Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

[est1905]

I have been wavering in what I think the CAS result might be. I think Palace might well be re-instated into the League, because Parish wouldn't spend his time and money on a lost cause. I reckon Parish will look to identify inconsistencies with UEFA and their rulings, which is why Lyon and Forest are more than a little worried.
Of course , it's difficult to say with certainty, because you never know what evidence will arise and what mood the Judge is in.
I reckon Palace will be re-instated 👍 😎

Judges, plural. There will be a panel of them and each one will have to justify their decision before they make their ruling. This is good for us. It cuts out the corruption, or mostly does. This is why if you think you have been badly treated and you think you deserve better CAS is the place to go. And if you are in the right you usually win. Fingers crossed

 

[silvertop]

The parties have already agreed to have a sports related dispute referred to CAS including appeals

To my understanding only one party is appealing UEFAs decision and that is Palace.

Lyon and Forest have been drawn in as co respondents given their interest.

I see no agreement between anyone.

 

[chris123]

To my understanding only one party is appealing UEFAs decision and that is Palace.

Lyon and Forest have been drawn in as co respondents given their interest.

I see no agreement between anyone.

It's a condition of the process spelt out in CAS General Provisions

 

[silvertop]

Guided by the arbitrators. I have been through Court ordered mediation in a Commercial dispute and the pressure to settle can be intense, with the weaknesses in each case being identified and explained in separate meetings between the mediators and each party. There weren’t any face to face negotiations between the parties, just a series of offers and counter offers until a compromise settlement was reached. Or not!

That's it. But that was the case of X v Wisbech and you had to mediate with X to avoid the court. In this matter there is no X.

 

[silvertop]

It's a condition of the process spelt out in CAS General Provisions

What is?

 

[Norbury Old Git]

CAS has a list of Arbitrators who deal with football matters and three will be chosen from this. I searched through the list of those who speak both English and French in Europe and there are none from the UK but 5/38 from France. However, there are plenty from Portugese and Germans and the one from Greece is cancelled out by the Austrian. My neutral selection would be for a German, a Portugese and an Italian Arbitrator.

Hopefully our lawyers will bring up the great injustice of 1991. This, for the benefit of our younger members, was when Palace was unceremoniously chucked out of a UEFA cup place so that Liverpool and their thuggish supporters could reenter the competition early after jserving only 4 years of their 5 year ban for the Heysel disaster. Teams like Coventry, Wimbledon, Oxford Utd, QPR never got the chance to play in Europe. For me the Europa Conference League is not good enough for the 34 years of hurt.

 

[Eagleman13]

With the draw today for the play-offs (conference league), we are in Group 3 Seeded . . .

Group 3
Seeded
1: SK Rapid (AUT) vs Dundee United FC (SCO)
2*: Crystal Palace FC (ENG)
3: FK Partizan Beograd (SRB) vs Hibernian F.C. (SCO)
4: FC Ballkani (KOS) vs Shamrock Rovers FC (IRL)
5: Panathinaikos FC (GRE) vs FC Shakhtar Donetsk (UKR)

Unseeded
6: Larne FC (NIR) vs CD Santa Clara (POR)
7: Servette FC (SUI) vs FC Utrecht (NED)
8: Fredrikstad FK (NOR) vs FC Midtjylland (DEN)
9: AEK Larnaca FC (CYP) vs Legia Warszawa (POL)
10: AIK Stockholm (SWE) vs ETO FC Győr (HUN)

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

What is?

That you agree to the process and it's outcomes

 

[Eaglecoops]

Now I’m getting confused. Didn’t Panathinikos got knocked out of the Champions League and there is no longer a route into lower competitions?

 

[ASCPFC]

To my understanding only one party is appealing UEFAs decision and that is Palace.

Lyon and Forest have been drawn in as co respondents given their interest.

I see no agreement between anyone.

I think what Chris is saying is that any parties to the case have to sign an agreement that the CAS findings are binding and final and will be abided by. I think.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

That's it. But that was the case of X v Wisbech and you had to mediate with X to avoid the court. In this matter there is no X.

Actually it was me v a previous partner who had stolen £100,000 worth of assets from a business. I won but had to pay my own costs, which took a hefty chunk out of the award. The prize this time is worth a lot more.

Surely in this case UEFA are “X” as it’s them we are challenging.

 

[tonypeers5]

Unseeded
6: Larne FC (NIR) vs CD Santa Clara (POR)
7: Servette FC (SUI) vs FC Utrecht (NED)
8: Fredrikstad FK (NOR) vs FC Midtjylland (DEN)
9: AEK Larnaca FC (CYP) vs Legia Warszawa (POL)
10: AIK Stockholm (SWE) vs ETO FC Győr (HUN)

So basically, we're playing one of the teams above to get into the main league part of the competition if we lose our appeal. Our games are to be played on the 21st & 28th August.

 

[mtp1958]

Guided by the arbitrators. I have been through Court ordered mediation in a Commercial dispute and the pressure to settle can be intense, with the weaknesses in each case being identified and explained in separate meetings between the mediators and each party. There weren’t any face to face negotiations between the parties, just a series of offers and counter offers until a compromise settlement was reached. Or not!

I have been though employment tribunals and yes they do try to push for settlement out of court , but we are not talking money , with our case its different , so makes the process harder on settlement ,
putting it simply , UEFA need to conceded that the punishment doesn't fit the crime and reinstate us , other than that CAS will make the call .

