Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

[Hannes]

It was always unlikely, though not entirely impossible, that we would be excluded from European competitions. For years, UEFA have been criticised by many fans in Europe for competitions and formats that clearly favour the big clubs and make them even richer, thus widening the gap between rich and not-so-rich clubs. The transition to a league format was another step that increased criticism, as it almost inevitably means that the big clubs always progress further than the smaller ones. The criticism goes so far that even some of the most fanatical fans of the big clubs boycott the competitions because they consider them unfair. I myself knew some Rapid die-hards who simply did not follow Rapid's European games for this reason.
If a club like ours, which sensationally qualifies, is now banned because of a strict interpretation of rules that have been violated by the big clubs for decades and then bent in their favour, it would be another scandal. Perhaps UEFA don't care, but I don't think so, given their declining reputation.

 

[mileend]

Might be worth reminding ourselves of the basic truth that Textor did not have control of our club so we have never been in a breach of the rules. The weird high number of shares owned compared to voting rights was guaranteed to raise questions from UEFA. But we've lived with the reality where we have seen Textor not getting his way at Palace illustrating he didn't have control of decision making.

UEFA are going to be taken to CAS by Palace if they rule against us and they know we will have an excellent case. Especially as by then the person they say is in control of our club and also Lyon has sold his shares in Palace and so by the time we enter the competition will have no part of the club.

While Lyon, who they would would be protecting, have breached financial regulations and were actually provisionally relegated in November and this decision has now been upheld. They will appeal but at the time of the decision making on our involvement - next week- Lyon will have not qualified for the Europa League. They may well have breached UEFA financial rules too.

Also UEFA past actions has allowed the same owners to have different clubs owned by the same people competing in the same competition. And the set up of blind trusts that appear to be designed as a loophole for certain people to exploit. Those who know they are likely to qualify can act early and pretend not to have control for a period of time while those who qualify by winning a cup unexpectedly are discriminated against.

So if UEFA act against Palace their set of rules on multi club ownership is at risk of collapse. The repercussions of which could be huge.

Set against that the risk that Forest will someone how prove on appeal that a person no longer at the club has control of a club seem relatively low risk especially when the other club isn't currently eligible to take part in the competition.

Forest might want to consider that after this total clusterfcuk if they try and force the issue that it will mean the rules are going to change and they are likely to be the ones on the wrong end of that. After all they are the ones with an owner with definite control over two separate clubs likely to end up in the same European competitions.

 

[Spindle]

If this is the kind of persona that you feel is in line with our club and the people in and around it then perhaps you're mistaken.

If you're welcoming it, on the other hand, just because it will "trigger the snowflakes" then you need to take up some hobbies and readjust your living situation.

Some people just can't handle other opinions. Not everyone wants to attend and promote all these socially engineered culture events.

 

[Spindle]

Well, he might get a rude awakening as Palace traditionally have more black players than most other Premier League teams.

Let's hope he doesn't take a dislike to Richards.
"Hey you're American..... oh, you're black."

Rest assured, if he ever steps out of line he'll get crucified by the fans and his position will be untenable.

Have you stopped for a second to consider that maybe he's not as racist as the people who are insisting that he attends and bends the knee to a group of people with a chip on their shoulder as if he's guilty of all their oppression. I can't imagine the uproar if we insisted that black people had to attend a series of lectures and culture events based on white history. He makes a point that is valid because it's written in statistics, addressing their family issues would go a long way to life improvement over forcing rich white people to attend these nauseating guilt trips. I'm certain that he's not out to chuck bananas at our black players.

As for men's clubs. Feminists just out to invade male spaces. Notice that there are STILL women only golf clubs, NOBODY has forced them to change.

 

[Spindle]

Nothing wrong with that 😁

"Name please?"
"Eddie Hitler"
"Oh, any relation?"
"Well yes actually"

🤣

 

[Willo]

UEFA's rules state: “To ensure the integrity of the Uefa club competitions, the club must be able to prove that as at 1 March 2025 the… multi-club ownership criteria were met and the club must continue to comply with the criteria from that date until the end of the competition season.”

