• Existing user of old message board?

    Your username will have transferred over to this new message board, but your password will need to be reset. Visit our convert your account page, to transfer your old password over.

Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

Norbury Old Git said:
I blame Strasbourg. They conceded a goal in the 99th minute of the last game of the season to lose 2-3 against Le Harve thereby allowing OL to overtake them on goal difference and into the Europa League. It maybe that, given the leeway afforded to Man City/Girona and others, UEFA are checking with lawyers so that any decision taken either way complies with the rules on multiple ownership. After all Textor has a reputation of being very litigious and wold be quite happy to sue UEFA if the decision goes against him.

On the other hand if we fail with this decision we are likely to lose some big names including Glasner. However, we would get some big money to help build the new stand, rebuild the squad, more opportunity for our younger players and I would get to watch Alien Night on Blaze on cold winter Thursday nights!!!
Click to expand...
That would be the Strasbourg that are owned by ......... Chelsea . Lets blame them instead ,you dont have to be in the same competition to have influence in it .For me either allow multi club ownership or you dont .
EUFA as usual have made rules that allows them to favour who they want to which means Parish obviously needs to send a bigger brown envelope .
 
TooEzeCPFC said:
This is is one of our companies house reports, to be honest I know nothing about it but the Olympic Lyonnais part doesn't look great on us, also who was the player we sold to lyon?

View attachment 1259
Click to expand...
I don't get how selling Jake O'Brien to Lyon (2 years ago) would have anything to do with what is happening right now? It's not like we've been exchanging multiple players since Textor bought Lyon 3 years ago. In fact, can't recall any other player going either way 🤔
 
It's like any Court case, or tribunal that I've been involved with. You can have what you think is a watertight case, but sometimes judges make bemusing decisions. This isn't a technical issue, because Palace are blatantly in breach of the rules.
This is going to be a political decision, and because we're a smaller club, just the sort to make a very public example of. However, if they sanction Palace, they will have to follow up on every club thereafter, and use similar sanctions. And there are lots of bigger clubs out there with financial breaches/irregularities. Would they want to go that route with the big boys ?

Personally, I think we're out of Europe. But you never know until the final whistle.
 
I have a horrible feelign we are going to be made the example of this and have the ruling enforced on us.

It would just be so Palace for this to happen and then we win the UEFA Conference League
 
madcap_v2 said:
I have a horrible feelign we are going to be made the example of this and have the ruling enforced on us.

It would just be so Palace for this to happen and then we win the UEFA Conference League
Click to expand...
I've read conflicting reports, but I don't think we'd end up the Conference League, because Blitzer owns Bronby, and their league position trumps ours. I did, however, read that our Europa League qualification, could Trump their Conference League qualification! It's a bloody minefield, ut we shouldn't have been in this position if our owners and the bloody foresight to have the paperwork ready before the deadline in March!
 
Lanzo-Ad said:
Call me Mr Silly, but couldn't Textor sell his 45% to Parish, for 100k, with a private legally binding agreement that Parish sells them back to Textor for the same price at a specified date?
Click to expand...
You could guarantee that's what the likes of Chelsea or Man City would do, if they were in this situation (and get away with it)!
 
Lanzo-Ad said:
Call me Mr Silly, but couldn't Textor sell his 45% to Parish, for 100k, with a private legally binding agreement that Parish sells them back to Textor for the same price at a specified date?
Click to expand...
That would've been the sensible option a few months ago. I'm not sure if it's still acceptable this late.
 
Forest Hillbilly said:
It's like any Court case, or tribunal that I've been involved with. You can have what you think is a watertight case, but sometimes judges make bemusing decisions. This isn't a technical issue, because Palace are blatantly in breach of the rules.
This is going to be a political decision, and because we're a smaller club, just the sort to make a very public example of. However, if they sanction Palace, they will have to follow up on every club thereafter, and use similar sanctions. And there are lots of bigger clubs out there with financial breaches/irregularities. Would they want to go that route with the big boys ?

Personally, I think we're out of Europe. But you never know until the final whistle.
Click to expand...
If this boiled down to an interpretation of Textors “ significant level of influence “ then I would contend that it’s not a blatant breach. It will then become a subjective matter than can be argued by both sides. Which I think is what the meeting on Tuesday was about.

The fact that Textors reaction was to try to sell his shares is something of a red flag.

