Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

I was just thinking: has European qualification triggered any transfer clauses? Franca and Eze spring to mind. Obviously not yet as we don't know. But I would be pissed off if we had to fork out anymore money for Franca. The new Campana.
 
Another 12 days of speculation to go then. 🙂 And when the result comes out, HOL will go into meltdown.
Internet experts (on other sites) can't even agree on where the emphasis of the CPFC case will be put. Mitigation (it wasn't intentional), Punishment (doesn't fit the crime), Rules (cpfc weren't in breach of Multi-owner clause).
The Forest match is going to be lively, whatever the CAS result. 👍 :football:
 
Forest Hillbilly said:
Another 12 days of speculation to go then. 🙂 And when the result comes out, HOL will go into meltdown.
Internet experts (on other sites) can't even agree on where the emphasis of the CPFC case will be put. Mitigation (it wasn't intentional), Punishment (doesn't fit the crime), Rules (cpfc weren't in breach of Multi-owner clause).
The Forest match is going to be lively, whatever the CAS result. 👍 :football:
Click to expand...
One of the Liverpool songs starts with "we hate Nottingham Forest". I see why now.
 
Forest Hillbilly said:
And i can't find anywhere on the interweb, that gives a date for the CAS hearing, or when the result is expected. But it has to be before the end of this week.
Click to expand...
The verdict will be released on 11th August, this was stated when Palace submitted the appeal. What happens to the draw is anyone's guess, I expect we would replace Forests draw, if we are successful.
 
All this Liverpool talk, I feel a black armband moment is coming.
Then a rendition of "You'll never walk alone". 🙂
 
I genuinely think we’ll be ok, have done all along. Everyone knows what is right and fair and that we qualified for the Europa League. Everyone also knows that if this were any of the big European clubs they would not have been thrown out. Also that Marinakis is a wrong ‘un and has been interfering with with this whole matter.

We will be in the Europa League, we will then be scrambling to sign players and have another frustratingly slow start to the Premier League season.
 
PatrickA said:
www.dailymail.co.uk

Nottingham Forest send in legal team to fight Crystal Palace's appeal

EXCLUSIVE BY MIKE KEEGAN: While not unprecedented, the move may well hint at how seriously those at Forest are taking the matter. They say they are responding 'accordingly'.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

Forest are reportedly sending a legal team
Bizarre.
They are not a direct party to the issue and should not have had any sight of our confidential evidence or detailed information on the original UEFA finding.
Something doesn't add up.
I hope UEFA haven't been 'leaking' to Forest.
Click to expand...


They have more lawyers than players
 
I don’t know if this guidance, sent by UEFA in May last year to all football leagues and authorities, has been posted here. It must be what the FA and Premier League received and was circulated to the clubs:-


It offers clarification on how they interpret “decisive influence”. On the face of it we transgress at least one, possibly two, of their triggers which automatically disbar our entry. See a (i) and b (ii).

However, if you read page 3 it gives non compliant shareholders the opportunity to set up blind trusts, under UEFA supervision for last season only. Subsequent seasons, ie the next one, are not included. Earlier it explains that clubs may still fall foul of the requirements if they use new forms of influence and control. It gives UEFA room for manoeuvre. That could be argued it applies both ways.

My reading of this is that there is scope for a skilled specialist lawyer to say that the rules have been unfairly applied and the guidance out of date. This is no doubt why Forest and Lyon are named so that the correspondence between them and UEFA is disclosed. When the March 1st deadline was determined, why it was and how it was communicated, also seems critical. Setting an arbitrary date in the middle of a football season with outcomes unknown could be held to be unreasonable.

If Marinakis placing his shares in a blind trust to avoid non compliance is not permitted for the 25/26 season, is not being supervised by UEFA or is considered to be only a new form of control, then why aren’t Forest being investigated and removed?

We could be claiming unfair treatment and a disregard for the intentions behind the rules which conflict with the natural justice claimed as the corner stone of the CAS approach.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
I don’t know if this guidance, sent by UEFA in May last year to all football leagues and authorities, has been posted here. It must be what the FA and Premier League received and was circulated to the clubs:-


It offers clarification on how they interpret “decisive influence”. On the face of it we transgress at least one, possibly two, of their triggers which automatically disbar our entry. See a (i) and b (ii).

However, if you read page 3 it gives non compliant shareholders the opportunity to set up blind trusts, under UEFA supervision for last season only. Subsequent seasons, ie the next one, are not included. Earlier it explains that clubs may still fall foul of the requirements if they use new forms of influence and control. It gives UEFA room for manoeuvre. That could be argued it applies both ways.

My reading of this is that there is scope for a skilled specialist lawyer to say that the rules have been unfairly applied and the guidance out of date. This is no doubt why Forest and Lyon are named so that the correspondence between them and UEFA is disclosed. When the March 1st deadline was determined, why it was and how it was communicated, also seems critical. Setting an arbitrary date in the middle of a football season with outcomes unknown could be held to be unreasonable.

If Marinakis placing his shares in a blind trust to avoid non compliance is not permitted for the 25/26 season, is not being supervised by UEFA or is considered to be only a new form of control, then why aren’t Forest being investigated and removed?

We could be claiming unfair treatment and a disregard for the intentions behind the rules which conflict with the natural justice claimed as the corner stone of the CAS approach.
Click to expand...
Fingers crossed 🤞
 
pssguy said:
Jeez, you are hard work. I was generalizing not referring to this particular case.

Speaking of which, I see Forest are also sending in a legal team. I wonder, by your flawed reasoning, if it is theirs or ours that are going to suffer an irredeemable loss to their reputation
Click to expand...
Why would Forests lawyers care either way? They are simply trying to keep hold of something they know is not rightfully theirs. They are in a 'no lose' situation. If they end up back in the Conference League they just have what they won in the first place. You really know so little about all this yet you keep commenting as if you know so much. Its like watching a football match with a know all 4 year old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top