Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

[silvertop]

UEFA are interpreting their own rules differently dependent upon who they are dealing with. This is clearly wrong, unjust, however you want to describe it and should be shown up for what it is.

Possibly, but sadly not grounds for an appeal if they have applied the rules correctly for us.

Grounds for a bl00dy good media scandal though.

 

[Willo]

Possibly, but sadly not grounds for an appeal if they have applied the rules correctly for us.

Grounds for a bl00dy good media scandal though.

UEFA would not have taken the decision lightly as they must be aware that to demote a club from the Europa League to the Conference League is a significant development.
The must be convinced that CPFC were in breach of their rules as of 1st March 2025.
Whether their rules and timescales are fit for purpose is a separate issue.

 

[mtp1958]

Possibly, but sadly not grounds for an appeal if they have applied the rules correctly for us.

Grounds for a bl00dy good media scandal though.

thats what CAS is for , there just a tribunal and will look at the rules and see if they have consistently applied the rules , getting us right doesn't mean they have , unless you have been though tribunals , the complexity's of each case are different , I know from experience

 

[mtp1958]

UEFA would not have taken the decision lightly as they must be aware that to demote a club from the Europa League to the Conference League is a significant development.
The must be convinced that CPFC were in breach of their rules as of 1st March 2025.
Whether their rules and timescales are fit for purpose is a separate issue.

a company sacked me and thought they was right , tribunal proved they was in the wrong

 

[Eaglecoops]

UEFA would not have taken the decision lightly as they must be aware that to demote a club from the Europa League to the Conference League is a significant development.
The must be convinced that CPFC were in breach of their rules as of 1st March 2025.
Whether their rules and timescales are fit for purpose is a separate issue.

As convinced do you think that Liverpool should have been allowed back into Europe despite their ban, at our expense?

 

[Jason Smith]

This might seem a bit off topic, but I remember playing a game of cage football back in the late seventies. I remember us laughing at the extreme age difference of a couple of their players. We were an unbeaten team, and so were looking for worthy opponents. Well, we certainly found them in this hotchpotch team! It turned out to be the hardest game we ever played, and we lost one nil.

My point is that this goes to the very heart of what we value at Palace; and also what the rest of the Premier League values about the deep grass roots culture of South London football. As we know, those council estates are tough and the kids are poor, but no less than 18% of all its players came out of its culture. And that is something worth fighting for!

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Apologies if this has been explained elsewhere but how is an owners' influence diminished by putting shares in a blind trust? He's still the man in charge regardless.

 

[NMPalace]

I can see your point , and yes 1st march we didnt contact to ask the best way to cheat , but I have dealt with rules and regulation most of my life in one way or another , there rule is open to wrong interpretation , our club structure is something they dont understand , thats why they didnt like it , they want you to put shares in a blind trust , that you still own but in secret , but still have control , so are we in breach I dont believe we are , we wont know until it all comes out in the wash

BBC article from 30/4 stating fatboy changed ownership of Forest on 29/4 to comply with UEFA rules.

The section below is the most interesting..

"Sources have confirmed the move is designed to ensure the ownership model is positioned to ensure Forest comply with Uefa's rules.

The alterations in ownership structure had to be completed by the end of April, a rule Forest have complied with".

Where did this end of April date come from? Are UEFA making it up as they go along. So 1st March wasn't a hard date!!!

And of 11th May he confronted his own manager on the pitch despite having no control over Forest's affairs, showing how pathetic the blind trust rule is anyway.

I have emailed BBC Sport to do some digging - expect it will be ignored

Nottingham Forest: Evangelos Marinakis dilutes control of club to meet Uefa rules

Evangelos Marinakis is no longer a "person with significant control" at Nottingham Forest after amending his ownership to meet Uefa rules.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[samprior]

Apologies if this has been explained elsewhere but how is an owners' influence diminished by putting shares in a blind trust? He's still the man in charge regardless.

In my eyes it's just a loophole designed to give these plucky little multi-billion genuine MCO's a fighting chance. It's very kind of UEFA to be so generous and 100% ensures that the integrity of the game never comes into question.

I strongly believe this March 1st rule is so important to UEFA that by about mid August they'll change it without telling anyone.

 

[Eaglecoops]

Apologies if this has been explained elsewhere but how is an owners' influence diminished by putting shares in a blind trust? He's still the man in charge regardless.

From what I have read, the rules of blind trusts state that you must have zero day to day dealings or contact with the club and that you are permitted to go to the annual meeting and that is about it.

It was invented for football purposes by a guy in UEFA of all places although the principle has been used in lots of different circumstances. There are law firms that specialise in managing purpose made businesses to hold these shares temporarily.

To think that Marinakis would not have maintained control of the club whilst shares were in a blind trust is frankly laughable.

 

[chris123]

BBC article from 30/4 stating fatboy changed ownership of Forest on 29/4 to comply with UEFA rules.

The section below is the most interesting..

"Sources have confirmed the move is designed to ensure the ownership model is positioned to ensure Forest comply with Uefa's rules.

The alterations in ownership structure had to be completed by the end of April, a rule Forest have complied with".

Where did this end of April date come from? Are UEFA making it up as they go along. So 1st March wasn't a hard date!!!

And of 11th May he confronted his own manager on the pitch despite having no control over Forest's affairs, showing how pathetic the blind trust rule is anyway.

