Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

[est1905]

The irony could, of course, be that:

- Lyon escape relegation partly by Textor selling his Palace shares
- Lyon admitted to Europa League as a consequence
- Rule breach cured by said sale of shares...
- But not on the right date - Palace excluded.

If we cannot use the 'Textor has now sold' solution because the sale has not gone through yet then Lyon cannot use the 'Textor has sold his shares in Palace to balance our books' solution either as no money has yet changed hands and the deal is not yet done.
Besides, It wasn't Lyon that had shares in Palace it was Textor. The proceeds from his sale of Palace shares wont be allowed to be used to balance Lyon's books. The funds will go into Textor's back pocket. He'll probably use those funds to buy a club in desperate need. Sheffield Wednesday prehaps?

 

[Part Time James]

UEFA have a bet going that this thread will hit 100 pages with side bets that someone will mention their Geoff Thomas and quote Monty Python.

 

[est1905]

How about this ;

* Lyon are given a reprieve and not relegated

* However they are given a points deduction as an alternative punishment

* They no longer qualify through League position

...IF that points deduction is applied to last season and not the new upcoming one.

 

[est1905]

I'd expect them to be optimistic though the past treatment of Marseille and Bordeaux should give them pause for thought. Major clubs relegated.

Interestingly they are already counting the money from the Palace shares. Firstly, that's not gone through and may not by the time of the appeal.

I don't doubt it will go through but if it's after the appeal will the French authorities take the promise of it happening and all the funds being raised then being sent Lyon's way. Textor says he wants to buy another UK team. But he has promised to hand the money over so I'm sure that's fine.

French football in a bit of a state. They don't even have a TV deal for next season yet having broken the DAZN contract. So income streams might be a bit wobbly for Ligue 1 teams. Will the Palace 200m be enough to stabilise the 450m debt pile?

Thats not Lyon's money anyway. It's Textor's

 

[est1905]

If someone had come to Textor with a share offer, then he could have revoked the blind trust quickly, as per the Forest chairman taking back control once Forest were no longer in champions league contention.
If he had no influence on the club, there would have been no downside to placing them into a blind trust prior to March 1 until the end of the season. Just because the odds are long does not mean the insurance shouldnt have been taken out. It's much more unlikely my house will be swept away by a tornado, but I still insure against it.

Of course there's a downside. He'd be unable to sell them!

 

[Vaibow]

Thats not Lyon's money anyway. It's Textor's

does anyone know when Lyons appeal will reach a verdict...

 

[mileend]

Thats not Lyon's money anyway. It's Textor's

yes

but if he doesn't put it into Lyon then they are a lot less likely to win the appeal

and if he doesn't put it in then the odds of a bankruptcy at Lyon go up - and he might be losing 77% of Lyon to an opportunistic purchaser for a few cents in the euro

but if he considers them a lost cause who knows what he might do

a bird in the hand is worth ...

 

[StandbyPalace]

How about this ;

* Lyon are given a reprieve and not relegated

* However they are given a points deduction as an alternative punishment

* They no longer qualify through League position

Quality post I bet Toxic Textor has that outcome covered too though!

 

[rikz]

If we get kicked out it's because we've broken the rules and didn't use the loopholes in time. Got no one to blame apart from ourselves.

 

[est1905]

does anyone know when Lyons appeal will reach a verdict...

I'd like to know that too. It sounds like UEFA have agreed to let Lyon and the FFF thrash it out and stay out of it.
They'll be happy there wont be a decision to make if their relegation is confirmed. I'm sure its been mentioned many time under French rules unlike our own you have to be in their top division to be eligible for Europe.
So if Lyon are 100% out they'll have to let Palace in regardless as there will be no connection whatsoever.

Lets all hope the FFF hold firm and make an example of them

 

[mtp1958]

Nigel Farage is a Palace fan! Please help your club Nige!

found the issue its not textor its nige telling eu to poke there rules up there arse

 

[est1905]

yes

but if he doesn't put it into Lyon then they are a lot less likely to win the appeal

and if he doesn't put it in then the odds of a bankruptcy at Lyon go up - and he might be losing 77% of Lyon to an opportunistic purchaser for a few cents in the euro

but if he considers them a lost cause who knows what he might do

a bird in the hand is worth ...