And I return to my earlier point - the Blind Trust sidestep isn’t fit for purpose - why should the timing of that event have any bearing when the outcome is the same ? But in a world where a woman’s team can be valued at £200m and hotels can be sold to yourself and considered to be generated revenue , what should I expect !
 
Lanzo-Ad said:
Call me Mr Silly, but couldn't Textor sell his 45% to Parish, for 100k, with a private legally binding agreement that Parish sells them back to Textor for the same price at a specified date?
Click to expand...
I thought something similar, only it would be Harris and Blitzer as the prospective buyers.

Such an agreement could be drawn up ( in theory ) so that the outcome is to everyone’s financial satisfaction - ie H and B aren’t left out of pocket in exchange for their investment.

And if that is possible then does that not render this Blind Trust as absolute nonsense ?
 
viapalace said:
You would have thought so but my guess is uefa will take issue with Parish handing them back at a later date.
Click to expand...
They wouldn't know, its a private, legally binding agreement, and the date would be after our tenure in the Europa League is over.
 
Last edited:
NEILLO said:
I thought something similar, only it would be Harris and Blitzer as the prospective buyers.

Such an agreement could be drawn up ( in theory ) so that the outcome is to everyone’s financial satisfaction - ie H and B aren’t left out of pocket in exchange for their investment.

And if that is possible then does that not render this Blind Trust as absolute nonsense ?
Click to expand...
The blind trust is absolutely nonsense. Other teams have been more closely connected than us and, as far as I can tell, just made things up. There were twinned teams who swap players with each other playing in the same competitions. Obvious one is Red Bull but I also think I read that the twinned teams of other clubs such as Man U played in the same competition.
The whole thing makes me wonder what happened in our meeting. On the face of it, it looks like Textor has thrown one of his curveballs to Parish.
This also smacks of naivety on our behalf. I guarantee there's a way out of this if say, we get Man City or Chelsea's type of lawyers and get them on the case. I suspect we're doing something like that right now.
Man City - look at them. Exclude Palace, but we've got a team with hundreds of charges playing! Quite ridiculous, as ever.
 
Forest Hillbilly said:
That would've been the sensible option a few months ago. I'm not sure if it's still acceptable this late.
Click to expand...
Why not, all that it looks like the Major Shareholder selling his shares for the finacial benefit of the club, the rest is private.
 
ASCPFC said:
The blind trust is absolutely nonsense. Other teams have been more closely connected than us and, as far as I can tell, just made things up. There were twinned teams who swap players with each other playing in the same competitions. Obvious one is Red Bull but I also think I read that the twinned teams of other clubs such as Man U played in the same competition.
The whole thing makes me wonder what happened in our meeting. On the face of it, it looks like Textor has thrown one of his curveballs to Parish.
This also smacks of naivety on our behalf. I guarantee there's a way out of this if say, we get Man City or Chelsea's type of lawyers and get them on the case. I suspect we're doing something like that right now.
Man City - look at them. Exclude Palace, but we've got a team with hundreds of charges playing! Quite ridiculous, as ever.
Click to expand...
The way out involves having the immense financial backing of Man City, Chelsea, Red Bull Group to bribe uefa/engage in never ending legal disputes. We just don’t have those funds. And for that reason alone uefa will make an example of us.
 
Lanzo-Ad said:
Why not, all that it looks like the Major Shareholder selling his shares for the finacial benefit of the club, the rest is private.
Click to expand...
Given that the apparent issue is Textors shares - which he has now offered to sell - it’s irrelevant who the purchaser is in UEFA’s eyes.

There’s no direct financial benefit to the club as it’s an individual selling his shares.
 
It's not good reading currently, but I remain optimistic that Parish will pull something out the bag to save the day. There has to be some way around this. The media know little about the private meetings and much of what is being reported, I suspect, is somewhat sensationalised.

I like to think that some legal documents are being drawn up right now for Textor to sell his shares to Parish, Blitzer and Harris at a discount with a right for him to buy back in future, should he wish to. Otherwise, another investor may see opportunity to buy into a Premier League club at a cut price deal at short notice.

When the 1st March cut off came, there was no realistic way we would see ourselves playing in Europe next season. It's unfortunate and couldn't really have been foreseen. You'd think either the club would have been confident in our position based on Textor only having 25% voting rights, or else planning for this scenario should have started the moment we beat Fulham in quarter final.

I don't know the details around Radcliffe and Manchester United, but if they got round it, surely there is a way we can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top