I have emailed BBC Sport to do some digging - expect it will be ignored

Nottingham Forest: Evangelos Marinakis dilutes control of club to meet Uefa rules

Evangelos Marinakis is no longer a "person with significant control" at Nottingham Forest after amending his ownership to meet Uefa rules.

www.bbc.co.uk

Surely the blind trust and structural changes are separate in terms of timeline?

 

[Teddy Eagle]

From what I have read, the rules of blind trusts state that you must have zero day to day dealings or contact with the club and that you are permitted to go to the annual meeting and that is about it.

It was invented for football purposes by a guy in UEFA of all places although the principle has been used in lots of different circumstances. There are law firms that specialise in managing purpose made businesses to hold these shares temporarily.

To think that Marinakis would not have maintained control of the club whilst shares were in a blind trust is frankly laughable.

Old Mary Knickers seemed to be quite involved when he was on the pitch pointing and shouting after one game.

 

[Arthur Blackpudding]

Just say for example Textor put his shares in blind trust by the deadline and everything was fine.

Would they then have to remain in blind trust for the next season until one of Lyon or Palace are eliminated from the tournament?

 

[Teddy Eagle]

BBC article from 30/4 stating fatboy changed ownership of Forest on 29/4 to comply with UEFA rules.

The section below is the most interesting..

"Sources have confirmed the move is designed to ensure the ownership model is positioned to ensure Forest comply with Uefa's rules.

The alterations in ownership structure had to be completed by the end of April, a rule Forest have complied with".

Where did this end of April date come from? Are UEFA making it up as they go along. So 1st March wasn't a hard date!!!

And of 11th May he confronted his own manager on the pitch despite having no control over Forest's affairs, showing how pathetic the blind trust rule is anyway.

I have emailed BBC Sport to do some digging - expect it will be ignored

Nottingham Forest: Evangelos Marinakis dilutes control of club to meet Uefa rules

Evangelos Marinakis is no longer a "person with significant control" at Nottingham Forest after amending his ownership to meet Uefa rules.

www.bbc.co.uk

They explained the dates by saying that he'd informed them if his intention to put his shares in a trust by 1 March. The fact that he then waited so long to do so apparently didn't matter.

 

[Lanzo-Ad]

I can see your point , and yes 1st march we didnt contact to ask the best way to cheat , but I have dealt with rules and regulation most of my life in one way or another , there rule is open to wrong interpretation , our club structure is something they dont understand , thats why they didnt like it , they want you to put shares in a blind trust , that you still own but in secret , but still have control , so are we in breach I dont believe we are , we wont know until it all comes out in the wash

Lets hope it does, being demoted is bad enough, but not finding out why is almost as bad.

 

[chris123]

From what I have read, the rules of blind trusts state that you must have zero day to day dealings or contact with the club and that you are permitted to go to the annual meeting and that is about it.

It was invented for football purposes by a guy in UEFA of all places although the principle has been used in lots of different circumstances. There are law firms that specialise in managing purpose made businesses to hold these shares temporarily.

To think that Marinakis would not have maintained control of the club whilst shares were in a blind trust is frankly laughable.

They are normally used by politicians who need a lawful mechanism for their assets to managed by trustees and avoid the risk or appearance of a conflict of interest.

 

[Lanzo-Ad]

BBC article from 30/4 stating fatboy changed ownership of Forest on 29/4 to comply with UEFA rules.

The section below is the most interesting..

"Sources have confirmed the move is designed to ensure the ownership model is positioned to ensure Forest comply with Uefa's rules.

The alterations in ownership structure had to be completed by the end of April, a rule Forest have complied with".

Where did this end of April date come from? Are UEFA making it up as they go along. So 1st March wasn't a hard date!!!

And of 11th May he confronted his own manager on the pitch despite having no control over Forest's affairs, showing how pathetic the blind trust rule is anyway.

I have emailed BBC Sport to do some digging - expect it will be ignored

Nottingham Forest: Evangelos Marinakis dilutes control of club to meet Uefa rules

Evangelos Marinakis is no longer a "person with significant control" at Nottingham Forest after amending his ownership to meet Uefa rules.

www.bbc.co.uk

He contacted UEFA, explained the situation, got the extension and qualified, we did nothing but assume

 

[Lanzo-Ad]

Just say for example Textor put his shares in blind trust by the deadline and everything was fine.

Would they then have to remain in blind trust for the next season until one of Lyon or Palace are eliminated from the tournament?

Yes, but he could still sell the shares, with a qualifying apposelled letter stating price and period

 

[since1953]

If it were up to me I would politely decline the kind invitation to enter the Conference cup. Perhaps this option should be put to the Club and the fans. I suspect the prospect of the extra income would overide any emotion in this regard.

 

[est1905]

It is right, both those clubs have argued the deadline is invalid and CAS have thrown them out, so unless we have something extra ordinary as evidence which apparently we can’t have otherwise uefa wouldn’t have taken this action in the first place, we’re heading the same way
The financial expert I listen too says it’s laughable that we’re trying to say that Texter had no controlling influence when he had 45% shares in a club, of course he had influence, his money of which we needed and used is influence.
We missed a deadline, it happened, I have no ill feelings to anyone over it, I wouldn’t want to run a Sunday league team let alone a premier league club. So let’s get over it and enjoy the conference

What we have that they dont is no influence. Not a MCO group. Those clubs used the deadline argument because they are both run by the same family so they can hardly say they are not an MCO can they?