I see what you're saying but I have no idea if under FFP rules you can simply put new money in to cover overspends? This is largely what City are in trouble for doing.
The proceeds of the Palace shares are not funds that Lyon have any claim to (such as player sales or gate reciepts). Its not their money. So I'm just not sure if Textor can use it to prop up Lyon. Even if he wanted to.

 

[Jason Smith]

Interesting statement given that you earlier posted that moving the 1/3 deadline to 1/6 '' was always going to catch out a club like Palace ''.

So in a nutshell, where you and I don't agree is with the Textor / Blind Trust issue.

Your opinion is you think Textor should have placed his shares in a Blind Trust in February. My view is that scenario is not realistic. I've had this same debate with a few people on here - some agree with me, some don't. Put yourself in Textor's shoes....you've got £170m approx in shares you wants to sell in any case. But on the off chance of winning a knock out competition, you lose control over those shares and have a ( supposedly ) heavily reduced influence at the club you have invested multi millions into. For potentially a year. Would you do it ?

You say he chose not to consult the ECA and I ask you, what difference would that have made ? Because you still arrive at the above scenario if their advice was that Palace were exposed to the MCO rules.

You keep referring to the ECA, and you were presenting your opinions as fact in your first post. You're seriously saying that because Palace are not members of an organisation that is not mandatory for them to join, that , to quote you '' the CFCB have already decided they need to take disciplinary against Palace, primarily because John Textor chose not to take legal advice from the ECA and take appropriate action ''.

Has Textor broken any rules by not doing so ? I'd say the answer is '' no ''. So how then can disciplinary measures be taken against a club who are not even members and whose majority shareholder hasn't actually done anything wrong ? And that by a different organisation, the CFCB.

Everything on this thread is nothing but speculation I realise that. And as a member of some 24 years, I get the notion of being able to agree or disagree.

Finally yes, I do agree on your point about Textor's voting rights / debt. The irony being it is exactly that situation that Steve Parish has tried and succeeded to avoid. Further proof I would say that Textor's majority shareholding is not reflected in the amount of influence / control he has at Palace.

The fact that Palace are not members of the ECA is more down to Steve Parish, than John Textor. As I said, not being a member of the ECA leaves Palace vulnerable when it comes to the usual channels and protocols regarding this issue. This was my reason for making the comment about Palace being caught out.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but Textor would have specialists looking at this sort of stuff all the time. You have to be risk averse, and you have to demonstrate a high degree of due diligence when managing vast amounts of money, like this. The March 1st deadline changed the whole landscape of European football. There is no doubt that Textor knew this, and there is no doubt also his investment portfolio could, potentially, be seriously challenged by this hardening of UEFA's stance, which has turned out to be the case.

There has to be a reason why the CFCB did not rule in Palace's favour after the first meeting. And coupled with UEFA's change in the deadline date, they want to see MCOs reigned in. I would say this is a tinderbox situation that Textor knew was coming, and that it would not work out favourably for him. It is also ironic that at the heart of this are two issues of incorporation: the one is how MCOs are managed, the other is Textor's unwillingness to seek proper advice through the ECA. And as previously stated, the fact that UEFA have two members of the ECA on its executive committee is highly significant. At this level, an organisation like UEFA is going to be very sensitive to Textor's lack of proper consultation in a rapidly changing landscape regarding big money issues. It's rather like choosing to represent yourself in a dispute with your employer: it just throws the usual channels of communication out of gear and it leaves you exposed.

And yes, it's rather like me, who has just joined this comments section, making out that my comments are fact rather than just speculation: it winds people up because the protocols of making comments have been violated. It was not my intention to do this, just like it wasn't John Textor's intention to end up in this kind of mess; but when you don't follow the proper protocols both individuals and organisations get very upset when you don't seek appropriate legal advice through the proper channels.

I do believe UEFA are out to make an example of John Textor because they do not like his type of ownership in football, and given his track record I find it hard to disagree with them.

 

[NMPalace]

I suggest that the club 'lean on' the Football Association as, if Palace are banned from the Europa Cup competition, then it tends to devalue winning the FA Cup, which is the most world renowned domestic club football tournament. It's not going to look very good for them; they have a vested interest too.

