Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

I ran the situation through three LLM's. Still waiting for Gemini Deep research but the others gave broadly similar, negative, likelihoods of a successful appeal - mainly based on the very recent Drogheda decision by CAS.
I posed the proportionality argument and suggested the alternative of a fine and got this response from Claude
------------
You've hit upon a crucial legal argument that Palace should absolutely pursue - the principle of proportionality. This could be their strongest card to play.


The Proportionality Argument​


The disproportionality of the sanction is stark: Palace earned their Europa League spot through sporting merit by winning the FA Cup, yet face exclusion worth millions in lost revenue. Meanwhile, Textor's ownership breach was technical rather than involving actual match manipulation or competitive interference. The punishment effectively destroys the sporting achievement of players, staff and fans who had no role in the ownership structure.


CAS has previously shown willingness to consider proportionality in sanctions. In AC Milan v. UEFA (2018), CAS reduced UEFA's Financial Fair Play ban from two years to one, finding the original sanction disproportionate. Similarly, in Galatasaray v. UEFA (2016), CAS modified sanctions based on the club's cooperation and remedial efforts.


Financial Penalties as Alternative Sanctions​


UEFA's regulations do allow for graduated sanctions, though they've never been applied to multi-club ownership cases:


  1. Warning or reprimand - For first-time or minor breaches
  2. Financial penalties - Fines up to €1 million for regulatory violations
  3. Conditional measures - Compliance requirements with suspended sanctions
  4. Transfer restrictions - Limiting player movements between commonly-owned clubs
  5. Competition exclusion - The nuclear option UEFA chose here

Palace could argue that a substantial fine (perhaps €5-10 million) would serve UEFA's deterrent purpose while allowing the sporting achievement to stand. This would still punish the ownership violation without destroying the competitive integrity of the competition itself.


Precedents for Alternative Sanctions​


The Red Bull case demonstrates UEFA's flexibility when clubs show good faith efforts. Rather than exclusion, UEFA accepted structural changes and ongoing monitoring. The Manchester clubs' blind trust arrangements in 2024/25 show UEFA can accommodate temporary solutions while ownership issues are resolved.


Palace's key arguments should include:


  • The sale to Woody Johnson was already agreed, showing immediate remedial action
  • No evidence of actual competitive manipulation or conflict of interest
  • The punishment harms innocent parties (players, staff, fans) who earned qualification legitimately
  • Financial penalties would achieve UEFA's regulatory objectives without destroying sporting merit
  • The precedent set is so harsh it may discourage investment in European football

The Swiss Legal Context​


Under Swiss law (which governs CAS proceedings), proportionality is a fundamental principle. Article 5(2) of the Swiss Federal Constitution requires that state action be proportionate to its aims. While UEFA isn't a state actor, CAS often applies similar principles to sporting governing bodies.


The test CAS would likely apply:


  1. Is the measure suitable to achieve the objective? (Yes - it prevents conflicts of interest)
  2. Is it necessary? (Questionable - lesser sanctions could achieve the same goal)
  3. Is it proportionate in the narrow sense? (Highly doubtful given the severe consequences)

Realistic Prospects​


While proportionality is Palace's strongest argument, the Drogheda precedent is concerning - CAS upheld exclusion there without considering alternatives. However, Palace's case differs significantly:


  • Much larger financial impact
  • Historic FA Cup victory at stake
  • Ownership sale already agreed
  • First major club affected

My assessment: Palace has perhaps a 30-35% chance of securing alternative sanctions rather than the 15-20% chance of complete reversal. The proportionality argument, combined with the agreed sale and lack of actual competitive harm, creates a compelling narrative that CAS might find persuasive enough to fashion a creative remedy.


The club should definitely pursue this angle aggressively in their appeal.
------------

So, probably worth a punt but don't expect a good outcome. A bit like the odds before the Cup Final
 
pssguy said:
I ran the situation through three LLM's. Still waiting for Gemini Deep research but the others gave broadly similar, negative, likelihoods of a successful appeal - mainly based on the very recent Drogheda decision by CAS.
I posed the proportionality argument and suggested the alternative of a fine and got this response from Claude
------------
You've hit upon a crucial legal argument that Palace should absolutely pursue - the principle of proportionality. This could be their strongest card to play.


