Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

[dreamwaverider]

The club have just announced, that 'Woody' Johnson has officially joined the board.

Delighted.
Although Texter helped the club moving forwards on several fronts in his early days as a shareholder, since he set up Eagle holdings and his multi club model, his involvement with us became more and more problematic.
Really hope Woody will play the role we are all hoping for. At least Textor's end is now official as far as UEFA is concerned.

 

[Eagleman13]

I think the Bronby argument could go against us as they finished higher than we did in our respective leagues, so best not to open that can of worms.

The best argument is that Textor is no longer an owner of Palace and before the competition starts which is the most important aspect.

No, it won't. Simply put, UEFA demoted us. It has no bearing on Brondby also being in the same competition.

 

[Sansomite]

Why? The teams in the Europa are of a similar standard to us.

Sure, we might have a better chance of winning the Conference, but we could also win a pub team competition. That doesn't mean it's the preferred option.

Yep, Agree 100%
We won the FA Cup against the odds and risk losing players we already have plus the appeal of potential signings.
Give us the place that's rightly ours!!

 

[dreamwaverider]

Its because he owns less than 30 percent of Brondby.

Actually ET I think you will find he has a controlling interest in Brondby (51%+) but he only has 18% of Palace and only 25% voting rights, both which fall below EUFA's 'rules' of less than 30%.
So the reverse of the Textor/Lyon issue as far as Palace is concerned which passes the current EUFA multi club issues.
Personally I think it is utter nonsense and EUFA need to boot this multi club issue into touch moving forward. It simply does not work to own a part of two clubs who could possibly be competing against each other. The whole thing is farcical.

 

[Hannes]

Why? The teams in the Europa are of a similar standard to us.

Sure, we might have a better chance of winning the Conference, but we could also win a pub team competition. That doesn't mean it's the preferred option.

Not so long ago, this claim would have been questioned. That shows how far we have developed!

 

[Eaglecoops]

I think the Bronby argument could go against us as they finished higher than we did in our respective leagues, so best not to open that can of worms.

The best argument is that Textor is no longer an owner of Palace and before the competition starts which is the most important aspect.

I disagree with the first bit. If anything it shows that UEFA are more than willing to interpret their own rules to suit whatever agenda is on the table at that time.

 

[Tlsestu]

When you look at the time frame from when we were notified that there was a problem and resolving said problem, we all know didn't even exist, is pretty impressive as not even a balls been kicked yet. We must be one of the first clubs to actually meet UEFA rules on MCO's without using the loopholes i.e. honestly and definitively. I still have trouble getting my head around it all as we've bent over backwards for UEFA and this shouldn't even be going to CAS.

 

[Tlsestu]

Why? The teams in the Europa are of a similar standard to us.

Sure, we might have a better chance of winning the Conference, but we could also win a pub team competition. That doesn't mean it's the preferred option.

Also we have a manager that has already won it and and has over a years experience in the prem so knows exactly what's required.
We may not win it but I feel confident we could go on a good run.

 

[pssguy]

When you look at the time frame from when we were notified that there was a problem and resolving said problem, we all know didn't even exist, is pretty impressive as not even a balls been kicked yet. We must be one of the first clubs to actually meet UEFA rules on MCO's without using the loopholes i.e. honestly and definitively. I still have trouble getting my head around it all as we've bent over backwards for UEFA and this shouldn't even be going to CAS.

This could end with face-saving all round. CAS can make the right decision for the game; UEFA can say they upheld the rules and contributed to eliminating a , perceived, MCO; The FA can claim they helped influence the decision; Palace avoid the shame of missing out because of their lack of due diligence ; Forest fans no longer have to feel they have gained their place unfairly (good luck in the conference guys).
Only one Greek guy is unhappy; and he has bigger fish to fry by suing Spurs

 

[Palace in the Blood]

You can never 100% tell what a tribunal is going to do. My own view ignoring my Palace bias is still we have a very good case.

However the news today that share sale has been completed may give UEFA the wriggle room they need to reverse decision. I put chance of this fairly low but it's possible. Many cases get sorted before they get to tribunals by agreement and the details are never made public as they are always on the basis of not agreeing liability. It really depends on how good our evidence is and how weak UEFA evidence. The fact that the MCO (if there ever was one) no longer exists weakens UEFA case greatly. There is roughly 20 million difference in prize money conference and europa, plus the price of sporting Lisbon player has gone up by 20 million. This means we can demonstrate a loss. As a scenario we agree to be demoted to conference and receive a payment of £40 million from EUFA, and we withdraw appeal. I wonder if this would appeal?