BTW remember back to our 1st administration in 1999. We had a buyer lined up (Jordan - although we didn't know it was him at the time) but both Juve and Strasbourg were still owed money from player purchases.

UK clubs get 100% payment as per FA rules but foreign clubs didn't and were just considered standard creditors. I think the offer was 10p in the £ and both refused to accept it. Without their acceptance the deal could not be ratified.

The FA refused to get involved with UEFA/FIFA as supposedly they were considering a world cup bid.

Anyway, some bright spark put on this forum details of the FA chief execs email and he was bombarded with thousands of emails asking for them to get involved.

Supposedly it crashed the FAs email system.

Soon afterwards a compromise was agreed and the foreign club became preferred creditors with a higher % (i think 40%).

I think we could do similar here.

Anyone have any FA email details??

 

[mtp1958]

I agree with the legal root lets start taking uefa to court now and get and uefa suspend from trading , in other word all European tournaments until court case is over , think it would be easy to prove they are not fit to run a multi billion company

 

[kingdowieonthewall]

sounds to me, like our fate is already decided but its being fudged for a bit as they know its going to be an unpopular decision, kicking us out.
Having been self employed for well over 40 yrs, and swindled out of payments by iffy builders, Im one suspicious cund and the current ongoings are setting off all the alarms concerning flim flam and devious bollo.
lets hope im wrong.

 

[Matov]

Somebody is holding out for a bribe.

 

[BromleyMonkey]

UEFA have a bet going that this thread will hit 100 pages with side bets that someone will mention their Geoff Thomas and quote Monty Python.

Sorry about that 😇😁

 

[Eaglecoops]

The fact that Palace are not members of the ECA is more down to Steve Parish, than John Textor. As I said, not being a member of the ECA leaves Palace vulnerable when it comes to the usual channels and protocols regarding this issue. This was my reason for making the comment about Palace being caught out.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but Textor would have specialists looking at this sort of stuff all the time. You have to be risk averse, and you have to demonstrate a high degree of due diligence when managing vast amounts of money, like this. The March 1st deadline changed the whole landscape of European football. There is no doubt that Textor knew this, and there is no doubt also his investment portfolio could, potentially, be seriously challenged by this hardening of UEFA's stance, which has turned out to be the case.

There has to be a reason why the CFCB did not rule in Palace's favour after the first meeting. And coupled with UEFA's change in the deadline date, they want to see MCOs reigned in. I would say this is a tinderbox situation that Textor knew was coming, and that it would not work out favourably for him. It is also ironic that at the heart of this are two issues of incorporation: the one is how MCOs are managed, the other is Textor's unwillingness to seek proper advice through the ECA. And as previously stated, the fact that UEFA have two members of the ECA on its executive committee is highly significant. At this level, an organisation like UEFA is going to be very sensitive to Textor's lack of proper consultation in a rapidly changing landscape regarding big money issues. It's rather like choosing to represent yourself in a dispute with your employer: it just throws the usual channels of communication out of gear and it leaves you exposed.

And yes, it's rather like me, who has just joined this comments section, making out that my comments are fact rather than just speculation: it winds people up because the protocols of making comments have been violated. It was not my intention to do this, just like it wasn't John Textor's intention to end up in this kind of mess; but when you don't follow the proper protocols both individuals and organisations get very upset when you don't seek appropriate legal advice through the proper channels.

I do believe UEFA are out to make an example of John Textor because they do not like his type of ownership in football, and given his track record I find it hard to disagree with them.

Do you think they prefer the Notts Forest type of owner who runs on the pitch and abuses the manager whilst his shares are supposedly in blind trust and he has no official control of his business?

By all means punish Textor by barring him from holding a directors position in UEFA football, however this is an attack on a team that is unwarranted.

 

[mtp1958]

haven't seen anything from uefa saying we sent out all changes to rules and covering for all issues that are covered under rule changes for ever club , if they haven't then they have failed to issue a clear and workable rule , and lets look at the saga because uefa haven't and don't care ,
they could have sent a warning to clubs that may face the issue by the end of Jan . bet they didnt , unless there is so many multi club ownership they didnt know were to start