Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

[est1905]

I know it reeks of corruption, but that is not the point. The Palace directors have to protect their business interests, but they didn’t follow up and get suitable clarification regarding the way the club is run.

And if it goes to CAS, all this will come out in their detailed findings.

The positive thing to remember is CAS are not a corrupt organisation. Well, no more so than any other respected court room and they have no affiliation to UEFA (except they have become experts at cleaning up UEFA's messes).
I'm confident we'll get a positive outcome if our case is made respectfully and eliquently as I expect it will be. If information comes out we didn't know about as to why UEFA have barred our entering the competition then as you say it will all come out in this hearing. If there is no new evidence other than what has been reported I'd expect CAS to throw out UEFA's ruling and order they allow us back in.

As Parish pointed out CPFC had no power to comply with UEFA's March 1st deadline even if we wanted to as Palace have no powers to force Textor into moving his shares. They were his shares not Palace's.
Being unable to comply with the rule is justification in itself for throwing this out and bumping Forest back to the Conference League where they belong.

 

[NEILLO]

I’m not going to repeat what I’ve already said. But there’s that other issue of honesty and transparency; and I do not believe either Parish nor Textor have told us the truth about those UEFA communications.

Like 99.9% of what’s been posted on here - it’s your opinion / belief .

If Parish had received the notification from UEFA in October are we not then back into the debate about whether it’s reasonable for Textor to place his shares into a Blind Trust at a time when some on here were tipping us for relegation and a ball had yet to be kicked in the FA Cup.

If Parish proves to have screwed up over this then I’d say that’s frustrating given the consequences. But until that time I’m trying to stay clear of the blame game - but I do understand that approach doesn’t suit everyone

 

[Eagle-Trucker]

Just a question, do you think Palace are at fault about anything, we know UEFA are corrupt, but have we helped them by not replying to them, and given their corrupt nature a way out.

I personally think it was a case of no need to reply to that one its never gonna happen , who would have thought that we would have got all the way to the final and win it especially with City in it , and who would have thought even if we did by some miricle win it and that Lyon would only qualify for it by the skin of their teeth due to a 98th minute penalty . Complacency due to our historic failures some might say but at the end of the day as both Textor and Steve both say Steve is in charge of the decisions and the blame lands squarely at his feet , He should have replied to the Email . He couldn't force Textor to put his sharess into a blind trust , i think Textor was trying to force Harris or Blitzer or both to buy him out He is a great Chairman and i wouldn't swap him for any other he has only Palaces interests at heart . Just my humble opinion.

 

[NEILLO]

I personally think it was a case of no need to reply to that one its never gonna happen , who would have thought that we would have got all the way to the final and win it especially with City in it , and who would have thought even if we did by some miricle win it and that Lyon would only qualify for it by the skin of their teeth due to a 98th minute penalty . Complacency due to our historic failures some might say but at the end of the day as both Textor and Steve both say Steve is in charge of the decisions and the blame lands squarely at his feet , He should have replied to the Email . He couldn't force Textor to put his sharess into a blind trust , i think Textor was trying to force Harris or Blitzer or both to buy him out He is a great Chairman and i wouldn't swap him for any other he has only Palaces interests at heart . Just my humble opinion.

The infamous email was a rule change notification was it not ?

Was there an obligation to reply to it ?

 

[Jason Smith]

Bit of a red herring in my opinion. The communications are not really the important issues here and possibly wouldn’t even be brought up in an appeal. I don’t trust Textor at all and he may well have made stuff up to suit his narrative. Not sure Parish would however.

Not trying to argue with you by the way, it’s just the way I see it.

I understand that. But it’s not what Blitzer and Textor understands about MCO that matters, it’s UEFA’s understanding of it that really matters. BTW Blitzer is off the hook because of a political decision, not a rules-based decision. The truth is we have found ourselves thrown deep into shark infested waters and have been eaten alive!

 

[Eagle-Trucker]

The infamous email was a rule change notification was it not ?

Was there an obligation to reply to it ?

I dont know i haven't seen it , have you ???

 

[NEILLO]

I dont know i haven't seen it , have you ???

If it was sent to info@neillo.com I wouldn’t pick it up

 

[Eagle-Trucker]

If it was sent to info@neillo.com I wouldn’t pick it up

Is that you Steve ? 🤣

 

[Part Time James]

If it was sent to info@neillo.com I wouldn’t pick it up

Is that why our pen friend venture ended so quickly?

 

[Canterbury Palace]

If we are going to appeal surely we need to get on with it quickly. 27 days until the Community Shield (mad that's something that I care about this year) and so far we've signed a reserve goalkeeper and a reserve left back. We need a few big signings and that's even before we consider losing Guehi and Eze. This is taking over the entire summer.

 

[Jason Smith]

The infamous email was a rule change notification was it not ?

Was there an obligation to reply to it ?

I don’t expect UEFA were expecting a direct reply, that’s not how these things operate, but they would be expecting that MCOs make appropriate enquiries through the ECA. And even if UEFA were not expecting Blitzer and Textor to take up that line of enquiry, if they had of done it would have been a compelling argument on their part that they have followed up on this by utilising an organisation that was set up to support football clubs in Europe, which is closely linked to UEFA.

 

[Jason Smith]

Like 99.9% of what’s been posted on here - it’s your opinion / belief .

If Parish had received the notification from UEFA in October are we not then back into the debate about whether it’s reasonable for Textor to place his shares into a Blind Trust at a time when some on here were tipping us for relegation and a ball had yet to be kicked in the FA Cup.

