Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

[Palace Old Geezer]

Brilliant article in The Times if anyone wants to read it

Why? The question Uefa has never answered about Palace and Lyon

Yep, very well written piece by Martin Samuel, glad you posted it cannoneagle. I read the article in the 'paper', but couldn't upload it. Samuel is a very astute journalist.

 

[crvenaeagle]

Agree with the message but football authorities again having double standards

It's 100% to drag attention away from the situation with us.

 

[Paaalaaace]

I don't think we need any convincing that they're hypocrites.

I need no more convincing that Mary Knickers is nothing more than a Hippopotamus

 

[martinelliff]

I am looking forward to the tifo at the first conference game. Not sure it will be allowed but there should be a banner left behind the goal correctly describing uefa as corrupt c*nts.
Even better if we bag a load of goals at the holmesdale end against the Norwegians and then thrash Forest. I can dream.

 

[Common Sense Club]

I am looking forward to the tifo at the first conference game. Not sure it will be allowed but there should be a banner left behind the goal correctly describing uefa as corrupt c*nts.
Even better if we bag a load of goals at the holmesdale end against the Norwegians and then thrash Forest. I can dream.

I remember reading that back in Wisbech’s era the crowd used to switch ends at half time, presumably so that the crowd could always - literally - get behind them. Perhaps move the banner to where the goalmouth action should be for constant coverage.

 

[Spiderman]

Putting Lyon shares in trust would have made no difference as they ended up qualifying by finishing higher in the league than Palace, no other reason.

But wouldn’t that allow us to be in EL as well?

 

[Eaglecoops]

But wouldn’t that allow us to be in EL as well?

No, because the reason we were out was because of the potential for collusion between us and Lyon in the same competition. This meant only one team could go through, which in turn meant it was down to who finished highest in their respective leagues.

Lyon went into the EL by finishing 6th, Palace got dumped into the CL by finishing 12th. Apparently that trumps winning the greatest and oldest ko trophy in existence.

 

[Painter]

No, because the reason we were out was because of the potential for collusion between us and Lyon in the same competition. This meant only one team could go through, which in turn meant it was down to who finished highest in their respective leagues.

Lyon went into the EL by finishing 6th, Palace got dumped into the CL by finishing 12th. Apparently that trumps winning the greatest and oldest ko trophy in existence.

If Textor had his Lyon shares in a blind trust, it would of meant Palace and Lyon could both play in EL. As this would make no conflict of interest on paper, but in reality it changes nothing as with Forest's owner.

 

[Spiderman]

No, because the reason we were out was because of the potential for collusion between us and Lyon in the same competition. This meant only one team could go through, which in turn meant it was down to who finished highest in their respective leagues.

Lyon went into the EL by finishing 6th, Palace got dumped into the CL by finishing 12th. Apparently that trumps winning the greatest and oldest ko trophy in existence.

Indeed but if he put his Lyon shares in a blind trust, he would, by UEFAs definition not have any influence with Lyon. Isn’t this why the Fat Greek put his Forest shares into a Blind trust?

 

[Eaglecoops]

If Textor had his Lyon shares in a blind trust, it would have meant Palace and Lyon could both play in EL. As this would make no conflict of interest on paper, but in reality it changes nothing as with Forest's owner.

There would still be conflict. The issue is that he had decisive control at Palace (UEFA’s verdict not ours), therefore regardless of what he did with his Lyon shares the perception is that he can influence a Palace performance.

So if he put his Lyon shares into trust then fine he has taken a step back from Lyon, however he could still use his Palace influence to try and change the result of a match.

The only way both teams could have gone through was for Textor to place the shares of both teams into trust, but as it happens there was no need with regard to Lyon because they went through based on the dodgy UEFA decision I referred to previously.

 

[Painter]

There would still be conflict. The issue is that he had decisive control at Palace (UEFA’s verdict not ours), therefore regardless of what he did with his Lyon shares the perception is that he can influence a Palace performance.

So if he put his Lyon shares into trust then fine he has taken a step back from Lyon, however he could still use his Palace influence to try and change the result of a match.

The only way both teams could have gone through was for Textor to place the shares of both teams into trust, but as it happens there was no need with regard to Lyon because they went through based on the dodgy UEFA decision I referred to previously.

How would Textor of been able to influence any result involving Palace?

 

[Eaglecoops]

How would Textor of been able to influence any result involving Palace?

Because he had decisive control at Palace. This is how UEFA view it, as ludicrous as it sounds.

Supposedly he would be able to go into the Palace changing room and influence a game to benefit another of his clubs.

He could only get out of this by recusing himself from both clubs.

Interestingly, if Textor had put his Palace shares into trust and not his Lyon shares then Lyon would have been relegated to the Conference.

My personal feeling is that Textor knew this all along but took a calculated risk that Palace wouldn’t win the Cup hence why he had an, “oh s***” moment when Palace did win.

 

[Lombardinho]

Yep, very well written piece by Martin Samuel, glad you posted it cannoneagle. I read the article in the 'paper', but couldn't upload it. Samuel is a very astute journalist.

I agree.
He can see how we've been shafted.
But Mr Samuel is naive to think the moon landings couldn't have been rigged.

 

[Spiderman]

There would still be conflict. The issue is that he had decisive control at Palace (UEFA’s verdict not ours), therefore regardless of what he did with his Lyon shares the perception is that he can influence a Palace performance.

So if he put his Lyon shares into trust then fine he has taken a step back from Lyon, however he could still use his Palace influence to try and change the result of a match.

The only way both teams could have gone through was for Textor to place the shares of both teams into trust, but as it happens there was no need with regard to Lyon because they went through based on the dodgy UEFA decision I referred to previously.

But Marianakis put his Forest shares in a blind trust , in case they qualified for same competition as Olympiakos

 

[Painter]

Because he had decisive control at Palace. This is how UEFA view it, as ludicrous as it sounds.

Supposedly he would be able to go into the Palace changing room and influence a game to benefit another of his clubs.

He could only get out of this by recusing himself from both clubs.

Interestingly, if Textor had put his Palace shares into trust and not his Lyon shares then Lyon would have been relegated to the Conference.

My personal feeling is that Textor knew this all along but took a calculated risk that Palace wouldn’t win the Cup hence why he had an, “oh s***” moment when Palace did win.

You think Textor would go into the changing room and tell players to throw a game. How would that work, when players leak to the media , they were forced to throw a game. Textor would be banned from football for life.