee. UEFA knew about it for years but chose to ignore it. Eventually, in 1997, they banned Anderlecht from all European competitions for a year. No way would this have happened to a club like Real Madrid or Manchester United! I remember that match, and it was probably the most bizarre match I have ever watched.

Now, to this document, which covers regulations for the 2024-25 season, with ramifications for subsequent seasons. It was sent out by the CFCB, and was emailed to all European league associations, who then forwarded it to all league clubs. It was also emailed to the ECA, who have two ex officio members on UEFA’s executive board, which means they have access to privileged information not available to non ECA members. It should be noted a club cannot choose to join the ECA, they can only apply to join, as an associate member, once they have qualified for a UEFA competition. And in the the absence of a licensing manager, this document would have been forwarded to the club secretary, via that well known email address info@cpfc.co.uk, which in our case should have been forwarded by a member of the admin team to Christine Dowdeswell, who would then be obliged to provide suitable legal advice to all directors, with particular attention paid to David Blitzer and John Textor. This document carried the heading, in bold and underlined: Admission procedure to the 2024/25 UEFA men’s club competitions Multi-Club Ownership rule and related interpretation of “decisive influence”.

Paragraph four states: “As per the Competitions Regulations, if there is a doubt as to whether clubs fulfil the MCO rule, the case is referred to the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (“CFCB”), which then decides on the admission of the clubs concerned in accordance with the Procedural rules governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (“Procedural Rules”).”

This should therefore be self explanatory as to what were Christine Dowdeswell’s responsibilities regarding any doubt about the application of these regulations.

The critical area of concern is the sixth paragraph with the following clarification:

“Since its creation in July 2021, the CFCB First Chamber has applied the following indicators when assessing whether a party (i.e. a natural or legal person, a legal entity or a government), either alone or in aggregate together with a related party, directly or indirectly, has the capacity to exercise a decisive influence in the decision-making of a club:”

a. Decisive influence through shareholders’ or members’ rights

i If a party* holds 30% or more of the club’s total shares, the shareholders’ or members’ voting or economic rights.

* either alone or in aggregate together with a related party, directly or indirectly

From this we can clearly see that the CFCB would deem Crystal Palace to be an MCO club, which is based upon John Textor owning 43% of its shares. This is classified by the CFCB as a “de jure decisive influence over a club.” In other words, even though Steve Parish is the chairman and CEO and he has de facto overall control or influence, European law generally will sway towards the codified nature of regulations and will not give precedence to established practise.

Moreover, even if John Textor were below the 30% threshold, the CFCB would still need to investigate a possible “de facto decisive influence over such a club.” However, this circular does not make it clear how any such investigation would be initiated. But the inference must be drawn that the CFCB are expecting clubs to regulate themselves.

It also explains why it was we were demoted to the Conference League, and was not expelled from all European competitions, as David Blitzer owns only 25% of both voting shares and total shares, which is a part of his global MCO operation. However, even this would be called into question by the CFCB because of an assumed “decisive influence” that would need to be subject to further scrutiny.

Yes, the decision was grossly disproportionate for a first-time offence. Yes, other clubs have got away with little or no sanction. Yes, there is now no MCO conflict of interest. Yes, the general secretary of UEFA, Theodore Theodoridis, has close family ties to Evangelos Marinakis, but there is no getting away from this brutal truth that Palace were aware of the de jure reality that they were an MCO club in the eyes of UEFA on the 1 March 2025. But I do not hold either Christine Dowdeswell or John Textor to blame. Textor was in an impossible situation, which has been previously commented upon in other postings. He was caught up in a complex web of competing issues and interests, both within Palace and beyond.

But this is where it gets interesting: putting in place measures to ensure compliance, like selling your shares, either completely or by putting them into a blind trust, is a temporary measure that only applied to last season up to the final deadline of 3 June 2024; and this is only allowed if you have contravened none of its requirements. In other words, the CFCB is allowing club directors or legal entities to utilise this as a discretionary temporary option, which expired at the close of the 2024-25 season.

“For the avoidance of doubt, this temporary alternative is granted by the CFCB First Chamber on an exceptional basis for the 2024/25 UEFA competitions. As such, the CFCB will not be bound by this alternative when assessing clubs’ compliance with the MCO rule for participation in UEFA competitions in subsequent seasons.”

And unless someone can cite an updated document, this requirement still stands.

So nothing in there that says UEFA has a discretionary option to bend those rules for favoured clubs then?

 

[Eaglecoops]

Thanks for posting this. A very interesting document, to say the least.

Firstly, it is dated 14 May 2024 and addressed: FTAO Licensing Managers. As far as I am aware Palace do not employ a licensing manager, let alone employ a dedicated body of staff.

Licensing is a highly specialised profession, and the top clubs will have a team of staff, usually based in London, dedicated to this very important aspect of a club’s function. It has also, in recent years, been expanding fast as the ever increasing sophistication of managing a global brand requires marketing offices and football schools situated all over the world that are dedicated to their particular brand development.

It should be said that these elite clubs are not just a successful version of ourselves. They are a part of a highly sophisticated network of vested interests that ensures most of the money generated within the game is distributed back to these elite clubs. A good example of this are the fines that regularly get handed out to top clubs, but in reality this money is just redistributed back to them.

As the chief executive of Lokomotiva Zagreb is reported as saying, the current unchallenged system means that “Uefa has distributed €22 billion in prize money in the last 25 years and €7 billion [around one third] of that has gone to just 12 clubs.” We might add that three quarters of all the money has gone to just 50 clubs.

Needless to say, elite European clubs have no interest whatsoever in the aspirations of smaller clubs. Yes, they like to see the underdog win, but not at their expense. Indeed, these clubs run a business that is more similar to the corporate world of entertainment giants like Disney, Marvel, or Warner Bros, where IP (intellectual property) is king.