If Parish proves to have screwed up over this then I’d say that’s frustrating given the consequences. But until that time I’m trying to stay clear of the blame game - but I do understand that approach doesn’t suit everyone

And as more pieces of this complex jigsaw comes to light, then blame will be apportioned. No wonder Parish didn’t give an unequivocal ‘yes’ to the question, “Are you going to appeal?”

 

[chris123]

The infamous email was a rule change notification was it not ?

Was there an obligation to reply to it ?

It was a briefing from the FA surely?

 

[NEILLO]

I don’t expect UEFA were expecting a direct reply, that’s not how these things operate, but they would be expecting that MCOs make appropriate enquiries through the ECA. And even if UEFA were not expecting Blitzer and Textor to take up that line of enquiry, if they had of done it would have been a compelling argument on their part that they have followed up on this by utilising an organisation that was set up to support football clubs in Europe, which is closely linked to UEFA.

I would not expect that UEFA were expecting a reply either. Although in my professional life, if I wanted to ensure my email had been received, read and understood I would have enabled a read receipt and/or asked for confirmation from, in this case CPFC, that it had indeed been read and understood.

Saying you '' expect '' and then going onto say " that's not how these things operate " is a bit contrary but I'm nitpicking.

So an email is sent to CPFC - who are not members of the ECA. (That's the organisation that you were chastising Parish / Palace for for not taking out membership before you realised that it wasn't available to them).

If Steve Parish hasn't seen the email then there's no way Textor would have.

So I assume you are saying that Textor and Blitzer should have gone through the ECA ? My response to that is that Textor, rightly or wrongly thought that Palace were not a part of his MCO for the reasons we have been debating these last six weeks or so. As for Blitzer, he is passive in his ownership of his Palace shares, I don't think he would be even close to what goes on at Brondby.

 

[NEILLO]

And as more pieces of this complex jigsaw comes to light, then blame will be apportioned. No wonder Parish didn’t give an unequivocal ‘yes’ to the question, “Are you going to appeal?”

Quote from the transcript of the Parish interview with Sky Sports ;

"We will appeal. I don't want to prejudge [whether they'd win]. When I say we'll appeal, we're looking at all of the options at the moment. That obviously is one option. What we would much prefer is if somebody intervened in this process. ''

 

[ex hibitionist]

Lyon's process was domestic and not EUFA/CAS.

Their successful appeal means they were never relegated. It never happened.

Lyon did not have to be compliant with anything before or after 1 March. They could be in blatant breach; but EUFA rules say one goes in of the conflicting pair and that has to be the highest placed in their respective leagues.

BTW I liked the superficial attraction from another poster of that rule being interpreted as Lyon coming 6th in their league and Palace coming first in our competition so we should be the one going through. A shame it doesn't work like that.

it's a good point you make, but they WERE demoted after March 1 and according to their own league's rules were ineligible to play in Europe, then UEFA gave them the time to appeal post the deadline, could we not be given time to make ourselves eligible as we have? I know one set of compliancy criteria are French and the other are European but Lyon knew last November they had to comply with French rules to avoid relegation and failed to do so - there is no necessity for insisting upon the March 1 deadline, the goal posts have already gone back and forth a bit, it is clearly flawed and the original July deadline gave latecomers like us reasonable time to make whatever adjustments are necessary. If the letter of the law is followed we will stay out, but CAS might prove that the letter of the law has not always been followed and it is almost impossible to follow. Insisting on our demotion is ridiculous - the rules are there for a specific reason and they have had the desired effect of completely separating the two clubs. But I do understand that is not normally how legal matters work - the efficacy is neither here nor there it's all about strict definitions and procedure.

 

[Jason Smith]

Quote from the transcript of the Parish interview with Sky Sports ;

"We will appeal. I don't want to prejudge [whether they'd win]. When I say we'll appeal, we're looking at all of the options at the moment. That obviously is one option. What we would much prefer is if somebody intervened in this process. ''

Thank you for quoting what he said.

 

[FrankieD108]

Do we know when FK Dac 1904 contacted CAS, how long did it take to happen before the case was heard?

Not to open a can of worms, but I'm pretty sure it's FK Dac 1860.

 

[Inquisitive Aquila]

Today CAS released their Verdict on FK Dac 1904 appeal against UEFA banning them from the Conference league.

These things stand out:

• The original decision by UEFA was made on the 26th June but released to the media on the 30th June.
• Dac appealed on the grounds that firstly, UEFA did not have the right to move the assessment date to the 1st March. Secondly, that neither club had decisive influence over the other.
• UEFA argued that they did have the right to move the assessment date and several members of the same family had shares in both clubs along with nfluence in the governance of each.
• CAS dismissed the appeal on the grounds that UEFAs statutes allowed them to move the date. Along with the Managing and sole director of Gyori ETO was also the CEO, vice president and board member of Dac. I hope our case does not rely on the same arguments.

 

[Part Time James]

Today CAS released their Verdict on FK Dac 1904 appeal against UEFA banning them from the Conference league.

These things stand out:

• The original decision by UEFA was made on the 26th June but released to the media on the 30th June.
• Dac appealed on the grounds that firstly, UEFA did not have the right to move the assessment date to the 1st March. Secondly, that neither club had decisive influence over the other.
• UEFA argued that they did have the right to move the assessment date and several members of the same family had shares in both clubs along with nfluence in the governance of each.
• CAS dismissed the appeal on the grounds that UEFAs statutes allowed them to move the date. Along with the Managing and sole director of Gyori ETO was also the CEO, vice president and board member of Dac. I hope our case does not rely on the same arguments.

Hopefully our case relies on us having proven Textor's influence had jack sh*t to do with the price of baked beans.