Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

  • escrime1.png

    More
  • escrime2.png

    More
  • arc.png

    More
  • skate.png

    More
  • saut-ski.png

    More
  • foot.png

    More
  • gym.png

    More
  • plongeurs.png

    More
  • lutte.png

    More
  • bob.png

    More
  • curling.png

    More
  • hockey.png

    More


French
English
Spanish
Toggle navigation

Focus on news​

List of Hearings​

30.07.2025 17:00
Liste des audiences - Cette liste est publiée à titre informatif uniquement. De manière générale, les audiences du TAS ne sont pas ouvertes au public. Les audiences se déroulent en personne, par vidéoconférence, ou dans un format mixte.

List of hearings - This list is published for information purposes only. In general, CAS hearings are not open to the public. Hearings are conducted in-person, by video-conference, or in a mixed format.

Lista de audiencias - Esta lista se publica únicamente con fines informativos. En general, las audiencias del TAS no están abiertas al público. Las audiencias se celebran en persona, por videoconferencia, o en un formato mixto.


07.08.25
TAS 2025/A/11210 Club de Deportes Santiago Morning S.A.D.P. c. Asociación Nacional de Fútbol Profesional de Chile (ANFP)
TAS 2025/A/11280 Club de Deportes Santiago Morning S.A.D.P. c. Asociación Nacional de Fútbol Profesional de Chile (ANFP)

08.08.25
CAS 2025/A/11604 Crystal Palace Football Club v. UEFA, Nottingham Forest Football Club & Olympique Lyonnais

11.08.25
TAS 2025/A/11188 Atlético Mineiro c. CONMEBOL

13.08.25
TAS 2025/A/11250 Nicolas Chilard c. Fédération Internationale de Judo

20.08.25
TAS 2025/A/11182 David Alejandro Loaiza Gutiérrez c. Confederación Sudamericana de Fútbol (CONMEBOL)

21.08.25
CAS 2025/A/11258 Dritan Mehmeti v. Futboll Club Dinamo City

26.08.25
TAS 2025/A/11123 Cyril Plouzennec c. Fédération Gabonaise de Football

27.08.25
TAS 2025/A/11168 Eber Edision Caicedo Peralta c. Club Deportivo Inter de Barinas

28.08.25
CAS 2024/A/11061 Club Persib Bandung v. Daisuke Sato & Davao Aguilas UMAK FC
CAS 2025/A/11209 Swansea City AFC v. Hatcham FC


Join our mailing list​

Select your functionMediaStudentLawyerSports entityOtherSelect your countryAfghanistanAlbaniaAlgeriaAmerican SamoaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiqueBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBoliviaBosnia and HerzegowinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, The Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCote d'IvoireCroatia (Hrvatska)CubaCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEast TimorEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrance, MetropolitanFrance GuianaFrance PolynesiaFrance Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuamGuatemalaGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard and Mc Donald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran (Islamic Republic of)IraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacauMacedoniaMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMicronesiaMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNetherlands AntillesNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorwayOmanPakistanPalauPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalPuerto RicoQatarReunionRomaniaRussian FederationRwandaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth GeorgiaSpainSri LankaSt. HelenaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan Mayen IslandsSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuelaViet NamVirgin Islands (British)Virgin Islands (U.S.)Wallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenYugoslaviaZambiaZimbabwe
captcha.php
Subscribe
If you are subscribed already and want to unsubscribe or edit your profile, click here.

Latest news​

List of Hearings​


30.07.2025

CAS Hearing - Crystal Palace v. UEFA, Nottingham Forest Football Club & Olympique Lyonnais​


30.07.2025

Contact us​

Avenue Bergières 10
CH-1004 Lausanne
Tel: +41 (21) 613 5000
Fax: +41 (21) 613 5001
info@tas-cas.org or media@tas-cas.org

up.png
 
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...
Sorry being daft but why would Forest be removed? Whether their placement of shares into a blind trust is valid or invalid, which other team in either competition is also owned by Marinakis?