Nottingham Forest is, without question, a primary example of what happens to a very successful European club that is not also an established global brand. Back in 1984 they were in the UEFA Cup semi-final against Anderlecht, but were defeated thanks to a bribed referee. UEFA knew about it for years but chose to ignore it. Eventually, in 1997, they banned Anderlecht from all European competitions for a year. No way would this have happened to a club like Real Madrid or Manchester United! I remember that match, and it was probably the most bizarre match I have ever watched.

Now, to this document, which covers regulations for the 2024-25 season, with ramifications for subsequent seasons. It was sent out by the CFCB, and was emailed to all European league associations, who then forwarded it to all league clubs. It was also emailed to the ECA, who have two ex officio members on UEFA’s executive board, which means they have access to privileged information not available to non ECA members. It should be noted a club cannot choose to join the ECA, they can only apply to join, as an associate member, once they have qualified for a UEFA competition. And in the the absence of a licensing manager, this document would have been forwarded to the club secretary, via that well known email address info@cpfc.co.uk, which in our case should have been forwarded by a member of the admin team to Christine Dowdeswell, who would then be obliged to provide suitable legal advice to all directors, with particular attention paid to David Blitzer and John Textor. This document carried the heading, in bold and underlined: Admission procedure to the 2024/25 UEFA men’s club competitions Multi-Club Ownership rule and related interpretation of “decisive influence”.

Paragraph four states: “As per the Competitions Regulations, if there is a doubt as to whether clubs fulfil the MCO rule, the case is referred to the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (“CFCB”), which then decides on the admission of the clubs concerned in accordance with the Procedural rules governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (“Procedural Rules”).”

This should therefore be self explanatory as to what were Christine Dowdeswell’s responsibilities regarding any doubt about the application of these regulations.

The critical area of concern is the sixth paragraph with the following clarification:

“Since its creation in July 2021, the CFCB First Chamber has applied the following indicators when assessing whether a party (i.e. a natural or legal person, a legal entity or a government), either alone or in aggregate together with a related party, directly or indirectly, has the capacity to exercise a decisive influence in the decision-making of a club:”

a. Decisive influence through shareholders’ or members’ rights

i If a party* holds 30% or more of the club’s total shares, the shareholders’ or members’ voting or economic rights.

* either alone or in aggregate together with a related party, directly or indirectly

From this we can clearly see that the CFCB would deem Crystal Palace to be an MCO club, which is based upon John Textor owning 43% of its shares. This is classified by the CFCB as a “de jure decisive influence over a club.” In other words, even though Steve Parish is the chairman and CEO and he has de facto overall control or influence, European law generally will sway towards the codified nature of regulations and will not give precedence to established practise.

Moreover, even if John Textor were below the 30% threshold, the CFCB would still need to investigate a possible “de facto decisive influence over such a club.” However, this circular does not make it clear how any such investigation would be initiated. But the inference must be drawn that the CFCB are expecting clubs to regulate themselves.

It also explains why it was we were demoted to the Conference League, and was not expelled from all European competitions, as David Blitzer owns only 25% of both voting shares and total shares, which is a part of his global MCO operation. However, even this would be called into question by the CFCB because of an assumed “decisive influence” that would need to be subject to further scrutiny.

Yes, the decision was grossly disproportionate for a first-time offence. Yes, other clubs have got away with little or no sanction. Yes, there is now no MCO conflict of interest. Yes, the general secretary of UEFA, Theodore Theodoridis, has close family ties to Evangelos Marinakis, but there is no getting away from this brutal truth that Palace were aware of the de jure reality that they were an MCO club in the eyes of UEFA on the 1 March 2025. But I do not hold either Christine Dowdeswell or John Textor to blame. Textor was in an impossible situation, which has been previously commented upon in other postings. He was caught up in a complex web of competing issues and interests, both within Palace and beyond.

But this is where it gets interesting: putting in place measures to ensure compliance, like selling your shares, either completely or by putting them into a blind trust, is a temporary measure that only applied to last season up to the final deadline of 3 June 2024; and this is only allowed if you have contravened none of its requirements. In other words, the CFCB is allowing club directors or legal entities to utilise this as a discretionary temporary option, which expired at the close of the 2024-25 season.

“For the avoidance of doubt, this temporary alternative is granted by the CFCB First Chamber on an exceptional basis for the 2024/25 UEFA competitions. As such, the CFCB will not be bound by this alternative when assessing clubs’ compliance with the MCO rule for participation in UEFA competitions in subsequent seasons.”

And unless someone can cite an updated document, this requirement still stands.

None of these rules took into account the impact on teams that qualified for Europe via a Cup rather than a league position. If they had left the date at June for submission of paperwork then this issue would have been easily resolved, but for some inexplicable reason they changed it to a date before the quarter finals.

The rule was unfit for purpose as it discriminated against Cup winners and those who perhaps sneaked into Europe in the last game or two.

At the end of the day why would they have changed the date when they could have just waited until the end of the season, seen who all the qualifiers were and said, “right, all those teams with potential MCO conflict now need to utilise a blind trust to protect your position from potential collusion.”

The rule should not have been there to catch directors out or force them into doing something they didn’t really want to for no reason whatsoever, at a point in the season when they had no idea of their fate.

Basically UEFA had not thought through the impact of the date change, or they had and couldn’t give a toss.

 

[Eaglecoops]

It states in UEFAs rules that when you put your shares into blind trust you cannot just take them back out when you fail to qualify.

I did notice this, I think it said until the competition was concluded, so had Forest got into the CL then Marinakis would have had no control of his clubs dealings for a large part of the season. Yeh right!

I’m not sure it meant that you had to leave them in trust if you didn’t qualify, but if it did this would have been raised as an issue.