The Proportionality Argument​


The disproportionality of the sanction is stark: Palace earned their Europa League spot through sporting merit by winning the FA Cup, yet face exclusion worth millions in lost revenue. Meanwhile, Textor's ownership breach was technical rather than involving actual match manipulation or competitive interference. The punishment effectively destroys the sporting achievement of players, staff and fans who had no role in the ownership structure.


CAS has previously shown willingness to consider proportionality in sanctions. In AC Milan v. UEFA (2018), CAS reduced UEFA's Financial Fair Play ban from two years to one, finding the original sanction disproportionate. Similarly, in Galatasaray v. UEFA (2016), CAS modified sanctions based on the club's cooperation and remedial efforts.


Financial Penalties as Alternative Sanctions​


UEFA's regulations do allow for graduated sanctions, though they've never been applied to multi-club ownership cases:


  1. Warning or reprimand - For first-time or minor breaches
  2. Financial penalties - Fines up to €1 million for regulatory violations
  3. Conditional measures - Compliance requirements with suspended sanctions
  4. Transfer restrictions - Limiting player movements between commonly-owned clubs
  5. Competition exclusion - The nuclear option UEFA chose here

Palace could argue that a substantial fine (perhaps €5-10 million) would serve UEFA's deterrent purpose while allowing the sporting achievement to stand. This would still punish the ownership violation without destroying the competitive integrity of the competition itself.


Precedents for Alternative Sanctions​


The Red Bull case demonstrates UEFA's flexibility when clubs show good faith efforts. Rather than exclusion, UEFA accepted structural changes and ongoing monitoring. The Manchester clubs' blind trust arrangements in 2024/25 show UEFA can accommodate temporary solutions while ownership issues are resolved.


Palace's key arguments should include:


  • The sale to Woody Johnson was already agreed, showing immediate remedial action
  • No evidence of actual competitive manipulation or conflict of interest
  • The punishment harms innocent parties (players, staff, fans) who earned qualification legitimately
  • Financial penalties would achieve UEFA's regulatory objectives without destroying sporting merit
  • The precedent set is so harsh it may discourage investment in European football

The Swiss Legal Context​


Under Swiss law (which governs CAS proceedings), proportionality is a fundamental principle. Article 5(2) of the Swiss Federal Constitution requires that state action be proportionate to its aims. While UEFA isn't a state actor, CAS often applies similar principles to sporting governing bodies.


The test CAS would likely apply:


  1. Is the measure suitable to achieve the objective? (Yes - it prevents conflicts of interest)
  2. Is it necessary? (Questionable - lesser sanctions could achieve the same goal)
  3. Is it proportionate in the narrow sense? (Highly doubtful given the severe consequences)

Realistic Prospects​


While proportionality is Palace's strongest argument, the Drogheda precedent is concerning - CAS upheld exclusion there without considering alternatives. However, Palace's case differs significantly:


  • Much larger financial impact
  • Historic FA Cup victory at stake
  • Ownership sale already agreed
  • First major club affected

My assessment: Palace has perhaps a 30-35% chance of securing alternative sanctions rather than the 15-20% chance of complete reversal. The proportionality argument, combined with the agreed sale and lack of actual competitive harm, creates a compelling narrative that CAS might find persuasive enough to fashion a creative remedy.


The club should definitely pursue this angle aggressively in their appeal.
------------

So, probably worth a punt but don't expect a good outcome. A bit like the odds before the Cup Final
Click to expand...
What about my point upthread that most countries don't recognise Trusts as being legal in law including France?
 
pssguy said:
I ran the situation through three LLM's. Still waiting for Gemini Deep research but the others gave broadly similar, negative, likelihoods of a successful appeal - mainly based on the very recent Drogheda decision by CAS.
I posed the proportionality argument and suggested the alternative of a fine and got this response from Claude
------------
You've hit upon a crucial legal argument that Palace should absolutely pursue - the principle of proportionality. This could be their strongest card to play.


The Proportionality Argument​


The disproportionality of the sanction is stark: Palace earned their Europa League spot through sporting merit by winning the FA Cup, yet face exclusion worth millions in lost revenue. Meanwhile, Textor's ownership breach was technical rather than involving actual match manipulation or competitive interference. The punishment effectively destroys the sporting achievement of players, staff and fans who had no role in the ownership structure.


CAS has previously shown willingness to consider proportionality in sanctions. In AC Milan v. UEFA (2018), CAS reduced UEFA's Financial Fair Play ban from two years to one, finding the original sanction disproportionate. Similarly, in Galatasaray v. UEFA (2016), CAS modified sanctions based on the club's cooperation and remedial efforts.