If it goes to appeal the first point is were we a MCO? This is our weakest argument as Eagle had shares in both us and Lyon on due date.

However then when you look at rules on conflict our case is very strong. On 1st of March Lyon were demoted to 2nd division and could not play in Europe. On 1st of March we were playing Millwall so no conflict occurs. When we won fa cup no conflict occurred for same reason. Conflict only occurred after French League reversed demotion.

You then have arguments on day to day control. Textor had control of Lyon but at Palace was Eagle Footballs representative director on board having equal say to other directors. UEFA are mixing up shareholding and being a director. The latter is an employee of company. One of the tests would be could Textor fire any of other 3 directors? Which of course he couldn't.

If the court agree UEFA lose on first count and the decision will be reversed.

My guess is the court will decide we were an MCO but that UEFA did not adequately consider the reality and facts of how the two clubs were run.

The date needed for compliance is UEFA weakness and they have already changed it for future seasons.
As explained above there was no conflict until Lyon demotion was reversed how could Palace know this would occur?
How practical was date even if Lyon had not been demoted earlier.
The previous decision on date upheld it but those clubs had conflict on 1st March. We did not. Therefore in our case the 1st of March was an impossible date. Did all other clubs with shared owners put shares into blind trusts eg Everton and Roma. No they didn't so it is an impossible rule

The court will also consider situation now where there is no conflict and I suspect arbitrate on that basis.

Possible outcomes ?
Palace and Lyon Europa League Forest Conference
Palace and another French club europa Forest Lyon Conference
Heavy criticism of EUFA decision and possibly leave to apply for damages
Leave as per UEFA decision because of timescales but UEFA decision declared unlawful with damages to be decided at a future hearing in 3 months if not agreed between the parties

 

[Trapsix]

You can never 100% tell what a tribunal is going to do. My own view ignoring my Palace bias is still we have a very good case.

However the news today that share sale has been completed may give UEFA the wriggle room they need to reverse decision. I put chance of this fairly low but it's possible. Many cases get sorted before they get to tribunals by agreement and the details are never made public as they are always on the basis of not agreeing liability. It really depends on how good our evidence is and how weak UEFA evidence. The fact that the MCO (if there ever was one) no longer exists weakens UEFA case greatly. There is roughly 20 million difference in prize money conference and europa, plus the price of sporting Lisbon player has gone up by 20 million. This means we can demonstrate a loss. As a scenario we agree to be demoted to conference and receive a payment of £40 million from EUFA, and we withdraw appeal. I wonder if this would appeal?

If it goes to appeal the first point is were we a MCO? This is our weakest argument as Eagle had shares in both us and Lyon on due date.

However then when you look at rules on conflict our case is very strong. On 1st of March Lyon were demoted to 2nd division and could not play in Europe. On 1st of March we were playing Millwall so no conflict occurs. When we won fa cup no conflict occurred for same reason. Conflict only occurred after French League reversed demotion.

You then have arguments on day to day control. Textor had control of Lyon but at Palace was Eagle Footballs representative director on board having equal say to other directors. UEFA are mixing up shareholding and being a director. The latter is an employee of company. One of the tests would be could Textor fire any of other 3 directors? Which of course he couldn't.

If the court agree UEFA lose on first count and the decision will be reversed.

My guess is the court will decide we were an MCO but that UEFA did not adequately consider the reality and facts of how the two clubs were run.

The date needed for compliance is UEFA weakness and they have already changed it for future seasons.
As explained above there was no conflict until Lyon demotion was reversed how could Palace know this would occur?
How practical was date even if Lyon had not been demoted earlier.
The previous decision on date upheld it but those clubs had conflict on 1st March. We did not. Therefore in our case the 1st of March was an impossible date. Did all other clubs with shared owners put shares into blind trusts eg Everton and Roma. No they didn't so it is an impossible rule

The court will also consider situation now where there is no conflict and I suspect arbitrate on that basis.

Possible outcomes ?
Palace and Lyon Europa League Forest Conference
Palace and another French club europa Forest Lyon Conference
Heavy criticism of EUFA decision and possibly leave to apply for damages
Leave as per UEFA decision because of timescales but UEFA decision declared unlawful with damages to be decided at a future hearing in 3 months if not agreed between the parties

For the first time,I have understood it in the ladybird version,any chance you can ring Steve ,tell him you are available for the argument!