 

[mileend]

UEFA's rules state: “To ensure the integrity of the Uefa club competitions, the club must be able to prove that as at 1 March 2025 the… multi-club ownership criteria were met and the club must continue to comply with the criteria from that date until the end of the competition season.”

But it is a pretty basic point that if a rule is discriminatory or unfair then it may not be upheld

That is what UEFA are worried about, testing that at CAS

And of course there is a strong opinion, about to be decided, that Palace did meet the criteria

 

[crvenaeagle]

Some people just can't handle other opinions. Not everyone wants to attend and promote all these socially engineered culture events.

I can't work out your post.
Are you contradiction your first sentence with your second one or what?

 

[Gary St.Andrews]

UEFA's rules state: “To ensure the integrity of the Uefa club competitions, the club must be able to prove that as at 1 March 2025 the… multi-club ownership criteria were met and the club must continue to comply with the criteria from that date until the end of the competition season.”

It still begs the question if UEFA are so against multi club ownership and ruled against it, then why allow individuals to do it in the first place?💰

 

[PatrickA]

UEFA's rules state: “To ensure the integrity of the Uefa club competitions, the club must be able to prove that as at 1 March 2025 the… multi-club ownership criteria were met and the club must continue to comply with the criteria from that date until the end of the competition season.”

Ist March has been and gone.

It would be a question of fact as to whether we complied with the rules as of that date.

If there was clear evidence that we had not complied , the assumption would be that we would have already been kicked out.

 

[crvenaeagle]

So what are the chances now that we can raid Lyon?

How likely will Johnny boy be to sort us out a quick deal on say Malick Fofana or Corentin Tolisso? 😂

 

[mileend]

It still begs the question if UEFA are so against multi club ownership and ruled against it, then why allow individuals to do it in the first place?💰

it's a good summary

‘A perfect storm’: multi-club ownership, Crystal Palace and a looming court threat

Uefa’s legal team is preparing for more action as a complex and increasingly common issue rears its head again

www.theguardian.com

and here's the bit that relates to your question, but fundamentally there are issues in law with banning people buying companies that UEFA haven't wanted to fight against

----

Uefa’s MCO rules have been in place without many revisions for 24 years, although one significant change was made 12 months ago when the regulations were relaxed to permit a club part of a multi-ownership group to compete in a different competition.

Article 5 was drafted in 2001 after a legal challenge from Tottenham’s owner, Enic, the first multi-club operation in the Premier League, after AEK Athens were blocked from taking part in the 1998-99 Uefa Cup because their sister club Slavia Prague had also qualified. The initial rule stated that “control or influence” over more than one club was not allowed, but it was not tested until 2017 when RB Leipzig and Red Bull Salzburg qualified for the Champions League, which led to the wording being altered to “decisive influence”.

What had been a rare occurrence is now an annual problem for Uefa, with Aston Villa, Brighton and Toulouse allowed to play in Europe during the 2023-24 season only when their owners put more distance between them and Vitória de Guimarães, Union Saint-Gilloise and Milan respectively. The same issue affected Manchester City and Girona as well as Manchester United and Nice a year later.

 

[edskan]

Lyon relegated: Why French club's demotion to Ligue 2 could be 'good news' for Crystal Palace | Explained

Sky Sports News chief reporter Kaveh Solhekol explains why Lyons relegation to Ligue 2 could allow Crystal Palace to compete in the Europa League next season.

www.skysports.com

Apparently we will find out on Friday.

 

[mileend]

Ist March has been and gone.

It would be a question of fact as to whether we complied with the rules as of that date.

If there was clear evidence that we had not complied , the assumption would be that we would have already been kicked out.

and we likely did, as Textor did not have 'decisive influence'

but if the rule makes it impossible for a team to avoid non-compliance (like unexpectedly qualifying beyond that date when no reasonable options have been left available to avoid conflict) then the validity of the rule comes into question

As this weeks events show UEFA rules might deny the opportunity of someone to legitimately sell their shares to avoid a conflict, the perfect solution, then it does cast a lot of doubt on the fairness of that rule

I think the whole world, including UEFA, other than one person of decisive influence at Forest understands that 'natural justice' supports Crystal Palace - if they have been locked into a bad decision because of bad rules then that needs to be, and will be, looked at by CAS