To be honest I have forgotten who he owns 😂
 
30.07.2025 17:00

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) confirms that an in-person hearing for the case Crystal Palace v. UEFA, Nottingham Forest Football Club & Olympique Lyonnais is scheduled for 8 August 2025. The hearing will be held behind closed doors at CAS headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland.

No decision will be issued on 8 August. It is expected that an operative decision (without grounds) will be rendered on 11 August 2025.

Cup on Sunday, Euro League confirmed Monday, Chelski the following Sunday

Not much time for planning transfers
 
Eagleshavelanded said:
30.07.2025 17:00

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) confirms that an in-person hearing for the case Crystal Palace v. UEFA, Nottingham Forest Football Club & Olympique Lyonnais is scheduled for 8 August 2025. The hearing will be held behind closed doors at CAS headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland.

No decision will be issued on 8 August. It is expected that an operative decision (without grounds) will be rendered on 11 August 2025.

Cup on Sunday, Euro League confirmed Monday, Chelski the following Sunday

Not much time for planning transfers
Click to expand...
We should go out to players and put a clause into their contracts based on the result of arbitration. I.e.: you can trigger a release clause of X if we are in the Conference instead of the Europa League. I feel like this is one of the more stupid things I've said on here.
 
Part Time James said:
We should go out to players and put a clause into their contracts based on the result of arbitration. I.e.: you can trigger a release clause of X if we are in the Conference instead of the Europa League. I feel like this is one of the more stupid things I've said on here.
Click to expand...
See your learning , you will get there saying stupid things all the time , listen to the master😱😱🤣🤣
 
Eagleshavelanded said:
30.07.2025 17:00

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) confirms that an in-person hearing for the case Crystal Palace v. UEFA, Nottingham Forest Football Club & Olympique Lyonnais is scheduled for 8 August 2025. The hearing will be held behind closed doors at CAS headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland.

No decision will be issued on 8 August. It is expected that an operative decision (without grounds) will be rendered on 11 August 2025.

Cup on Sunday, Euro League confirmed Monday, Chelski the following Sunday

Not much time for planning transfers
Click to expand...
11th August will be a god day to bury some potentially uncomfortable news...whilst the football world salivates over the end result of Palace's appeal, Ricky Jones will be appearing in court for potentially inciting violence by saying some very unsavoury words to a crowd. 31 months in prison for some hurty words posted on line so potentially a big sentence for Mr Jones. Don't hold your breath for appropriate justice to be served...
 
Perhaps I’m putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5, or it could be that I’m just a negative person, but the late date for CAS is a concern.

The draw for the Conference takes place on the 4th August, and presumably we will be in it.
CAS meets around a week later, and will it just be a rubber stamping exercise confirming the original decision?
Certainly less disruptive for the authorities.
 
Part Time James said:
Sorry being daft but why would Forest be removed? Whether their placement of shares into a blind trust is valid or invalid, which other team in either competition is also owned by Marinakis?

To be honest I have forgotten who he owns 😂
Click to expand...
On 1st of March both Olympiacos and Forest were in Champions League. He had not put in blind trust. The other point is to comply with that date any club who had owners shared with any other club would need to take action irrespective of if they qualified for European competition. This is clearly mad.

So points are :-
Are we an MCO?
Did Eagle Holdings have control of CPFC
Did Eagle have control of Lyon
Is there flexibility on date ?
On that date Lyon were relegated to division 2 so no conflict occurred till reinstated. Should this date not be relevant?
Is Date reasonable taking into account facts?
What did Forest say to UEFA in letter and did this influence them?

Draw will take place as published either saying CPFC or Nottingham Forest or saying TBA

Could Forest be kicked out of Europe ?Yes Will it happen ? Unlikely but more fuss they make , higher chance
 
Palace in the Blood said:
On 1st of March both Olympiacos and Forest were in Champions League. He had not put in blind trust. The other point is to comply with that date any club who had owners shared with any other club would need to take action irrespective of if they qualified for European competition. This is clearly mad.