 

[silvertop]

The point about arbitrators picked by the sides makes sense given the Swiss judicial system.

Our system is the familiar adversarial. 2 sides battle it out with the judge as ref and final decider.

Theirs's is the inquisitorial, with the bench grilling both advocates and witnesses before deciding.

On reflection, it also makes sense, given that, to have Lyon as a respondent. The tribunal can now take a closer look at Textor's interest in Lyon.

One thing that stands out from this case is culpability, or rather a lack of it. I am aware there has been bad form after the event and the tribunal's first stop should be a scrutiny of process given what many perceive to be a UEFA tribunal stuffed with those leaning to the Hellenic cause. However, the issue at its core is a technical breach with no bad conduct attributable to anyone.

Textor's holdings in both clubs was wholly within the laws of each respective country and the regulations of the respective FIFA governing bodies. Both were created before the rules were in existence. Those rules were only then triggered when both clubs qualified for the same competition. Otherwise, they would have been of no consequence.

Even if an MCO is held to exist within the rules, the conflict is still only perceived. There is no evidence or even likelihood that, had they played each other, there would have been e.g. match fixing.

This is not a doping ban or a willful breach of financial rules. Nobody has done anything wrong.

 

[silvertop]

I have been though employment tribunals and yes they do try to push for settlement out of court , but we are not talking money , with our case its different , so makes the process harder on settlement ,
putting it simply , UEFA need to conceded that the punishment doesn't fit the crime and reinstate us , other than that CAS will make the call .

That was employer v employee - 2 sides to mediate.

I would like to think that a powerful party could push UEFA to reconsider, but I am not sure that is within the bailiwick of CAS to compel that.

UEFA will not change their mind without such a push.

 

[Phil’s Barber]

And the “A” stands for Arbitration so it’s less confusing than misleading.

It cannot though be a Court in any legal sense because it doesn’t deal in the law.

It’s a Court, it couldn’t be any clearer - The clue is in its title! 🙄

 

[NEILLO]

I don’t hold out much hope of reversing UEFAs call re multi club ownership, much as we think we know we weren’t guilty of that.

I think our best chance is around the so called deadline date of 1/3/25. We were in no position to comply and apparently ECA members were told that date wasn’t set in stone anyway. That to me highlights that the rule is inconsistently applied and is not fit for purpose. So basically , despite all of the subsequent efforts to remove any trace of multi club ownership, we are being punished for not hitting a date that may or may not be a hard deadline which is months in advance of the competition even starting !

 

[eaglesdare]

Surely we had intent anyway as textor had his shares up for sale before that date?

 

[Eaglecoops]

The point about arbitrators picked by the sides makes sense given the Swiss judicial system.

Our system is the familiar adversarial. 2 sides battle it out with the judge as ref and final decider.

Theirs's is the inquisitorial, with the bench grilling both advocates and witnesses before deciding.

On reflection, it also makes sense, given that, to have Lyon as a respondent. The tribunal can now take a closer look at Textor's interest in Lyon.

One thing that stands out from this case is culpability, or rather a lack of it. I am aware there has been bad form after the event and the tribunal's first stop should be a scrutiny of process given what many perceive to be a UEFA tribunal stuffed with those leaning to the Hellenic cause. However, the issue at its core is a technical breach with no bad conduct attributable to anyone.

Textor's holdings in both clubs was wholly within the laws of each respective country and the regulations of the respective FIFA governing bodies. Both were created before the rules were in existence. Those rules were only then triggered when both clubs qualified for the same competition. Otherwise, they would have been of no consequence.

Even if an MCO is held to exist within the rules, the conflict is still only perceived. There is no evidence or even likelihood that, had they played each other, there would have been e.g. match fixing.

This is not a doping ban or a willful breach of financial rules. Nobody has done anything wrong.

Exactly, it’s the biggest hammer to smash the smallest walnut in football history. The tiniest perceived threat that won’t ever arise as it’s historic and cannot ever happen as the protagonist is gone. It’s utterly pathetic to be honest.

 

[whatton]

With the draw today for the play-offs (conference league), we are in Group 3 Seeded . . .

Group 3
Seeded
1: SK Rapid (AUT) vs Dundee United FC (SCO)
2*: Crystal Palace FC (ENG)
3: FK Partizan Beograd (SRB) vs Hibernian F.C. (SCO)
4: FC Ballkani (KOS) vs Shamrock Rovers FC (IRL)
5: Panathinaikos FC (GRE) vs FC Shakhtar Donetsk (UKR)

Unseeded
6: Larne FC (NIR) vs CD Santa Clara (POR)
7: Servette FC (SUI) vs FC Utrecht (NED)
8: Fredrikstad FK (NOR) vs FC Midtjylland (DEN)
9: AEK Larnaca FC (CYP) vs Legia Warszawa (POL)
10: AIK Stockholm (SWE) vs ETO FC Győr (HUN)

Can anyone explain how the teams are allocated between Groups 1,2,3 & 4?

The rules say “The UEFA administration may form groups for the draw in accordance with the principles set by the Club Competitions Committee”, but give no further details. Group 3 includes losers of four ties from the Europa League, while groups 1 & 2 don’t contain any.

This doesn’t seem very fair to me.

Are UEFA stitching us up again?