 

[mtp1958]

With Johnson now the new share holder , Like most courts they will look at that as a positive , and will also ask why Textor and Palace wasnt give time to get there house in order , which they did with Lyon ,

I always Felt we was in a strong position anyway , after looking at the disjointed rules , I could see massive holes , so hopefully we can put this whole sorry saga to bed by end of next week

 

[DANGERCLOSE]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1948431144279589335

 

[Team of the (20)80s]

With Johnson now the new share holder , Like most courts they will look at that as a positive , and will also ask why Textor and Palace wasnt give time to get there house in order , which they did with Lyon…

… and Forest for that matter.

Whether the sale going through makes any legal difference I don’t know but you really think it should!

 

[cryrst]

Technically irrelevant if CAS apply the rules slavishly.

I would hope they would give such a decision with some reluctance. That woujld make us all feel better.

Are you a Dutch Willo 😂

 

[cryrst]

You can never 100% tell what a tribunal is going to do. My own view ignoring my Palace bias is still we have a very good case.

However the news today that share sale has been completed may give UEFA the wriggle room they need to reverse decision. I put chance of this fairly low but it's possible. Many cases get sorted before they get to tribunals by agreement and the details are never made public as they are always on the basis of not agreeing liability. It really depends on how good our evidence is and how weak UEFA evidence. The fact that the MCO (if there ever was one) no longer exists weakens UEFA case greatly. There is roughly 20 million difference in prize money conference and europa, plus the price of sporting Lisbon player has gone up by 20 million. This means we can demonstrate a loss. As a scenario we agree to be demoted to conference and receive a payment of £40 million from EUFA, and we withdraw appeal. I wonder if this would appeal?

If it goes to appeal the first point is were we a MCO? This is our weakest argument as Eagle had shares in both us and Lyon on due date.

However then when you look at rules on conflict our case is very strong. On 1st of March Lyon were demoted to 2nd division and could not play in Europe. On 1st of March we were playing Millwall so no conflict occurs. When we won fa cup no conflict occurred for same reason. Conflict only occurred after French League reversed demotion.

You then have arguments on day to day control. Textor had control of Lyon but at Palace was Eagle Footballs representative director on board having equal say to other directors. UEFA are mixing up shareholding and being a director. The latter is an employee of company. One of the tests would be could Textor fire any of other 3 directors? Which of course he couldn't.

If the court agree UEFA lose on first count and the decision will be reversed.

My guess is the court will decide we were an MCO but that UEFA did not adequately consider the reality and facts of how the two clubs were run.

The date needed for compliance is UEFA weakness and they have already changed it for future seasons.
As explained above there was no conflict until Lyon demotion was reversed how could Palace know this would occur?
How practical was date even if Lyon had not been demoted earlier.
The previous decision on date upheld it but those clubs had conflict on 1st March. We did not. Therefore in our case the 1st of March was an impossible date. Did all other clubs with shared owners put shares into blind trusts eg Everton and Roma. No they didn't so it is an impossible rule

The court will also consider situation now where there is no conflict and I suspect arbitrate on that basis.

Possible outcomes ?
Palace and Lyon Europa League Forest Conference
Palace and another French club europa Forest Lyon Conference
Heavy criticism of EUFA decision and possibly leave to apply for damages
Leave as per UEFA decision because of timescales but UEFA decision declared unlawful with damages to be decided at a future hearing in 3 months if not agreed between the parties

If uefa reinstate us prior to the CAS visit I would think a closed book won’t be allowed. The next discrepancy with a club in a similar position will want to know the details as a precedent may be set.

 

[ASCPFC]

With the way Palace worded the case, I do wonder have we tried to make it more likely that UEFA won't want all the details appearing in a tribunal. I think a deal may be done.

 

[Part Time James]

Am I right in thinking that in this point in time Palace have only been provisionally demoted but Forest have not been given their place, either provisionally or permanently?

The reason I ask is because that would mean that if this was settled prior to CAS, Forest wouldn't have recourse to challenge it as they technically wouldn't be losing anything that had ever been offered to them.

Some smarty pants will tell me I am completely wrong here and I am open minded to hear their correction!

 

[est1905]

With the way Palace worded the case, I do wonder have we tried to make it more likely that UEFA won't want all the details appearing in a tribunal. I think a deal may be done.

Might be better just to see it through at CAS now. UEFA have had their chance to make a deal

 

[Palace in the Blood]

If uefa reinstate us prior to the CAS visit I would think a closed book won’t be allowed. The next discrepancy with a club in a similar position will want to know the details as a precedent may be set.

That is point of a non liability settlement no precedent is set as it is a confidential agreement between parties.