So points are :-
Are we an MCO?
Did Eagle Holdings have control of CPFC
Did Eagle have control of Lyon
Is there flexibility on date ?
On that date Lyon were relegated to division 2 so no conflict occurred till reinstated. Should this date not be relevant?
Is Date reasonable taking into account facts?
What did Forest say to UEFA in letter and did this influence them?

Draw will take place as published either saying CPFC or Nottingham Forest or saying TBA

Could Forest be kicked out of Europe ?Yes Will it happen ? Unlikely but more fuss they make , higher chance
Click to expand...
I thought I spied on a Notts Forest site that the end of Feb is when the shares were recorded as being moved out; it may not have been finalised until weeks later but the process had started.
 
Common Sense Club said:
I thought I spied on a Notts Forest site that the end of Feb is when the shares were recorded as being moved out; it may not have been finalised until weeks later but the process had started.
Click to expand...
It's either a trust or it isn't.

If the legal formalities had not been completed till 29 April then there was no legal trust in existence before then.

Of course, UEFA may apply different rules where the date is set by reference to something else. Perhaps someone on here can assist?
 
Palace in the Blood said:
On 1st of March both Olympiacos and Forest were in Champions League. He had not put in blind trust. The other point is to comply with that date any club who had owners shared with any other club would need to take action irrespective of if they qualified for European competition. This is clearly mad.

So points are :-
Are we an MCO?
Did Eagle Holdings have control of CPFC
Did Eagle have control of Lyon
Is there flexibility on date ?
On that date Lyon were relegated to division 2 so no conflict occurred till reinstated. Should this date not be relevant?
Is Date reasonable taking into account facts?
What did Forest say to UEFA in letter and did this influence them?

Draw will take place as published either saying CPFC or Nottingham Forest or saying TBA

Could Forest be kicked out of Europe ?Yes Will it happen ? Unlikely but more fuss they make , higher chance
Click to expand...
They were both in the Champions League so we're questioning whether Forest can play in the Europa League next season? Seems odd.
 
Did a quick Google. Marinakis doesn't own any other teams that are in the Europa League so regardless of whether their shares were in a blind trust or not, there's no other team under MCO rules that would preclude them from playing in the Europa League.

IF they had held onto a Champions League place there could be a debate about demoting them if their shares hadn't been placed in a blind trust on time. But they didn't finish in a CL spot. What we throwing them out of here lads?

They threw themselves out of the Champions League.
 
Crystal Palace v. UEFA, Nottingham Forest Football Club & Olympique Lyonnais.

Perhaps I am being really stupid but I thought our case was solely against UEFA and their decision based on multi-club ownership and not the status of the other two clubs. We now have to argue the case against 3 ‘organisations’ and their respective legal teams rather than just UEFA.

Maybe I’m reading into this too much solely on the court listing but if this is the case, then if it wasn’t already an uphill battle, it certainly is now!

Total stitch up!

 
Eagleshavelanded said:
30.07.2025 17:00

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) confirms that an in-person hearing for the case Crystal Palace v. UEFA, Nottingham Forest Football Club & Olympique Lyonnais is scheduled for 8 August 2025. The hearing will be held behind closed doors at CAS headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland.

No decision will be issued on 8 August. It is expected that an operative decision (without grounds) will be rendered on 11 August 2025.

Cup on Sunday, Euro League confirmed Monday, Chelski the following Sunday

Not much time for planning transfers
Click to expand...
3rd knock out round is 7th
 
est1905 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Stooping to insults suggests you just have no case. In fact, if you look back at the conversation, you are now in complete agreement with my argument i.e. lawyers will have no problem taking a case that they are likely to lose as there will be no hit to their reputation and they still collect their fee. Basically, you are now arguing against your previous point of view, which is quite amusing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top