Financial Penalties as Alternative Sanctions​


UEFA's regulations do allow for graduated sanctions, though they've never been applied to multi-club ownership cases:


  1. Warning or reprimand - For first-time or minor breaches
  2. Financial penalties - Fines up to €1 million for regulatory violations
  3. Conditional measures - Compliance requirements with suspended sanctions
  4. Transfer restrictions - Limiting player movements between commonly-owned clubs
  5. Competition exclusion - The nuclear option UEFA chose here

Palace could argue that a substantial fine (perhaps €5-10 million) would serve UEFA's deterrent purpose while allowing the sporting achievement to stand. This would still punish the ownership violation without destroying the competitive integrity of the competition itself.


Precedents for Alternative Sanctions​


The Red Bull case demonstrates UEFA's flexibility when clubs show good faith efforts. Rather than exclusion, UEFA accepted structural changes and ongoing monitoring. The Manchester clubs' blind trust arrangements in 2024/25 show UEFA can accommodate temporary solutions while ownership issues are resolved.


Palace's key arguments should include:


  • The sale to Woody Johnson was already agreed, showing immediate remedial action
  • No evidence of actual competitive manipulation or conflict of interest
  • The punishment harms innocent parties (players, staff, fans) who earned qualification legitimately
  • Financial penalties would achieve UEFA's regulatory objectives without destroying sporting merit
  • The precedent set is so harsh it may discourage investment in European football

The Swiss Legal Context​


Under Swiss law (which governs CAS proceedings), proportionality is a fundamental principle. Article 5(2) of the Swiss Federal Constitution requires that state action be proportionate to its aims. While UEFA isn't a state actor, CAS often applies similar principles to sporting governing bodies.


The test CAS would likely apply:


  1. Is the measure suitable to achieve the objective? (Yes - it prevents conflicts of interest)
  2. Is it necessary? (Questionable - lesser sanctions could achieve the same goal)
  3. Is it proportionate in the narrow sense? (Highly doubtful given the severe consequences)

Realistic Prospects​


While proportionality is Palace's strongest argument, the Drogheda precedent is concerning - CAS upheld exclusion there without considering alternatives. However, Palace's case differs significantly:


  • Much larger financial impact
  • Historic FA Cup victory at stake
  • Ownership sale already agreed
  • First major club affected

My assessment: Palace has perhaps a 30-35% chance of securing alternative sanctions rather than the 15-20% chance of complete reversal. The proportionality argument, combined with the agreed sale and lack of actual competitive harm, creates a compelling narrative that CAS might find persuasive enough to fashion a creative remedy.


The club should definitely pursue this angle aggressively in their appeal.
------------

So, probably worth a punt but don't expect a good outcome. A bit like the odds before the Cup Final
Click to expand...
Drogheda can also be distinguished on different facts ie actual multiple ownership

I would be qualified unhappy if CAS even considered the fact that we are a major club from one of the top leagues. The rules should be applied evenly and fairly whether you are Real or the champions of Iceland.
 
Putitout said:
Textor, was taking the piss on talk sport, and here he continues to take the piss.
Everyone knows the part he has played in this sorry mess, yet here he is in bed with the club to benefit from a mess he made. All the time UEFA are to busy stitching us up to bother about some real sculduggery.
Click to expand...
Dont be surprised to learn he has invested in Forest in the next few months
 
pssguy said:
I ran the situation through three LLM's. Still waiting for Gemini Deep research but the others gave broadly similar, negative, likelihoods of a successful appeal - mainly based on the very recent Drogheda decision by CAS.
I posed the proportionality argument and suggested the alternative of a fine and got this response from Claude
------------
You've hit upon a crucial legal argument that Palace should absolutely pursue - the principle of proportionality. This could be their strongest card to play.


The Proportionality Argument​


The disproportionality of the sanction is stark: Palace earned their Europa League spot through sporting merit by winning the FA Cup, yet face exclusion worth millions in lost revenue. Meanwhile, Textor's ownership breach was technical rather than involving actual match manipulation or competitive interference. The punishment effectively destroys the sporting achievement of players, staff and fans who had no role in the ownership structure.


CAS has previously shown willingness to consider proportionality in sanctions. In AC Milan v. UEFA (2018), CAS reduced UEFA's Financial Fair Play ban from two years to one, finding the original sanction disproportionate. Similarly, in Galatasaray v. UEFA (2016), CAS modified sanctions based on the club's cooperation and remedial efforts.


