Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

[NEILLO]

Also, if Textor recomends a player, friendly, coach etc, and the other three agree, does that count in having no control over decissions. if he has proposed it, its a minefield.

It's unreasonable to expect a shareholder to not contribute to the business they have invested in.

I'm sure that Textor has done so. However any final decision rests with Parish.

Another interesting point which I had forgotten is this one copied from Talksport but widely reported at the time ;

Jim White claimed: “Sources say Textor was furious after Crystal Palace’s Chairman Steve Parish voted at a Premier League meeting to ban transfers between related clubs.
Textor had apparently told colleagues that he was unaware the issue was even set to be discussed by the Premier League clubs, and he would have argued forcefully for Palace to vote against a ban

 

[MrRobbo]

As a matter of interest Neillo, why do you feel we weren't compliant on 1/3/25?
Textor only had 25% voting rights and I thought the UEFA rule is 30%?
But I totally agree UEFA really need to try to find more clarity to the multi club issue.
Probably easier said than done when you consider all the grey areas surrounding us and Lyon.
The easiest would be to say in Europe, any club involved in any way in multi club ownership would be excluded from any european cup competition. But I can't see them saying that.

UEFA doont mention anything about voting rights. Its about ownership, or which was over the 30%.

Our counter argument would have been about the disproportionately small voting rights (and hence control) attributed to his shares.

And the fact that its a little unfair that the deadline is months before we got our 'surprise' entry to Europe. (A more sensible deadline would be a week or 2 after all the national cup finals).

Hence why its tricky. Letter of the law we broke the rules. But the rules are stupid and our ownership structure is a little atypical.

 

[mtp1958]

Seems we are going round in circles on the subject , UEFA knew there rule would cause a issue , and its Interpretation , its already been proved that blind trust is like hiding money from the tax man , then bring it out again after they said its ok , just like the forest guy , so massive hole there ,

its not clear and unworkable in its current wording , they haven't covered all scenarios , so we was always in a good position

 

[subbuteo]

It was Textor's Palace shares that would have gone into a Blind Trust if our Board had owned a crystal ball.

My take on the Switzerland meeting is different from yours. Parish went to plead Palace's case. UEFA said they would investigate and a decision made by the end of June. I don't agree that they would have been in a position to dismiss a claim at that time as it clearly requires their investigation. Otherwise, conversely, UEFA could have given the green light for entry into the CL

There has been no mention of an end of June deadline for compliance as far as I can recall. Given that UEFA reportedly rejected Textor's offer - made in that meeting - to place his shares into a Blind Trust, I wouldn't assume that '' conditions have now been met ''. We simply don't know.

Whilst not publicly announced my understanding is that there is a meeting of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body which is responsible for making the decision tomorrow... whether that represents a deadline for compliance or not I couldn't say. Fingers crossed.

 

[Putitout]

Whilst not publicly announced my understanding is that there is a meeting of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body which is responsible for making the decision tomorrow... whether that represents a deadline for compliance or not I couldn't say. Fingers crossed.

If we can believe anything the media has put out, the end of June is the cut off point so this meeting could well be the one that decides our fate with a decision declared on Monday the 30th.

 

[est1905]

UEFA doont mention anything about voting rights. Its about ownership, or which was over the 30%.



Our counter argument would have been about the disproportionately small voting rig
hts (and hence control) attributed to his shares.

And the fact that its a little unfair that the deadline is months before we got our 'surprise' entry to Europe. (A more sensible deadline would be a week or 2 after all the national cup finals).

Hence why its tricky. Letter of the law we broke the rules. But the rules are stupid and our ownership structure is a little atypical.

You're right that they dont mention voting rights but they dont mention ownership directly either. Its all about 'direct influence and control' over more than one club in the same competition. This is where I'd agree with Palace's stance that Textor has never had control at Palace. Not even close.

 

[est1905]

Seems we are going round in circles on the subject , UEFA knew there rule would cause a issue , and its Interpretation , its already been proved that blind trust is like hiding money from the tax man , then bring it out again after they said its ok , just like the forest guy , so massive hole there ,

its not clear and unworkable in its current wording , they haven't covered all scenarios , so we was always in a good position

This is where UEFA have really left themselves vulnerable. Their rule book on this is so vague it could be challenged by any decent lawyer and they know it. I agree with Neillo. Whatever happens with us UEFA need to tighten up their rule book and make the wording crystal clear

 

[dreamwaverider]

Whatever the outcome, uefa need to review this whole issue. Although their thinking appears well intentioned to give clubs as much freedom as possible in raising money etc. the last few seasons have shown there are cracks in the detail which need closing up to give more clarity overall. Not an easy task but one that needs open discussion and resolution.

