Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

Eaglecoops said:
This of course all assumes that we were actually doing anything with regard to a 1st March date as a large part of our defence will surely be that we were never part of a MCO group and the 1st March date is irrelevant.

There are two or 3 different directions that our defence can go but without knowing the detail of our exclusion we can’t really guess which direction will be used. I would hope it’s all in hand, but would really like to see some more detail.
Click to expand...
Palace are rightly playing their cards close to their chest.
Just my opinion but I think our defence should be that the 1/3 is an arbitrary date and the comms from the ECA is surely in our favour too.
In a nutshell, we weren’t in a position as at 1/3 where we could comply, but have now removed all the obstacles weeks in advance of the draw and the EL starting.
Bound to be more twists and turns yet I’m sure
 
My guess is Palace have already appealed with detailed grounds sent today. I think hearing will be Friday or Monday.

We have I suspect a number of grounds.
1) we are not and never been party to a MCO and UEFA have no grounds in Law to consider we were. Then the arguments against the UEFA rules which any decent legal mind can rip apart.
2) Is the date of 1st of March set in stone? The memo and Forest's breach
3)The practicality of this date when leagues and cups are not finished? The only way any club with any owners who own shares in any other club can comply is blind trust shares by 1st March irrespective of European qualification. This is clearly ridiculous so rule can not stand test of common law.
4)The rules clearly state blind trust must last till after completion of European competitions. No where does it say you can revoke if you don't qualify.
5) The disclosure of Forest memos and anything that shows.
6) Are Eagle Football and Forest a MCO ? Sales /Loans between Eagle Football Clubs and Forest. Forest owner owning shares in Botafago.
7) Lyon qualified for Europa as a result of 2 very unexpected results. Is this potentially suspicious?
8) The penalty CPFC have been given is grossly excessive in any event. It would make much more sense to seperate CPFC and Lyon in League phase to remove any suggestion of bias on results. No professional side will "throw" a match in knock out phase.
9)precedent of other decisions.
On rulings on date sides had qualified on 1st March so rules were possible
CAS has previously ruled on excessive nature of UEFA decisions and reduced penalty. This is another example where penalty exceeds any perceived crime
10) Leave of court to apply for damages as a result of this unfair judgement. Football now works on a system of FFP or subsequent changes. In essence the uncertainty for CPFC in regard to European competitions finance has prevented player recruitment and retention.
 
Palace in the Blood said:
My guess is Palace have already appealed with detailed grounds sent today. I think hearing will be Friday or Monday.

We have I suspect a number of grounds.
1) we are not and never been party to a MCO and UEFA have no grounds in Law to consider we were. Then the arguments against the UEFA rules which any decent legal mind can rip apart.
2) Is the date of 1st of March set in stone? The memo and Forest's breach
3)The practicality of this date when leagues and cups are not finished? The only way any club with any owners who own shares in any other club can comply is blind trust shares by 1st March irrespective of European qualification. This is clearly ridiculous so rule can not stand test of common law.
4)The rules clearly state blind trust must last till after completion of European competitions. No where does it say you can revoke if you don't qualify.
5) The disclosure of Forest memos and anything that shows.
6) Are Eagle Football and Forest a MCO ? Sales /Loans between Eagle Football Clubs and Forest. Forest owner owning shares in Botafago.
7) Lyon qualified for Europa as a result of 2 very unexpected results. Is this potentially suspicious?
8) The penalty CPFC have been given is grossly excessive in any event. It would make much more sense to seperate CPFC and Lyon in League phase to remove any suggestion of bias on results. No professional side will "throw" a match in knock out phase.
9)precedent of other decisions.
On rulings on date sides had qualified on 1st March so rules were possible
CAS has previously ruled on excessive nature of UEFA decisions and reduced penalty. This is another example where penalty exceeds any perceived crime
10) Leave of court to apply for damages as a result of this unfair judgement. Football now works on a system of FFP or subsequent changes. In essence the uncertainty for CPFC in regard to European competitions finance has prevented player recruitment and retention.
Click to expand...
That is a very decent summary of all the points that have been made by various posters throughout this thread all of which have some merit. Nice one.
 
NEILLO said:
Irrelevant- at the Nyon meeting he apparently offered to put his shares into a Blind Trust immediately. UEFA said it made no difference- it all hinges on that ridiculous 1/3 date, when according to them we weren’t compliant
Click to expand...
Not sure this is true. As Forest have shown they weren't compliant on 1/3, but on 29/4, so it appears by 1/3 you must have satisfied UEFA that steps were being put in place to resolve the issue.

So either we didn't respond by 1/3 as appears to have been suggested - an admin error or because we didn't think we had anything to respond to - or UEFA weren't happy with the share sell option, probably as there wasn't a potential buyer at that time.

The fact that 1/3 appears to be a 'soft' date should hopefully work in our favour.
 
Palace in the Blood said:
My guess is Palace have already appealed with detailed grounds sent today. I think hearing will be Friday or Monday.

We have I suspect a number of grounds.
1) we are not and never been party to a MCO and UEFA have no grounds in Law to consider we were. Then the arguments against the UEFA rules which any decent legal mind can rip apart.
2) Is the date of 1st of March set in stone? The memo and Forest's breach
3)The practicality of this date when leagues and cups are not finished? The only way any club with any owners who own shares in any other club can comply is blind trust shares by 1st March irrespective of European qualification. This is clearly ridiculous so rule can not stand test of common law.
4)The rules clearly state blind trust must last till after completion of European competitions. No where does it say you can revoke if you don't qualify.
5) The disclosure of Forest memos and anything that shows.
6) Are Eagle Football and Forest a MCO ? Sales /Loans between Eagle Football Clubs and Forest. Forest owner owning shares in Botafago.
7) Lyon qualified for Europa as a result of 2 very unexpected results. Is this potentially suspicious?
8) The penalty CPFC have been given is grossly excessive in any event. It would make much more sense to seperate CPFC and Lyon in League phase to remove any suggestion of bias on results. No professional side will "throw" a match in knock out phase.
9)precedent of other decisions.
On rulings on date sides had qualified on 1st March so rules were possible
CAS has previously ruled on excessive nature of UEFA decisions and reduced penalty. This is another example where penalty exceeds any perceived crime
10) Leave of court to apply for damages as a result of this unfair judgement. Football now works on a system of FFP or subsequent changes. In essence the uncertainty for CPFC in regard to European competitions finance has prevented player recruitment and retention.
Click to expand...
think palace will have more than them points , other cases will be quoted so on and so on , then Cas will throw out N/A , until we have all the strong key points left
 
One of the golden rules of negotiation is that you run with one string argument and you don't water it down with weaker, secondary arguments that the other party can attack whilst ignoring your primary argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top