Financial Penalties as Alternative Sanctions​


UEFA's regulations do allow for graduated sanctions, though they've never been applied to multi-club ownership cases:


  1. Warning or reprimand - For first-time or minor breaches
  2. Financial penalties - Fines up to €1 million for regulatory violations
  3. Conditional measures - Compliance requirements with suspended sanctions
  4. Transfer restrictions - Limiting player movements between commonly-owned clubs
  5. Competition exclusion - The nuclear option UEFA chose here

Palace could argue that a substantial fine (perhaps €5-10 million) would serve UEFA's deterrent purpose while allowing the sporting achievement to stand. This would still punish the ownership violation without destroying the competitive integrity of the competition itself.


Precedents for Alternative Sanctions​


The Red Bull case demonstrates UEFA's flexibility when clubs show good faith efforts. Rather than exclusion, UEFA accepted structural changes and ongoing monitoring. The Manchester clubs' blind trust arrangements in 2024/25 show UEFA can accommodate temporary solutions while ownership issues are resolved.


Palace's key arguments should include:


  • The sale to Woody Johnson was already agreed, showing immediate remedial action
  • No evidence of actual competitive manipulation or conflict of interest
  • The punishment harms innocent parties (players, staff, fans) who earned qualification legitimately
  • Financial penalties would achieve UEFA's regulatory objectives without destroying sporting merit
  • The precedent set is so harsh it may discourage investment in European football

The Swiss Legal Context​


Under Swiss law (which governs CAS proceedings), proportionality is a fundamental principle. Article 5(2) of the Swiss Federal Constitution requires that state action be proportionate to its aims. While UEFA isn't a state actor, CAS often applies similar principles to sporting governing bodies.


The test CAS would likely apply:


  1. Is the measure suitable to achieve the objective? (Yes - it prevents conflicts of interest)
  2. Is it necessary? (Questionable - lesser sanctions could achieve the same goal)
  3. Is it proportionate in the narrow sense? (Highly doubtful given the severe consequences)

Realistic Prospects​


While proportionality is Palace's strongest argument, the Drogheda precedent is concerning - CAS upheld exclusion there without considering alternatives. However, Palace's case differs significantly:


  • Much larger financial impact
  • Historic FA Cup victory at stake
  • Ownership sale already agreed
  • First major club affected

My assessment: Palace has perhaps a 30-35% chance of securing alternative sanctions rather than the 15-20% chance of complete reversal. The proportionality argument, combined with the agreed sale and lack of actual competitive harm, creates a compelling narrative that CAS might find persuasive enough to fashion a creative remedy.


The club should definitely pursue this angle aggressively in their appeal.
------------

So, probably worth a punt but don't expect a good outcome. A bit like the odds before the Cup Final
Click to expand...
They also have to provide reasons for their decisions, including the rationale behind any sanctions imposed. They can only impose a fine of up to €1,000,000.
I think a warning or reprimand for a first-time offence of administrative failure would be very fair and proportionate. And if the original verdict is upheld, they would have to provide detailed legal argument for their decision, which can be anything up to a hundred pages for complex cases like this. And the fact that they would also be taking into consideration the broader scope of future investment is also a pretty compelling argument, especially in light of the fact that UEFA are looking to ditch these restrictions next year for precisely that reason.
 
becky said:
Then UEFA can find yet another reason to exclude us, making us the first club in the history of football to win the triple crown for being pushed out.......
Click to expand...
Cheer up.

How about next season we win the Carabao and the Europa Conference, the following season the Premier League and the Europa League, following season we win the Champions League?

Has any team scooped up as many trophies in such a short space of time? I doubt it. Dunno what everyone's moaning about, it's incredible.
 
Eagleman13 said:
Here's a list of who we could be up against in the ECL, obviously we replace Forest ( for now). A long list & some great places to go . . .

www.flashscore.com

UEFA Europa Conference League 2025/26 Tracker: All the teams that have qualified for next season | Flashscore.com

Below you can view all of the teams who qualify for the 2025/26 UEFA Conference League as the season recently came to an end.
www.flashscore.com www.flashscore.com
Click to expand...
Hajduk Split and AEK Athens were famous European sides from my youth, or to quote the late great Brian Moore “crack Yugoslavian outfit Hajduk Spilt”
 
Id be happy with a trip to any of those places, even Dundee United. 🫰
Mind you, the language barrier would be set high 😁
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top