 

[Eaglecoops]

Well Textor's voting rights v. the amount of his shareholding is one of the key points. It's an unusual situation, and one that seems likely to continue with Johnson albeit without the multi club ownership.

Palace have to prove to UEFA that Textor did not have the level of influence that a majority shareholder would usually have.

My expectation is that UEFA would then need to examine Palace's constitutional documentation including any activity between the clubs in Eagle Holdings portfolio.

On the face of it, the new deadline for dodging the rules - which UEFA enable with that deadline - makes a mockery of the whole thing. If that deadline had been kept at it's previous date of 1/6/25 it's possible that Textor would have been able to go down the Blind Trust route. And we wouldn't be hanging on for a decision.

This part of it has been annoying me from the beginning. Why would they allow a loophole that can only be implemented by those who know they are likely to be caught out months before the end of the season. That basically rules out all participants who get in via a Cup win as no-one knows the cup winner in March. They literally make up rules and then change them year after year to suit whatever their agenda is at that point (although it normally involves helping out one of their favoured teams).

Other than the sale of the CH O’Brien for whom some believe to have been at a lower than market value, (although that could be debatable), I don’t believe there has been any movement of players or signs that Lyon and Palace had anything to do with one another. Textor certainly has never looked to be in control of anything at all at Palace, in fact this was something he had often complained about in the past.

At the end of the day this entire UEFA rule is about protecting the integrity of the game and removing the unlikely scenario of affecting the result of a game due to a ‘decisive’ influence at more than one club. The loophole of putting shares into a blind trust to get round this makes a mockery of that and is a total sham because everyone knows who is still in charge and owns the club. Therefore you either have to trust the owners to maintain the integrity of the game or you completely scrap multi ownership, (which is unlikely to happen because of the characters and money involved).

The whole thing is a mess and UEFA have yet again shown themselves up as being barely fit for purpose. All in my own opinion of course!

 

[NEILLO]

This part of it has been annoying me from the beginning. Why would they allow a loophole that can only be implemented by those who know they are likely to be caught out months before the end of the season. That basically rules out all participants who get in via a Cup win as no-one knows the cup winner in March. They literally make up rules and then change them year after year to suit whatever their agenda is at that point (although it normally involves helping out one of their favoured teams).

Other than the sale of the CH O’Brien for whom some believe to have been at a lower than market value, (although that could be debatable), I don’t believe there has been any movement of players or signs that Lyon and Palace had anything to do with one another. Textor certainly has never looked to be in control of anything at all at Palace, in fact this was something he had often complained about in the past.

At the end of the day this entire UEFA rule is about protecting the integrity of the game and removing the unlikely scenario of affecting the result of a game due to a ‘decisive’ influence at more than one club. The loophole of putting shares into a blind trust to get round this makes a mockery of that and is a total sham because everyone knows who is still in charge and owns the club. Therefore you either have to trust the owners to maintain the integrity of the game or you completely scrap multi ownership, (which is unlikely to happen because of the characters and money involved).

The whole thing is a mess and UEFA have yet again shown themselves up as being barely fit for purpose. All in my own opinion of course!

Well I agree with you !

 

[Putitout]

This part of it has been annoying me from the beginning. Why would they allow a loophole that can only be implemented by those who know they are likely to be caught out months before the end of the season. That basically rules out all participants who get in via a Cup win as no-one knows the cup winner in March. They literally make up rules and then change them year after year to suit whatever their agenda is at that point (although it normally involves helping out one of their favoured teams).

Other than the sale of the CH O’Brien for whom some believe to have been at a lower than market value, (although that could be debatable), I don’t believe there has been any movement of players or signs that Lyon and Palace had anything to do with one another. Textor certainly has never looked to be in control of anything at all at Palace, in fact this was something he had often complained about in the past.

