• 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?

NEILLO said:
I think the perfect example of where the decision making is made at Palace was the one I referred to yesterday.

When Premier League clubs voted on the exchange of players between clubs that were part of a multi club portfolio, Parish voted against it. Textor claimed he knew nothing about the vote and would have voted FOR it.

Hopefully that will be another piece of evidence that UEFA can consider
Click to expand...
So much is in Palace’s favour, but you just never know with UEFA….
 
In the event that you will not be able to stop multi-club ownership due to free trade etc, surely the answer is regulation? Lets face it, movement of players across differing Footballing Authorities isn't a massive problem, it's the danger/potential of match fixing which is the reason people are against it? Surely there's some regulation/edict or rule that can be applied to stop this, add a sufficiently high punishment for any Offence found, as opposed to simply disallowing the multiclub ownership model.
 
CrazyBadger said:
In the event that you will not be able to stop multi-club ownership due to free trade etc, surely the answer is regulation? Lets face it, movement of players across differing Footballing Authorities isn't a massive problem, it's the danger/potential of match fixing which is the reason people are against it? Surely there's some regulation/edict or rule that can be applied to stop this, add a sufficiently high punishment for any Offence found, as opposed to simply disallowing the multiclub ownership model.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I don’t really get the logic that under UEFA rules it’s ok for someone to have control in one club and have shares but not control in another. He could influence the performance of the first club for the advantage of the other. But given the myriad of multiple shareholdings this of course would end up with hardly any clubs left who are eligible to play in Europe. So we have this current half baked rule which achieves nothing imo
 
Although we missed the March 1 deadline given all the circumstances, shares sold, Lyon's demotion, the fact that the deadline was changed, 'decisive' rather than significant influence, I would be amazed if we were disqualified. They may add a couple of conditions and defer the decision to cover the appeal period (Woody's clearance, Lyon and Forest appeals), but the upshot will probably be that UEFA will henceforth adjust their conditions from the situation with Palace, e.g. share stake and voting rights will be taken into consideration, maybe joint ownership would be allowed as long as the owner in question had a minority influence in both clubs, say less than 25% and no casting vote, something along those lines, but probably more detailed and stringent, and something to account for clubs who qualify through cups rather than league position, because you could not expect Palace to adjust their financial structure on the basis of both winning the cup and Lyon qualifying for the UEL on the last day of their season..
 
They could just make it simple and say something like a club with 25% or more owned indirectly or directly by the same person/organisation counts as a multi-owned club. Or if any person is director/chairman of more than one club (or director of one and shareholder of another) it is multi-owned. Any multi-owned club cannot play in the same competition. The club that finished lowest is expelled.

And base it from a set date period from the previous season e.g. 1st July 2024 in this case and including any point during the season before that (at any point it hit 25%, so clubs cannot flipflop into blind trusts). And if they do it from the 1st July, UEFA have time to provide a list of those clubs it will considers multi-owned for qualifying and perhaps give clubs a chance to contest the list (until 1st August to get off list). Stops many of the last minute legal battles and mess they are in now.
I know this would have meant Textor would have classed us a multi-owned club but then at least everyone knows at the start (1st July 2024) and can get their ownership in order in advance and cannot complain if they cock up.
If ownership changes through the season clubs get reassessed at the end to make sure no-one tries to buy into multi-clubs through the season. Ban all clubs within a group if they try to do anything dodgy.

Even all that seems complicated. But needs to be black and white set figure, not 'decisive' control, whatever that means. Or scrap the rule and let clubs do what they like. Any match fixing, transfer fee fixing, financial irregularities gets punished like Lyon have been (in multi-club situation all clubs involved get punished).
 
Davepalace707 said:
Agreed. I don’t really get the logic that under UEFA rules it’s ok for someone to have control in one club and have shares but not control in another. He could influence the performance of the first club for the advantage of the other. But given the myriad of multiple shareholdings this of course would end up with hardly any clubs left who are eligible to play in Europe. So we have this current half baked rule which achieves nothing imo
Click to expand...
I think I read there are now around 300 clubs with some form of multi club ownership. It's not going away.
 
Well let's see what the day brings!

On the one hand we've got evidence that despite owning part of Palace, Textor did not have an influence on the running of the club and that Parish was running the show. We've not gained from the other clubs in Eagle Holdings nor have we contributed to Botafogo, Molenbeek or Lyon (could be argued that O'Brien and a few loans to Molenbeek count, but I'd say that circumstantial and last season+) and Textor has been widely reported as unhappy with the fact he doesn't have control, as well as actively looking to sell his stake for the past year or so. He's now followed through with that, so coming into the competition he has no association with us whatsoever. In fact, I think our argument to UEFA was that there was no deadline for us with the blind trust as Textor didn't qualify under UEFA rules as a person with decisive influence, so there was no need to do it. If I stick my rose tinted glases on, it's looking very likely that they delayed to the end of June for an "investigation" to give us time to get the deal with Johnson sorted and for the Lyon ruling to come out, so they don't have to go through a lengthy process of sorting out their rules and any subsequent appeal we would make.

The whole Forest thing, well I think that's been blown out of proportion by the press. Being fair, they have a right to ask if they will take our place as they have to prepare like we do, Marinakis is a bit of a tit in the way he went about it, but say they don't chuck us out and he appeals based on the letter of the law, well he's on a sticky wicket as his blind trust thing didn't actually go through by the March deadline, so does he really want to get that forensic?

But on the other hand you have UEFA who, let's be honest, are a bunch of arses.
 
SnapperKain said:
Well let's see what the day brings!

On the one hand we've got evidence that despite owning part of Palace, Textor did not have an influence on the running of the club and that Parish was running the show. We've not gained from the other clubs in Eagle Holdings nor have we contributed to Botafogo, Molenbeek or Lyon (could be argued that O'Brien and a few loans to Molenbeek count, but I'd say that circumstantial and last season+) and Textor has been widely reported as unhappy with the fact he doesn't have control, as well as actively looking to sell his stake for the past year or so. He's now followed through with that, so coming into the competition he has no association with us whatsoever. In fact, I think our argument to UEFA was that there was no deadline for us with the blind trust as Textor didn't qualify under UEFA rules as a person with decisive influence, so there was no need to do it. If I stick my rose tinted glases on, it's looking very likely that they delayed to the end of June for an "investigation" to give us time to get the deal with Johnson sorted and for the Lyon ruling to come out, so they don't have to go through a lengthy process of sorting out their rules and any subsequent appeal we would make.

The whole Forest thing, well I think that's been blown out of proportion by the press. Being fair, they have a right to ask if they will take our place as they have to prepare like we do, Marinakis is a bit of a tit in the way he went about it, but say they don't chuck us out and he appeals based on the letter of the law, well he's on a sticky wicket as his blind trust thing didn't actually go through by the March deadline, so does he really want to get that forensic?

But on the other hand you have UEFA who, let's be honest, are a bunch of arses.
Click to expand...
I believe that was the deadline to announce a potential conflict and that UEFA gave him till the end of April to sort out the blind trust fiasco which he did (technically but as we all know he was still running the show at Forest after that).
 
samprior said:
So today is the day that the mighty Palace COULD find out IF they are allowed to play in Europe.

My prediction is UEFA will come out with something as useless as their multi-club rules and say "We can confirm Crystal Palace can take part in the Europa League IF Lyon fail in their appeal against relegation to Ligue 2. Check back in four weeks. We wish CPFC the best of luck with their pre season planning."
Click to expand...
Well sadly this is looking fairly accurate. UEFA really do seem like a bunch of numpties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top