At the end of the day this entire UEFA rule is about protecting the integrity of the game and removing the unlikely scenario of affecting the result of a game due to a ‘decisive’ influence at more than one club. The loophole of putting shares into a blind trust to get round this makes a mockery of that and is a total sham because everyone knows who is still in charge and owns the club. Therefore you either have to trust the owners to maintain the integrity of the game or you completely scrap multi ownership, (which is unlikely to happen because of the characters and money involved).

The whole thing is a mess and UEFA have yet again shown themselves up as being barely fit for purpose. All in my own opinion of course!

Agree 100% it’s a self made shambles and it needs sorting because with all the factors taken into account the rules are obviously not fit for purpose.
Just hope they don’t try sticking anything on Palace just to try and give these discredited rules some credibility

 

[ouzo]

Agree 100% it’s a self made shambles and it needs sorting because with all the factors taken into account the rules are obviously not fit for purpose.
Just hope they don’t try sticking anything on Palace just to try and give these discredited rules some credibility

Just having a look at the rules in the link:

UEFA Documents

documents.uefa.com

Under 5.01 b it states that:
No one may simultaneously be involved, either directly or indirectly, in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition.
I was wondering what happens with the German football clubs which have fan ownership. It is highly likely that some people have shares in more than one club, which, according to the above, would exclude all such clubs from participating in the same UEFA competition.

To my mind, 5.01 b and c contradict each other as well.

I think under c we are okay, but it maybe b where we have a problem.

 

[Crystal_Clear]

The whole blind trust is an absolute joke. Everyone knows that despite relinquishing direct ownership, Marinakis will likely be financing Forest.

Surely UEFA must see now that Textor had no control over the club, you only have look at what he did to Lyon to know that.

 

[subbuteo]

Just having a look at the rules in the link:

UEFA Documents

documents.uefa.com

Under 5.01 b it states that:
No one may simultaneously be involved, either directly or indirectly, in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition.
I was wondering what happens with the German football clubs which have fan ownership. It is highly likely that some people have shares in more than one club, which, according to the above, would exclude all such clubs from participating in the same UEFA competition.

To my mind, 5.01 b and c contradict each other as well.

I think under c we are okay, but it maybe b where we have a problem.

That's a brilliant point on the Germans... will be a few here with small shareholdings in different clubs as well...

 

[subbuteo]

Just having a look at the rules in the link:

UEFA Documents

documents.uefa.com

Under 5.01 b it states that:
No one may simultaneously be involved, either directly or indirectly, in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition.
I was wondering what happens with the German football clubs which have fan ownership. It is highly likely that some people have shares in more than one club, which, according to the above, would exclude all such clubs from participating in the same UEFA competition.

To my mind, 5.01 b and c contradict each other as well.

I think under c we are okay, but it maybe b where we have a problem.

and b and c contradictory but I don't think mutually exclusive... its all pretty carte blanche which makes it a dogs breakfast... must admit I am getting a few pre match nerves... which worked out ok last time I had them!

 

[Davepalace707]

Just having a look at the rules in the link:

UEFA Documents

documents.uefa.com

Under 5.01 b it states that:
No one may simultaneously be involved, either directly or indirectly, in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition.
I was wondering what happens with the German football clubs which have fan ownership. It is highly likely that some people have shares in more than one club, which, according to the above, would exclude all such clubs from participating in the same UEFA competition.

To my mind, 5.01 b and c contradict each other as well.

I think under c we are okay, but it maybe b where we have a problem.

But Textor’s no longer got any involvement in Palace so surely there’s no problem per the wording above as he went before the club is involved in the competition

 

[Badger11]

I have some sympathy for the authorities but only some. There are 2 Saudi Brothers each own a major club in Europe but under the rules that is fine. Then there are all the unofficial alliances between various American owners.

Not sure how you regulate all of this.

 

[subbuteo]

But Textor’s no longer got any involvement in Palace so surely there’s no problem per the wording above as he went before the club is involved in the competition

Unfortunately not gone yet and had to have at least agreed to have gone by 1st March. Technical yes, but lawyers and UEFA bureaucrats are technical people.

 

[DANGERCLOSE]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1938275659278913736

D-Day

 

[Part Time James]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1938275659278913736

D-Day

Does this imply there's something that will need appealing or am I reading too much into it?